CSN: Point/Counter Point 3-4 v. 4-3

[SWFLSkins]

http://www.csnwashington.com/07/18/10/Point-Counterpoint-The-3-4-Defense/landing_v3.html?blockID=273449&feedID=6355

By Rich Tandler

Redskins Blogger

CSNwashington.com

The Washington Redskins have had one of the better defenses in the league for most of the past six seasons. When Mike Shanahan and Jim Haslett arrived, they decided that pretty good wasn’t good enough. They are switching the base alignment from a 4-3 base to a 3-4 alignment. There is much more involved with that than just having one lineman stand up and move back a few feet, and it is the subject of this week’s edition of Point-Counterpoint.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thought this would be a great point of discussion on the switch.

[tshile]

404 page not found

edit: ah i see, its putting the elipses in there and shortening the URL. "http://www.csnwashington.com/07/18/10/Point-Counterpoint-The-3-4-Defense/landing_v3.html?blockID=273449&feedID=4717"

[SWFLSkins]

Liked reading this in particular, I hope it repeats itself here.....

Counterpoint: This isn’t necessarily a long-term process. Last year’s Packers are a perfect example of how quickly a team can adapt to the 3-4. In 2008, they were 22nd in yardage allowed, and after switching from the 4-3 they improved to second in that category. They went from 22nd in points allowed to seventh, from 12th in takeaways to first and from 26th against the run to first. And, most importantly, their record improved from 6-10 to 11-5. And they did this with only two new starters on defense. Now, as they say in commercials, your results may vary. But there is no reason to think that going to the 3-4 is a change that won’t bear fruit until 2012.

[SWFLSkins]

404 page not found

Thanks...fixed ^

[tshile]

Point: What happened to “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? This team has been ranked in the top 10 defensively for five of the past six years. Haslett has coached the 4-3; he could just tweak the current setup. Why not just try to build on the success of one of the strengths of the team instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water?

Counterpoint: Yards allowed, which is what those top-10 numbers are based on, don’t tell the whole story of the defense. In fact, that statistic fits in with Mark Twain’s “lies and damned lies”. The Redskins have not been a feared defense, and one of the reasons why is that they don’t generate turnovers. Their turnover ranking in the six years that they’ve had all of those “top 10” defenses from 2004-2009 are as follows: 22nd, 15th, 32nd, 25th, 28th, and 32nd. In 2009, the teams that had the better turnover ratio in a game won 78 percent of the time. The 3-4 is designed to create pressure from different and unexpected places, forcing more turnovers in the process. If the Redskins allow a few more yards per game (and that’s not a given—five of the top seven defenses last year in terms of yardage were 3-4 teams), and get an additional takeaway every week, they will be much better off. The Redskins went the entire two-year Jim Zorn era without scoring a single defensive touchdown. You can’t stand pat and live with such a glaring deficiency.

thats the biggest thing for me, from this article. I'm so sick of the 'but we're top 5 every year' argument. The context of that 'top 5 ranking' has very little meaning in the grand scheme of things.

[Chump Bailey]

I'm not worried about it as I was previously. I'm excited because it allows guys like Chris Wilson and Rob Jackson a chance to make more plays - IMO. Carriker is a 34 DE and I think he could do very well in such a role. If Kemo and Carriker are healthy, and Albert shows up wanting to play, our DL could be very good.

[Oldfan]

Rich Tandler is one the more intelligent writers on the Redskins' scene -- and this point - counterpoint approach is a good idea. It forces the writer's mind into a balanced mode.

As for the move to the 3-4: One of the major disadvantages is that the on-board talent was selected for the 4-3. Thus, we have a talent-to-scheme mismatch this year.

As for creating more turnovers, the way to do that is to create more pressure on the QB. My guess is that using Orakpo the way the Colts use Freeny, with his ears pinned back and going after the QB on nearly every play, would be the most economical way to do that.

As an opposing QB, I would thank the DC who sends Rak back into coverage.

[HBnotBlades]

As for creating more turnovers, the way to do that is to create more pressure on the QB. My guess is that using Orakpo the way the Colts use Freeny, with his ears pinned back and going after the QB on nearly every play, would be the most economical way to do that.

As an opposing QB, I would thank the DC who sends Rak back into coverage.

Orakpo will be rushing the QB far more this year than last. Not to mention the ROLB in this defense is primarily a pass rusher anyway, he won't be dropping back in to coverage very often.

[Ryman of the North]

"His trainer reports that he has slimmed down to 330 pounds, an ideal weight for a 3-4 end. "- Really? 330? how many other 3-4 ends weigh in at that

[Ryman of the North]

not a terrible article btw, but one thing he ignored was that GB used a draft in their first year to prep for the 3-4 and they were deep at spots where we are very very thin.

[LD0506]

Don't underestimate the effect that hiring Dom Capers had on GB's transition to the 3-4

[Ryman of the North]

Iv'e been saying all along that Haslett is not > Capers not even close. that piece could have been better, it was too short and he didnt argue either side very well. it was written like he skimmed EA's Thread and didnt actually read it lmao.

[Cooley4President]

I think we're putting a lot of hope in the fact that changing to a 3-4 will make us a more dynamic and dangerous defense. My biggest fear is that at the end of the year we'll realize that we just don't have the talent.

[Dukes and Skins]

Good article it really makes you see both sides of the story and then make a decision on it. Personally when you look at it there are some things you can say about both and the GB example is one that is a the abnormal example. The hiring of Capers and adding some top end 3-4 talent along with having players who fit both the 4-3 and 3-4 scheme already made the job not that bad for Capers to work with

While Haslett is no Capers in terms of the 3-4, he still is one aggressive coach who will demand turnovers and big plays, something our D hasn't had in a while. The other point to be made is that while yes statistically we were a top 10 D, we couldn't get the turnovers and big plays to stop drives and clinch games for us, with the switch to the 3-4 we will have that ability to do that. While this wont be a Packers 3-4 D next year I dont think it'll be a long process to completely switch to the 3-4. We have talent at a lot of areas just need to add more into the DL over drafts as well as the LB's as we all know Fletcher won't be on this team forever and Rocky may be gone after the year. That leaves Perry Riley and HB Blades to be our starters.

Basically what I'm saying is while he makes great points for both sides it wont be one or the other. It wont be a long drawn out transition or a quick fix it'll be somewhere inbetween

[Ryman of the North]

riley and blades as starters inside in a 3-4 is a recipe for crapulence

[Mahons21]

riley and blades as starters inside in a 3-4 is a recipe for crapulence

First off, we haven't even seen Riley play a single snap in the NFL, to count him out before he even plays isn't very logical. Second, there's nothing to suggest that the immortal London Fletcher won't be able to play at least 2 more season(so far he has increased in tackles every year as a Redskin), and can't we draft an ILB next year? Or acquire one via FA? Or make a trade for one?

No need to be pessimistic about situations that haven't occurred yet, and honestly aren't very likely to occur.

If Lewis and Gooden go down for the Ravens, their ILB's are a recipe for "crapulence" as well..

[Pedro]

riley and blades as starters inside in a 3-4 is a recipe for crapulence

If that happens it's either:

A) We got a beating from the injury stick again.

They won the job on talent.

If it's A) most teams would struggle if they lose their two ILB starters. We're likely in that group.

If it's it would depend on if it was good play from them or the starters they replaced suck - personally I doubt it's the latter with the size of the front 3 we can put out.

We are moving to a 3-4, and there's basically 2 ways to get there. Get the players you think you need, then switch and see how right you were or switch and see what positions you actually need. Opinions may vary but I'm a believer in the how do you know you can't 'till you try philosophy

[Johns Bass]

I think that it is hard to say right now what kind of a 3-4 they will run or how often they will be in it; especially if the NT lines up off center.

Example: if they line up as a 3-4 then if Johnson pulls up as a DE from a LB spot - is it a 3-4 or a 4-3? Or vice versa; if he drops back from the line is it a 4-3 or a 3-4?

I think it will be interesting to see exactly what the scheme really is.

[HBnotBlades]

I think that it is hard to say right now what kind of a 3-4 they will run or how often they will be in it; especially if the NT lines up off center.

Example: if they line up as a 3-4 then if Johnson pulls up as a DE from a LB spot - is it a 3-4 or a 4-3? Or vice versa; if he drops back from the line is it a 4-3 or a 3-4?

I think it will be interesting to see exactly what the scheme really is.

Is Larry Johnson playing defense now too?

But you're right, Haslett has said he wants to run a hybrid so we really have no idea how much 4-3 or 3-4 we'll actually see this year.

[Oldskool]

Liked reading this in particular, I hope it repeats itself here.....

Counterpoint: This isn’t necessarily a long-term process. Last year’s Packers are a perfect example of how quickly a team can adapt to the 3-4. In 2008, they were 22nd in yardage allowed, and after switching from the 4-3 they improved to second in that category. They went from 22nd in points allowed to seventh, from 12th in takeaways to first and from 26th against the run to first. And, most importantly, their record improved from 6-10 to 11-5. And they did this with only two new starters on defense. Now, as they say in commercials, your results may vary. But there is no reason to think that going to the 3-4 is a change that won’t bear fruit until 2012.

One thing that this does not take into effect is the Dom Capers effect. Dom replaced a coach by the name of Bob Sanders who had never been a DC until his one year disaster in 2008 with Green Bay (you can call him the Zorn of the North).

Capers isn't in the Parcells/Bellicheat/LeBeau strata of 3-4 giants but he is a pretty good coach and even if he ran a 1-5 defense it would have been better than what GB had before.

[mbws]

Jane, you ignorant slut...

[Conn]

Jane, you ignorant slut...

:ols: Nice.

[Ryman of the North]

First off, we haven't even seen Riley play a single snap in the NFL, to count him out before he even plays isn't very logical. Second, there's nothing to suggest that the immortal London Fletcher won't be able to play at least 2 more season(so far he has increased in tackles every year as a Redskin), and can't we draft an ILB next year? Or acquire one via FA? Or make a trade for one?

No need to be pessimistic about situations that haven't occurred yet, and honestly aren't very likely to occur.

If Lewis and Gooden go down for the Ravens, their ILB's are a recipe for "crapulence" as well..

no we havent but a combo of him with blades is ugly, like appalchian stepsistercousin ugly. I would say Fletch in a 3-4 has maybe 2 more seasons at best and I doubt Rocky comes back after next season given he was not happy with being tendered.

and if lewis and gooden go down the Ravens have been drafting ILBs for 4 years now so should have at least one decent back up.

[Conn]

If Rocky plays well and proves himself worthy of more than a tender in this scheme, he'll get a contract. At least, you'd think so. No need to make more holes where there aren't any.

[Pedro]

One thing that this does not take into effect is the Dom Capers effect. Dom replaced a coach by the name of Bob Sanders who had never been a DC until his one year disaster in 2008 with Green Bay (you can call him the Zorn of the North).

Capers isn't in the Parcells/Bellicheat/LeBeau strata of 3-4 giants but he is a pretty good coach and even if he ran a 1-5 defense it would have been better than what GB had before.

That we are going from a very simple safety first approach to a more aggressive D should count in our favor in a similar way, to what degree remains unknown at this point. Add in that our perceived weakest area on D is our LB corps and we went and got the Steeler's LB coach.

We got a coaching/game planning/calling boost too. I'm expecting our DBs will surprise people this year just off of not having to give 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 2s....