Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

With BDW gone, does a move to the 3-4 make sense?


CBMGreatOne

Recommended Posts

Maybe this has already been posted, but to my way of thinking, George Edwards, a former LBs coach mind you, will be inclined to field the best defense than he can put in play. Although we posess a current lack of depth/talent along the D Line, one could contend that we have a gluttony of resources in the LB corps. I know this has been discussed in recent years by Extremeskins.com members if no one else, but now, having lost BOTH of our starting DTs from last year, I think it merits more serious consideration.

Bottom line, it seems like we should be playing the best 11 guys we can, and while I'm as skeptical of the 3-4 scheme as the next football purist, it seems to have worked well for Pittsburgh and New England, if I'm not mistaken in the very recent past. The idea of having a front seven of Haley/Noble, Wynn, Smith/Upshaw, Arrington, Trotter, Armstead, and Mitchell with our secondary actually leaves me pretty satisfied with Big Daddy's dismissal. Anybody else have thoughts on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defense is about RESPONSIBILITIES. The 34 was designed to minimize the responsibilites of the LBs. It's genesis was in the need to protect your inside but still control the edges with slower than average LBs. Our LBs are very quick and have good instinct and we really do not have the personel on the DL to make it work as a regular defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we will see plenty of sets with only three down lineman this year if last year is any indication. On third and long's, we would often go to 3-3's with a nickel back.

I've seen us do it with wilky in the middle and gardner and smith on the edges. I imagine we'll see a wynn/noble/smith 3 DL from time to time to keep all three of our backers on the field in nickel situations. However I think it is unlikely that we will move to a 3-4 with any real consistancy. As OPM says, we don't really need 4 backers on the field.

-DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add that our depth at LB is also quick, thus further reducing the need, at least at this time, to consider the 3-4. I would add one more LB to the roster, and drop a lineman to development that could be recalled. That is the only way I could make room on such a good improving roster. Of course there are two retirements possible next year, one is guaranteed, just about. If Armstead were to retire, we'd have to immediately grab at least a second rounder or 3rd to replace him, if the FA market doesn't yield a good 26-27 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't see any reason to change our general defensive philosophy and scheme just because we finally got rid of a perenially overweight underachiever.

Having said that though, I'm not so sure I see the "plan" that others claim to see. Clearly, our FO has not given the DT position nearly as much consideration as they should have.

To answer your question............I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more implementation of the 3-4, but it won't , and shouldn't become our standard package, imo. :2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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