VRIEL1 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 We'd be taking a step backwards if we moved to a 3-4.I wouldn't be completely against it, but we'd need to retool our DL and LB's in order to be successful at it. Plus, Haynesworth doesn't want to play in a 3-4, one of the reasons why he came here. Please, please, please explain why everyone thinks AH does not want to play in a 3-4. I've never heard it from AH. Never heard him quoted by the media that he does not want to be in a 3-4. Unless all you people can come up with some facts to base this off of please stop saying AH does not want to be in a 3-4. It's like me saying Shanahan does not want to utilize a 4-3. I have no proof on it but I'm going to say it cause supposedly Shanahan is intreged by the 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 You obviously cant evaluate talent. Hall/Joseph are a really good tandem at CB. Rivers/Malauga are talented young guys. Peko is a penatrator at DT and they lost their best pass rusher in Odom :doh::doh: Um... who? Are you saying that these guys who I've never heard of are better than Rogers/Hall and co? I doubt the new regime is going to ask Haynesworth what defense to run. Not that I think they are looking to alienate him, but I don't think Haynesworth's desires are going to drive the decision. If we do run a 3-4, I seriously doubt that Haynesworth will be the NT. Think NE & their 3-4, Richard Seymour never played NT. Seymour used his elite size and speed to be the disruptor while Ted Washington and later Vince Wilfork manned the NT role. Haynesworth could be very dominant as a 3-4 DE. Under a switch to the 3-4, we would have to go out into the market and find a NT. I think Vince Wilfork will be a free agent. Now I could go with that. I don't think the new DC should ask Haynesworth what scheme to run by any means. We shouldn't pander to any player. If Haynesworth could be used as productively in the 3-4 as he is in the 4-3, I'd be all for it. I love the 3-4 to be quite honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 All the top defenses are 3-4. Yes, THIS season, EXCEPT for the Bengals' who are #4 without any superstars, like we have. Edit: I just checked, and Minnesota (#6), Carolina (#8), and us (#10) all run 4-3. That's 5 of the top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman#21 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Looks like talks will heat up now that there out. hope skins get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTskins21 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 We have big names thats it. Both their corners are better players than either one of ours. they have more playmaking LBs than we have. We have a better line, that is all. No one on our defense deserves the lable superstar outside of Fletcher... please stop this we have superstars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flock53 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Um... who?Are you saying that these guys who I've never heard of are better than Rogers/Hall and co? Now I could go with that. I don't think the new DC should ask Haynesworth what scheme to run by any means. We shouldn't pander to any player. If Haynesworth could be used as productively in the 3-4 as he is in the 4-3, I'd be all for it. I love the 3-4 to be quite honest. YOU!!!!! Just cause you havent heard of them means NOTHING except you dont watch ANYTHING but Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Please, please, please explain why everyone thinks AH does not want to play in a 3-4. I've never heard it from AH. Never heard him quoted by the media that he does not want to be in a 3-4. Unless all you people can come up with some facts to base this off of please stop saying AH does not want to be in a 3-4. It's like me saying Shanahan does not want to utilize a 4-3. I have no proof on it but I'm going to say it cause supposedly Shanahan is intreged by the 3-4. Go back to the last page, I explained myself there. The best I could come up with was a quote from when Haynesworth was signed that he wanted to have the same role in our defense that he did in Tennessee's. As a poster above me said, he isn't an NT. He could be a good strong DE in a 3-4 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 YOU!!!!! Just cause you havent heard of them means NOTHING except you dont watch ANYTHING but Redskins :rotflmao: Simmer down now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMoss_89 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Please, please, please explain why everyone thinks AH does not want to play in a 3-4. I've never heard it from AH. Never heard him quoted by the media that he does not want to be in a 3-4. Unless all you people can come up with some facts to base this off of please stop saying AH does not want to be in a 3-4. It's like me saying Shanahan does not want to utilize a 4-3. I have no proof on it but I'm going to say it cause supposedly Shanahan is intreged by the 3-4. Haynesworth spoke out against blanche about not using him like the way they used him in Tennessee.. and thats a 4-3 DT that puts pressure in the pocket/QB....Not a 4-3 DT that just takes up blockers.. The way blanche runs him currently... So why now do we even want to play a 3-4? Whats the hype about it? We don't even remotely have linebackers good enough for that let along a DL perfect for 3-4 defense.. Carter, McIntosh, Fletcher, and Orakpo aren't spewing perfect 3-4 to me... and haven't we all agreed that Orakpo is best used with his hand in the dirt. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml6157 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Zimmer didn't lose that game tonight. Zimmer coached the team with far less talent then we have on defense to the #4 ranked defense in the league. We DO NOT have the right players to switch to a 3-4 defense. It would set us back enormously as a whole team. It easily be 4-5 or more of rebuilding the defense and a waste of talent to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Haynesworth spoke out against blanche about not using him like the way they used him in Tennessee.. and thats a 4-3 DT that puts pressure in the pocket/QB....Not a 4-3 DT that just takes up blockers.. The way blanche runs him currently...So why now do we even want to play a 3-4? Whats the hype about it? We don't even remotely have linebackers good enough for that let along a DL perfect for 3-4 defense.. Carter, McIntosh, Fletcher, and Orakpo aren't spewing perfect 3-4 to me... and haven't we all agreed that Orakpo is best used with his hand in the dirt. :doh: As much as I flamed you in your other thread, I can get on board with this for the most part. Two things though. I personally like the 3-4. It allows for very exotic blitz packages. Also, I think Orakpo would make a great pass rushing OLB in a 3-4 scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flock53 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Lousy talent was tongue in cheek, notice I used "stacked" with it.Meanwhile, let's take a look at the Bengals record the last few years: 2008 4-11 2007 7-9 2006 8-8 Every team plays with injuries. Ravens have been dealing with the same problems. That division in general hasn't been good this year. Last year they lost a supposed "franchise" QB and no decent backup. 2007 and 2006 are better then our records. That division is just as competative as ours. only difference is we are the doormat and the Bengals are capable of winning theres. WHY? The have talent and better coaching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VRIEL1 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 What does that even mean? real man's defense? As someone else said, 3-4 leads to elite defenses in most case.However we CANNOT run the 3-4. And haynesworth has been quoted saying he does not prefer the 3-4. People who are saying he'd be a good NT are wrong. He is not a gap eater, if anything he'd be a DE in a 3-4 and do we wanna pay 100mill for a 3-4 DE? (the least dominant position in a 3-4 defense) Also switching to 3-4 means, we pretty much have to change our entire front 7. yea, im sure our line can last another year as it is. If our line didn't need so much of an upgrade id be all up for the idea of starting to draft for 3-4 however. But we do need a ****load of upgrading to #1. AH never said he did not want to work in a 3-4 defense. If he did please post it. But I know you won't find it. #2. The crappy post earlier trying to defend this statement was AH saying he likes what we do cause it's similar to what he did in Tenn. He never says "I don't want to play in a 3-4" or even eludes to it. #3. AH would be a perfect NT. We have Orakpo as a DE. Jarmin as a DE. Carter as a DE. We might have to pick up another NT though cause I think AH get gassed and would need to come out periodically so someone would have to fill in to give him a break. Or...play two NT's when we need a jumbo package or a good rush. #4. We most likely will have to change up the whole front D-line anyway. Daniels, Griffin, and Whynn are all old. Time to bring in youth to replace them anyway. People we have that are young: Skolnitsky DE Orakpo LB/DE A.Montgomery DT Jarmin DE R.Jackson DE Haynesworth DT (is getting old) Carter DE (will last a few more) Alexander DT So we are not too bad off if the young ones finally step up or are given a chance to step up. We might need a NT and look for LB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HigSkin Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Last year they lost a supposed "franchise" QB and no decent backup. 2007 and 2006 are better then our records. That division is just as competative as ours. only difference is we are the doormat and the Bengals are capable of winning theres. WHY? The have talent and better coaching Oh, that QB that's a "weak link". You have your opinion and I just don't agree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml6157 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 I doubt the new regime is going to ask Haynesworth what defense to run. Not that I think they are looking to alienate him, but I don't think Haynesworth's desires are going to drive the decision. If we do run a 3-4, I seriously doubt that Haynesworth will be the NT. Think NE & their 3-4, Richard Seymour never played NT. Seymour used his elite size and speed to be the disruptor while Ted Washington and later Vince Wilfork manned the NT role. Haynesworth could be very dominant as a 3-4 DE. Under a switch to the 3-4, we would have to go out into the market and find a NT. I think Vince Wilfork will be a free agent. They shouldn't ask him what to run but the DAMN WELL better use him to his strengths. He can dominate a game when he is turned loose. Blache never did that and it showed. He needs to be turned loose and you will see a different defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalhead Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 I'm not to familiar with the 3-4, so I have a couple questions about it. Is the 3-4 simply a philosophy to sacrifice size (a DT) for more speed/agility (LB)? Why would Albert not be a good fit for the scheme? He gets double-teamed considerably so wouldn't that be an advantage at the NT? The DL is already undermanned as it is with three guys going against five OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 #3. AH would be a perfect NT. We have Orakpo as a DE. Jarmin as a DE. Carter as a DE. We might have to pick up another NT though cause I think AH get gassed and would need to come out periodically so someone would have to fill in to give him a break. Or...play two NT's when we need a jumbo package or a good rush. No. Hanyesworth is not a NT. Orakpo, Jarmon and Carter aren't DE's in a 3-4 scheme either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml6157 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 #3. AH would be a perfect NT. You cant be taken seriously anymore with the statement above. Do you know what a 3-4 NT's responsibility is? To hold up the opposing OL and allow LBs to make plays. Boy that sounds very familiar where did I hear that from before?? Oh yeah thats what Blache made Haynesworth do this year. Which DOES NOT play to he strength. Its a waste of one of the best DTs in the league. Not to mention how he sounded off on Blache saying he wanted to be able to attack like he did in Tennessee. So even if he didnt directly say he didnt want to play in a 3-4, he said he doesnt want to be a gap holder which is exactly what he would do as a 3-4 NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMoss_89 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 As much as I flamed you in your other thread, I can get on board with this for the most part.Two things though. I personally like the 3-4. It allows for very exotic blitz packages. Also, I think Orakpo would make a great pass rushing OLB in a 3-4 scheme. Lol no worries. But I dunno. I just think that completly converting our defense to 4-3 would be doing too much when all we need to do is tweak our D.. Fixing our offense is a STRUGGLE in itself, to have to completly revamp the O-line, QB, AND switch the defense from 4-3 to 3-4. I don't think we'd be doing ourselves any favors. 4-3 has the ability to do exotic blitzes too. See Gregg Williams and the late Jim Johnsons defenses of old.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml6157 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 I'm not to familiar with the 3-4, so I have a couple questions about it.Is the 3-4 simply a philosophy to sacrifice size (a DT) for more speed/agility (LB)? Why would Albert not be a good fit for the scheme? He gets double-teamed considerably so wouldn't that be an advantage at the NT? The DL is already undermanned as it is with three guys going against five OL. Yes you sacrifice your NT for your LBs to make plays. Thats why a 3-4 NT has to be stout against the run but not really a pass rusher. Pass rushing comes mainly from the OLBs and up the middle from the ILBs. Albert might make an above average or even a good NT but you would be wasting his pocket collapsing talent which he is excellent at. Its a big thing to waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VRIEL1 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Haynesworth spoke out against blanche about not using him like the way they used him in Tennessee.. and thats a 4-3 DT that puts pressure in the pocket/QB....Not a 4-3 DT that just takes up blockers.. The way blanche runs him currently...So why now do we even want to play a 3-4? Whats the hype about it? We don't even remotely have linebackers good enough for that let along a DL perfect for 3-4 defense.. Carter, McIntosh, Fletcher, and Orakpo aren't spewing perfect 3-4 to me... and haven't we all agreed that Orakpo is best used with his hand in the dirt. :doh: AH spoke out cause some of Blache's scheme's require AH to sit back and plug a whole and not rush the QB. AH felt that that's not what he signed up for. He was used to rush the QB and disrupt the play everytime. He claims he was promised he would be able to do this. On one play he even changed the defensive play so he could rush the QB. He switched to the DE spot and got a sack. Blache was upset the play was changed. Why do we even want to utilize a 3-4. It's better. It's easier ot disquise your rushes. It's a lot more flexible to manipulate for different scenario's. The 4-3 is a rigid scheme. It's not flexible which is why some times teams get man handled. Ummm, your NT's need to be big to tie up OL. Your DE can be a little smaller, but they have to have speed to rush the QB which Orakpo and Jarmin have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 I'm not to familiar with the 3-4, so I have a couple questions about it.Is the 3-4 simply a philosophy to sacrifice size (a DT) for more speed/agility (LB)? Why would Albert not be a good fit for the scheme? He gets double-teamed considerably so wouldn't that be an advantage at the NT? The DL is already undermanned as it is with three guys going against five OL. In a 3-4 scheme the front three are big guys. The NT is the biggest. Haynesworth is undersized for an NFL NT. The two DE's are usually bull rush style linemen similar to what we have at DT right now (EDIT: A finesse DE one one side is usually used too). The OLB's are more like the finesse rushers a la Orakpo, Carter and Taylor. You'll normally have all D linemen rushing the QB along with at least one OLB. Throw in another LB from who-knows-where and you have a blitz. It's hard to calculate where a 3-4 blitz will come from because of the additional linebacker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flock53 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Oh, that QB that's a "weak link". You have your opinion and I just don't agree with it. I did say "supposed". He is declining, its evident this year. They won when Benson went off NOT the other way around. Obviously WRs dropped off cause Housh left and Henry got hurt. If he was great, he wouldve beat the Jets at home. 2 people have 2 opinions but one of us is right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalhead Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Yes you sacrifice your NT for your LBs to make plays. Thats why a 3-4 NT has to be stout against the run but not really a pass rusher. Pass rushing comes mainly from the OLBs and up the middle from the ILBs. Albert might make an above average or even a good NT but you would be wasting his pocket collapsing talent which he is excellent at. Its a big thing to waste. Thanks tml and Springfield too. That helps. It's a little easier to understand than I thought. I just did some reading on it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsteelz Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 this seems to be a good convo going on in here... we cant do anything "Formal" with Zimmer until next week , Just the way his contract is set up , and people are blocking us from talking to some coaches plus we know the skins always do it the right way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.