freakofthesouth Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 With the thinning personnel on the d-line this year, what is to keep the Skins from playing a 3-4 defense? I understand that blitzing, coverage, etc. would be different, but the skins are very strong at the linebacker position. Why not capitalize on that, and get Kevin Mitchell, a proven linebacker, into the mix, thus creating havok for any offensive unit? The d-line's purpose would still be the same- keep the o-line off of the linebackers so they could make plays. Any thoughts?:?: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 This keeps getting asked and anwswered but, hey, I need the posts so I can get a cool ring-of-fame avatar! 1) We do not have the line personel to go 3-4 2) We have multi-dimensional LBs and don't need a 3-4 to cover for a single-dimensional LB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 I'm not a fan of he 3-4, but Noble is a solid effort guy who takes on double teams, so he would be a good fit at NT and R. Wynn is a proto-type RE in the 3-4, and B. Smith played in it most of his career, so while I don't love the scheme, it seems to fit the personnel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Until I see otherwise my belief is the Skins have a solid starting unit with Upshaw, Noble, Haley and Wynn. If these guys stay healthy I think we will be okay in 2003. I don't see any reason to take the players out of the present scheme. One could make the argument that the 3-4 would have been more appropriate had Wilkinson stayed because he played DE in his younger days in Cincinnati at around 315 and was effective. The caveat was that he hated playing outside and that was one of the reasons he requested a trade from the Bengals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Yomar, Even if I gave you the line, we still don't need it since its primary purpose is to protect the linebackers. Our LBs, at least the starters, are complete LBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Look, we will see plenty of 3-3 nickel packages this year. We don't need a fourth linebacker on the field, we'll put an extra DB in instead. Why put in a fourth linebacker when our guys are so fast? -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 No. Not the right personel and especially the coach. You know, as a coach, you actually have to understand a defense in and out so you know who to put in there. Its not Madden football to switch it around and play it full time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Again, I don't know why some people are freaking out after the release of Wilkinson and suggesting altering the basic schemes. Haley may turn to be a more consistent player than Wilkinson. You certainly can't say the Skins would have been worse off with Haley next to Gardener last year rather than Wilkinson Wilkinson got a free ride last season. The line was better, the linebacking was better and the defense improved statistically after a rough start. #95 was not the reason for that. indeed I think some of the players comments in the Post about missing him were overblown, based on what he actually brought week in and week out. With Wilkinson's release the Skins have jettisoned the last of the high paid underachievers. Stubblefield, Sanders, Jeff George, Michael Westbrook, Wilkinson. These guys were paper tigers. The athletic promise was there but the productivity never matched the hype. In the cases of Stubblefield and Jeff George the club really got taken to the cleaners. Sanders was solid at corner in 2000 even though he was not worth an $8 million bonus. Wilkinson had a couple of good seasons here. And Westbrook? Well, he was our problem child from the beginning and we gave him the full length of his rookie contract to work himself into the elite position he himself felt he was capable of attaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottb Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Another factor is the reluctance to change the defensive system yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTerps2002 Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Why does someone start this thread everyday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted August 5, 2003 Author Share Posted August 5, 2003 Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer Look, we will see plenty of 3-3 nickel packages this year. We don't need a fourth linebacker on the field, we'll put an extra DB in instead. Why put in a fourth linebacker when our guys are so fast? -DB That's a great point! I hadn't thought of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Originally posted by RTerps2002 Why does someone start this thread everyday? Circular epiphanies my friend...:doh1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 we shouldn't have to change schemes every year....its bad enough we change coaches. if we stick with M. Lewis' def. set-ups we will be fine..... changing again would just cause a slow start..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.