The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread

Yeah, but the dominant 3-4s all stuff the run more than competently. Dallas, Pittsburgh, etc...

The change to the 3-4 was brought about by the movement of offenses to more passing oriented. A quality D is going to play the run and pass well, but the 3-4 gives more flexibility vs the pass and creates more confusion in blitz schemes.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0927/pg2_tmqillots_576.jpg
The 3-4 defense is trendy, but the 4-3 will be cool again. Trust me. Tuesday Morning QB (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100928_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl)
Bartender, 3-4 defenses for everyone!

Nothing's hotter in the NFL right now than the 3-4 defense. A few seasons ago, five or six teams used the 3-4. This year, 15 are employing the look -- Ticonderoga-class nose tackle, two big defensive ends whose first assignment is to strip blockers, four quick linebackers whose job is to make the plays.


Dom Capers installed a 3-4 at Green Bay last season and immediately improved the Packers' defensive stats, from 20th overall in 2008 to second overall in 2009. (See below for more on Capers.) Last season ended with four of the top five defenses showing a 3-4. That got the league's attention, and this season the 3-4 is everywhere you look. Such defenses are the toast of sports talk. Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats asserts that if you adjust for differences in personnel, the 3-4 makes your team 4 percent more likely to win. That's one extra victory every two seasons -- and NFL owners would pay millions of dollars for an extra victory every other season.

I am just curious at what point (if at all) they start using more 4-3 during the games, especially in running situations. I was very excited to see us install a 3-4 pittsburg style of defense in the offseason, but right now we are getting gashed in every way possibe. I know that switching now could cause more issues, but it could just as easily turn this season around. Guys are more familiar with the 4-3, and we honestly have a pretty damn good front rotation if we switch back. Good coaches adapt to what is given to them, and right now Haslett/Shanny have to see what they were given, which was not a 3-4 defensive personel group. It has been only 3 games, i realize that, and i know it will take time to improve. My only thing is if we are getting beat as bad as we are right now, switching back couldn't be any worse. Plus with the schedule looking as daunting as it is what else would we have to loose. The Eagles are scoring at will, the colts...well are the colts and the packers can put up points with the best of them. Rogers is no JOKE.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Shanahan has a ton of pride and is a bit stubborn. Incorporating the 4-3 even in a small way does not seem likely, because Shanahan is too proud and to him it would imply failure or admitting he was wrong. I never understood why they scrapped the 4-3 all together. Seems drastic.

Our problem with the 3-4 is we have good DEs playing as bad OLBs, because we have no OLBs.... Rak is OK, but really if he is going to rush all the time let him put his hasnd in the ground. Carter is suspect at best in coverage. Same with Zo, GB had some great Lbs on thier team to complete this move. We don't.

Matty I have no problem making the switch but we just do not have the LBing talent to make it work. Hopefully they all prove me wrong, but I do not know how well it will work until we get the right kind of LB personel.

Just a question, but is it strange to anyone else that Chris Wilson hasn't started/played in place of AC/LZ opposite Rak? He made the switch last year and was a decent fill in option when Rak wasn't on the field.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Shanahan has a ton of pride and is a bit stubborn. Incorporating the 4-3 even in a small way does not seem likely, because Shanahan is too proud and to him it would imply failure or admitting he was wrong. I never understood why they scrapped the 4-3 all together. Seems drastic.

It hasn't been scrapped completely, we saw some 4-3 looks last week.

Just a question, but is it strange to anyone else that Chris Wilson hasn't started/played in place of AC/LZ opposite Rak? He made the switch last year and was a decent fill in option when Rak wasn't on the field.

I have long been a fan of Chris Wilson. I feel he would fit perfectly in this defense as the other OLB. He is quick and agile ala Rak, and am guessing alot better in coverage than Carter. Move carter back inside, because i dont see him getting much of a push or having any impact what so ever as an OLB.

More reality: Rams on drives 2-5 in this game: 19 yards of total offense. Longest play went for seven yards, with perfect offensive execution.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Shanahan has a ton of pride and is a bit stubborn. Incorporating the 4-3 even in a small way does not seem likely, because Shanahan is too proud and to him it would imply failure or admitting he was wrong. I never understood why they scrapped the 4-3 all together. Seems drastic.Shanahan is a really prideful man and would be really slow to admit he was wrong, or even that he has a problem setting up defenses for long term, sustainable success.

With that said, any admission of wrongdoing in this specific case would simply be foolhardy. Haslett is doing some perplexing things with his defense (there's no obvious "contain" defender on a lot of calls), but nothing inexcusable. He's certainly adapted to his defense from going from almost entirely zone defenses in the opener, to a lot of man defenses in this game. Showing great flexibility in coverages week to week is a positive.

Question I'm trying to answer from the game tape is whether we have the guys to play those coverages.