HigSkin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 I know there's been much discussion on Big Al in a 3-4 but Swartz makes a lot of good points here. http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/10695/haynesworth-will-be-fine-in-3-4-says-his-ex-coach Washington Post writer Rick Maese had the good sense to ask Albert Haynesworth's former defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz about how the defensive tackle will perform in a 3-4 scheme. Schwartz, now the head coach of the Lions, is one of the best in the league at explaining concepts to players -- and reporters. "There's a lot of different kind of 3-4s," Schwartz told Maese. "You could do a 3-4 where you're using space. There's a stunting 3-4, where you're going at a player, which is similar to what [Haynesworth] has done. You could do a combination of both. Chicago is a combination. Pittsburgh a bit more of a stunting 3-4, a blitzing 3-4. San Diego is a little bit more of a big nose. New England, Cleveland, Miami and those guys are more of a hunt and pound. I think, Haslett, with his experience, if he goes 3-4, he'll figure out the best way to make it work." Schwartz's overriding message was that Haynesworth is talented enough to be successful in any scheme -- and I tend to agree with that assessment. In Jim Haslett's 3-4, there's a good chance that Haynesworth will be able to play nose tackle and defensive end. "He'll adapt," said Schwartz of Haynesworth. "There's always an adjustment period. His whole career, he had one scheme. He had his same position coach his entire career, the same defensive coordinator his entire career, the same head coach his entire career, and suddenly it all changed in a year. But he's talented, and he'll adapt and he'll be just as good in another scheme." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Schwartz is correct. Haynesworth can be effective with appropriate buy-in to the change. What you will see across the board is players willing to adapt and 'play ball' with Shanahan whereas they chafed and refused to do so under Zorn because of the differences in respect accorded to the two coaches. No one on this roster believed that Zorn held any power over their careers. They know Shanahan does and that makes all the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cowboy Bamma Rocker Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 this has basically already been posted... mosely just added the news to the NFC East blog. no new information here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryman of the North Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 its funny that we are going to the 3-4 because its fashionable, whats funny is that we probably wont run it the way the great 3-4 teams run it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever21 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 its funny that we are going to the 3-4 because its fashionable, whats funny is that we probably wont run it the way the great 3-4 teams run it. Fashionable? Really? You think Shanahan and Haslett want to run a 3-4 because it looks good on someone they saw at the mall? The 3-4 is highly effective and is a common thread among the best defenses in the NFL. That is why we're going to be running it in some fashion for years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 its funny that we are going to the 3-4 because its fashionable, whats funny is that we probably wont run it the way the great 3-4 teams run it. :doh::doh::doh::doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins55 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 As a former defensive player I can tell you that it doesn't matter what scheme is run if you have the players. We've got great players so we just need a coach who can take chances and create turnovers. This is obtainable in either a 3-4 or 4-3. I kinda agree with the previous poster that we seem to be switching the scheme for some other reason than effectiveness. We've clearly been effective in the 4-3. But I honestly think Shanahan just simply wants to run a 3-4 to try something different in his coaching career. Coaches do it all the time. Its the reason Gibbs brought in Saunders to try something different because he felt his previous offense was good to get us to the playoffs but wasn't effective enough as far as scoring points. There is no rationale reason that Shanahan would look at the washington Redskins team with all the changes NEEDED on the offenses side of the ball and suggest we needed to change the top 10 defense as well other than the fact that he simply wants to try something new because his previous defense in Denver failed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins55 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 As a former defensive player I can tell you that it doesn't matter what scheme is run if you have the players. We've got great players so we just need a coach who can take chances and create turnovers. This is obtainable in either a 3-4 or 4-3. I kinda agree with the previous poster that we seem to be switching the scheme for some other reason than effectiveness. We've clearly been effective in the 4-3. But I honestly think Shanahan just simply wants to run a 3-4 to try something different in his coaching career. Coaches do it all the time. Its the reason Gibbs brought in Saunders to try something different because he felt his previous offense was good to get us to the playoffs but wasn't effective enough as far as scoring points. There is no rationale reason that Shanahan would look at the washington Redskins team with all the changes NEEDED on the offenses side of the ball and suggest we needed to change the top 10 defense as well other than the fact that he simply wants to try something new because his previous defense in Denver failed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 its funny that we are going to the 3-4 because its fashionable, whats funny is that we probably wont run it the way the great 3-4 teams run it. Not even the great 3-4 teams run it the same way. You should know this by now. As a former defensive player I can tell you that it doesn't matter what scheme is run if you have the players. We've got great players so we just need a coach who can take chances and create turnovers. This is obtainable in either a 3-4 or 4-3. I kinda agree with the previous poster that we seem to be switching the scheme for some other reason than effectiveness. We've clearly been effective in the 4-3. But I honestly think Shanahan just simply wants to run a 3-4 to try something different in his coaching career. Agreed on all counts. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duenni Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 the question never was, that he won't be good in the 3-4 scheme, but does he want to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaRonDontLikeUgly Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Haynesworth is without a doubt the most interesting player on our team right now. (LaRon may be a close second) Whether or not Redskins fans want to admit it, Big Al is a complete head-case. I love his mean-streak... he seems to be very passionate about delivering punishment and being part of the team. However, I find it funny that we as fans even have worry about what system he "wants" to play in. Kampman's little outburst in GB was embarrassing, and I would really be upset if something like that was to happen here with big boy. But it won't. I've known Jim Schwartz from a young age (he coached my pops at gtown) and the guy REALLY tells it how it is. If he believes Haynesworth can thrive in a 3-4, you can bet your ass that him and Albert have spoken at length about it over the phone. All this none-sense about him throwing a fit if we switch to 3-4 should be put to rest because good coaches are a lot like good car salesmen... they will pitch their product, make you believe in it, then watch you drive away in it. Let's hope Haslett doesn't get eaten alive. HAIL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman#21 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Like what he said alot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letzgoterps Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 ES really makes me mad. You sit here typing up a really well thought out response only to have the site go down for a few mins right as you hit send. Long story short: Zorn was terrible at doing what redskins55 said - using his players to the best of THEIR abilities and giving them the opportunity to succeed. Instead of taking risks with the players and putting them in the correct position to get the best of their abilities, we were given plenty of excuses (many accurate) and years of ineptitude. Teams like Minnesota and Philadelphia meanwhile took rookies and other young players, took risks, while putting them in a position to perform for the team - and they did. Other teams like Houston and San Francisco continued to improve based on what they did with their young players and using them correctly. While they reaped the rewards and WON, we continued our downhill decline and our players hardly grew as NFL players. If used correctly, I believe that Haynesworth will be a monster in any system he's put in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Seems to me a 3-4 would be trying to pigeonhole players into roles they aren't as well suited for. Haynesworth could work in the 3-4 if you move him around, let him be a 1-gap player, like a penetrating 4-3 DT. Using him as a NT is wasteful. Trouble is, while Montgomery's got the body, he doesn't command double teams like you need an NT to 1-gap or 2-gap. So we really have no good NT, except a big $ guy better at DT. Orakpo and Carter are dramatically better as 4-3 DTs consistently rushing, not dropping back in coverage. If we use them like the Steelers do their OLB/DE, it might work... but again we're taking guys good at one position, and trying to make them fit another. Our LBS could work, at ILBs we're covered. But we become awful thin even with Rak and AC as OLBs. Teams will exploit our weakness in coverage with those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 its funny that we are going to the 3-4 because its fashionable, whats funny is that we probably wont run it the way the great 3-4 teams run it. Is this based on anything other than the thread you started saying we didn't have the personell to run a 3-4? Because your comments require the assumption that Shanahan is some clueless child just grabbing at the flashing light, which obviously isn't true. You come off overly bitter here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Schwartz is correct. Haynesworth can be effective with appropriate buy-in to the change. What you will see across the board is players willing to adapt and 'play ball' with Shanahan whereas they chafed and refused to do so under Zorn because of the differences in respect accorded to the two coaches.No one on this roster believed that Zorn held any power over their careers. They know Shanahan does and that makes all the difference. Very true. The players didn't fear or respect Zorn (or at least his authority). When the front office (Cerrato) strips you of your play-calling duties in a public way, and the owner (Snyder) allows the star RB (Portis) to walk all over you in the papers and on radio with no reprocussions, your "authority" won't mean squat with anyone. It won't be that way with Shanahan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibarramedia Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Haynesworth is without a doubt the most interesting player on our team right now. (LaRon may be a close second)Whether or not Redskins fans want to admit it, Big Al is a complete head-case. I love his mean-streak... he seems to be very passionate about delivering punishment and being part of the team. However, I find it funny that we as fans even have worry about what system he "wants" to play in. Kampman's little outburst in GB was embarrassing, and I would really be upset if something like that was to happen here with big boy. But it won't. I've known Jim Schwartz from a young age (he coached my pops at gtown) and the guy REALLY tells it how it is. If he believes Haynesworth can thrive in a 3-4, you can bet your ass that him and Albert have spoken at length about it over the phone. All this none-sense about him throwing a fit if we switch to 3-4 should be put to rest because good coaches are a lot like good car salesmen... they will pitch their product, make you believe in it, then watch you drive away in it. Let's hope Haslett doesn't get eaten alive. HAIL Despite all this, Albert is still hesitant about the 3-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeen80 Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 $32 million in the bank for Prince Albert already and he's still not happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icbmayday Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 good read....hope he plays hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailToTheRedskins14 Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 $32 million in the bank for Prince Albert already and he's still not happy You want him happy and content or pissed off and ready to stomp a Cowgirl's face off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.