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

[PlayAction]

I'd love to load up on some linemen this draft. We could use another DE, a couple guards, and obviously the NT/C you mentioned. This team needs to build from the inside out. Corners/RBs/QBs/WR's/FS/SS can all look much much better than they are when they have a good line in front of them.

Yes, but Skins only have a first and second round pick and then none until rounds 5-7. Skins do have a few extra picks in the low rounds but frequently those players are ones that aren't expected to be significant contributors until they've had a couple of years experience (assuming they even make the team). Skins are going to have to do their best to compensate for their weaknesses.

[ADF]

The coaches and the players are the problem. With the limited draft picks we had and with the current CBA situation, there was no way they could have acquired all of the players they needed to make the change. I had no problem switching to the 3-4 eventually. Our front seven was already filled with old guys on their way out. They should have just stuck with the 4-3 this season and transition to it next season or whenever you had the capital to do so. When I heard that they were going to the 3-4 before the draft, I was sure there were some big trades in the works that would have given us the picks we needed.

Also, I think the defense is soft. The players didn't hit like they should have during training camp. There weren't enough full tackle practices and it shows. I also don't trust a guy like Haslett with the x's and o's. I don't like our chances against some of the better OC's in the NFL.

[PlayAction]

A Robert Mathis/ Dwight Freeney pass rush would be considered way too small in a 3-4. The 3-4 makes up for this by freeing one one of the linebackers to get involved with the pass rush. The problem is that the person that you need to send in needs to be a special athlete, with the pass rush of DE, and the coverage of a LB, this again is a very tough to find player (this would be your Ware/Orakpo player).

When 16 teams are competing for this type of player, they become overpriced, and often times, miss used. They are typically better at either rushing the passer, or pass coverage.

The 3-4 is weaker against the run, with fewer, slower players on the line, the chances of your D getting a stuff behind the line are lower. Because you have typically smaller players on the field, it is easier for OLinemen to control the play, and most of the defenders are lined up farther back, putting them in a tougher position to stop the run.

The supposed advantage of the 3-4 is that it is better against the pass, because you have 4 quicker LBs to go into coverage. I think this advantage is WAY over stated. If you put 4 LBs in coverage, then you only have 3 slow D Linemen pressuring the QB. If you also send in one LB, then you are sending in one true pass rusher, and 3 slow DLinemen, and you are back to the same thing as a 4-3. The one true advantage that the 3-4 has is that the O should not know which LB they will send in to help the pass rush, supposedly making the coverage harder to read, and the pass rush harder to pick up. But if you are used to facing a 3-4, reading and picking up the extra guy becomes easier, and could nullify the advantage of the system but still be exposed to its weaknesses.

Now, if you are able to put together a good 3-4 properly, so that your NT is actually dominate, you have 3 linemen that can constantly eat up blocks, and you do have LBs that are able to both blitz and cover on any given play, then the 3-4 is very dangerous.

But that requires a lot of talent, and I think a 4-3 with a lot of talent is just as dangerous, but easier to staff if you don't have all the talent.

I question the comment that Orakpo is good at pass coverage. In college he played entirely DE so he doesn't have as much experience in coverage. I really haven't seen any great coverage skills during the games. As a pass rush specialist he also needs to improve his repetoire of moves. He's getting twice the number of rushing opportunities but the outcome is still similar to last year.

Regarding 3-4 versus 4-3 strengths and weaknesses - I think there are examples of 4-3 fronts that were strong against both the run and pass and the same is true for the 3-4. It all depends on how they are put together; the quality of coaches; and the caliber of players.

[elkabong82]

People were slamming the Packers D and making similar comments/arguments against the switch when they sucked their first year in transition. I don't think they have a problem with the switch now. In other words, we have to allow more than 1 season before we can accurately judge if the decision was the right one.

[PlayAction]

And a few DEs that can play. But yes. We SORELY need a NT if we're going to stick with the 3-4. This is one of the issues I have. Teaching the 2-gap to a bunch of guys who probably won't be here. We could have one gapped it and eased the 2-gap in with the guys we have, and then add more 2-gap next year, and full implementation the third season. But we don't see that. But, I guess I can't fully judge. I'm not in meetings and I don't have a copy of the playbook. It's an assumption based on watching the team.

Skins made a mistake strategically in converting to the 3-4 in their first year. But, they also made tactical mistakes in implementing the new front. Haynesworth has always been a penetrating DT that liked to disrupt plays in the backfield. He never had gap control responsibilities in Tennessee (other players would have to cover for him). So, to expect him to handle read-and-react responsibilities in the 2-gap defense is about as foolish as expecting Andre Carter to perform well in pass coverage responsibilities. Moreover, the true 2-gap NT on the roster was one year away from an Achilles tendon injury. It was uncertain whether he would be able to hold up over a full season. So, could some of the problems have been avoiding but running the one-gap scheme that you proposed prior to the season? Perhaps. Hopefully we will find out in year 2 assuming that the Skins having been able to obtain a true 2 gap NT. If one-gap would work better for a while, I'd rather devote resources to the offense and replacements for the LB core.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

The 3-4 is like a knuckle ball, it is only very effective, when very few others use it, making it exotic, and confusing. But when you face it all the time, it becomes easy to exploit, and only the top talents can continue to succeed at it. In the 90s, there were maybe 2 teams using the 3-4, now, half the league uses it. That takes away from the exotic and confusing nature that they 3-4 had in the 90s.

Actually, the majority of the NFL used the 3-4 in the 70s I think. It's kind of cyclical.

The other problem is that it is harder to staff. All the D linemen need to be big. The NT needs to be a freak of nature. There are not 16 freaks of Nature available in the NFL at NT. The only teams that have the great NTs, are the teams that have already been using the 3-4 for a long time. A great NT would rather play for a team that has been successful at the system for a while. Because NTs are so rare, and so many teams have 3-4s now, it means all the teams fight over the available NTs, over pay them for the relative talent that they provide, and are left with less resources for the rest of the team. NTs are typically are to draft as well, they all end up going high, and many of them don't pan out.

You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and I just explained this. If anything, the 4-3 is harder to staff than the 3-4. The Chargers are starting a guy at NT who wasn't in the league for 2 years because of a shattered leg. Several of the starting NTs for top defenses are 3rd and 4th round picks, or castoffs from other teams. The only NT that was drafted high in recent years was BJ Raij; Hampton was a #19 pick and Wilfork was a #21. How many top picks at end are running around? Ngata and Castillo are the only 1st round DEs who are elite in the 3-4. Meanwhile a guy like Chris Canty is a 4th round pick and is a solid player at end before he goes to NY to be a 4-3 tackle. Brett Keisel was a 5th round pick? The Chiefs invested two top 5 picks on the 3-4 defensive line, and while Dorsey is quietly becoming a solid player, so far Tyson Jackson has been kinda sort of a bust.

The next problem is that because the whole D Line must be so big, they are slow. The D Linemen perusing the QB will all be slower. A Robert Mathis/ Dwight Freeney pass rush would be considered way too small in a 3-4. The 3-4 makes up for this by freeing one one of the linebackers to get involved with the pass rush. The problem is that the person that you need to send in needs to be a special athlete, with the pass rush of DE, and the coverage of a LB, this again is a very tough to find player (this would be your Ware/Orakpo player).

We got him, so what's the big deal? The Steelers found their guy on the practice squad. And their LBs suck in coverage. The Chargers found Shaun Phillips in the 4th, who is no super athlete.

Like I had mentioned earlier, the 3-4 defenses we see are not studded with talent in any way. The Jets don't even have a legitimate edge rusher! The Ravens have Ngata on the line, and a few other solid guys.The Steelers had Hampton, but Brett Keisel and Aaron Smith are not physically dominant in any sense of the word. The Chargers have a guy coming off a shattered leg, Luis Castillo, and some other fill-in guy. The Ravens platoon at NT, with Cody/Bannan/Gregg playing NT.

Let's compare with the Giants - a high second round pick on one side (Osi), a 3rd round pick on the other (Tuck); both are athletic freaks. In the middle is Chris Canty, who is both quick and strong. Backing them up are more athletic studs in Pierre Paul and Kiwanuka. And you want to tell me the the 4-3 is harder to staff?

How about the Saints? A top 10 pick at MLB, 2 top 10 picks at DE, a top 10 pick at DT, yeah so easy to staff. Let's compare to the Ravens, who have a top 10 DE and a top 10 OLB taken relatively recently; other than that, they've mostly plugged in mid to late rounders.

The 3-4 is weaker against the run, with fewer, slower players on the line, the chances of your D getting a stuff behind the line are lower. Because you have typically smaller players on the field, it is easier for OLinemen to control the play, and most of the defenders are lined up farther back, putting them in a tougher position to stop the run.

First you said that the whole D-Line must be big and slow, now you said they are smaller. I don't see the Ravens, Jets or Steelers having these problems you allude to.

The supposed advantage of the 3-4 is that it is better against the pass, because you have 4 quicker LBs to go into coverage. I think this advantage is WAY over stated. If you put 4 LBs in coverage, then you only have 3 slow D Linemen pressuring the QB. If you also send in one LB, then you are sending in one true pass rusher, and 3 slow DLinemen, and you are back to the same thing as a 4-3. The one true advantage that the 3-4 has is that the O should not know which LB they will send in to help the pass rush, supposedly making the coverage harder to read, and the pass rush harder to pick up. But if you are used to facing a 3-4, reading and picking up the extra guy becomes easier, and could nullify the advantage of the system but still be exposed to its weaknesses.

No, it's better against the pass because it's highly unpredictable in the hands of a good playcaller. Modern QBs and offenses are geared towards short passes to set up the big play, and the top QBs are masters at getting the ball out lightning fast, or creating more time with their legs. The 3-4 is better against this because, while in general the 4-3 is designed to bring pressure from the edges (especially if you don't have a dominant penetrating DT), the 3-4 can bring pressure from everywhere.

The idea that the 3-4 is somehow hard to staff is very misguided; it just relies on quality scouting and finding guys who fit the scheme, rather than just getting the best athlete and trying to coach him up.

[#98QBKiller]

They don't have much talent. Plain and simple.

Definitely untrue. When nearly half of your defense is made up of Pro-Bowl caliber players, you can't say that they don't have much talent.

Aside from the five players mentioned, we also have a very good CB in Carlos Rogers, a good OLB in Rocky McIntosh, a good all-around defensive player in Lorenzo Alexander, another pass-rushing threat in Andre Carter (obviously when he's used as a DE) and good depth off the bench in guys like Jarmon, Daniels (great against the run), H.B. Blades and even in the secondary we have good nickel depth with Buchanon and Barnes.

Orakpo and Hall regressed did they? From what I can see Orakpo needs 2.5 in the next 4 games to tie his sack total from last season and through 12 weeks he has as many fumbles/pass deflections as he did all last year.

Hall already has more interceptions and also has the fumble he stripped out and returned for a TD.

So Fletcher who's getting old and isn't part of the future of this team regressed, and that POS Haynesworth regressed.

So Orakpo might reach last year's sack total but imagine where he would be if he wasn't required to drop into coverage and defend against the pass. And outside of the Chicago game, Hall is sitting at a whopping two interceptions on the year.

And we don't know if Haynesworth has regressed because it appears that personal issues are keeping the coaching staff from finding a way to get him on the field. Also, I wouldn't say that Fletcher isn't in the future of this team, at least in the short term. Linebackers tend to have long careers and are able to perform at a higher level than a lot of other positions.

The point is, this team's defense is built to run the 4-3. And it's built fairly well to play in that scheme. When the team is giving up more yards and points-per-game than last year and the only difference is the scheme, then that falls on the coaching staff. We already knew that there were going to be lots of holes to fill on the offensive side of the ball. By changing our defensive scheme to one that does not suit the personnel, Shanahan/Haslett have created another wealth of holes on the team.

That would be ok if the plan was to truly rebuild, but the trading of draft picks for McNabb tells us that Shanahan didn't plan on rebuilding from scratch and wanted to win now.

If the goal was to successfully implement the 3-4 here, then some sort of transitional plan needed to be in place to keep the defense competitive while we acquired the correct personnel to run the scheme. IMO, that's just an example of poor planning on the part of the coaching staff.

[CaliforniaSkin]

People were slamming the Packers D and making similar comments/arguments against the switch when they sucked their first year in transition. I don't think they have a problem with the switch now. In other words, we have to allow more than 1 season before we can accurately judge if the decision was the right one.

But the Packers were able to concentrate on defense in the draft - their offense was already in pretty good shape when they made the switch. Not to mention the fact that they hadn't traded away picks the way we've done.

That's the real objection in my mind. Our D didn't scare anyone, but it wasn't last in the league either. When the decision to make the switch was made, last offseason, we had holes at every offensive position other than TE - hardly the time to create more holes by switching defensive scheme.

[Brixtion_skin]

I'll add. I think there is going to be an issue with running the 3-4. There is always going to be a limit on NT like players, and it isn't a position where you can hide a poor player.

As more teams run the 3-4, you are going to have more competition for those players.

Right now, everybody that wants to run a 3-4 (except us) can find a "good" NT. That won't be the case as more teams run a 3-4, and we might be a victim of this right now.

To a certain, extent, I think over the next 5 years or so the advantage might swing back to the 4-3 as there is less competition for the players fitting that scheme and more "bad" teams play a 3-4, as there aren't enough people to fit that scheme so people are running a 3-4 w/ below average talent as they try and fit the pieces together..

I'd likely not have moved to 3-4 until I was pretty sure I had a 3-4 NT (which they might have thought they had in Hayensworth or Nemo).

Interesting thinking. This makes sense. Its a shame, I can't see us changing direction now.

[Dirt]

I think the reason you must label it a MISTAKE, is that when Shanny decided to go with it, he probably expected the numbers to drop...but he probably expected it to stay competitive, and get better through the season. There's talent on this defense, a few big name guys. He figured with that, it would have to work itself out. "this year may be rough, but we're building"

..

"oops, now we're dead last"

And getting thoroughly embarrassed in the meantime. Pick your poison, you can pass for 600 yards, or you can have two 100yd rushers. Hell, you can even block our punts and field goals if you like. It is an absolute disgrace of a defense. PROUD guys, who are used to punishing teams have been put in a position to FAIL. To answer that question: of course it's on the coaches, these same guys are used to producing, and stopping teams. A half a year removed: they are not.

It simply doesn't work. A good NT would do NOTHING, imo. I'm no coordinator, but I swear, every time I see them line up I can call the play. I'm like a psychic, seriously. Rogers/Buchannon/whoever is 7 yards away from his man. During the play, he's running toward the endzone, every time. Cutback route..really ANY route besides a go/post, and it's a catch because the defender is way behind him. It's really blowing my mind. I seriously consider whether I know more than Haslett during the game, it's ridiculous. Worse yet, it goes all game that way. This kid named Sam in St Louis figured our D out in 5 minutes and we made no adjustments. Just kept keeping those corners back.

(oops, I'm venting...)

Anyway, yes I think it was a mistake. I think Shanny made it. It was up to him to tell Has "NO, too early for a change, I don't want our guys in the wrong position". Going forward? Well, frankly it just sucks. Firing Has and changing the scheme back would look weak. It would make Shanny look like he doesn't know what he's doing in DC. However, if he sticks with it, and we continue to get embarrassed for the next two years, Shanny will look like a stubborn ass. The draft will not make the 3-4 magically work. At least not Has' version of it. I guess if I had my way, I would get rid of Has, and bring in another 3-4 guy who knows what the hell he's doing. Just look at Jim freaking Haslett on the sideline all game. Shaking his head, looking upset, looking confused. Yelling at guys for not tackling when he should be making in-game adjustments. Sending out the same old predictable crap for 60 minutes....(whoops, venting....... )

[whitejimmy]

That would be ok if the plan was to truly rebuild, but the trading of draft picks for McNabb tells us that Shanahan didn't plan on rebuilding from scratch and wanted to win now.

That was certainly the impression that a lot of us had. Trading picks for a veteran QB, like Minnesota getting Favre, is a win-now move on the surface. However, I think Allen/Shanahan knew they weren't going to win the SB in 2010 during a time when they'd be switching defenses and offensive blocking schemes. I think the McNabb move was done to bring in a QB that could avoid the rush and provide some leadership, while rebuilding the rest of the roster. People who argue that "if we were planning to rebuild, why not just keep Campbell" must have forgotten how the season ended last year. If we still had that statue with this line, we would be 1-11. At least with McNabb we've usually been competitive.

[skinsrbeast]

That was certainly the impression that a lot of us had. Trading picks for a veteran QB, like Minnesota getting Favre, is a win-now move on the surface. However, I think Allen/Shanahan knew they weren't going to win the SB in 2010 during a time when they'd be switching defenses and offensive blocking schemes. I think the McNabb move was done to bring in a QB that could avoid the rush and provide some leadership, while rebuilding the rest of the roster. People who argue that "if we were planning to rebuild, why not just keep Campbell" must have forgotten how the season ended last year. If we still had that statue with this line, we would be 1-11. At least with McNabb we've usually been competitive.

Also towards end of Mcnabb's contract he would be a perfect fit to groom our next QB

[martin49]

The system is suspect and the personnel is suspect. Tackling is attrocious. Players are constantly out of position. So it truly is a combination of both coaching and player break downs. And you cant win with it. Is there talent here? Ofcourse. But not enough for a 3-4. Time will tell. Probably 2 to 3 years away from being good if Shanny or Haslett lasts that long.

[KDawg]

People were slamming the Packers D and making similar comments/arguments against the switch when they sucked their first year in transition. I don't think they have a problem with the switch now. In other words, we have to allow more than 1 season before we can accurately judge if the decision was the right one.

They also had two starting caliber nose tackles at the start of the season. And they played lights out towards the middle of the season. We're in week 14 now. The light is off. No flickers.

[Destino]

Look at the numbers for the Packers transition and tell me how long they spent LAST IN THE LEAGUE. The use of the Packers as an excuse for the utter failure the system has been in DC is a laugh.

---------- Post added December-7th-2010 at 12:00 AM ----------

They aren't tackling because of Age.

Top ten last year is LAUGHABLE. Do you realize what our strength of schedule was last year verse this year? Consistently calling our defense top 10 in the league last year is a bigger cop out to avoid the glaring obvious. Last years team playing this years schedule would have been a slaughter in worse proportions.

Phillip Daniels? Really? Vonnie Holiday? Really? Our list of d-lineman is long, and most wouldn't see the field on other teams.

Stop over selling last years defense. Thats the ultimate cop out. Even the perennial professional Fletcher has shown his age has caught up to him. He has lost a step.

We are old and slow, and that's why we can't tackle. It's not because of the scheme.

More complete nonsense.

Andre Carter is an above average DE. What is he now? He doesn't even start

Haynesworth went from monster to nobody.

Our linebackers went from good to bad in this system because they don't FIT.

Hell our entire line went from a decent line last season to absolute garbage.

This system doesn't use the talent this team had and pretending otherwise is laughable. Complete cop out blaming the players when they had been fine until this coaching staff arrived. I'm not over selling anything the number speak for themselves. They were great but they were GOOD. They are now a pile of flaming garbage.

[drowland]

People were slamming the Packers D and making similar comments/arguments against the switch when they sucked their first year in transition. I don't think they have a problem with the switch now. In other words, we have to allow more than 1 season before we can accurately judge if the decision was the right one.

The Packers did it the right way. They stock piled picks and drafted a lot of young players, took their lumps early and developed them. They actually got better as the year went on.

The Redskins have a lot of stopgaps, and not many draft picks. Carriker is the only guy on the DL that may have a future here. The rest of them will be gone. They still need LBs. They need another safety and at least one more CB.

[Seabee1973]

I think actually playing in the system for a season will actually help these gusy out rather than wait till we have a few more pieces then have 3-4 pieces playing out of position because they dont have all the pieces. Should Andy Reid have not run the WCO in his first year in philly because all the players were not WCO type players?

[ABSTRACT]

We just need to start by drafting a great 3-4 DE this draft when we trade up out of the top 10. Then get a NT in FA.

[paloosa]

It clearly is worse for THIS year and probably for NEXT year as well.

But the NFL is trending towards such a pass happy offensive league that the 3-4 will become the most prevalent system.

We need to play that for years to come, so while it sucks this year (and warning to all, for next as well), it's a necessary switch.

I beg to differ with you on this because the majority of the teams run a 4-3 and not 3-4. The problem with the switch is that the guy we have running it isn't that great of a DC. Like I have said in previous posts about Haslett. He has had only two top ten defenses in his entire career and has only been in the top 15 another two times. If you don't believe me look it up. What is more important to the team to have, A top ten defense or more turnovers? We choose to have more turnovers which resulted in a defense that gets gashed for over 200 yards rushing and over 250 yards passing every week. We give up over 430+ yards a game on defense. We have allowed opponents to put up over 24+ points a game while we only score an average below 20. What has changed? The only thing that has changed is the defensive scheme and the coach running it. Don't be surprise when next year this defense will be in the bottom half of the league again in defense. It fits the DC's MO. So don't blame the defense on anyone other than the coaching staff and the FO. They are the ones that hired Haslett.