redskins55 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Extending that, its harder to find 3-4 OLB's than it is to find 4-3 OLB's...so it balances out. Imagine if we would've kept our 4-3 defense right.. Then we could've drafted Riley to play OLB, Rak could've stayed in the dirt, Jarmon, Alexander, and Wilson rotating at DE.. Bryant along side Haynesworth at DT. Landy at S, Atogwe at FS.. Hopefully our players can show their versatility and master the 3-4 even thought they arnt designed for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel__44 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Imagine if we would've kept our 4-3 defense right.. Then we could've drafted Riley to play OLB, Rak could've stayed in the dirt, Jarmon, Alexander, and Wilson rotating at DE.. Bryant along side Haynesworth at DT. Landy at S, Atogwe at FS.. Hopefully our players can show their versatility and master the 3-4 even thought they arnt designed for it Perhaps we could also imagine World Peace. Dude, the 4-3 is gone. Haynesworth didn't want to play in either. Rak has made the pro bowl as an OLB in a 4-3 and a 3-4. Bryant is a career journeymen who played well at NT, he's not a DT. Jarmon needs to play a 3-4 DE, Wilson and Alexander are great special teamers but are career backups. Give it time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky52Mc Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 This is the prob. Sending LBs is gonna compromise some coverage. I'm not anti-blitz, I just don't like to blitz every play simply to generate the rush of a standard 4-3---------- Post added April-4th-2011 at 11:15 PM ---------- A 3-4 is a revolutionized 4-3. You have enough athletic players on the field to drop back in pass protection as well as rush the passer. In the 4-3, it's 4 men on the line, there is less flexibility, less athleticism. A blitz in a 3-4 would consist of at least 1 extra blitzer = 4 men. So what in the world are you talking about? It's not out of the ordinary by any means to have just 1 linebacker blitzing in a 3-4 on 1st, 2nd down. And you can generate the most fierce pass rush with that of the 3-4, since it combines confusion with the most physically gifted rushers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilco_holland Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 We where talking about the amount of players afailble for the systems but if we keep developing the game this way, wouldn´t it make sence that most college teams switch to a 3-4? And that players who fit the systeme are easyer to find because they already played and developt there skill in those D's? It probally takes just time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 That's true, but it's usually easier to run against 3-4 fronts. Not many teams rack up rushing yardage against Pittsburgh. It's about having good players and putting them in a scheme which allows them to maximise their ability. I think most people would agree that last year our people on defense were more suited to a 4-3 than a 3-4 - that what we had drafted and built the roster for over years so no great shock there. The switch to a 3-4 was a philosophical shift based on a view that the 3-4 let's you disguise pressure better and be more aggressive with more 'athletes' on the field. I'm not sure I buy that totally but I did not get a vote. Given we are committed to the 3-4 which we clearly are it's going to take another good draft and possibly another plus some good free agent pick ups to put it all together. An OLB opposite Rak who can rush the passer and set the edge against the run, a NT who requires a double team and a RDE who can hold his ground versus the run and provide some inside rush are musts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 This thread shows the impatience of Redskins fans. One year in a new defense and people are complaining. Yes, we dropped from a top 10 to the 2nd worst defense (which is defined by yardage). Yes, we were trying to fit square pegs in round holes. We need to give the FO more time to find the right players. We aren't "winning now" and I think it was a good time to make the switch. Please everyone, we are NOT Super Bowl contenders. Let's let Allen and Shanahan rebuild this team. It's going to take more than 1 year to undo 10 years of Vinny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Not many teams rack up rushing yardage against Pittsburgh. Not just Pittsburgh. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_AVERAGE_YARDS&tabSeq=2&season=2010&role=OPP&Submit=Go&archive=false&conference=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&qualified=true San Francisco is #2 in rushing average. I knew that whoever started a RB against them was likely to be underwhelmed at the very least. I know that have their NT, an underrated monster in Justin Smith, and Patrick Willis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeThreeKingsRuleU Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Maybe no one was rushing on san fran because they knew they could pass on them all day. Didn't san fran have the second worst pass defense last year? Against the long ball, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Maybe no one was rushing on san fran because they knew they could pass on them all day. Didn't san fran have the second worst pass defense last year? Against the long ball, anyway. Bad pass defense + Patrick Willis = throwing all day long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahons21 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Bad pass defense + Patrick Willis = throwing all day long. San Fran actually ranks right in the middle of the pack as far as pass att against goes. 550 att against them, 625 against TEN which was the most, and 470 against the Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 San Fran actually ranks right in the middle of the pack as far as pass att against goes. 550 att against them, 625 against TEN which was the most, and 470 against the Raiders. Where'd they rank in ypg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahons21 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Where'd they rank in ypg? 9th worst. Allowing 231 ypg, worst team was Houston that allowed 267, best team was SD allowing 177. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel__44 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Extending that, its harder to find 3-4 OLB's than it is to find 4-3 OLB's...so it balances out. The quote is comparing DEs vs 3-4 OLBs (pass rushers, the pass rushers of each scheme). According to former general manager Randy Mueller, “the 3–4 defensive end is easier to identify and find when it comes to scouting and acquiring personnel,” while 4–3 DEs “are rare and hard to find and therefore very expensive to keep. There is no question that speed pass rushers are very much an impact position on the football field and their cap numbers reflect that. On the other hand, 3–4 defensive ends can be found easier and are much less expensive when it comes to ‘cap dollars’.”[ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Bad pass defense + Patrick Willis = throwing all day long.I noticed while following fantasy football that RBs facing San Fran tended to suck in their production. This little observation I kept in my mind. Now, I didn't check the stats or anything until this thread popped up, but it seems that the the interpretation of the stats suggests that San Fran's run D was indeed just good. I used yards per run, not yards per game. Their avg was 3.5 yards a rush, which good no matter how many times they were thrown on. They were run at 447 times over 16 games, which come out to 27.9 carries a game. The 447 runs they face was tied for 9th most in the league. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_ATTEMPTS&tabSeq=2&season=2010&role=OPP&Submit=Go&archive=false&conference=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&qualified=true The Colts were ran at 445 times and their yards per run/carry was 4.6, a full 1.1 yard more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.