Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

well there really isn't anywhere to go but up cause this defense was pitiful last year. basically the switch was a god awful idea and that falls in the lap of the head coach. shanahan is a fool and wanted to change cause the 3-4 causes more turnovers. what an idiot! how about getting more playmakers on the field that can create turnovers?? on top of that you get haslett who in year one was a total bum. say what you will about greg blache but he could at least make adjustments on the fly. i never saw haslett do a damn thing except look like a confused dumb ass on the sidelines. year one a total fail for the defense.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=30gut;809307]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 [I]more[/I] and the [I]staff [/I]wouldn't let him.
And don't forget that Albert came back from his brothers [U]funeral[/U] and [I]wanted[/I] 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: The 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.

[B]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.[/B]
[B]Here I'll help: listen@3:49-5:20[/B]

[YT]cSD6h3i8AUk[/YT][/quote]

I remember Jimmy Johnson cut a guy for falling asleep in a meeting but he joked around and said if they was Troy, Emmitt or Michael Irvin he's getting them a pillow. lol. The problem is AH only shows up on the field 50% of the time. Fred Dean was a baller and is in the HOF. Huge difference.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

AND as you have pointed out Skinsfan.....Troy, Emmitt, and Michael have played a few quality snaps as well. Big....not so much.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Everyone seems stuck on Albert.
[quote=skinsfan69;809332]The problem is AH only shows up on the field 50% of the time. Fred Dean was a baller and is in the HOF. Huge difference.[/quote]The flip side of your post is the that there was also a huge difference in the way the 2 players were treated.
Bill Walsh didn't tell Dean that he [I]had[/I] to workout and that he couldn't just sit on the bench and smoke cigs.
Bill Walsh didn't tell Dean that he couldn't smoke in the locker room at half time either.
But, then again Bill Walsh knew how to handle people.

And lets be fair Albert, prior to last year, was a 'baller'.
He was one of the top interior DL in the league.

I know everybody doesn't like the guy but lets have some perspective, him only 'showing up 50% of the time' was an aberration for Albert that only occurred last year.

My point isn't that Haynesworth is Fred Dean.
My point is that coaches make allowances for players with special players.
Most people seem to believe that the Haynesworth issues from last year stemmed solely from the switch to the 3-4.
I don't.
I think the main issue was a personal clash between him and Mike Shanahan.
I might be alone but I believe the Haynesworth debacle from last year was avoidable.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Baller? Dude played 12 games in 2009. And even then he frequently got "hurt". He had 4 sacks. The whole defense had 40. This isn't a one year thing. If giving him respect means letting him do whatever he wants...I don't want that guy.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=NLC1054;809335]Baller? Dude played 12 games in 2009. And even then he frequently got "hurt". He had 4 sacks. The whole defense had 40. This isn't a one year thing. If giving him respect means letting him do whatever he wants...I don't want that guy.[/quote]I don't get your point here.

You think he wasn't a good player in 2009 because he had 4 sacks in 12 games?
That's a pretty weak argument.
Does that mean that Ngata had a bad season too he played 14 games w/ 1.5 sacks.

Here's some facts about Al's 2009 season:
[quote=Poster from another forum]One thing I found shocking was how many snaps Albert takes compared to other players. Albert missed 3 games this year: weeks 11, 12, and 14 (or maybe PFF just didn't chart them). Yet he still played 573 snaps or well over 50% of our total snaps for the year. That averages to about 48 snaps a game. In the 12 games he did play and PFF charted, he played an astounding 72% of our defensive snaps.

He played at a high level too according to their charts: [url]http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2009&lastname=H[/url] aynesworth&surn=Haynesworth&playerid=1022
.......................
For instance, I wanted to see how he compares to other 3-4 players who had good seasons to. Kelly Gregg and Haloti Ngata both had pretty impressive seasons according to this site's rankings, but both played far fewer snaps than Haynesworth did. Out of a possible 1,205 snaps (including playoff games), Gregg played 496 or about 41% of defensive snaps, or just over 28 snaps a game. Clearly this was an effective system for Gregg and the Ravens because he's PFF's second ranked defensive tackle according to their metrics.

Ngata missed weeks 9 & 10 (or wasn't charted for them), so he only has 16 games charted. In those games he played 630 of a possible 1,064 snaps or almost 60%. That averages out to about 40 snaps a game for him, and again this was a successful formula for the Ravens because Ngata garned positive ratings nearly every week and finished as the 17th overall tackle.

Some other guys to look at are Ratliff and Wilfork, both of which finished with excellent rankings for the season. Ratliff played 851 of a possible 1,321 snaps or 65% or about 47 snaps a game which is right in line with Haynesworth's numbers. I think it's notable that Ratliff is listed at 293 also, so you'd expect his condition to be a lot better.

Wilfork didn't play weeks 15, 16, and 17, so he only ended up playing 14 games total. In those games, he played a high number of snaps: 565 out of 873 or about 65% of his team's snaps on defense, or about 40 snaps a game.[/quote]Lets not have revisionist history.
Albert Haynesworth has been one of the top DL throughout his career.
To say otherwise is wrong because it just ain't true.

I'll be the first to say that Al needs to be gone.
But he's an asshat because he's a great player that held talent hostage last year.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Wow -- a whole year later and people are STILL pissed about the switch to the 3-4. It's as if losing the 4-3 was like being dumped by a supermodel. And trust me, our 4-3 defense was no supermodel.

Time to get over it folks. By the start of this year, the 2010 season will a distant memory.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Personnel Personnel Personnel is the easy answer. If you couldnt see the first year was gonna be a struggle with the guys we had...wow. Then I knew we be average at best, but not that bad. [B]DE and NT [/B]spots were a tremendous struggle all year long. NT and OLB play is most povital with the scheme.

Yes Orakpo and Fletcher were great, but hell you could line these guys up anywhere and they would be effective...outside that, our other LBs position play was either atrociously bad or wildely inconsistent, unless it was atrociously consistent which was the norm.

come'on everyone knew with the personnel and the growing pains of the first year we would be not great. patience please

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan were outsiders to the organization[B] and [/B]the 3-4 defense, and hence, they were not as well versed as long-tenured FO people in either the nuances of the players or what they exactly need for the system to work. Hence, their appraisals relied more on tangibles, such as TALENT, than the more difficult-to-ascertain intangible factors such as culture(turrible state for winning a championship). Remember Hunter Smith mentioned in that interview of his that he thought we could have been a contender due to the TALENT he saw. I would suspect Shanahan and Allen thought the same thing. Hence, their epicly failed gambles on McNabb, Haynesworth, Kemo, etc.

However, AH is a hopeless case of player wanting his way and coach wanting the coach's way. The style of AH is probably incompatible with MANY coordinators of various stripes because very few coordinators have a system of "one DT does whatever, everyone else compensates", which apparently is likely the ONLY system AH would agree playing for.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=30gut;809334]Everyone seems stuck on Albert.
The flip side of your post is the that there was also a huge difference in the way the 2 players were treated.
Bill Walsh didn't tell Dean that he [I]had[/I] to workout and that he couldn't just sit on the bench and smoke cigs.
Bill Walsh didn't tell Dean that he couldn't smoke in the locker room at half time either.
But, then again Bill Walsh knew how to handle people.

And lets be fair Albert, prior to last year, was a 'baller'.
He was one of the top interior DL in the league.

I know everybody doesn't like the guy but lets have some perspective, him only 'showing up 50% of the time' was an aberration for Albert that only occurred last year.

My point isn't that Haynesworth is Fred Dean.
My point is that coaches make allowances for players with special players.
Most people seem to believe that the Haynesworth issues from last year stemmed solely from the switch to the 3-4.
I don't.
I think the main issue was a personal clash between him and Mike Shanahan.
I might be alone but I believe the Haynesworth debacle from last year was avoidable.[/quote]

All fair points about Walsh. But that was a different time and a totally different era.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=NLC1054;809335][B]Baller? Dude played 12 games in 2009. And even then he frequently got "hurt". He had 4 sacks[/B]. The whole defense had 40. This isn't a one year thing. If giving him respect means letting him do whatever he wants...I don't want that guy.[/quote]

thank you.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=30gut;809336]I don't get your point here.

You think he wasn't a good player in 2009 because he had 4 sacks in 12 games?
That's a pretty weak argument.
Does that mean that Ngata had a bad season too he played 14 games w/ 1.5 sacks.

Here's some facts about Al's 2009 season:
Lets not have revisionist history.
Albert Haynesworth has been one of the top DL throughout his career.
To say otherwise is wrong because it just ain't true.

I'll be the first to say that Al needs to be gone.
But he's an asshat because he's a great player that held talent hostage last year.[/quote]

He was a bum in 09. We didn't get the guy that was in Tenn.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=skinsfan69;809364]He was a bum in 09. We didn't get the guy that was in Tenn.[/quote]

The more reasons why Shanahan and Haslett shouldn't have pinned their 3-4 NT hopes on Haynesworth period.

I know people (rightfully so) get worked up over AH, but in the end I think it was a mistake for Shanny and Haslett to depend on him to be their answer for the NT position. And I think this is a focus of this particular discussion. Once this didn't work out, their back up plan was to pin their hopes on Kemo, who was a big question mark in regards to health, had not played the position for (I think) four years, and was on the decline.

As I have said before, Shanny should've drafted T. Cody with that second rounder we wasted on McNabb and by now we could have been set at the NT position.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=skinsfan69;809364]He was a bum in 09.[/quote]I guess because you say so it must be true right?
Despite the facts showing showing otherwise.
You make a great argument, here's my counter:
He wasn't a bum in 2009.
Pretty good huh?

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

I don't want to get into the AH debate again, so back on topic; GT mentioned a player supply issue w/so many teams using the 3-4. I think the 3-4 has come into vogue due to the no. of quality OLB/DE guys out there. Even though OLB in a 3-4 is a harder position to learn due to some coverage responsibilities, there are more good athletes that fit that body type. Even the 4-3 DEs are lighter these days. So I think finding pass rushers that fit the 3-4 as OLB is easier than finding good 4-3 DEs. We'll see if that's true w/Kerrigan.

On the flip side, good DTs & NTs are always in demand. GT makes the point that the skins d line was aging & would've been an issue even if we ran the 4-3. This draft took some steps to address the d-line.

Overall, I don't fault the transition to 3-4 too much due to the emphasis that was placed on aggressiveness & creating turnovers. They weren't as successful as we would've liked in that regard, but they seemed to realize they didn't have the personel to just shut teams down, they would have to make big plays.