Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post - Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement

NLC1054 · 07-02-2011, 05:16 PM

1.) Albert just wants to do whatever the **** he wants. This "coaches need to do what works to the strengths of their players" bullshit really needs to die. How long have the Steelers been running the 3-4 defense in some form? How often do guys leave and move on and there defense is STILL top 10 in the league?

Teams don't have consistency because every time they add a new player to the scheme they adjust a whole defense to that one player's specific skills. Sometimes you have to know your role and shut your mouth and work. Very, VERY few players in the league are allowed to "freelance" as it were. I don't know where this concept of "coaches having to adjust to what the players are best at" comes from. You adjust in SMALL ways, you do things they're more comfortable with in SMALL ways, but you don't shift your entire philosophy based on one player.

Albert doesn't want to play unless he can do whatever the hell he wants on any given down. Jim Haslett did everything HUMANLY POSSIBLE to get Albert on the field in situations he was comfortable with.

Albert doesn't want to play nose? Haslett didn't make him play nose. He doesn't want to play defensive end. Has says fine, he doesn't have to play defensive end. (This DESPITE the fact Albert actually looked halfway decent playing nose, certainly commanding more blocks that Kemo did.)

So they decide to put him in nickel packages. Albert doesn't want to play in first and second down nickel packages. Has says he doesn't have to that, he just has to play in third down nickel packages. Albert says he doesn't want to do any of their blitz packages. Has says fine.

Albert Haynesworth took Albert Haynesworth out of the game. They had to design Albert Haynesworth specific packages were Fat Al could do whatever the frig he wanted, like lay his fat ass on the turf while Michael Vick ran past him. Lets stop talking like they didn't try with him, they DID try, and he STILL underperformed, and pretty much refused to do anything that would help the team. **** Albert, **** Albert up his ****ing ass. (To be incredibly vulgar; sorry folks.)

2.) We have to be more objective then simply saying we were a top 10 defense in 2009. In 2009, the Redskins were 16th in run D. They were 18th in scoring. We were 26th in interceptions. What helped us was that the defense got a LOT of sacks, but even then, they forced 21 fumbles but only recovered SIX.

So you have a defense that was solid in pass defense and got a lot of sacks, but everywhere else the D was kind of middle of the packish.

I get why they made the switch. Was it ideal? No, but you have to expect that everyone has to adjust to a new defense and learn it and there were some growing pains.

3.) As for Haslett's scheme and playcalling, it could be plain sometimes, but it's hard to be super exotic when you've got a bunch of guys learning what they're supposed to be doing. He did pull out the exotic stuff (I saw the "Amoeba" stuff, I saw stuff that was like Green Bay's Psycho package), but it's hard to do that kind of stuff when you've got guys learning and you're trying to figure out.

Regardless, the 3-4 is here to stay, so complaining about how we should've never changed it in the first place is pointless. A season to learn his talent, to get so more pieces, it'll be better than last year. Worst case scenario is that we just get another defensive coordinator, but we won't be switching form the 3-4 while Mike is here, methinks.

07-02-2011, 05:16 PM	#17
NLC1054 Special Teams Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 279	Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement 1.) Albert just wants to do whatever the ** he wants. This "coaches need to do what works to the strengths of their players" bullshit really needs to die. How long have the Steelers been running the 3-4 defense in some form? How often do guys leave and move on and there defense is STILL top 10 in the league? Teams don't have consistency because every time they add a new player to the scheme they adjust a whole defense to that one player's specific skills. Sometimes you have to know your role and shut your mouth and work. Very, VERY few players in the league are allowed to "freelance" as it were. I don't know where this concept of "coaches having to adjust to what the players are best at" comes from. You adjust in SMALL ways, you do things they're more comfortable with in SMALL ways, but you don't shift your entire philosophy based on one player. Albert doesn't want to play unless he can do whatever the hell he wants on any given down. Jim Haslett did everything HUMANLY POSSIBLE to get Albert on the field in situations he was comfortable with. Albert doesn't want to play nose? Haslett didn't make him play nose. He doesn't want to play defensive end. Has says fine, he doesn't have to play defensive end. (This DESPITE the fact Albert actually looked halfway decent playing nose, certainly commanding more blocks that Kemo did.) So they decide to put him in nickel packages. Albert doesn't want to play in first and second down nickel packages. Has says he doesn't have to that, he just has to play in third down nickel packages. Albert says he doesn't want to do any of their blitz packages. Has says fine. Albert Haynesworth took Albert Haynesworth out of the game. They had to design Albert Haynesworth specific packages were Fat Al could do whatever the frig he wanted, like lay his fat ass on the turf while Michael Vick ran past him. Lets stop talking like they didn't try with him, they DID try, and he STILL underperformed, and pretty much refused to do anything that would help the team. Albert, Albert up his **ing ass. (To be incredibly vulgar; sorry folks.) 2.) We have to be more objective then simply saying we were a top 10 defense in 2009. In 2009, the Redskins were 16th in run D. They were 18th in scoring. We were 26th in interceptions. What helped us was that the defense got a LOT of sacks, but even then, they forced 21 fumbles but only recovered SIX. So you have a defense that was solid in pass defense and got a lot of sacks, but everywhere else the D was kind of middle of the packish. I get why they made the switch. Was it ideal? No, but you have to expect that everyone has to adjust to a new defense and learn it and there were some growing pains. 3.) As for Haslett's scheme and playcalling, it could be plain sometimes, but it's hard to be super exotic when you've got a bunch of guys learning what they're supposed to be doing. He did pull out the exotic stuff (I saw the "Amoeba" stuff, I saw stuff that was like Green Bay's Psycho package), but it's hard to do that kind of stuff when you've got guys learning and you're trying to figure out. Regardless, the 3-4 is here to stay, so complaining about how we should've never changed it in the first place is pointless. A season to learn his talent, to get so more pieces, it'll be better than last year. Worst case scenario is that we just get another defensive coordinator, but we won't be switching form the 3-4 while Mike is here, methinks.