Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

In Favor of a 3-4 Defense (MET)

skinsfan07

By skinsfan07
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

skinsfan07

skinsfan07

Posted
Posted

Let's face it, our d line sucks and doesn't generate any sacks. EVEN IN the 4-3 which has 1 more down lineman than the 3-4. I've heard people say, "we'll the Giants run the 4-3 and are great!"

Well guess what? The Giants actually have a DOMINATE D line which can generate sacks. We don't. We have the type of D that is perfectly suited to run the 3-4. We have 2 former LB's in Jason Taylor and Andre Carter that both had the most productive seasons of their careers as LB's, and have the DT's that would be perfectly suited for the 3-4. Monty is a huge run stuffing guy who would be great in the 3-4 and so is Corny.

Here's what our 3-4 would look like......

Lineman (3)

Monty

C Griff

Evans/Golston/Daniels

LB's (4)

Taylor

Rocky

Fletcher

Carter

IMO this would be much more productive than the 4-3 for a few reasons.

1) We'd actually be able to stop the sweeps and tosses to the outside b/c our LB's wouldn't be getting beat off the snap by lineman that outweigh them by 50+ pounds.

2) We'd actually be able to cover RB's AND TE's out of the backfield or off the LOS more effectively.

3) WE'D GENERATE SACKS as a result. Let's face it. The Cowboys lead the NFL in total sacks with 53 almost TRIPLING our sack total for the season of 21. Hell Demarcus Ware has 19 sacks, only 2 less than we have as an entire team! That is truly embarrassing. Guess what D they run? A 3-4. They have at best average DT's, Jay Ratliff, Chris Canty and Marcus Spears, yet they still manage to get sacks, (Ratliff has 7) as a result of their LB's in the 3-4 being so damn effective.

I'm sure people will disagree, but when you look at the teams that run the 3-4.....Steelers, Ravens and Cowboys, ALL of them have LB's that have over 10 sacks, hell Pittsburgh has 2 that has more than 10.

The only reason why the few D's that run the 4-3 are so effective is because they actually have DE's and DT's that are good. Giants have Osi, Tuck, Robbins, and Coefield. ALL of them are great.

We have little guys on our D-line which is not the recipe for success, in the 4-3, and until we figure that out, our D will continue to get beat to the outside during handoffs and we will continue to get no sacks.

That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan07

skinsfan07

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I prefer the 3-4, personally, but that configuration with the Skins' players would blow donkey balls.

Well we need to do something about it. I'm sick of our DE's getting pushed around like JV bench players up against Varsity starters on the best team in the country.

It's embarrassing.

Our 4-3 is non effective in generating sacks. Period. We'll never know what that 3-4 D would be like until we try it. Personally I think it can't be any worse than that mess of a 4-3 we run now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fire3fighter4

fire3fighter4

Posted
Posted

if we drafted a solid NT I think we could make the transition over a season or two.

3-4 is definitely the way to go(steelers, ravens, even the cowboys last night with 8 sacks). With our aging LB corps now would be the perfect time to try and transition into a 3-4...Taylor and Carter would probably both be better in a 3-4 then they are now.

it'll never happen though....so all we can hope for is 1 or 2 dominate DT(s) and a solid young DE to create some pressure.

it also wouldn't hurt to have someone who could design blitzes worth a **** either....Our blitz package has to be one of the worst in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcarey032

mcarey032

Posted
Posted

yeah we lack that huge type of DT in the middle like a Casey Hampton or Jay Ratliff who demands two players to block. I have said this all year. Our offensive Line has major trouble with all the teams that play a 3-4 scheme and they have not been able to figure it out. I always thought it was rather gimicky and that it wasn't as good as 4-3, but I am really rethinking my philosophy because Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Dallas all put the wood to us with their scheme. I wouldn't be opposed to it, just so long as the personnel was there to run it and execute it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan07

skinsfan07

Posted
  • Author
Posted
That 4-3 defense that "sucks" is 5th in the NFL in yards allowed and 8th in the NFL in points allowed.

How many sacks do we have again?

Turnovers?

Oh yea we suck in 2 of the most important categories.

Guess you'll enjoy sticking with 19-25 sacks a season while players in the 3-4 get 20 alone. fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan07

skinsfan07

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Oh and here are some disgusting stats to look at.........

3 of the 4 worst teams in the NFL in terms of sacks all run 4-3's. Look at how many sacks each team has....

29 Redskins 21 sacks 7-7 record

30 Browns (run a 3-4) 15 sacks 4-9 record

31 Bengals 13 sacks 2-11-1 record

32 Chiefs 9 sacks 2-12 record

that's sickens me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alleycat

alleycat

Posted
Posted

Is he joking ??

So let me understand better...

If we were #5 in sacks but...#18 in points allowed...

That would be better ??

I guess the same logic CAN work for us...We are doing great in team rushing yards on the season....We are 7-7 BUT !!! We have rushed for a bunch of yards...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan07

skinsfan07

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Is he joking ??

So let me understand better...

If we were #5 in sacks but...#18 in points allowed...

That would be better ??

I guess the same logic CAN work for us...We are doing great in team rushing yards on the season....We are 7-7 BUT !!! We have rushed for a bunch of yards...

I'd rather have a defense that can generate sacks and turnovers to help the offense be more productive in ppg but putting them into position to score with sacks, ints and forced fumbles, and sorry to burst your bubble but the 4-3 is NOT that defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarrellsMyHero28

DarrellsMyHero28

Posted
Posted
I'd rather have a defense that can generate sacks and turnovers to help the offense be more productive in ppg but putting them into position to score with sacks, ints and forced fumbles, and sorry to burst your bubble but the 4-3 is NOT that defense.

Plenty of 4-3 defenses succeed.

Just changing to 3-4 isn't the answer, we don't have the players to be a dominant 3-4 defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan07

skinsfan07

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Plenty of 4-3 defenses succeed.

Just changing to 3-4 isn't the answer, we don't have the players to be a dominant 3-4 defense.

I get what you're saying, however I believe that we could acquire the personnel that would help us be a successful 3-4 Defense easier than we could get serious talent to help us generate more sacks in the 4-3. Because as of right now, our 4-3 defense isn't talented enough at all to generate sacks. We just don't have the right personnel in the right places.

I fully believe that Taylor and Carter would be very successful in the 3-4, hell they've proven it in the past. The only issue would be getting the right personnel in there on the line. Our 3 down lineman would HAVE to be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarrellsMyHero28

DarrellsMyHero28

Posted
Posted
I get what you're saying, however I believe that we could acquire the personnel that would help us be a successful 3-4 Defense easier than we could get serious talent to help us generate more sacks in the 4-3. Because as of right now, our 4-3 defense isn't talented enough at all to generate sacks. We just don't have the right personnel in the right places.

I fully believe that Taylor and Carter would be very successful in the 3-4, hell they've proven it in the past. The only issue would be getting the right personnel in there on the line. Our 3 down lineman would HAVE to be better.

Taylor is old, and Carter is having a down year because of the rest of the line's struggles.

I don't see why with Rocky, Fletch, Blades and Monty...who all fit into a 4-3 and are playing well (I disagree with those who are anti-Rocky, I think he's going to be great) we should switch.

I'd love to have the Giant's D-line or the Cowboy's linebackers but we don't.

Blache thinks sacks aren't important and I disagree. Pressure leads to sacks and sacks get into the QB's head and force 'happy feet' etc.

Give me a Mario Willaims or an Osi Umenyiora or a Jared Allen and we'll start getting sacks.

Too bad our FO is too stupid to draft linemen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan07

skinsfan07

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Taylor is old, and Carter is having a down year because of the rest of the line's struggles.

I don't see why with Rocky, Fletch, Blades and Monty...who all fit into a 4-3 and are playing well (I disagree with those who are anti-Rocky, I think he's going to be great) we should switch.

I'd love to have the Giant's D-line or the Cowboy's linebackers but we don't.

Blache thinks sacks aren't important and I disagree. Pressure leads to sacks and sacks get into the QB's head and force 'happy feet' etc.

Give me a Mario Willaims or an Osi Umenyiora or a Jared Allen and we'll start getting sacks.

Too bad our FO is too stupid to draft linemen.

yeah we def. need a talented d-lineman. That's another reason we fail to generate sacks. None of our guys are talented enough. They always get manhandled by the opposition and quite frankly it's pissing me off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...