Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It's also worth noting that all of those teams had the personnel in place to make the switch. We don't. We have 4-3 personnel. Gotta start somewhere, though...might as well start now. It's not as if we took a team that was a missed FG away from the NFC Championship game and weakened it significantly by switching to the 3-4. This was a horrid 4-12 team with a serious need of an adjustment to the roster and to the team's attitude. It was not gonna fight for the division title nonetheless a SB birth. If you're gonna make the switch, this was a perfect time to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Well honestly. That's what the Packers run. The Packers don't run a 3-4. They run a 3-3-5.Instead of a 4th linebacker, they have Woodson. The defensive coach for the Packers, Dom Capers, says so himself that his standard defense that he'll pit against any offense in the league, is the nickel. So if he runs the nickel 90% of the time...it's a 3-3-5 defense and not a 3-4. We actually might try that...a 3-3-5, with Hall, Rogers, Landry, whatever safety we draft or get in FA, and Horton or Doughty as our hybrid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 None of this changes the fact that our defense sucks. Yes, the Steelers runs a 3-4 and so do we. The only difference is Casey Hampton, Brent Kiesel, James Harrison, Lawrence Timmons, James Farrior, Lamar Woodley and Troy Polamalu. Aside from that,it's like looking into a mirror. Seriously, is there one position on the front 7 where we have a better player? Ziggy Hood would be our nose tackle. He is an end for the Steelers, and is only playing because their starter got hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Gotta start somewhere, though...might as well start now. It's not as if we took a team that was a missed FG away from the NFC Championship game and weakened it significantly by switching to the 3-4. This was a horrid 4-12 team with a serious need of an adjustment to the roster and to the team's attitude. It was not gonna fight for the division title nonetheless a SB birth. If you're gonna make the switch, this was a perfect time to do so. Or you make the switch more intelligently. Don't get this confused... I think the 3-4 defense is a good NFL defense. I also think the 4-3 defense is a good NFL defense. You know what the difference is? What personnel you have. We probably should have transitioned with more of a 4-4 look with less straight nose tackle looks until we acquired a nose. This is how New England originally made the switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 We should look into the 46... just rename it the 30... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Well honestly. That's what the Packers run. The Packers don't run a 3-4. They run a 3-3-5.Instead of a 4th linebacker, they have Woodson. The defensive coach for the Packers, Dom Capers, says so himself that his standard defense that he'll pit against any offense in the league, is the nickel. So if he runs the nickel 90% of the time...it's a 3-3-5 defense and not a 3-4. the concept for the dline is the same in a 3-3-5 as it is with a 3-4... we were hurt the most this season by the lack of a NT (and true DEs for this scheme though carriker was servicable)... 3 down lineman starts and ends with that position and unless you have a guy that commands a double team, which we didn't, the 3 down lineman scheme will fail... it failed miserably for us until bryant came on late in the season... it was foolish for us to run the 3-4 without the required linemen to do it... the pack drafted raji in the first before they transitioned, we should have been able to make a similar move via teh draft of FA before going with that scheme... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 None of this changes the fact that our defense sucks. Exactly. Hey, we also use the QB position just like both GB and Pittsburgh. It's just that their QBs are much, much better than ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 All four teams in the Championship games were also from very cold cities. Clearly we must move north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moondog Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Correlation does not imply causation. Nice try though Exactly. Last year it was two 4-3 teams. It really doesn't matter what scheme you play as long as you have the right mix of coaching and talented players at the key positions as well as role players that do the dirty work at a high level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 the concept for the dline is the same in a 3-3-5 as it is with a 3-4... we were hurt the most this season by the lack of a NT (and true DEs for this scheme though carriker was servicable)... 3 down lineman starts and ends with that position and unless you have a guy that commands a double team, which we didn't, the 3 down lineman scheme will fail... it failed miserably for us until bryant came on late in the season... it was foolish for us to run the 3-4 without the required linemen to do it... the pack drafted raji in the first before they transitioned, we should have been able to make a similar move via teh draft of FA before going with that scheme... We tried to make up for the lack of pass rushing fat boys with blitzing lbs and dbs. Problem is we don't have any quality blitzers so those 0-5, 1-4, 2-3 looks we played in nickel and dime were as completely ineffective with pressure as our base 34 was. I don't know what's easier, I liked some of our nickel and dime packages as it seemed to frustrate QBs but the olines had our rush's number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I thought of another similarity. The Packers, Steelers, and Redskins all have gold in their uniform AND it's roughly the exact same color gold/yellow. Oh, and we all have male head coaches. I'm starting to smell Super Bowl XLVI... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 the concept for the dline is the same in a 3-3-5 as it is with a 3-4... we were hurt the most this season by the lack of a NT (and true DEs for this scheme though carriker was servicable)... 3 down lineman starts and ends with that position and unless you have a guy that commands a double team, which we didn't, the 3 down lineman scheme will fail... it failed miserably for us until bryant came on late in the season... In simple terms this is dead on. Both the 3-3-5 and the 3-4 can be run very similar, but they can also be run differently. The 3-3-5 (and the 3-4) can both be run as either a one gap defense or a two gap defense. But in the terms you mean, as far as nose play, you're 100% on the money, in general or getting into specifics. Either way we would have needed a nose to produce. I like Bryant there, but we need a rotational guy/young guy/another nose period. We can snag a starter or snag a back up. I'm fine with either as long as they can play. Until then running an odd front with a man at nose without a capable nose is like a powerlifter getting ready to run a marathon... or a marathon runner getting ready to compete in a power lifting competition... It takes a ton of balls to do it, and it might make you feel accomplished, but if you thought you had a chance to win you were in lala land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstarr Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 3 yrs ago the pack switched. They had a year of growing pains also and had players who were not suited for it (arron Kampman i think). They took their lumps learning it and now are paying dividends. They drafted in support of their change. Lets instead of crying actually give it a draft or 2 to see if the skins draft to support there change. The skins changed offensive schemes also while not having players that fit the zbs. 1 year is way to early to worry. This team was a mess. To me it seems a bit better specially the line situation. Kdawg stats alone do not tell the story. Would you say the skinis played a harder schedule this year then 2009? What were the offensive ranks fo the teams the skns played this year compared to last year? Anyone can point to stats and say look at these. My point is no more evident then in last nites game. Big Ben by a stat mans number was horrible in that game, but if you watched it, bottem line is when it need to get it done he got it done, Regardless of what his qb rating or stats say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always A Commander Never A Captain Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 the concept for the dline is the same in a 3-3-5 as it is with a 3-4... we were hurt the most this season by the lack of a NT (and true DEs for this scheme though carriker was servicable)... 3 down lineman starts and ends with that position and unless you have a guy that commands a double team, which we didn't, the 3 down lineman scheme will fail... it failed miserably for us until bryant came on late in the season... it was foolish for us to run the 3-4 without the required linemen to do it... the pack drafted raji in the first before they transitioned, we should have been able to make a similar move via teh draft of FA before going with that scheme... Yeah it was foolish, but they were kinda hoping they'd be able to get either Haynesworth to buy in, or Kemoeatu to get healthy back to the way he was in Carolina before he got hurt. I mean, Carolina was a 13-3 team that season, and it wasn't just 2 RB's doing all the work. The fact is, we had too many holes to fill, and they gambled with 2 players. It didn't work. I don't know where Bryant came from, I just wonder why he wasn't used more earlier in the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 The loaded Packers O kept giving the ball away. They were nowhere near in sync yesterday, save for the first drive. So if you play a 4-3, the other team "gives the ball away" but if you play a 3-4 you "create turnovers' or something like that? Or are you saying that, unlike what Haslett thinks, you can generate pressure and turnovers with a 4-3 if used properly? Other similarities for teams playing yesterday: -All 4 had 1st round QBs -Pittsburgh and NY both had C's they drafted in the 1st round -All 4 teams are from cities north of the Mason-Dixon line* -Both NFC teams were beaten by the Redskins but beat the Eagles -All 4 teams play in outdoor stadiums at home* -Chicago and NY had to trade picks to get their QBs, while the 2 winning teams did not *Also applies to all teams that won a playoff game this year So in order to make to the Superbowl you must have: A 3-4 D, a 1st round QB (that you didn't trade for), play north of the Mason-Dixon line, lose to the Redskins while beating the Eagles (that one might be hard for us to do), play outdoors (no dome teams, sorry New Orleans), and you have a 50% chance of making it if you draft a Center in the 1st round. Alright boys, that's our blueprint. Let's get on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillSkinzFan84 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Pitt runs the defense different them we do, they usually have 2 down linemen and 2 standing up and they rush all 4 not hold the line like we do, then sometimes they will bring another 2lbd up to the line to confuse u so u don't know who's coming. Just watch during the superbowl its not what we do. We have the 3 down linemen and the 2 standing lbs on the ends and ofcourse we all know we tell the d line to hold the block and read and react instead of just rushing up field. I know they said we took it from the steelers and that's what made me study the pitt 3-4 and they def are more aggressive than us and like I said usually have the 2 dends and 2 outside linebackers wich ive seen us do a few times but not as often as pitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Kdawg stats alone do not tell the story. Stats never tell the whole story. But neither does made up conjecture. Would you say the skinis played a harder schedule this year then 2009? Yes. I'd also say you play whos in front of you. I'd also point to the fact that Philly scored 59 points on us. What were the offensive ranks fo the teams the skns played this year compared to last year? I have no idea. But you have to play who's put in front of you. A good team wins those games, a bad team doesn't. Both years we finished under .500 and out of the playoffs. In both years our offense and defense were not good. Assuming the switch to the 3-4 is a success at this point because of stats (which you condemn) is just as silly as dismissing it due to stats. I will do neither. I will however say that I do not believe in Jim Haslett at all and see us crashing and burning for that reason more than anything else... besides maybe talent evaluation issues. But that's also through research and through viewing Haslett's teams. Anyone can point to stats and say look at these. Anyone can make remarks that aren't backed by anything, too. My point is no more evident then in last nites game. Big Ben by a stat mans number was horrible in that game, but if you watched it, bottem line is when it need to get it done he got it done, Regardless of what his qb rating or stats say. I'd argue that he didn't really get anything done and that Rashard Mendenhall got more done than Ben did. I'd also argue that Heath Miller saved Ben on a diving snag early in the game near the end zone on an overthrown pass, or his stats would be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 You know who else runs the 3-4? San Francisco. 49ers - Redskins in the NFCCG nex year, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I do want to add: Anyone who thinks that the defense alone led these teams to the Super Bowl isn't paying attention to the entire picture. The satirical posts in this thread are actually extremely funny, because it's true. I could argue that all four teams had better cleat cleaners on the sideline and that's what made them a better football team. It's obviously not true, but why not throw that one out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I do want to add:Anyone who thinks that the defense alone led these teams to the Super Bowl isn't paying attention to the entire picture. The satirical posts in this thread are actually extremely funny, because it's true. I could argue that all four teams had better cleat cleaners on the sideline and that's what made them a better football team. It's obviously not true, but why not throw that one out there? Well, I'm always looking for positive contributions from everything so perhaps think of it this way... Last year, two 43s were in the big dance. What were they most famous for? This year, two 34s are in the big dance. What are they more famous for? Say what you will about Rodgers and that offense up in GB, that defense is getting major props with 52 and 21 on the team. I'd argue the Packers are more defensive based with a stats monster at QB. Who's the RB? What's up with that Oline? Couple playmaking WRs but the meat of the team to me is the defense and QB (FOR BOTH TEAMS) unlike last years two 43 teams that were all offense with opportune defenses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always A Commander Never A Captain Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Both the 3-3-5 and the 3-4 can be run very similar, but they can also be run differently. The 3-3-5 (and the 3-4) can both be run as either a one gap defense or a two gap defense. I was kinda under the impression that a 3-3-5 had the dlineman as much more of a two gap D. A lot of the pressure the Packers created came from blitzing Matthews&Woodson together. Woodson's a very good blitzer (for a corner) and still a great coverage guy, tremendous versatility. But since they moved both Matthews and Woodson around all over the place, it seems (and feels like when you watch them), that the Packers D-line has to be a two gap system. I like Bryant there, but we need a rotational guy/young guy/another nose period. We can snag a starter or snag a back up. I'm fine with either as long as they can play. I understand this. We need capable and willing depth. If we get another guy that's as capable as Bryant seems to be, I think we're starting to get somewhere defensively. Solid NT's until we can get ourselves into a position with a draft that actually has the NT talent we want. Of course, Bryant could just look really good to us compared to what we saw earlier in the season, and actually be below average. I mean he has been on 7 teams in 6 seasons (I think). He's clearly no Casey Hampton with his bull rush, but at least he's got a decent bull rush compared to Kemoeatu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 GF, I think classifying Green Bay as a defensive-oriented team is a little far-fetched. You certainly have a point about Pittsburgh though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillSkinzFan84 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Yeah it was foolish, but they were kinda hoping they'd be able to get either Haynesworth to buy in, or Kemoeatu to get healthy back to the way he was in Carolina before he got hurt. I mean, Carolina was a 13-3 team that season, and it wasn't just 2 RB's doing all the work.The fact is, we had too many holes to fill, and they gambled with 2 players. It didn't work. I don't know where Bryant came from, I just wonder why he wasn't used more earlier in the season. Bear has been here all year i remember my man doc walker talking about bear bryant in the preseason but the problem is that shanny is like jim zorn in not wanting to play rookies or young unknown players so he never got a shot until the end of the year. You notice all the good teams play their rookies and young players early so that by the second half of the season they have gotten the jitters out and can play loose and confident...the opposite of the way we have been doing things. If antonio brown #84 rookie wr for pitt played here he never would of been in the game to have the opportunity to make big plays in crunchtime. By the way I've been praising the kid since he was at central michigan last year and pissed we didn't draft him he went in the 6th round. But i do think austin will be a playmaker for us if given the opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It must have been decades ago that the Saints running a 4-3 beat the Colts also running a 4-3 in the SuperBowl. oh wait..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I was kinda under the impression that a 3-3-5 had the dlineman as much more of a two gap D. I've seen it run both ways. It's dependent on your personnel... But this isn't as much of a case of body types (a nose is a nose)... More in terms of football intelligence. A lot of the pressure the Packers created came from blitzing Matthews&Woodson together. Woodson's a very good blitzer (for a corner) and still a great coverage guy, tremendous versatility. But since they moved both Matthews and Woodson around all over the place, it seems (and feels like when you watch them), that the Packers D-line has to be a two gap system. As I said, it can be run as both. I didn't watch their DL close enough to tell you if they were two gapping or one gapping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.