skinsfan12 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 With the recent acquisition of MLB London Fletcher, I dream of a linebacker corps of Washington (SSB), Fletcher (MLB), Marshall (MLB), McIntosh (WSB). Up front, Carter (DE), Griffin (DT), Jamaal Anderson (1st Rd/DE). Has Gregg Williams shown in the past that he's a 3-4 kinda guy? Everything I've read and heard about Williams' style says NO WAY JOSE'. Does this mean there's no room for adaptation? Would a 3-4 even be wise given how dramatic a shift it would be to the entrenched defensive scheme? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingtar Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 No. We would have to overhaul the ENTIRE defense. We do some 3-4 packages, but it really is not a good option for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 With the recent acquisition of MLB London Fletcher, I dream of a linebacker corps of Washington (SSB), Fletcher (MLB), Marshall (MLB), McIntosh (WSB). Up front, Carter (DE), Griffin (DT), Jamaal Anderson (1st Rd/DE). Has Gregg Williams shown in the past that he's a 3-4 kinda guy? Everything I've read and heard about Williams' style says NO WAY JOSE'. Does this mean there's no room for adaptation? Would a 3-4 even be wise given how dramatic a shift it would be to the entrenched defensive scheme? . There might be room for adaptation if we actually had the personnel to run a 3-4. We simply don't. Our NT and DEs would get eaten alive. We don't have the size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheers, Beers and Mountaineers Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 griffin is too small to be a NT for 3-4, if we got branch, then it seems more plausible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_e_b Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 No way would it be worth it. Most teams don't drastically change a scheme unless they have a new coaching staff and even than it happens over a certain transition period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 griffin is too small to be a NT for 3-4, if we got branch, then it seems more plausible True enough, but what would we do on DE? Daniels is probably technically big enough to play 3-4 DE but Carter certainly isn't. He would get totally locked up by blockers and not be able to do what he does best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan12 Posted March 5, 2007 Author Share Posted March 5, 2007 Voting enabled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEavyJumbo85 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 It's a maybe. I'm sure we could run any defense, we would have to draft branch or another huge guy to successfully run a defense like that. I don't think a switch would happen any time soon, but you could see that formation in certain situations if they do draft Branch. But I really don't see them switching their philosophy in that regard in a permanent fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheers, Beers and Mountaineers Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 True enough, but what would we do on DE? Daniels is probably technically big enough to play 3-4 DE but Carter certainly isn't. He would get totally locked up by blockers and not be able to do what he does best. i said seems more plausible, not neccesarily it will work, you got a point about who would play DE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 We just don't have the personnel for it. McIntosh and even Washington a little bit don't have the size you want in a 3-4 OLB. Marshall and Fletcher would be a good pair of MLB. Also, Carter is too small to play end in the 3-4 and didn't adapt well to 3-4 OLB in San Fran. He's best suited as a traditional 4-3 DE. The main problem, however, is at DT. A 3-4 DT should be 325 and up, a big two gap guy who takes up blockers and holds the point of attack. All of our DTs are one gap, penetrating DT who use burst and quickness to shoot the gap. We would need to totally revamp the D-line, adding bigger tackles and ends (although some of our DTs might make excellent 3-4 ends) and we would need to add a good deal of bulk to our linebacking corp. Gregg Williams has never really run it much before and has built our personnel around an attacking, speed driven 4-3 style. It's just not practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emor09 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 We can't go 3-4 We would have to draft Branch to do that, then Griffin would be sitting on the bench... i like 4-3 wit Griffin, Golston, Carter, and Jamaal Anderson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I am going to go nuts if we don't get another defensive lineman !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sportsphreek Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I'll admit that a 3-4 defense is not likely in the works but I would have to argue that it would be nice but our personnel are too small. Alan Branch would be big enough. I don't know why people are saying that Carter wouldn't be big enough. He is 6-4 265. Granted he would have to bulk up, but he is certainly tall enough at this point. I like the 4-3 but I prefer 3-4, whatever they decide to run, I am sure it will work fine though. -Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laxpunk2006 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 We COULD put together a 3-4 unit but we would have zero depth along the line. We could draft Branch for the NT and kick Big Griff out to the end to have a line DE- Wynn/Daniels DT- Branch DE- Griff Carter would have to convert back to a pass rushing LB where he struggled in San Fran, and came to Washington specifically to get out of the 3-4. The LB's would like be OLB- Rocky ILB- Fletcher ILB- Washington OLB- Carter So we could possibly do it, but I wouldn't suggest it. If you think our run D sucked last year just try that with a new system for everyone to grasp. It would take a full draft of picks to convert our D over toa 3-4 much like Dallas did 2-3 years ago when they took Ware and Spears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Griffin and Carter wouldnt fit in the 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Enough w/the 3-4 talk...We just dont have the personnel along the DL or at LB... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoudMouth12thMan Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 No. We would have to overhaul the ENTIRE defense. We do some 3-4 packages, but it really is not a good option for us. We don't do 3-4 packages. I used to think that too, but I've never seen 4 LB's in unless Washington lines up at End, but they are still in a 4-3 b/c Wash. is an End at that point. We don't line up that way (3-4) ever. We do line up with 3 DL's in our 3-2-6 packages and such. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilsburypgh Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 if we did that we would need to pick up porter and draft branch and that would be very possible, but doubt that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenhunter7 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 it would take an overhaul of some of the players but with Joey Porter sitting in free agency that would go a long ways in overhauling the situation. I think that the 3-4 is better than the 4-3 and would love to see it done, I played college ball in the 3-4 and I believe that the scheme it self makes players better. The Skins would improve instantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.