Hubbs Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 That's not to say that we had enough offseason roster turnover to make an immediate and dramatic shift. We didn't. But that's mostly our own damn fault, thanks to continuously mortgaging our future for the present. Our players aren't the focus of this thread, however. A lot of people have complained about the 3-4 just to complain about the 3-4. Those complaints are misguided, IMO. There's a reason that Shanny is so enamored with the scheme. To use this year's best teams as a measuring stick, the AFC was viewed to be significantly stronger than the NFC, and the Steelers' 3-4 defense had to beat the Ravens' 3-4 defense before defeating the Jets' 3-4 defense, which in turn had to conquer the Patriots' 3-4 defense in order to face Pittsburgh. Meanwhile, the NFC's lone 3-4 playoff team is headed to the Super Bowl. Discuss. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddub52 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It's all coincidental Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR2Drift Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Correlation does not imply causation. There are alot of variables at work to imply that the sole reason these teams made it is due to a defensive formation, without taking into account the GM, coaching, offense, special teams, personnel, injuries, home field advantage, and other factors into account is absurd. Nice try though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Well, as I'm still holding out hope for the day we have the top calibre players and balls to run an attacking 46 D :evilg:; I'm in full concurrence with Hubbs about the 34 being the way forward. The only problem we had was the HC forcing it through so quickly when we didn't have the personnel to fit. But after a pre-season to re-jig and get the players in to make it work, I'm real curious to see what Haslett's unit can do next year. By no means his biggest fan, but the dude deserves another year with more suitable players to see what he can do. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downbeat87 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Do not adjust your tv sets. This is not a test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Yawn better QB play by the Bears and it would have been a 4-3 in the superbowl. We have always been a stellar 4-3 defense and we will continue to suck in the 3-4 next year and the year after that unless the system, the coach and the players are compatible. But we will probably be looking at getting a new head coach by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibbsfan2018 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Just a side note. Both teams also have home grown players on the roster. Sunday shows you CAN build through the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 You could say a lot of things. The Super Bowl pits one franchise QB against another franchise QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 The league is still about 50-50 between the defenses... I think last year's SB was between two 4-3 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 And franchise QB against franchise QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It's not the scheme, it's the execution of that scheme regardless of team. You want to run a certain brand of offense, you need players that can execute it. See how Derrick Dockery, a more than serviceable guard under Joe Bugel's formations, was not able to run the Shanahan zone blocking schemes. Seem thing with the 34 defense, we just don't have players that can execute it well. It seems the only players who truly fit that scheme are Adam Carriker, Anthony Bryant maybe, and Brian Orakpo. You could make an argument for some others, but when only 3 of your front 7 truly feel comfortable in executing your scheme, you're going to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 While I agree that the 3-4 is a "better" system, I do still think changing last year caused significant unnecessary pain and discomfort; and probbaly led directly to 4 games lost that I think we would have won if we maintained the 4-3 STRICTLY due to personnel. I do agree with the original post that the 3-4 is a significant reason why these teams have moved forward - only one reason, but significant nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 This doesn't even justify taking the teams Defensive strength and making it a weakness like we did this year. So what the 2 teams are using a 3-4? If you don't have the personnel to run that your just taking a square and trying to fit it into a round hole. The truth is you can't judge a Defensive change like this over one season so to me the judgment of the move is still out there but there is no denying that in almost every single category on Defensive stats we went down not up with this change and we watched stars like Andre Carter become virtually useless this season because of the non-fit. Many of us since the news was released last year thought we were doing this thought it was a stupid thing to do and still do. How it works out for us has jack **** to do with how it works out for other teams and it's not the scheme alone that got those teams to the big game. It starts and ends with the players. We didn't have the players to run this, those teams do. Good for them. What's that got to do with the Skins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Yawn better QB play by the Bears and it would have been a 4-3 in the superbowl. Technically they run the 46... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Well, as I'm still holding out hope for the day we have the top calibre players and balls to run an attacking 46 D :evilg:; I'm in full concurrence with Hubbs about the 34 being the way forward. The only problem we had was the HC forcing it through so quickly when we didn't have the personnel to fit. But after a pre-season to re-jig and get the players in to make it work, I'm real curious to see what Haslett's unit can do next year. By no means his biggest fan, but the dude deserves another year with more suitable players to see what he can do.Hail. I disagree about it being a problem that the HC forced it through so quickly. In the short term it was a problem but long term it had to be done. We now know who is a good fit and who isn't. Plus we have a year of experience to build on. You have to see how the pieces actually work in a scheme. You can't just look on the back of their football cards and see if they will be a good fit or not. Now it's time to jettison the pieces that don't fit and attempt to bring in pieces that do fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 The Steelers have won 6 Super Bowls, they won 4 of them playing a 4-3 Try again. It's the personnel, not the scheme. Notice that the Packers use a 3-4 that is built around top talent: BJ Raji - #1 pick Clay Matthews - #1 pick AJ Hawk - #1 pick Culen Jenkins will be one of the most sought after free agents in the offseason. And in the secondary the Packers only have last year's Defensive MVP in Charles Woodson and a bevy of other fast, young and athletic corners and safeties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 The Steelers have won 6 Super Bowls, they won 4 of them playing a 4-3 Cowher ran a 4-3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Bulldog knows his ****. You don't change a defense this radically unless you have the personnel to run it. Repeat after me. All good coaches adapt their scheme to best suit the talent of their players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Technically they run the 46... Ahhh, no not at all. Maybe you're thinking about Ditkas' Bears. This Bears group under Lovie Smith doesn't blitz much and primarily plays a 2 deep shell Cover 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 No, Noll won 4 Super Bowls with the 4-3, Cowher ran a 3-4 in 2005 and Tomlin ran a 3-4 in 2008. 4 + 2 = 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 No, Noll won 4 Super Bowls with the 4-3, Cowher ran a 3-4 in 2005 and Tomlin ran a 3-4 in 2008. 4 + 2 = 6. You're right...I was having a brain fart and thought that Tomlin won 2 already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Bulldog knows his ****. You don't change a defense this radically unless you have the personnel to run it. Repeat after me. All good coaches adapt their scheme to best suit the talent of their players. Everyone keeps looking at the D switch as a bad thing because it hurt our chacnes this past season. I say we all knew this roster wasn't good enough to be a playoff roster regardless of the defensive scheme and the smart decision was to find out now who fit and who needed to go to make this 3-4 work in the future. We all clamour for the team to stop thinking and acting so short term and build something real, something sustainable and when they finally do that, everyone wants to hang them for the short term pain it causes. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 No, what I think some of us are saying is that if you don't have the personnel maybe you need to TRANSITION an offense or defense to a scheme over a couple of seasons. Also, when free agents like Larry Foote and others that were experienced in the 3-4 became available the Redskins chose not to sign them and go with players who were being asked to play out of position like Andre Carter and Lorenzo Alexander. And NONE of the players that were asked to play out of position in 2010 played well enough to be considered part of the solution going forward. Right now you are still looking at a front seven for the 3-4 that needs 5 players. Brian Orakpo and London Fletcher to me are the only sure things for 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Everyone keeps looking at the D switch as a bad thing because it hurt our chacnes this past season. I say we all knew this roster wasn't good enough to be a playoff roster regardless of the defensive scheme and the smart decision was to find out now who fit and who needed to go to make this 3-4 work in the future. We all clamour for the team to stop thinking and acting so short term and build something real, something sustainable and when they finally do that, everyone wants to hang them for the short term pain it causes. Go figure. Welcome to ES... ---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 09:27 AM ---------- Right now you are still looking at a front seven for the 3-4 that needs 5 players. Brian Orakpo and London Fletcher to me are the only sure things for 2011. I could make a good argument for Carriker and Anthony Bryant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Welcome to ES...---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 09:27 AM ---------- I could make a good argument for Carriker and Anthony Bryant... Son, you were still in diapers when I joined ES, no welcome needed. Carriker and Bryant, to me, are solid depth on the 3-4 but I would want others as starters. Carriker is maybe borderline as a 3-4 end, he played better down the stretch but ideally he's depth. I would imagine he will be the starter next season, however, as there's just to many other pieces needed to worry about his spot yet. Bulldog is right, though, we need at minimum a starting NT, OLB, ILB to make this thing serviceable next year. I still say they did it the right way. Look, this is not a team that was anywhere near ready to compete when Shanahan took over. I have no problem with growing pains, I have no problem with it costing us a few games here and there. To me, the reason they didn't add players is because this year was always about finding out what we had and cleaning up the books (despite what the marketing department might have told us to sell tickets). This is a big offseason, double class of free agents, still have a good number of picks and have some tradeable assets. I'm witholding a certain amount of judgement until I see what happens this offseason and much of that may be put off a year depending on how the CBA works out. If the CBA doesn't get done until near training camp or later, it's going to be hard to get much accomplished this year. Not to mention, we can't any players until that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.