Travdaskin Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 He is 285. He definetly has the size. Still the 3-4 is not a good fit for our team. With so many holes on offense, it would be stupid to completely retool the strength of our team... Uhhhhhhhh, it isn't that strong lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johns Bass Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 By the way, Haynesworth is 6'6". NT's have to be able to play below the center. It just seems to be really pushing him out of position. There is really no need to have Fletcher share the middle with someone else - he gets 100 tackles a year, it is not like he is a liability back there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 TRADE BIG AL, I am done with his face........get some extra pick.I personally prefere 4-3, because in my opinion it is to 'easy' to run against the 3-4. I am always scared that o-lineman get to easy to the second level and then the RB is gone. But yeah if Shanahan wants to start winning in 2020 he should start building a 3-4......Jarmon (3 round pick)not a good fit, Big Al (Big money man) not a good fit, Orakpo (1 round pick) good fit a OLB, Rocky (His contracts end) no good inside or outside fit, London Fletcher can play every position, Chris Wilson ?OLB, H.B. Blades then we start 2 small ILB that is smart, etc. ect. Easy to run against the 3-4 defense? Jets Ravens Packers Steelers All those teams finished in the top 5 in defense, and top 10 against the run. Very easy:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 By the way, Haynesworth is 6'6". NT's have to be able to play below the center. It just seems to be really pushing him out of position. There is really no need to have Fletcher share the middle with someone else - he gets 100 tackles a year, it is not like he is a liability back there. No, they don't. Shaun Rogers 6'5" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Plain and simple. If Shanahan wants to run the 3-4 defense, he will find the players for it. All this talk about players not fitting is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 If Shanahan wants to run the 3-4 defense, he will find the players for it. All this talk about players not fitting is ridiculous. Why is it "ridiculous?" Where is he going to find that kind of talent? Not in free agency; the list of UNRESTRICTED free agents who play defense sucks donkey *@$#. Are you suggesting that the team take picks that should be devoted to QB, RB, OT, OG, and C, and spend them on a top 10 defense? Now who, exactly, is being ridiculous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Since we SHOULD be rebuilding the team from top to bottom anyways, there's no reason not to switch to a 3-4 (apart from not wanting to rebuild, which means building around players who will decline by the time we could put a contending team around them). Orakpo, Golston, Montgomery and Jarmon could all fit in a 3-4 and those are the types of players we should be building around anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 We will not be running a 3-4 for all of the reasons posted. Just because Denver ran it (Shanny did not run the defense) and Peter King is an idiot does not mean that we will run it./thread Denver didn't run the 3-4 until McDaniels came in. Shanahan's teams have always run the 4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Denver didn't run the 3-4 until McDaniels came in. Shanahan's teams have always run the 4-3. Just mocking other posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Here are some good stats on teams that switched over to the 3-4 this year Broncos CATEGORY -- 2008 / 2009 NFL Rank -- 29 / 7 PPG -- 28 / 20.2 YPG -- 374.6 / 315 --- Rush Defense Rank -- 27 / 26 Average -- 5.0 / 4.5 YPG -- 146.1 / 128.7 Rush TDs allowed -- 26 / 11 --- Pass Defense Rank -- 26 / 3 Sacks -- 26 / 39 Cmp % -- 67.3 / 58.4 3,656 / 2,981 Yards Allowed TDs Allowed -- 20 / 18 Interceptions - 6 / 17 Chiefs CATEGORY -- 2008 / 2009 NFL Rank -- 31 / 30 PPG -- 27.5 / 23.4 YPG -- 393.2 / 388.2 --- Rush Defense Rank -- 30 / 31 Average -- 5.0 / 4.7 YPG -- 158.9 / 156.5 Rush TDs allowed -- 25 / 16 --- Pass Defense Rank -- 28 / 22 Sacks -- 10 / 22 Cmp % -- 66.7 / 59.3 3,748 / 3,707 Yards Allowed TDs Allowed -- 21 / 25 Interceptions - 13 / 15 Packers CATEGORY -- 2008 / 2009 NFL Rank -- 20 / 2 PPG -- 23.8 / 18.6 YPG -- 334.3 284.4 --- Rush Defense Rank -- 26 / 1 Average -- 4.6 / 3.6 YPG -- 131.6 / 83.3 Rush TDs allowed -- 20 / 5 --- Pass Defense Rank -- 12 / 5 Sacks -- 27 / 37 Cmp % -- 55.4 / 54.4 3,244 / 3,218 yards Allowed TDs Allowed -- 22 / 29 Interceptions - 22 / 30 Also Top 10 defenses PPG: Jets (3-4) Dallas (3-4) Ravens (3-4) 49ers (3-4) Patriots (3-4) Bengals (4-3) GB (3-4) Colts (4-3) Panthers (4-3) Vikings (4-3) 6/10 are 3-4 Top 10 defenses Y/G: Jets (3-4) Packers (3-4) Bengals (4-3) Ravens (3-4) Steelers (3-4) Vikings (4-3) Broncos (3-4) Panthers (4-3) Cowboys (3-4) Redskins (4-3) 6/10 are 3-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilco_holland Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Easy to run against the 3-4 defense?Jets Ravens Packers Steelers All those teams finished in the top 5 in defense, and top 10 against the run. Very easy:doh: I took the general 3-4 D# and said that is was my opinion so not a fact . But I do think that this is a bit of a long discusion because the D# you take are great with great players.....I just don't like the matchup of o-lineman against LB's. Thats all I wanted to say. Rushing the passer there isn't a lot of difference (number wise): #1-Vikes 4-3 48 sacks #2-Steelers 3-4 47 sacks #3-Phins 3-4 44 #3-Eagels 4-3 44 #3-SF49ers 3-4 44 #6-Cardinals 4-3 43 #7-Boyz 3-4 42 But numbers don't tell the story. We can discus for ever about the better D# but there is no answer......the best D# is the best combination of scheme and players. For us that would be 4-3 for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I just don't like the matchup of o-lineman against LB's. Why not? 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 pass-rushing DEs are usually about the same size and have similar athletic requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoGravity Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 There's a reason no NFC East teams use a 3-4. It doesn't work against smashmouth football teams. Look at how the Giants dominated the Pats in the Super Bowl. Look at how the Steelers fell apart when teams started running at them. A 3-4 is a good scheme if you're putting up 35 points a game and forcing teams to pass all the time. In the NFC East, a 3-4 is a ticket to last place. When teams started running at us? What??? By running at us, you mean throwing on us after we lost the best defensive player in the game as well as the most underrated DE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoGravity Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Using this year's Steelers team conveniently leaves out their past 3-4 defenses..In 2008, they had the number one defense in the league, including the number two rush defense in the league. In 2007, they were number 3 overall and also number 3 in rush defense. Whatever defense you run, its still about the players, not solely the scheme. A 3-4 does not mean you cannot stop the run. 2008 the Steelers had one of the greatest defenses in the history of the game. Rewatch every game they were in last season. And this year we had the #3 rush defense...teams cannot run on the Steelers. Once in a blue moon. The problem with us this year was our secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 2008 the Steelers had one of the greatest defenses in the history of the game. Rewatch every game they were in last season. Keep in mind, this is a Skins board. No one wants to go re-watch an entire Steelers season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilco_holland Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Why not? 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 pass-rushing DEs are usually about the same size and have similar athletic requirements. The DE comes from the ground and attacks the o-lineman from a lower angle, he tries to get under the pads. When a 3-4OLB (or ILB) plays the run he is standing up and then it is more difficult to get under the o-linemans pads, you even have a chance that het gets under yours. And o-lineman are like trucks, when they start rolling they are way harder to stop then when they start rolling. Personally I prefere strong DEs and DTs with very athletic LB's. The D-line then needs to make sure that the LBs and Safetys get room to attack the running and passing game. In the Netherlands this strategie is pretty succesful....but yeah football in the Netherlands isn't really big. If you don't get it, tell me. Then I try to tell it ''better''. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tris Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Switching to a 3-4 would just be one more instance of the powers that be forcing square pegs into round holes. I am so sick and tired of moves we make being reactionary to what works from other teams around the league while completely ignoring what works for the personnel that we have. Just once, I would like the front office and coaching staff to identify our players strenghts and scheme to get the best possible results out of the player's given skill set. OOO, WCO, that seems to work well for other teams, lets take a strong armed QB with accuracy issues and have him throw precision seven yard passes! OOO, 3-4, those guys get a lot of sacks out of that, lets take the premier 4-3 penetrating tackle and sick him at nose tackle and have him take up space. JESUS tap dancing CHRIST. Square pegs in round holes. From Archuleta to Zorn's WCO, no one ever friggin learns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santana_4_prez Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I'm up for anything...I'm tired of our bend, but don't break defense that breaks all the time. No turnovers and no defensive TDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Switching to a 3-4 would just be one more instance of the powers that be forcing square pegs into round holes. I am so sick and tired of moves we make being reactionary to what works from other teams around the league while completely ignoring what works for the personnel that we have. You're approaching this the wrong way. You get personnel that fit your scheme, you do not choose a scheme to fit your personnel. If our coaching staff decides that a scheme change is necessary or desirable we will modify our roster accordingly. Denver and Green Bay were able to convert from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in a single offseason with a great deal of success because they made wise personnel moves and hired the right coaches for the job. I think we could pull that off but it's difficult for anyone to predict how our players would handle it. If we did go that route, I could see our front seven resembling something like this: NT - ??? DE - Haynesworth, Jarmon/Daniels OLB - Orakpo, ??? MLB - Fletcher, Blades/McIntosh Where we'd need to acquire a NT and an additional OLB in the offseason. We wouldn't be terribly undersized in that scenario compared to other 3-4 defenses and wouldn't have to radically alter the roster, which would be important if our draft priority is offense. If you don't get it, tell me. Then I try to tell it ''better''. I got it, I just disagree with the assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilco_holland Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I got it, I just disagree with the assessment. I can life with that, you can have your opinion and I mine......if we would all agreed with each other this board woul be a lot more borring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 You're approaching this the wrong way. You get personnel that fit your scheme, you do not choose a scheme to fit your personnel. I agree. If Shanahan wants the 3-4 defensive scheme, he will get the players for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ALaBaMa- Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Wilson would be great for the 3-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I took the general 3-4 D# and said that is was my opinion so not a fact . But I do think that this is a bit of a long discusion because the D# you take are great with great players.....I just don't like the matchup of o-lineman against LB's. Thats all I wanted to say.Rushing the passer there isn't a lot of difference (number wise): #1-Vikes 4-3 48 sacks #2-Steelers 3-4 47 sacks #3-Phins 3-4 44 #3-Eagels 4-3 44 #3-SF49ers 3-4 44 #6-Cardinals 4-3 43 #7-Boyz 3-4 42 But numbers don't tell the story. We can discus for ever about the better D# but there is no answer......the best D# is the best combination of scheme and players. For us that would be 4-3 for now. 5 teams you listed play the 3-4 defense;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Wilson would be great for the 3-4 He would actually probably be a solid starter opposite Orakpo if we don't get anyone else and a good backup regardless. We could also trade some of the guys who don't necessarily fit schematically for some much needed draft picks (McIntosh and Carter should have good trade value). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceviker Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Haynesworth isn't a NT. He's a 1 gap DT. He was pissed off this year about having to eat space in Blache's system. Daniels is too small and too old to switch to a 5 technique. Carter failed miserably as a OLB when he was much younger and had fresher legs. No way he would ever want to do that again. This team simply IS NOT built for a 3-4 defense in any way, shape or form. This is the damn truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.