Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Regardless of how individuals looked, the results are undeniable. When you go from a top 10 defense to 31st and second to last, that is usually a sign of failure. In the NFL people usually lose their jobs for that kind of result.
Our defense was not a problem area and Mr. Shanahan's decision made our defense an instant weakness. The Monday Night Eagles game was one the worst defensive performance I have ever seen.

Well, our finish and performance in 2010 weren't very good. I don't think I'd want to be caught saying that I was happy with our performance on that side of the ball in 2009 either. Our defense in 2009 was a single strong unit (the d-line) and a crap ton of often ineffective spare parts

I think the unit was aging, and I think we went from a really strong D-Line in 2009 with Carter-Haynesworth-Griffin-Daniels to a really weak-but-younger one in Carriker-Kemo-Golston. And you're right that they turned a strength into a weakness. But the strength was built around three veterans in Griffin, Haynesworth, and Carter, and I think it would have been worse for a new DC to come in and try to ride out those three players rather than bring in fresh blood.

Regardless of how the unit performed last year, we're almost certainly better up front with Carriker, Jenkins, Bryant, and whatever they can milk out of Haynesworth than with a bunch of guys in their mid thirties who were excellent players under Grilliams...in 2007.

I feel like if Gregg Williams had stayed, we would have continued to win games and make the playoffs through the 2009 season, but even then, the day which we could no longer rely on Carter and Griffin as defensive staples was quickly approaching. And the truth is: without them, we didn't really have any 4-3 specific personnel anywhere on the roster.