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

NLC1054 · 07-03-2011, 09:38 PM

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.

07-03-2011, 09:38 PM	#29
NLC1054 Special Teams Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 279	Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement 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.