Switching to the 3-4 defense. Was it a mistake? If so, who made it? What are the implications going forward?

[jtpop]

I think the jury is still out on the switch. On paper and statistically speaking you could make a case that it was a huge mistake. But with any change I suppose you have to give it some more time. Just don't think we have the pieces of the puzzle to effectively run the 3-4 and I am not sure if they will be in place next year either. Could be the biggest question mark going into the off season which is where we are heading.

[celticsalmon]

Installing the 3-4 D was an obvious indication of re-building. This is what the new regime wants. We fans are desperate for a winner and Shanahan wants to win as much as we do. But given all of the injuries, the age of the players, and lack of speed-talent-reality set in. Keeping a 4-3 with this reality-imo-would have put off the rebuilding by another year.

[KDawg]

i don't know, i'm not a GM. I would imagine 2-3 years, with the possibility of random people you pick up having good years - see anthony armstrong and brandon banks, you couldn't have predicted either would have been contributors in any sense, but both are.

Armstrong was on the practice squad last year. So he's not a Shanahan find. As far as predicting he'd do well, no, most wouldn't have. But he's not a credit to Shanahan.

people keep saying we're not rebuilding. that we're trying to win now. i'm not so sure... when you bring in 24/53 new players, in an offseason where you have so few draft picks and the CBA makes free angency complicated/weak, what is that? we'll see this offseason based on how many people they let go what's really going on here.

How many of those 24 are over the age of 30? That's the crux of the problem. Signing 30+ year olds isn't rebuilding, it's a win now move.

the best thing the team could do moving forward is to start playing the backups to see what they really have. we don't need to see what mcnabb, cooley, fletcher or hall have. we need to see what perry riley has, what john beck has, fred davis and paulsen have, etc etc etc.

So bench the guy we traded two picks for in order to see what we have in... John Beck? Not following. Beck is 29. He's not the answer long or short term. Granted, compared to McNabb he's a spring chicken . I'd rather struggle with Campbell and have had our second rounder this year and our third/fourth next year. We could've stunk with Campbell while keeping picks. Or hell, we could have signed Grossman if we didn't want to go with Campbell. Trading Campbell netted us picks, so Grossman would have been even better. McNabb shouldn't have been put on the roster. He was a miscalculation, error, whatever you want to call it. He doesn't fit with the time frame for a rebuild for this team. The FO is trying to do two things at once and we're doing neither well. That's not to say McNabb doesn't have some talent still. But on a rebuilding team he's not a fit.

[stwasm]

It was a mistake, we had pieces in place to field a solid 4-3 defense and we knew we need a total rebuild on offense. We had good 4-3 players, like Carter, Daniels, Rocky, Golston, Haynesworth, Orakpo. Now we have to rebuild both sides of the ball. Completely overhaul both the offensive and defensive lines, it makes no sense.

At this point it is best if we just lower our expectations for the Redskins, be happy we didn't get shut out yesterday. There are no Super Bowls or playoff runs in the future.

One of the most rational posts I've read here in a LONG time!

[PlayAction]

Yes, the switch was a mistake. For a few reasons.

First and foremost, we completely lack the personnel. The second mistake was running it as a 2-gap D.

Third, Jim Haslett. He or Mike Zimmer are bad choices for the transition. .

I don't think Shanahan is going to revert back to the 4:3 because many of the players that were productive in the 4:3 are toward the end of their careers or are near to new contracts. Also, Shanahan doesn't want to invest in new 4:3 talent since his ultimate goal is an effective 3:4 defense. The problem, as was pointed out in the earlier 3:4 threads, is that there is no way for the Skins to significantly invest in 3:4 personnel given the extreme dearth of talent for the Offense.

Skins have a first round pick; a second round pick; and a couple extra picks in rounds 5-7. I'd like to use the top picks and at least one of the round 5-7 picks on the offense. But the Skins aren't going to find a high potential two-gap NT in rounds 5-7 nor is one going to be cut by another team. Without a true NT (and perhaps one more real 3-4 DE) I think we have to expect that the Defense is going to stink going forward. Still, without a significant influx of talent for the Offense we KNOW the offense is going to stink. One or two TDs per game scored by the Offense is not enough to cut it in the NFL. So, we have to recognize that it's going to be a long time for the Skins to turn the corner even if everything goes right.

[KDawg]

I don't think Shanahan is going to revert back to the 4:3 because many of the players that were productive in the 4:3 are toward the end of their careers or are near to new contracts. Also, Shanahan doesn't want to invest in new 4:3 talent since his ultimate goal is an effective 3:4 defense. The problem, as was pointed out in the earlier 3:4 threads, is that there is no way for the Skins to significantly invest in 3:4 personnel given the extreme dearth of talent for the Offense.

Skins have a first round pick; a second round pick; and a couple extra picks in rounds 5-7. I'd like to use the top picks and at least one of the round 5-7 picks on the offense. But the Skins aren't going to find a high potential two-gap NT in rounds 5-7 nor is one going to be cut by another team. Without a true NT (and perhaps one more real 3-4 DE) I think we have to expect that the Defense is going to stink going forward. Still, without a significant influx of talent for the Offense we KNOW the offense is going to stink. One or two TDs per game scored by the Offense is not enough to cut it in the NFL. So, we have to recognize that it's going to be a long time for the Skins to turn the corner even if everything goes right.

All true statements.

If we wanted to run with the 3-4, fine. But my point of running it as a 1-gap defense stands. It's closer to a 4-3 and puts our personnel in a much better position... Although we'd still lack major peices and talent, it wouldn't be as bad as it is.

[tshile]

Armstrong was on the practice squad last year. So he's not a Shanahan find. As far as predicting he'd do well, no, most wouldn't have. But he's not a credit to Shanahan.

I'm not giving the credit to anyone specifically. i'm pointing out that you can't predict players like that will have an impact. you asked me how long it takes. i said 2-3 years, depending on how many players you pick up (like armstrong) that you got just to have a body, and turn out to be contributors. if you're only going to hit on 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks, its going to take a long long time. but if you get lucky on UDFA's, and players that are sitting around waiting because no other team wants them, you can drastically shortern the rebuild time. Espeically if you pick someoneup, coach them up, and grow them as player (something thsi organization has not done in over 2 decades).

Another player who might pan out is the RB James. He looked ok yesterday, and has a little pickup in his step. Who knows, you hit on a few of these 'long shot' guys, and you have a completelyd ifferent situation. look at tampa bay. a bunch of no namers, all of the suden looking pretty good....

How many of those 24 are over the age of 30? That's the crux of the problem. Signing 30+ year olds isn't rebuilding, it's a win now move.

This 'we only got old players' is kind of overused, and misguided. people just throw thsi around without actually looking it up. here's the number of players who are 30+, or will be 30+ before the end of the year:

buchanon *

carter

daniels

dockery

fletcher

grossman *

hicks *

holliday *

kemoeatu *

mcnabb *

rabach

sellers

smith

the ones with a * are the ones he brought in. Everyone else was on the team when he got here. That includes Smith, who he cut then brought back.

so, 6 of your 26 CURRENLTY on the active roster that shanahan brought in are over 30. Obviously galloway makes 7, but it also makes 26 players go to 27, i'm using the current active roster.

if you want to count bidwell and furrery who are on IR, that makes 9, but again its now 9 out of 29, not 9 out of 26.

so please, stop with this 'we only got old players' garbage. go look it up yoruself. 20 of the 26 players brought in on the current active roster are under the age of 30.

in fact, we brought in at least 29 new players this year.

that is ALOT.

So bench the guy we traded two picks for in order to see what we have in... John Beck? Not following. Beck is 29. He's not the answer long or short term. Granted, compared to McNabb he's a spring chicken . I'd rather struggle with Campbell and have had our second rounder this year and our third/fourth next year. We could've stunk with Campbell while keeping picks. Or hell, we could have signed Grossman if we didn't want to go with Campbell. Trading Campbell netted us picks, so Grossman would have been even better. McNabb shouldn't have been put on the roster. He was a miscalculation, error, whatever you want to call it. He doesn't fit with the time frame for a rebuild for this team. The FO is trying to do two things at once and we're doing neither well. That's not to say McNabb doesn't have some talent still. But on a rebuilding team he's not a fit.

because what do we have to learn from mcnabb playing? that he'll throw the ball into the dirt? risk a career ending injury? further devalue his trade value?

we have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

we might as well see whats goin gon with with the guys behind him.

[justice98]

Given Shanahan's track record of turning over D-coordinators, I wonder if he decides to dump Haslett, will he bring in another 3-4 D-coordinator or will he chalk the struggles up to lack of 3-4 personnel.

[PlayAction]

All in all, this thread proves to me that everybody who comes on this board talking about rebuilding is blowing smoke up their asses. We're seeing a rebuilding on the defense, with this year being an audition for who will actually stay in this 3-4 defense. Guess what; the fans are ****ing. Imagine if we had gone for an all out, tear it down to the foundations rebuild, which, considering the schedule and the fact that we didn't have pieces to work with, would have made us 2-14 or worse? While I wouldn't mind (though I'd have to endure a lot of crap from friends and family), "Redskins Nation" would have gone ballistic. Even more so when Shanny declares, UFL castoffs and undrafted FAs and all, that we're looking to win the Super Bowl.

Yes, there is an audition for the players to actually stay in the 3:4 defense and a good number of the Dline, LBs and perhaps one or more of the safeties are failing. The rebuild on defense is just beginning and there is a need for a large number of new players that hopefully will be able to play well in the 3-4. We can't expect that all the eventual new players will work out well. After all, Kemoatu is the perfect 3-4 NT but sucked this year. There will be other newly acquired players that don't make it. The problem is that the need for talent on the other side of the ball is equally great. So, how do the Skins go about this daunting task going forward?

Are we looking at a five year rebuild (from today) or a three year rebuild?

[maskedsuperstar]

Can you imagine how much better we'd be with a 4-3 defense and better play calling this year?

Carter-Haynesworth-(rotation)-Orakpo

Rocky-Fletcher-Whoever wins the battle between Perry Riley/HB Blades/Chris Wilson/Lorenzo Alexander

So much better than this bull****. Kemo has little to nothing left in the tank. Carter can't get on the field. Orakpo is NOT a 3-4 OLB. Even Fletcher has looked lost and you know he's giving it his all.

Yeah, because last year, this defense was outstanding? With Albert rolling around on the ground, Blache and his BS.

More crap. Doesn't matter the scheme. no tackling, no winning. And yesterday I saw missed tackles for 4 qtrs. So don't blame the 3-4. Orakp lost containment on the Giants first score. Moore missed a tackle along with Rocky, on Jacobs 39 yd run. Don't give me a bunch of excuses. The players suck!!

[PlayAction]

Given Shanahan's track record of turning over D-coordinators, I wonder if he decides to dump Haslett, will he bring in another 3-4 D-coordinator or will he chalk the struggles up to lack of 3-4 personnel.

I'd be worried if Shanahan pulls the trigger after only one year. That would be a knee jerk reaction and indicates that Shanahan did not properly evaluate Haslett before he made the decision to hire him. Of course, the former Dallas head coach would make a great Dcoordinator.

[Diss]

It was a total mistake. The epitome of the "forcing a square peg in a round hole" cliche.

I hate to always go back to Gibbs in 1981, but it's a strong point. He brought in a new offense initially, one that he thought was the future of the NFL, but he realized after five games that he didn't have the right personnel to run it and he changed. If he'd have continued to try to force that offense on the team, we might have never had those glory years.

You don't install a new system like the 3-4 while you're WAITING TO GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE. You install it AFTER YOU HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE. It's ridiculous logic, because the guys who aren't cut out for the system are gonna be let go anyway, and then you've wasted all that time trying to teach them how to run your "brilliant" defense. It's been proven time and time again in this league - successful coaches adapt to their talent, they don't make their talent adapt to their system. It was doomed to fail from the very start.

Our o-lines and d-lines are among the dregs of the league. And that's where you win, and obviously lose, games. It's absolutely embarrassing and humiliating to see us get smacked around within the division year after year. Remember when the St. Louis Cardinals used to be the whipping boys of the division? That's what we are now.

As for the fault of the defensive performance? I certainly blame Haslett, obviously. I mean, the buck stops with Shanahan, but Haslett has been abused this season, and the defense has not improved. Yesterday showed a team that lost its heart.

[NattyBo]

It's not the scheme, it's the players. I guess everyone wants to just ignore the fact that the Giants blew us out in a 4-3 last year and generally hang as many points as they want on us. The players we have, by and large, just are not good enough.

We have like, 3, maybe 4 defensive players worth keeping. Even the vaunted Orakpo is a massive liability in coverage and isn't that great against the run. It is what it is. We need more high quality players on D, especially on the lines, but unfortunately, they're not just walking the streets. We need to draft them and then make a free agent moves to compliment.

[maskedsuperstar]

It was a mistake, we had pieces in place to field a solid 4-3 defense and we knew we need a total rebuild on offense. We had good 4-3 players, like Carter, Daniels, Rocky, Golston, Haynesworth, Orakpo. Now we have to rebuild both sides of the ball. Completely overhaul both the offensive and defensive lines, it makes no sense.

At this point it is best if we just lower our expectations for the Redskins, be happy we didn't get shut out yesterday. There are no Super Bowls or playoff runs in the future.

The same solid group that couldn't stop the Giants last year? Eagles? Cowboys? O-6 in the division and 4-12. Don't let the stats fool you. The defense couldn't stop anybody when it mattered.

What offense was scared of the Skins defense?

[#98QBKiller]

Switching the defense to a 3-4 wa a gigantic mistake that will set us back at least two seasons IMO. In a 4-3 scheme we have one of the best and deepest defensive lines in football. Switch to a 3-4 and the team is left with gigantic holes on the defensive side of the ball.

There are a lot of very good 4-3 defenses having success in the NFL. The Giants, Bears, Eagles, Saints and Vikings all run a 4-3 with a lot of success.

Our 4-3 under Blache didn't get a lot of turnovers but at least it kept us in most games. Shanahaslett taking an already good defense and trying to reinvent the wheel has seriously hurt this team. I think taking the defense that Blache ran last year and tweaking it to be more aggressive would've fielded much better results than the on-field turd we are subjected to every Sunday.

[maskedsuperstar]

It was a total mistake. The epitome of the "forcing a square peg in a round hole" cliche.

I hate to always go back to Gibbs in 1981, but it's a strong point. He brought in a new offense initially, one that he thought was the future of the NFL, but he realized after five games that he didn't have the right personnel to run it and he changed. If he'd have continued to try to force that offense on the team, we might have never had those glory years.

You don't install a new system like the 3-4 while you're WAITING TO GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE. You install it AFTER YOU HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE. It's ridiculous logic, because the guys who aren't cut out for the system are gonna be let go anyway, and then you've wasted all that time trying to teach them how to run your "brilliant" defense. It's been proven time and time again in this league - successful coaches adapt to their talent, they don't make their talent adapt to their system. It was doomed to fail from the very start.

Our o-lines and d-lines are among the dregs of the league. And that's where you win, and obviously lose, games. It's absolutely embarrassing and humiliating to see us get smacked around within the division year after year. Remember when the St. Louis Cardinals used to be the whipping boys of the division? That's what we are now.

As for the fault of the defensive performance? I certainly blame Haslett, obviously. I mean, the buck stops with Shanahan, but Haslett has been abused this season, and the defense has not improved. Yesterday showed a team that lost its heart.

So, in the meantime, while the coaches wait to get all the right players for the 3-4, what defense do they play? The 4-3, playing with 3-4 players? Makes no sense at all.

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 10:16 AM ----------

Switching the defense to a 3-4 wa a gigantic mistake that will set us back at least two seasons IMO. In a 4-3 scheme we have one of the best and deepest defensive lines in football. Switch to a 3-4 and the team is left with gigantic holes on the defensive side of the ball.

There are a lot of very good 4-3 defenses having success in the NFL. The Giants, Bears, Eagles, Saints and Vikings all run a 4-3 with a lot of success.

Our 4-3 under Blache didn't get a lot of turnovers but at least it kept us in most games. Shanahaslett taking an already good defense and trying to reinvent the wheel has seriously hurt this team. I think taking the defense that Blache ran last year and tweaking it to be more aggressive would've fielded much better results than the on-field turd we are subjected to every Sunday.

bottom line is that the defense didn't stop anybody. The 4-3 defense was run over last year by the Giants. Give it a rest.

---------- Post added December-6th-2010 at 10:17 AM ----------

I'd be worried if Shanahan pulls the trigger after only one year. That would be a knee jerk reaction and indicates that Shanahan did not properly evaluate Haslett before he made the decision to hire him. Of course, the former Dallas head coach would make a great Dcoordinator.

Wade has ties to Shanny.

[KDawg]

so please, stop with this 'we only got old players' garbage. go look it up yoruself. 20 of the 26 players brought in on the current active roster are under the age of 30.

9/29 is 31%. That's a ton of old dudes for a rebuilding project

because what do we have to learn from mcnabb playing?.

What do we have with him playing, period?

[justice98]

I'd be worried if Shanahan pulls the trigger after only one year. That would be a knee jerk reaction and indicates that Shanahan did not properly evaluate Haslett before he made the decision to hire him. Of course, the former Dallas head coach would make a great Dcoordinator.

But Shanny went through a stretch in Denver where he had 5 D-coordinators in 5 years, it wouldn't be out of the norm for him. When it comes to D-coordinators, he doesn't have much patience.

[Redskins4ever]

Yes, it's a mistake when you try to install a 3-4 defense without the proper personnel. While the Redskins have gotten more turnovers this year on defense and while LaRon Landry has had the most productive season of his young career, the defense has still given up gigantic amounts of yardage. You look at teams like New England, Baltimore and Pittsburgh defensively, and they both can effectively contain the run and pass. I don't think Haynesworth or Kemo are true NTs for one. Lorenzo Alexander, Andre Carter and others have had to transition from being defensive lineman, where they are most effective to being LBs. They clearly don't have the personnel. If we had a Terrell Suggs or a James Farrior, then we'd have the right personnel. But as for now, the Redskins have players playing out of position. Mike Shanahan can do one of two things: He can either switch back to the 4-3 and make it easier for everyone next season, or he can try to continue living this pipe dream with this ineffective 3-4 defense that he has put in place.

[tshile]

9/29 is 31%. That's a ton of old dudes for a rebuilding project

give me a break.

we had no picks in the 2nd and 3rd round.

we were in a free agency period that was all screwed up because of the pending CBA.

if you can't understand that some of those guys were bodies, then i don' tknow what to tell you

you wanted 100% young guys? it wasn't possible without keeping some of the younger guys from before.

you can burry your head in the sand if you want, but they brought in a ton of guys, most of which are under the age of 30. but go ahead, continue with your blind argument.

What do we have with him playing, period?

i didn't like the mcnabb move when we made it

i don't like it now

i don't think we really have an argument on this topic... i think you an i are in agreement here...

i didn't like the move for the sole reason that we weren't a QB away from being good.

the fact that he's garbage makes just piles onto the matter.

[PeterMP]

give me a break.

we had no picks in the 2nd and 3rd round.

we were in a free agency period that was all screwed up because of the pending CBA.

if you can't understand that some of those guys were bodies, then i don' tknow what to tell you

you wanted 100% young guys? it wasn't possible without keeping some of the younger guys from before.

Nobody is saying they wanted 100% young guys.

There is something in between 100% young guys and the oldest roster in the league (at the start of the season) that could have been achieved at the start of the season.

And even could be improved upon now.

[KDawg]

give me a break.

we had no picks in the 2nd and 3rd round.

we were in a free agency period that was all screwed up because of the pending CBA.

if you can't understand that some of those guys were bodies, then i don' tknow what to tell you

you wanted 100% young guys? it wasn't possible without keeping some of the younger guys from before.

you can burry your head in the sand if you want, but they brought in a ton of guys, most of which are under the age of 30. but go ahead, continue with your blind argument.

Bury my head in the sand, I'd argue that it's you who's doing that, amigo. But, apparently we just see some things differently. And that's okay.

[tshile]

Bury my head in the sand, I'd argue that it's you who's doing that, amigo. But, apparently we just see some things differently. And that's okay.

sorry - it just looks like you've lumped yourself in with the rest of the people on this board who take a one liner and run with it, instead of seeing if it's actually true.

i don't think having at least 20 of the at least 29 players you brought in, in one offseason, being under 30 is 'bringing in a bunch of old players' (if 30 is your bench mark, which is what you posted. if you want to argue 25 and older, then we'd be having a different conversation. many of the players are between 25-30).

it's a misguided statement that people have run with. it's not the first, and wont be the last. people on this board do it all the time.

[KDawg]

sorry - it just looks like you've lumped yourself in with the rest of the people on this board who take a one liner and run with it, instead of seeing if it's actually true.

Giving my posting history, I'd think you'd know that I do my research. But then again, you may not be familiar with me. So I guess I can see where you're coming from.

i don't think having at least 20 of the at least 29 players you brought in, in one offseason, being under 30 is 'bringing in a bunch of old players' (if 30 is your bench mark, which is what you posted. if you want to argue 25 and older, then we'd be having a different conversation. many of the players are between 25-30).

I'd never use 25 as a bench mark. I used 30 to make a point about our age. I'd consider anything 27 and above to be aging. 30+, though, is old to the point where they will not help in the future. Keeping the old guys figures into that as well. I can live with a few 27/28 year olds if it means less 30 year olds.

[TMK9973]

Big Mistake - If you wanted to implement some of the 3 -4 defense to run at various times - do it. There was NO reason why it had to be done all this year.

There was a time in Football where the GM and Coaches were always different people. The GM would find the best talent available and the coaches would look at their players and say "What do THESE players do best".

Now it seems coaches are soo stuck on their "System" they refuse to change no matter what.

It's a joke.