EA Presents: Making the Transition to a 3-4 Defense (AKA Defense 101, Updated 2/21)

[NewRegime]

Adalius Thomas is set to be a free agent and would be a great stop gap while the team is rebuilding.

[tml6157]

I've never said to cut Fletcher. But if we can find a trading partner we should jump on it. Fletcher will be too old to contribute by the time we are contenders again.

I said drop bad players, mostly because we can clear cap space (assuming there will ever be a cap again) by doing so. Fletcher, Carter and Haynesworth all have trade value (yes, even Haynesworth because by trading him, the other team only has to pay his base salary while Snyder is stuck with his bonuses - not too bad considering it will be an uncapped year).

No, no one expected the Bengals to win their division. But the Bengals are exactly the type of team I don't want to be. Aging, with no future and no real hope of winning in the present either.

Seriously dude? Seriously? You want to trade the heart and soul of our defense AND a 10+ sack defensive end AND one of the best DTs in the game ? You are nuts! Thank god you arent running the team. Its not going to take 5 years for the offense to be rebuilt. It can be done in 1-2 years MAX. If you want to waste 5 years then sure lets rebuild the offense AND switch to a 3-4. You cant plug players in that dont fit the scheme and succeed. See Greg Blache and Al Saunders.

Please please please tell me how the Bengals have no future. They have a young talented defense. A franchise QB. A good set of 3 WRs. A reestablished running back. I would love to be in the position the Bengals are in. Give them a decent TE, 2 DL and they are set.

[Enter Apotheosis]

LIke the others I feel it was good effort and explanation, but no one has convinced me that we NEED to switch to a 3-4 Scheme. Our 4-3 is fine, we just need better play calling and using personnel better.

We don't need to, even with a defense was ranked 25th in the league and on the decline you don't technically need to change. It really just depends on what you want to be able to do from a coaching perspective. At the very least we could probably install a 3-4 package without making any noteworthy roster moves for a little variety.

I guess I am wondering if you think that Landry would be better served with a shift to MLB in a 3-4 rather than allowing him to continue to flounder as a safety (FS/SS) in a 4-3. I personally think that he is one season away from becoming a bust here in D.C but also think he is the most talented athlete we have on defense other than Orakpo and I know Shanahan likes to build around our players as opposed to last years regime which tried to force square pegs into round holes.

I don't honestly know that I trust Landry's tackling anywhere on the field enough for him to be more than a backup safety, let alone a starting SS or even LB. I'd like to see him turn it around but I'm real skeptical that we'll be able to get much more out of him than we've seen so far.

One little teensy-weensy thing though lol.... The linebacker from Green Bay you are referring to is Nick Barnett, not Barnes.

Thanks! I made a couple of mistakes like that but was able to catch most of them myself. I think I managed to combine Nick Burns (your company's computer guy) and the GBP LB on that one.

[tml6157]

The 3-4 appears to be a much better scheme for pressuring the QB. Why is that the case? Blocking assignments are not as easily recognized? The OLB's rush from more advantageous angles? Certainly its much easier to find an effective pass rusher at OLB in a 3-4 scheme than it is to find 4-3 DE that can get after the QB without being a liability in the run game.

I would be all for a 3-4 scheme. But, in the short term, as noted, our personnel appears to be much better suited for 4-3. Still the dominance of the Steeler defense, and the sudden success in Denver, and Green Bay is awfully enticing.

Denver and Green Bay had players already on their roster that fit at classic 3-4 defense. Elvis Dumervil was a classic 3-4 OLB playing in a 4-3 defense and when they switched to a 3-4 it showed how he was made for that defense. Same with Aaron Kampman and Clay Matthews. Aside from the face that the Packers had a NT on their team already before they switched.

[holmester]

Well I am in the line of thinking that if we are gonna make the switch to the 3-4 that this is the year. I do understand that it isn't ideal for some of our current personnel but I do believe that we will benefit from the switch in the long run.

Something to keep in mind is that Richard Seymour (UFA), Vince Wilfork (possible UFA), and Shaun Rogers (trade) could be available through free agency.

[hieverybody]

Seriously dude? Seriously? You want to trade the heart and soul of our defense AND a 10+ sack defensive end AND one of the best DTs in the game ? You are nuts! Thank god you arent running the team. Its not going to take 5 years for the offense to be rebuilt. It can be done in 1-2 years MAX. If you want to waste 5 years then sure lets rebuild the offense AND switch to a 3-4. You cant plug players in that dont fit the scheme and succeed. See Greg Blache and Al Saunders.

Please please please tell me how the Bengals have no future. They have a young talented defense. A franchise QB. A good set of 3 WRs. A reestablished running back. I would love to be in the position the Bengals are in. Give them a decent TE, 2 DL and they are set.

The idea hat we are only one or two years away from competing for the Super Bowl is laughable. In two years, it's unlikely that Carter and Fletcher will still be contributing, at least at their current level. It makes perfect sense to trade them for draft picks that can be used to develop younger players so that our offense and defense are peaking at the same time. You probably agree with Cerrato that this is a playoff team. Well it's not. It's not even close. Your knowledge of football is encapsulated perfectly by your belief that Carson Palmer is a franchise quarterback in 2010.

[Mikeanike]

I don't think a 3-4 is a good idea, but that's just my opinion.

[Going Commando]

The idea hat we are only one or two years away from competing for the Super Bowl is laughable. In two years, it's unlikely that Carter and Fletcher will still be contributing, at least at their current level. It makes perfect sense to trade them for draft picks that can be used to develop younger players so that our offense and defense are peaking at the same time. You probably agree with Cerrato that this is a playoff team. Well it's not. It's not even close. Your knowledge of football is encapsulated perfectly by your belief that Carson Palmer is a franchise quarterback in 2010.

Can you give us a single good reason to make the difficult switch to a 3-4 defense? Please, and don't let it be something like the 3-4 is a more aggressive scheme than the 4-3 because that is cliched and false.

You know one of the biggest reasons teams started switching to the 3-4 in the first place? It was because the personnel for it was easier to find in the draft because the 4-3 was so common all the critical personnel (270 pound right ends who could play the run and rush the passer, penetrating defensive tackles, sideline to sideline middle and weakside linebackers) became scarce and difficult to draft. Fast forward about 10 years and now half of the league runs a 3-4. Now the difficulties of finding the key 3-4 personnel are at least equal to, if not greater than those for a 4-3. How many starting caliber nose tackles come out each year? Maybe 2? Not only that, we already have most of the critical personnel to run a 4-3 locked up long term: Orakpo at RE, Haynesworth at 3 tech, Rocky at WLB. We are far fewer pieces away from fielding a dominant unit in a 4-3 scheme.

We have absolutely no incentive to make what would in the very best case scenario be a lateral move between schemes. In all likelihood it would be a large step backward. We can and should make improvements within the 4-3 scheme with maybe a few 3-4, 46, and cover 2 packages. There is no need to make drastic philosophical shifts.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Something to keep in mind is that Richard Seymour (UFA), Vince Wilfork (possible UFA), and Shaun Rogers (trade) could be available through free agency.

The Patriots are too smart to let Wilfork go without getting anything for him. They do have his heir apparent on the roster in Ron Brace, though.

Fast forward about 10 years and now half of the league runs a 3-4. Now the difficulties of finding the key 3-4 personnel are at least equal to, if not greater than those for a 4-3. How many starting caliber nose tackles come out each year? Maybe 2? Not only that, we already have most of the critical personnel to run a 4-3 locked up long term: Orakpo at RE, Haynesworth at 3 tech, Rocky at WLB. We are far fewer pieces away from fielding a dominant unit in a 4-3 scheme.

I wouldn't say the 3-4 is more difficult to fill by any means, even with 12 NFL teams running it. It's true that there are usually only two players in any given draft that project strongly as a NT (e.g., Terrance Cody and Dan Williams in this upcoming draft). It's hard to say who actually could fill the role, though, as there are some "smaller" guys out there who have done well and plenty of guys whose playing weight will shoot up after the draft.

4-3 DEs are easier to identify in the draft but seem to have a fairly high bust rate, with only one or two actually making a name for themselves out of each drafts.

[Dirk Diggler]

I think if Allen is telling the truth, and we're going to try to retool rather than rebuild - then I just don't see how we can make the switch to the 3-4.

Right now, we need at least 3 new starting Olineman and perhaps as many as 4 or even 5. Not one of the players we have right now fits a zone-blocking scheme well. We PROBABLY need a new long-term solution at QB despite what Shanahan is saying right now (in order to maintain any trade value JC might have).

Outside of Orakpo, our defensive personnel is VERY 4-3 specific.

Carter failed miserably as a 3-4 OLB in San Fran. He doesn't have the beef to be an end in a 3-4.

The Phil Daniels of 2005 could have been a 3-4 end but now he's just too damn old and broken down. He probably won't even make next year's team as a 5th DE in our 4-3.

Griffin has spent his entire career as a 4-3 DT and doesn't have the beef to be an NT. He doesn't have the speed anymore to be a DE. Haynesworth has the beef but not the desire or selflessness to let other players get the tackles and make the plays as a lineman in the 3-4. Just because he's as big as Vince Wilfork doesn't mean he can hold the point like him.

Fletcher has never played in a 3-4 and is going to be at his best when he's uncovered. 3-4 ILBs have to take on/shed blocks 50% of the time and that's not his game.

McIntosh might work as a situational nickelbacker in a 3-4, dropping in coverage most of the time and blitzing once in a while but the best 3-4 defenses have 2 OLBs that can be significant pass rush threats. That aint RM's game.

It's virtually impossible to swap out 5-6 starters on each side of the ball in 1or 2 offseasons. Maybe in 3 or 4 if you can get lucky. There just isn't the supply in the draft or in free agency. I just dont think that BA/MS/DS have the patience for that. So consider me shocked if that's the direction we go.

[HigSkin]

All I know is that Vince Wilfork wants a new contract or release from the Pats and Richard Seymour wants out of Oakland. 2 guys with great 3-4 experience. Not saying we should go to a 3-4, just a couple of peices from the OP's massive write-up.

[bedlamVR]

I am like so many not convinced by the "need" to switch to the 3-4, I think there are too many round pegs into square holes . Denver is the poster boy this season for the 3-4 but they were also plagued with underachieving co-ordinators and injuries .

Carter, blades, Wilson, McIntosh, Fletcher, Haynesworth, Alexander and Golsten all are better fits in the 4-3 than the 3-4 .

Other players who i would question who would fit or be limited by the 3-4 system are Jarmon and Orakpo . I think Orakpo has the skills to be an excellent 4-3 DE but an average 3-4 OLB which is why he was overlooked by so many teams transitioning to the 3-4 .

Trying to hammer Landry into the 3-4 as a LB would be a huge mistake . He has had a down year in a lost season . New flesh in the coaching scheme will re-invigerate Landry and a good offseason plan with an in your face coach could see him back better than ever in a modified role . We know Blanch was set on his scheme and more than once he was approached by players to change things to shceme better to be dismissed . Who is to say Landry was not one of those players who asked Gregg to change how he was used . Who is to say Grey did not approach Blanch about Landry and Rogers as he could see their confidence being crushed by being utilised poorly .

I appreciate the effort but for the love of god ... why change ?

We have enough challenges in restocking the OL, RB corps and instigating an entire new offense without going through wholesale changes on the other side of the ball too .

[JoeJGibbs]

The scheme of the 3-4 is a good concept. My issue is that the Redskins don't really have 3-4 personnel. Generally speaking a NT in a 3-4 scheme is a space eater. He's there to take on the double team all game long. Haynesworth, although demanding a double team is more of a pass rushing DT. I would hope they get some depth at DT if that's the case.

My other concern is the ILB spot. London Fletcher can handle it, but then what?

[Enter Apotheosis]

Carter, blades, Wilson, McIntosh, Fletcher, Haynesworth, Alexander and Golsten all are better fits in the 4-3 than the 3-4.

To be fair, Carter is the only one out of that list we can say for sure can't adapt well to a 3-4 scheme.

Other players who i would question who would fit or be limited by the 3-4 system are Jarmon and Orakpo . I think Orakpo has the skills to be an excellent 4-3 DE but an average 3-4 OLB which is why he was overlooked by so many teams transitioning to the 3-4 .

To say that Orakpo was overlooked is a bit of a stretch as the Broncos are the only 3-4 team that was really interested in OLB to draft in front of us and McDaniels was clearly enamored by Moreno, who many expected to go 10 picks later than he actually did.

I appreciate the effort but for the love of god ... why change ?

We have enough challenges in restocking the OL, RB corps and instigating an entire new offense without going through wholesale changes on the other side of the ball too .

If Shanahan wants to make the change now is the time to do it. Short of a miraculous offensive turnaround next season, most of the square pegs in this equation will need to be replaced by the time our offense is coming together. Haynesworth and Rocky will likely be in their early 30s while Daniels, Fletcher, Griffin, and Carter will likely be retired or close to it.

There is, however, no compelling reason whatsoever for making the change if Shanahan doesn't want to do it. The point of this thread is just to figure out how we'd do it if that's the direction our franchise is going in.

[dfos81]

When used to its full potential w/ the correct personnel(ie. Ravens, Jets, Browns, Steelers, etc.), its awesome at slowing down these high powered passing offenses.

Just sit back and watch how more and more teams start changing to the 34 D.

Its the evolution of football, the more the offense has to read, the better chance the Defense has to win the battle.

[Madison Redskin]

If Shanahan wants to make the change now is the time to do it. Short of a miraculous offensive turnaround next season, most of the square pegs in this equation will need to be replaced by the time our offense is coming together. Haynesworth and Rocky will likely be in their early 30s while Daniels, Fletcher, Griffin, and Carter will likely be retired or close to it.

So, you would agree that if we switch to the 3-4, it's essentially saying, "hey, I think we should throw away 2010 and 2011 altogether because it's unlikely that our offense will be any good." I like the 3-4 a lot, but I think we should make the switch when it makes more sense (e.g., when our defense sucks or when we have better personnel). I'm not willing to say that we should write off the next 2 years when we have a top 10 defense and one of the brightest offensive minds in football.

[dfos81]

I think, if this did happen. Heres how it would look.

RE- Griff

NT- Big AL

LE- P. Daniels

Rolb- A.C.

WLB- Rocky Mac.

SLB- London Fletcher

Lolb- Orakpo

Secondary stays the same, except L.L. needs to be SS and be more of the Joker in the defense, al la Troy Polomalu.

Guys we have the athletiscm and the big NT to run this D now. We would still need to add depth in the draft, but this isn't an impossible feat imo.

Just go watch that Saints game from this year. See how we stood up against it, and then go look how Dallas stood up against it. Same for the Philly game.

Bottom line, it takes an athlete, to catch an athlete. W/ all the high powered passing offenses out their now, this is just the evolution of football folks. Its not unusual to see more and more defenses changing to this style of Defense every year now. The hybrid linebackers that can cover, pass rush, and stop the run are critical to doing well in this D, and of course 3 D-lineman that can take up as many blockers as possible to let these athletes roam free, like Lions on the hunt lol.

[Enter Apotheosis]

So, you would agree that if we switch to the 3-4, it's essentially saying, "hey, I think we should throw away 2010 and 2011 altogether because it's unlikely that our offense will be any good."

Not at all, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that we could field a strong 3-4 defense in 2010 if that's the direction we wanted to take. I also think Shanahan is capable of inducing a pretty remarkable turnaround offensively even without all the pieces we will ultimately need in place to be great. The biggest problem we may have next year is that our strength of schedule will be ridiculous.

What I guess I am saying here is that it isn't realistic to expect our offense to peak in Shanahan's first year or two. If we're gearing up for a run 3 or 4 years from now, we can't be afraid to make changes on defense because of personnel concerns. We will have ample time to adjust the personnel on both sides of the ball during that period. It would be more valuable to install the scheme we intend to use sooner than later, really instill it in the players that will be around, and obtain talent with it in mind.

When used to its full potential w/ the correct personnel(ie. Ravens, Jets, Browns, Steelers, etc.), its awesome at slowing down these high powered passing offenses.

Just sit back and watch how more and more teams start changing to the 34 D.

Its the evolution of football, the more the offense has to read, the better chance the Defense has to win the battle.

To be fair, the 3-4 defense may be somewhat of a cyclical thing considering how popular it was in the 80s before fading in the 90s and returning more recently.

[Madison Redskin]

Not at all, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that we could field a strong 3-4 defense in 2010 if that's the direction we wanted to take. I also think Shanahan is capable of inducing a pretty remarkable turnaround offensively even without all the pieces we will ultimately need in place to be great. The biggest problem we may have next year is that our strength of schedule will be ridiculous.

What I guess I am saying here is that it isn't realistic to expect our offense to peak in Shanahan's first year or two. If we're gearing up for a run 3 or 4 years from now, we can't be afraid to make changes on defense because of personnel concerns. We will have ample time to adjust the personnel on both sides of the ball during that period. It would be more valuable to install the scheme we intend to use sooner than later, really instill it in the players that will be around, and obtain talent with it in mind.

I still disagree with making the switch to the 3-4, but fair enough.

PS - We may disagree, but I like how your posts on the matter are thoughtful and well-written.

[bedlamVR]

To be fair, Carter is the only one out of that list we can say for sure can't adapt well to a 3-4 scheme.

True but it is not a large stretch to see how the other players will loose out in the new scheme .

Fletcher, and Blades are really too small to be ILB in the 3-4 given they tend to be more athletic and have to be able to engage OL in the running game with the lack of the 4th down lineman to engage the OL. Having one small ILB is not a liability but 2 is (this is why i dislike the idea of moving Blades to the SLB in the 4-3) .

Couple that without having a guy comfortable or as a good fit as a NT (like Jay Ratclife, then the middle of the field is going to be an easy place to run .

Alexander may work out well in the 3-4 but i think he is more of a big rotational DE in the 4-3 who can move inside rather than a space eater ..

Wilson is WAY to small to be anything in the 3-4 other than a run stuffing DB . He could be a pass rush specialist but much more suited to that role as a SLB in the 4-3 where he needs to shoot the gap rather than be a physical presence than in the 3-4

McIntosh has played all his career in the 4-3 . He could move inside as a 3-4 ILB but I have seen too many talented players swept aside because the coaches think a new scheme is better.

To say that Orakpo was overlooked is a bit of a stretch as the Broncos are the only 3-4 team that was really interested in OLB to draft in front of us and McDaniels was clearly enamored by Moreno, who many expected to go 10 picks later than he actually did.

It may have been a stretch, but there were teams kicking the tyres who may have made a move to make a trade for Rak, but concerns about his fluidity kind of stopped that talk . And to be fair Rak has looked stiff in the OLB role in the current system . Now some of that can be put down to new role being a rookie etc but from what we have seen he is better with a hand in the dirt than comming off the edge .

If Shanahan wants to make the change now is the time to do it. Short of a miraculous offensive turnaround next season, most of the square pegs in this equation will need to be replaced by the time our offense is coming together. Haynesworth and Rocky will likely be in their early 30s while Daniels, Fletcher, Griffin, and Carter will likely be retired or close to it.

There is something to be said for continuity, having players learn and watch and play with vets in the same system leads to greater rewards than changing every damn thing every 1-2 seasons . Griffin & Daniels could be gone this season, but we have Golsten and Jarmon to move into their roles .

There is, however, no compelling reason whatsoever for making the change if Shanahan doesn't want to do it. The point of this thread is just to figure out how we'd do it if that's the direction our franchise is going in.

Like i sadi before i do appreciate the work . It is very insightful and it may be the case Shananan makes the move to the 3-4 but personally I think we need tooo many things to make it work and a bad D will make a transitional O look worse .

[Spear]

Great thread. Perhaps people's black-and-white, pigeon-holing views on scheme-vs-personnel will begin to change around here. The 3-4 discussion has been ruled by drama queens for too long.

[Going Commando]

I wouldn't say the 3-4 is more difficult to fill by any means, even with 12 NFL teams running it. It's true that there are usually only two players in any given draft that project strongly as a NT (e.g., Terrance Cody and Dan Williams in this upcoming draft). It's hard to say who actually could fill the role, though, as there are some "smaller" guys out there who have done well and plenty of guys whose playing weight will shoot up after the draft.

4-3 DEs are easier to identify in the draft but seem to have a fairly high bust rate, with only one or two actually making a name for themselves out of each drafts.

There are actually probably about 3 NTs but I think Cody is the only true two gap NT. Dan Williams and Mike Neal are probably more of the Jay Ratliff variety even though they are both very powerful players. Regardless, this year's class is going to go down as perhaps the strongest defensive line class in the entire history of the draft. There were some good ones in the 70's but I don't even think they can compare. And yet there are only three guys who look like servicable bodies at the position and only Dan Williams looks like he's got the upside to develop into an upper echelon starter like Wilfork is, or Jammal Williams and Casey Hampton used to be. Most guys that acutally do come out are like Cody--fat two down players who'll give you maybe 25 snaps a game. And yet Cody, simply through positional scarcity, will go in the first or early second round.

My point is that some years no nose tackles come out. Many, actually, and I think you could count the number of elite two gap tackles in the league on one hand right now. It's an extremely difficult position to find and our motivation to do so is limited considering we already have an elite three technique on the roster.

Also, I'd say 3-4 OLBs bust just as often as 4-3 defensive ends do. For every Brian Orakpo there's certainly a Gaines Adams. But for every Clay Matthews and DeMarcus Ware there's a Manny Lawson and Vernon Gholston too.

[bhi4582]

Great post! I agree, the 3-4 is now the way to go in this league and is taking storm the way the cover 2 did in the late 90's. The 3-4 track record of success is un-deniable. Look at how improved the teams are in just one season of installing. The best D's in the league, give or take a few, all run the 3-4. I'm not saying you can't be sucessful running the 4-3, the 3-4 is just more sucessful. Look at the percentages of NFL leaders in team defense this year.

1. Jets - 3-4

2. Packers - 3-4

3. Ravens- 3-4

4 Bengals - 4-3

5.Steelers - 3-4

Combine that with the sucess the Pats and Ravens have had this decade. I'm surprised more teams don't usher in the switch but I have a feeling more will.

[hieverybody]

Can you give us a single good reason to make the difficult switch to a 3-4 defense? Please, and don't let it be something like the 3-4 is a more aggressive scheme than the 4-3 because that is cliched and false.

You know one of the biggest reasons teams started switching to the 3-4 in the first place? It was because the personnel for it was easier to find in the draft because the 4-3 was so common all the critical personnel (270 pound right ends who could play the run and rush the passer, penetrating defensive tackles, sideline to sideline middle and weakside linebackers) became scarce and difficult to draft. Fast forward about 10 years and now half of the league runs a 3-4. Now the difficulties of finding the key 3-4 personnel are at least equal to, if not greater than those for a 4-3. How many starting caliber nose tackles come out each year? Maybe 2? Not only that, we already have most of the critical personnel to run a 4-3 locked up long term: Orakpo at RE, Haynesworth at 3 tech, Rocky at WLB. We are far fewer pieces away from fielding a dominant unit in a 4-3 scheme.

We have absolutely no incentive to make what would in the very best case scenario be a lateral move between schemes. In all likelihood it would be a large step backward. We can and should make improvements within the 4-3 scheme with maybe a few 3-4, 46, and cover 2 packages. There is no need to make drastic philosophical shifts.

The best reason for a switch to a 3-4 is that, when run by a good coordinator, it can get more pressure on a QB because of all of the different blitz options. This is a passing league now, and as much as you need a great QB to succeed, you also to be able to put pressure on the QB to defend the pass. You are essentially handicapping yourself by running a 4-3. The personnel worries, as has already been shown in this thread, are overstated - especially if you consider the age of our defensive line and Fletcher and how we'll need to replace them soon anyway.

[Enter Apotheosis]

My point is that some years no nose tackles come out. Many, actually, and I think you could count the number of elite two gap tackles in the league on one hand right now. It's an extremely difficult position to find and our motivation to do so is limited considering we already have an elite three technique on the roster.

Also, I'd say 3-4 OLBs bust just as often as 4-3 defensive ends do. For every Brian Orakpo there's certainly a Gaines Adams. But for every Clay Matthews and DeMarcus Ware there's a Manny Lawson and Vernon Gholston too.

True enough. The more I look around, though, the more I think it's virtually impossible to gauge how many guys could play NT in a 1-gap system. Obviously there aren't going to be that many, regardless, but there may be more than people generally think knowing that the classic mold can be broken.

True but it is not a large stretch to see how the other players will loose out in the new scheme .

Fletcher, and Blades are really too small to be ILB in the 3-4 given they tend to be more athletic and have to be able to engage OL in the running game with the lack of the 4th down lineman to engage the OL. Having one small ILB is not a liability but 2 is (this is why i dislike the idea of moving Blades to the SLB in the 4-3) .

I'd like to point to Lawrence Timmons of the Steelers as a good example of an undersized MLB (6'1", 234 lbs) who is still effective in the 3-4 as a speedy cover guy. He's a pretty good example of size not being all that telling of a factor for success. Anyway, Fletcher's problem is a matter of stature, not overall size and it's something that doesn't seem to limit him in his current role. Having two midget MLBs with Blades in the mix could conceivably be a slight disadvantage, however.

Couple that without having a guy comfortable or as a good fit as a NT (like Jay Ratclife, then the middle of the field is going to be an easy place to run .

Alexander may work out well in the 3-4 but i think he is more of a big rotational DE in the 4-3 who can move inside rather than a space eater ..

Really, whether or not we have a legitimate NT is entirely dependent on how hard our defensive coordinator could sell the position to Haynesworth. I'm quite sure he could pull it off if he was motivated to do it and trimmed down to 320-330 lbs (both being big ifs). Keep in mind that Jay Ratliff isn't a big guy at all but is very good nonetheless in Dallas' system.

Also remember, in a 1-gap system simply eating space is slightly less important than it is in a 2-gap system. We can find ways to matchup one of our defensive ends one-on-one with a lineman if it suits us better.

Wilson is WAY to small to be anything in the 3-4 other than a run stuffing DB . He could be a pass rush specialist but much more suited to that role as a SLB in the 4-3 where he needs to shoot the gap rather than be a physical presence than in the 3-4

Again, size isn't everything. Take a look at Elvis Dumervil (5'11", 248 lbs, 17 sacks this season).

McIntosh has played all his career in the 4-3 . He could move inside as a 3-4 ILB but I have seen too many talented players swept aside because the coaches think a new scheme is better.

Regardless of what scheme we play you have to hope that we have the right coaches in place to make the best use of the talent we have at the moment. If McIntosh is a great player, you find ways to work him in to the flow of things or you make the best use you can out of him and trade him.

There is something to be said for continuity, having players learn and watch and play with vets in the same system leads to greater rewards than changing every damn thing every 1-2 seasons . Griffin & Daniels could be gone this season, but we have Golsten and Jarmon to move into their roles .

Agreed and we have had continuity on defense for the most part over the last five years. However, timing and continuity is also a good reason for switching now if it is at all in our long-term plans to change things up.

PS - We may disagree, but I like how your posts on the matter are thoughtful and well-written.

Appreciate it :bow: