So, the Super Bowl pits a 3-4 defense against another 3-4 defense.

[Timmy Smith]

Given the small number of NFL teams that use a 3-4 (or variation thereof) and the high number of recent Super Bowl teams that use a 3-4, I think that says a lot about the strength of the system. In an era where a QB is heavily protected by rule changes and it's basically a "passing league," the 3-4 really comes in handy. As others have said, switching to a 3-4 takes time. New players need to be brought in, a defensive roster overhaul is often required, and patience - which is rare in the NFL - is essential. 2011 will not be Washington's year, but in 2012, the pressure will be on for us to be competitive again.

[Darkstarr]

Kdawg i would agrue game on the line he converts a big third down while on the move to insure the jets do not see the ball again. I would agrue he shrugs off tackles and turns negavtive plays into big time 1st downs. Maybe i just believe in giving more then 1 year before i worry. If i do not see solid improvement by then end of year 2 yeah i start to get worried or if the skins do not address some of the defensive issues (ie better suited personnel) i will get worried. Schedules matter, some teams get such a break on the scheudle you do have a better season. Do you really think as a general rule playing the AFC north would not effect your record (and health) compared to playing the nfc west? TB is a good example 10-6 overall and 1-5 against teams with winning records.

The switching on offensive and defense might both end up sucking, but i am just willing to wait and see for at least 2 years total before i get worried. Year 1 evaluate everyone in new system and regime. Year 2 replace all whinners, and those who do not fit, add 2 drafts and some FA's and then i feel i will have a much better picture of what is happening. IF it sucks i will be the first on here to say this so far is a mistake.

[GibbsFactor]

GF, I think classifying Green Bay as a defensive-oriented team is a little far-fetched. You certainly have a point about Pittsburgh though.

Is it really? I mean, sure the offense puts up points but perhaps we associate offense and GB due to #4. Think about it. Sure #12 puts up gawdy numbers but that defense is outstanding and gets as many highlight reels as the Steelers, if not more. I guess it's a bit of a stretch, but out of the teams in the NFC, which defense would you rather have?

[KDawg]

Kdawg i would agrue game on the line he converts a big third down while on the move to insure the jets do not see the ball again. I would agrue he shrugs off tackles and turns negavtive plays into big time 1st downs. Maybe i just believe in giving more then 1 year before i worry. If i do not see solid improvement by then end of year 2 yeah i start to get worried or if the skins do not address some of the defensive issues (ie better suited personnel) i will get worried. Schedules matter, some teams get such a break on the scheudle you do have a better season. Do you really think as a general rule playing the AFC north would not effect your record (and health) compared to playing the nfc west? TB is a good example 10-6 overall and 1-5 against teams with winning records.

You could argue that. But I don't think I said anywhere that Ben is a bad QB. Even good QBs have bad days, but they're still a good QB that can make a play or two... But yesterday the game fell on Mendenhall's shoulders and he carried them to the win (along with the defense). Ben helped, but I don't believe he was as much a factor as his support cast.

I don't care what our schedule is... Even as a coach. We're expecting to win. So that's what you need to do.

And I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm worried.

[flock53]

They all have superior 3-4 coaches and superior players. we must be bored here as this has been:beatdeadhorse:

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Is it really? I mean, sure the offense puts up points but perhaps we associate offense and GB due to #4. Think about it. Sure #12 puts up gawdy numbers but that defense is outstanding and gets as many highlight reels as the Steelers, if not more. I guess it's a bit of a stretch, but out of the teams in the NFC, which defense would you rather have?

I love their defense, I just don't believe they were led by their defense. I don't think you can make that case for a team that ranks #4 overall in total offense. Would you say that the 1991 Redskins were led by their defense just because they had a great one? No, that team was led by their offense as well. This Packers team reminds me of that Redskin team in that they tend to jump out to a lead and then turn things over to the D and let them lean on the opponent until the game ends.

[Darkstarr]

You are right Mendehall and the oline carried the day. I just am not a stat guy at all. To often (not always) stats paint the wrong picture or incomplete picture. I am certainly biased in my view as i am a 3-4 guy more then 4-3 tho great personel in a 4-3 can be just as good as a 3-4 imo. Balt. would be an example of that. Early in the 2000's they played a 4-3 with sam adams and the goose as dt's needless to say they were great. Keeping a lot of the same personel they switched to the 3-4 and they are still great. With all that said, it just seems like 3-4 attacks more and that is why i like it.

[ouvan59]

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.

I agree although I think you can live with Carriker as a starter. I saw this year as an extended try out season and a bite-the-bullet year that was necessary to get the salary cap in good shape going forward.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Both teams have white QBs with beards.

Tell Grossman to grow one.

[Destino]

I'll take a top ten 4-3 over a 31st 3-4 everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Bottom line is that while there is nothing wrong with wanting to adopt a 3-4 scheme the implementation of it here was a complete and total failure. Saying the players are a bad fit isn't an excuse, if anything, it's evidence of a mistake by the coaches who should have known this. Their is no benefit to adopting the system before you can run it well because all you accomplish is limited experience for the handfull of players that will remain while creating a ton of doubt and distrust in the coaching staff.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Both teams have white QBs with beards.

Tell Grossman to grow one.

I did some extensive research and have found two more similarities that the Redskins have with the Super Bowl teams:

1) All 3 teams have run plays out of the shotgun and under center this year

2) All 3 teams have attempted a forward pass this year

I have to imagine it's just a matter of waiting our turn to play for the Lombardi now.

[PlayAction]

I am certainly biased in my view as i am a 3-4 guy more then 4-3 tho great personel in a 4-3 can be just as good as a 3-4 imo. With all that said, it just seems like 3-4 attacks more and that is why i like it.

Whether a defense is an attacking one or not has absolutely nothing to do with the front. Attacking more frequently depends upon the preferences of the DC. Don't base the "attacking style" on what the Skins experienced for two years under Blache. Blache ran a very vanilla defense and rarely blitzed. Compare his approach to Buddy Ryan (4-6), Monte Kiffin, the Philly DC Johnson, or even Gregg Williams with his cover-0 blitzes. The Giants also had very good 4-3 attack style defense under Spagnolo.

Skins generated more turnovers in 2010 IMO because they switched to a zone defense that allowed the CBs to see the ball in front of them so that they could more often make plays on the ball. In addition, the defensive coaches ran numerous drills practicing stripping the ball from RBs and WRs. Those two changes could have been made even if they had maintained the 4-3 front so I don't credit that to the new 3-4 front.

[Hitman21ST]

I did some extensive research and have found two more similarities that the Redskins have with the Super Bowl teams:

1) All 3 teams have run plays out of the shotgun and under center this year

2) All 3 teams have attempted a forward pass this year

I have to imagine it's just a matter of waiting our turn to play for the Lombardi now.

Did they have 11 men on the field too?

[KDawg]

Saying the players are a bad fit isn't an excuse, if anything, it's evidence of a mistake by the coaches who should have known this.

I think for most, and definitely myself, saying the players don't fit IS an indictment of the coaching staff. The staff implements the scheme, not the players. The players are held accountable for their on field performance, sure, but if you're telling them to play a position that they have no business playing (or playing it in a way that doesn't fit their talents) I'm not sure they're at fault. They don't fit, sure, but they're not wrong for not fitting. The staff is.

[PlayAction]

Saying the players are a bad fit isn't an excuse, if anything, it's evidence of a mistake by the coaches who should have known this.

Indeed. I think this is the major concern. If you add McNabb being a bad fit then we have serious issues with player evaluation on both sides of the ball.

[KDawg]

Whether a defense is an attacking one or not has absolutely nothing to do with the front. Attacking more frequently depends upon the preferences of the DC. Don't base the "attacking style" on what the Skins experienced for two years under Blache. Blache ran a very vanilla defense and rarely blitzed. Compare his approach to Buddy Ryan (4-6), Monte Kiffin, the Philly DC Johnson, or even Gregg Williams with his cover-0 blitzes. The Giants also had very good 4-3 attack style defense under Spagnolo.

Skins generated more turnovers in 2010 IMO because they switched to a zone defense that allowed the CBs to see the ball in front of them so that they could more often make plays on the ball. In addition, the defensive coaches ran numerous drills practicing stripping the ball from RBs and WRs. Those two changes could have been made even if they had maintained the 4-3 front so I don't credit that to the new 3-4 front.

Bingo. Aggressiveness is a coordinator to coordinator thing... Not a scheme to scheme thing. The 3-4 "sounds" more aggressive because there's always someone "blitzing". In reality, it's just a 4th guy bringing pressure... But from different places on the field. I prefer to call the 3-4 4 man rushes "Pressures" and the 3-4 5+ man pressures "Pressure packages". That's just personal preference, though. But the scheme doesn't determine aggressiveness. The coach does.

[justice98]

I think the 3-4 is overrated. And I only mean that in the sense that it is THE defense to go to. It can be an effective defense, but so can the 4-3. Last year the two SB defenses were 4-3. There's more than one way to skin a cat. You can't be a prisoner of the moment and take this SB and extrapolate some deeper meaning to the defenses these two teams run. Bottom line, you can be successful running either a 4-3 or a 3-4. It's the players that matter.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

I'll take a top ten 4-3 over a 31st 3-4 everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Bottom line is that while there is nothing wrong with wanting to adopt a 3-4 scheme the implementation of it here was a complete and total failure. Saying the players are a bad fit isn't an excuse, if anything, it's evidence of a mistake by the coaches who should have known this. Their is no benefit to adopting the system before you can run it well because all you accomplish is limited experience for the handfull of players that will remain while creating a ton of doubt and distrust in the coaching staff.

I agree completely that's why i don't go for that crap. A good coach adapts his system to his players not force players to fit a system. That's a sign of a coach that makes poor decisions. A coach needs to be flexible in his systems. The point of the game is to win period. You win by putting your players in a position to succeed. We didn't do that this year. I don't believe in system coaches, good coaches do what they have to do to win.

What's the point of running a system that you know will fail? And if you didn't think it would fail you should adjust when you see signs that it will fail. That's why I don't buy into that mcnabb doesn't fit crap. You spent 2 picks to get him so make it work period. So you rather go 6-10 instead of adjusting and trying to win...ill never agree with that.

[justice98]

Whether a defense is an attacking one or not has absolutely nothing to do with the front. Attacking more frequently depends upon the preferences of the DC. Don't base the "attacking style" on what the Skins experienced for two years under Blache. Blache ran a very vanilla defense and rarely blitzed. Compare his approach to Buddy Ryan (4-6), Monte Kiffin, the Philly DC Johnson, or even Gregg Williams with his cover-0 blitzes. The Giants also had very good 4-3 attack style defense under Spagnolo.

Skins generated more turnovers in 2010 IMO because they switched to a zone defense that allowed the CBs to see the ball in front of them so that they could more often make plays on the ball. In addition, the defensive coaches ran numerous drills practicing stripping the ball from RBs and WRs. Those two changes could have been made even if they had maintained the 4-3 front so I don't credit that to the new 3-4 front.

I would say they got more turnovers because it was emphasized by Haslett right outta the gate. I don't think the 3-4 had anything to do with catching passes that hit you in the hands, or knocking the ball out of a ball carrier's hands. I think we overcomplicate it sometimes. A lot of times, the difference between getting a lot of turnovers is fighting at the bottom of a pile, having the ball bounce to you rather than away from you, catching it when it hits you in the hands, or purposely going for the strip. The scheme has nothing to do with those things.

[KDawg]

I think the 3-4 is overrated. And I only mean that in the sense that it is THE defense to go to. It can be an effective defense, but so can the 4-3. Last year the two SB defenses were 4-3. There's more than one way to skin a cat. You can't be a prisoner of the moment and take this SB and extrapolate some deeper meaning to the defenses these two teams run. Bottom line, you can be successful running either a 4-3 or a 3-4. It's the players that matter.

Yup. Whatever coordinators adapt schemes to fit their personnel rather than trying to make personnel adapt to the scheme are going to be the most successful.

---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 02:20 PM ----------

I would say they got more turnovers because it was emphasized by Haslett right outta the gate.

Too bad playing good defense wasn't emphasized, too, or we would have been pretty decent

[Darkstarr]

Yes it is on the DC, but because of the scheme alot of times the 3-4 gives more flexablity and create more confusion because of the greater speed you but on the field in today's passing game. Personel makes any defense, but the best defenses in the league atm are 3-4's. Maybe this is just a fad, but it is what it is.

[KDawg]

Yes it is on the DC, but because of the scheme alot of times the 3-4 gives more flexablity and create more confusion because of the greater speed you but on the field in today's passing game. Personel makes any defense, but the best defenses in the league atm are 3-4's. Maybe this is just a fad, but it is what it is.

It's not the speed that makes the 3-4 "better". It's the "confusion" aspect. There are teams with defensive ends who are as fast as linebackers... And there are also teams with defensive linemen playing linebacker (us...) who don't make your team speed any better.

[Darkstarr]

It is the confusion yes, but it is also the speed. No DL is covering a TE down the seam, but 3-4 lbs can. Plz do not telll me DE's are as fast as lb's as a general rule. There might be 1 or 2 DE's in the game that can keep up with good 3-4 lb's. Yes the skins do not have the right players yet. just like they did not have the right linemen for zbs but the change had to be made and a year of crap is the result but in the long run the zbs imo will be fine just like the 3-4 but only time will tell.

[celticsalmon]

Shanahan, the professional head coach- spent his year out of the league studying and visiting teams, while many "experts" were spending their time drafting players for their FANTASY TEAMS. His research indicated to him that the 3-4 Defense is what will win in the NFL. So-he installed it much to the chagrin and downright anger of so many of these "experts." Sure there were growing pains. But in 2011, the Skins will be a year into the new system. And for motivation, all they have to do it watch the Super Bowl. Good call Shanahan. It guess that's what a professional coach does-make smart decisions despite what the "experts" say. Hail.

[The Full Monty]

To clarify, Hubbs, I'm not biased against the 3-4, what do I have a problem with is the defensive coordinator Shanahan chose to implement it. Haslett may be a guy players have a good relationship with, but he has never coached an elite defense on a consistent basis ever in his life. Whether he had the personnel for it or not in the 4-3, 3-4, the guy is mediocre. I'm afraid that even when our personnel fits the scheme, we'll still be middle of the pack at best because Shanahan trusted the keys to the D to a guy who fields bottom half defensive units year in, year out.