Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement

^ Ok, don't know why I heard they were switching to the 3-4? Oh well. Sorry.

Also, adding to that, Wade Phillips is now the new Def Coordinator for Houston Texans, who used to exclusivley run the 4-3 and will now in 2011 will make the switch to 3-4. Maybe that was what you heard?

I read this and just assumed they were changing but in reality they are bringing in a new D-coordinator in hopes their D will be better.

Fired-up Friday: Redskins D or Cowboys D? - NFC East Blog - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/27864/fired-up-friday-redskins-d-or-cowboys-d)

Again, don't want to turn this into an Albert discussion but I think you're being naive when you paint the Haynesworth fiasco as one sided failure and you act/write as if Mike Shanahan and the coaching staff bears no culpability in the Haynesworth debacle.
Its well known that Mike Shanahan held a grudge against Haynesworth for missing camp, which spilled over into the 'shuttle run/endurance test' drama which spilled over into the pre-season playtime drama which spilled over into the regular season playtime issues.
Also, you may not recall but prior to the supposed refusals to play there were times at the beginning of the season when Albert wanted to play more and the staff wouldn't let him.
And don't forget that Albert came back from his brothers funeral and wanted to play but was inactived which lead to Alberts refusal to speak Mike Shanahan which lead to Albert's suspension.

Mind you I'm not saying that Albert didn't screw the pooch, he did, but I'm pointing out that our staff was holding the legs.

Also: This "coaches need to do what works to the strengths of their players" bullshit really needs to dieThe statement above is, no offense, one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read about coaching. (P.S. I coach basketball and football)
Its not even worth a response.

Here's what I believe: If the Mike/Haslett and went to Albert in the preseason and threw him an olive branch and talked together about how they could fit him into their defense and came up with a way to use Albert as an attacking penetrating 1-gap style player ala Ngata, Cullen Jenkins etc.
Then I doubt we have the problems we had this year.

And if you think HC/teams don't make exceptions for certain players you need to look up Bill Walsh the strict disciplinarian and Fred Dean.
Here I'll help: listen@3:49-5:20

cSD6h3i8AUk

Haynesworth's a crybaby who moaned and griped and complained under Greg Blanche in 2009 and then moaned and complained and griped about his role in the 3-4 until he essential wrote himself off the field. He's motivated by money (his two best seasons from a production standpoint came in contract years). He wants to do whatever he wants. He's said that what he liked about Tennessee. "They let me do what I wanted." It's about team first. It's not about doing what you want, it's about doing what you can to help the team win. They cut the guy a check to show up to camp, in shape and ready to play.

It's not like they just sprung the 3-4 defense on him. Mike told him what he expected in his first meeting with the team. Then they paid the man. I'm not saying Mike didn't handle certain aspects of what happened the wrong way, but Albert's about one person; Albert. Period.

Let me clarify what I mean about the coaches adjusting thing. Coaches do need to adjust to what their players are best at on the field and adapt what they do to suit the talents of their players. It was dumb of me to say otherwise.

However, if you're coming up with solutions to a potential problem with a player, and he just flat out refuses to play...what else can you do? I think they did everything they could to get Albert on the field, because when Albert actually could be bothered to play hard, he played well. But they pretty much offered to let him play at any position on the defensive front he wanted, and he picked one very specific set of circumstances to go out and play. He just wanted to rush the passer. He just wanted sacks.

You adjust to the strengths of your players and what they're best at...but the player's gotta meet you halfway. They have to be willing to adjust like you're willing to adjust. That was Haynesworth's problem.

The funeral thing sounds bad until you realize that Haynesworth didn't have full week of practice. Practice is a big thing with Mike, right or wrong. And since Haynesworth apparently practiced at half speed anyway...I mean, Mike was honest about it. Albert hadn't practiced, he didn't think Albert could contribute, so Albert was deactivated.

And wasn't it Phillip Daniels or one of the vets that said Haynesworth getting suspended was actually a good thing, because they didn't have to worry about trying to fit him into a scheme he didn't want to play in and could just practice?

Mistakes may have been made on both sides, but at the end of the day, it was Albert that sealed his own fate.

Now back to your regular scheduled thread.

I look at it this way, whoever the coach is you (the player) have to play the system he wants to impliment. Don't get me wrong I'm the first to say a good HC will find the best way to utilize his players, but the players still have to deal with the hand thats dealt. I would guess that if the owner wanted to keep the status quo he would have brought in a HC who would have kept the 4-3 and shifted back to the Don Coryal style of offense.

Instead the owner brought in another WCO style of HC, knowing full well the HC was going to shift to a 3-4 style of defense. So it doesn't matter we fans want or what we fans think is best, in reality everyone wanted a whole sale change prior to last year and we got it from the owner to the GM to the HC to the coaching staff. The only thing that can't be completed over night is the players.

As far as AH? MS didn't go out and bring him in, he got stuck with him. There is no guarantee in football even though a player might try to pick a specific style of defense to play in, the team could change at a moments notice. No different then if they are playing in high school, or college. Because there is no guarantee's players need to be able to adjust to what the team is asking them to do. It doesn't matter if they are playing for free or if they are making millions.

Having said all that, Everyone agree's that AH was sat down and informed of the change in style and what his new roll would be at the end of the 2009 season when Allen and MS were hired. At that time AH was given the option of taking his bonus money which would be given to him or decline the money and ask to be traded. He had about 4 months to think about it. In the end he decided that taking the money was in his best interest which also means he chose to play in the new defense and play in his new roll. Yet when the team had 99% accountability at OTA's AH was the odd man out. Throwing his tantrum supposedly getting in the best shape he had been in his whole career. Instead he showed up out of shape, and tried to sabotage his agreement to HIS liking not his coaches.

No it wasn't all AH's fault but the HC is the leader. AH started the battle and MS was going to make sure he didn't win the war. You don't collect a million dollar bonus and get traded, it doesn't work like that. You take the money you do the job that is asked of you, if you don't want to do whats asked of you don't take the money or return it and request a trade. Because of this I commend Shanahan for how he has handled the team. He's making sure all personel understand he's not going to let the players rule the roost anymore. It's his way or the highway.

I think it is 100% clear that AH is a moron and even I want him gone. I don't think there is nothing new to uncover about AH because the story has been beaten to death. Frankly I am tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. Whether he stays or goes is the only remaining story.

On the scheme change from 4-3 to 3-4 defense and coaches making change in general: I have no problem with changing to whatever defense works well. Change is ok with me as long as the move is done in a organized and thoughtful way that improves the team. My problem is it was managed poorly and forced through (square peg in round hole) by a rather impatient MS, instead of waiting until the roster can be adjusted for the big change.

I highlighted earlier in this thread: "(Bill) Bellichick’s philosophy was (and always has been) the 3-4 defense, but he didn’t implement it until 2003 (three years after taking charge of his new team) when he acquired all the right pieces. "
Bellechick was rewarded for his patience with his their first Sb in 2000-2001 while running an uncustomary 4-3 defense. Three years later he had acquired all the pieces and then he made the change to his favorite 3-4 defense and again he was rewarded with two more SB's.
Another example of success of changing your scheme to accommodate your new team and new players is Gibbs I.
Gibbs came in with a pass happy air Coryell offense. But he immediately realized his new teams strength is running the ball. They were not initially good at passing the ball as running and they had two good run blocking TE's. So they switched to two TE run oriented attack. Even incorporated a new wrinkle to college play that would later become the counter trey. They created a new trend (counter trey) rather than jumping on an existing one (3-4 defense).
Gibbs was also rewarded with his patience and ego-less move away from his customary system to another that made his players at that moment play better.
MS on the other hand came into a new team and new players and he changed it all to his systems rather then using what worked best for his players. Our defense regressed last year played as bad or worse then during the Spurrier era.
I like Shanahan/Allen FO team and they have done much better than Ceratto.
I just wish MS would do a better job checking his ego at the door when arrives to be coach each day.

Crazy but maybe MS knew there would be a lockout this year so he implemented the 3-4 last year so the senior players could teach the new guys coming on.

There's two approaches here.

There's the "acquire all the pieces, then switch and hope everyone can make the change" approach, and then there's the "rip the Band-Aid off, deal with the consequences" approach.

Most teams who switch systems on either side of the ball take the "rip the Band-Aid off" approach. Because the problem is, waiting 2 or 3 seasons, acquiring all the pieces and THEN switching is guaranteed to work. First, you have to get a defensive coordinator who's smart enough to know how to run both systems and make them mesh, and there's only one guy I can think of that is that smart, and well...he's coaching somewhere else right now.

Second, you just don't know if it's going to work. It's not easy to switch schemes, no matter how much one feels like they've "prepared" for it preparation. If it takes two seasons to get your "pieces" in place, and then you make the switch, and it doesn't work, you're kinda back to square one. Then you have to find new pieces. Then you're right back in the place you were before you wanted to make the switch, and maybe you switch back, but if you're going to make the commitment to switch, you have to go all in and live with the consequences.

Third, I repeatedly see people talk about Mike Shanahan's ego when they talk about...well, when they talk about everything ("Mike's wearing black showlaces with white shoes because his ego told him it looks good that way!"), but switching defenses in particular.

What, exactly, does his ego have to do with the switch to the 3-4? Is the idea that he has such a big ego he thought that what is a pretty solid group of defensive players would be able to make the switch with a little less trouble? I mean...I hear about this ego of his all the time, but I just don't see it that way.

If Mike is guilty of anything, he's guilty of thinking the team was better than it was. That's what I see, on both sides of the ball. He saw a team that was closer to being good when we were closer to being bad.

There's a difference between being wrong or misguided in changing something and allowing your ego to control what you do.

I agree. I'm tired of this argument. I think once you make the decision to go 3-4, just do it. Rip the freaking "bandaid off" and let the message boards cry about the consequences during the offseason.

Here's why:
1) EXPERIENCE: By the time we would have had "the pieces" in 2-3 years, everyone will have already learned the 3-4. Other teams like Green Bay made switches easier, but I value the experience our guys had this year. We also immediately saw who fits in this system and who doesn't. We weren't going to the SuperBowl this year, so I'm okay we were dead last in defense -- because we got the top 10 pick while we got the 3-4 experience.

2) HAYNESWORTH: The biggest need was having an NT, and when they made the decision to go with the 3-4, they thought that eventually AH would convert over. They were wrong, and this is one of the key reasons the transition didn't work well.

3) REBUILDING: Hard to watch, but after 2 decades of mediocrity - this is the process of rebuilding. Whenever you make the switch your defense is going to suffer. If we were playoff contenders, then making this switch immediately would have been dumb. But since we are rebuilding (and denying it so we can sell tickets) - it makes sense to change everything quickly and accept a mess for a couple of years.



I'll accept that there's an argument about whether we needed to switch to the 3-4 at all, but once you make that decision, I think it makes sense to switch immediately and darn the consequences.