The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'm still on but they aren't perfect, nobody is for that matter.

Speak for yourself.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

kaz wrote:It becomes a catch 22 though. We can't switch because we don't have the right players, but then what do we do? Sign 3-4 players and stick them in the 4-3?

No, but you don't make the switch until after you have signed the players.

I see I'm not the only one that understands it.

I understand your objective just fine. I just don't understand your plan to get there and while you agreed with each other, neither of you answered my question.

Do you read anything except your own ramblings? I already explained the basics on how I would do it.

I read every post you wrote in this thread and I'm not seeing that. All I see is you say if we had the players who play the 3-4, it can be done in one year. No kidding. So, is your plan:

- Sign players who can play the 3-4 and play them in the 4-3 until you have enough?

- Sign an entire 3-4 defense in one off season?

Or...something else? Simple question.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Sign players who can play the 3-4 and play them in the 4-3 until you have enough?

- Sign an entire 3-4 defense in one off season?

Or...something else? Simple question.

And the answer is pretty simple too. Once you reach enough 3-4 players (and we're talking about the front 7 here, not DBs), say 3, maybe 4, then you make the switch. 3 or 4 players is not so many that you can't sign them in one off-season. Right now, we have possibly 1 or 2 players that we should be playing in the 3-4 (still talking front 7).

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Sign players who can play the 3-4 and play them in the 4-3 until you have enough?

- Sign an entire 3-4 defense in one off season?

Or...something else? Simple question.

And the answer is pretty simple too. Once you reach enough 3-4 players (and we're talking about the front 7 here, not DBs), say 3, maybe 4, then you make the switch. 3 or 4 players is not so many that you can't sign them in one off-season. Right now, we have possibly 1 or 2 players that we should be playing in the 3-4 (still talking front 7).

3-4 quality front 7 players in one offseason is a huge hurdle. So, playing the 4-3 we're not committed to until we find 3-4 starting calibre players in one off-season and then switching to the 3-4 in your mind is just a vastly superior solution to switching to the scheme we're headed to and then working with the players you have and adjusting in the offseason? Seriously?

Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the switch at all, I'm assuming we are and discussing how we do it.

I don't see the point in teaching the 3-4 scheme to the 5 or six players who are not going to be playing for the team in the next year. Why not keep the 4-3, and maybe sprinkle in some 3-4 until you have the personnel? I can't believe you are seriously arguing the opposite.

Deadskins wrote:I don't see the point in teaching the 3-4 scheme to the 5 or six players who are not going to be playing for the team in the next year. Why not keep the 4-3, and maybe sprinkle in some 3-4 until you have the personnel? I can't believe you are seriously arguing the opposite.

Again as I keep saying, I'm starting with the assumption we are switching to a 3-4. The debate of whether to switch is separate. So, let's assume the choice is made and we're just discussing how to get there. Here are the reasons that I would do the switch:

1) We're no Super Bowl threat now, it's not like we're tanking a run for the Super Bowl. Why go through an O transition and a D transition separately? That makes no sense to me. Let's get the pain over with at once.

2) While our D has played generally well, we have been seriously (record settingly) poor at turnovers, sacks have been scarce and we have consistently not been able to make key stops, particularly late in games. So while we're a highly rated D, it's got glaring weaknesses, which again reduces the benefit of staying with the 4-3.

3) The coaches have to make the transition to coaching the 3-4, better to get on with it.

4) While you are probably right some players are not going to successfully switch, you actually don't know which ones. Some you may suspect more then others, but they need to be evaluated, if you don't switch you still don't know.

5) The players you do project to stay in the 3-4, the ones who make the transition and the ones you bring in need to learn to play together in the 3-4.

6) The time waiting is painful if everyone knows we're going to switch, they're working on a system that is dead end for us and they are not sure what to work on or if they fit in the new scheme.

7) As I pointed out there is no clean way to switch anyway. Playing 4-3 players in a 3-4 is not perfect, but neither is expecting to sign a slew of starters in a different scheme in one offseason or playing 3-4 players in a 4-3 while they wait for the switch.

This is a classic management situation and as a career manager/management consultant, when organizations are going to change you want to plan it and think it through, then get on with it. The limbo only makes it more painful, not less.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I don't see the point in teaching the 3-4 scheme to the 5 or six players who are not going to be playing for the team in the next year. Why not keep the 4-3, and maybe sprinkle in some 3-4 until you have the personnel? I can't believe you are seriously arguing the opposite.

Again as I keep saying, I'm starting with the assumption we are switching to a 3-4. The debate of whether to switch is separate. So, let's assume the choice is made and we're just discussing how to get there. Here are the reasons that I would do the switch:

1) We're no Super Bowl threat now, it's not like we're tanking a run for the Super Bowl. Why go through an O transition and a D transition separately? That makes no sense to me. Let's get the pain over with at once.

See, I don't think we are getting the pain over any faster by implementing it now. That's my whole point. It will still take the same number of years because this year was wasted. It was wasted because only one of the guys running this 3-4 will be here when we are running the 3-4 after the implementation is complete. (Orakpo is the only one, IMO)

Deadskins wrote:See, I don't think we are getting the pain over any faster by implementing it now. That's my whole point. It will still take the same number of years because this year was wasted. It was wasted because only one of the guys running this 3-4 will be here when we are running the 3-4 after the implementation is complete. (Orakpo is the only one, IMO)

I guess what it comes down to then is the reason we're just so completely on different pages on this is you and I have diametrically opposed approaches to building a Super Bowl team. You think it's like building a race car. A piece (player) works one way and he fits or he doesn't. When you get the right pieces in the right places then the car goes 200 mph and you pass the other teams. I view building a Super Bowl team as implementing a continually improving process where players, coaches and the system all continuously improve the results until you outperform the other teams. If you're right, your approach is better. If I'm right, mine is. There really is no bridge between them.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:See, I don't think we are getting the pain over any faster by implementing it now. That's my whole point. It will still take the same number of years because this year was wasted. It was wasted because only one of the guys running this 3-4 will be here when we are running the 3-4 after the implementation is complete. (Orakpo is the only one, IMO)

I guess what it comes down to then is the reason we're just so completely on different pages on this is you and I have diametrically opposed approaches to building a Super Bowl team. You think it's like building a race car. A piece (player) works one way and he fits or he doesn't. When you get the right pieces in the right places then the car goes 200 mph and you pass the other teams. I view building a Super Bowl team as implementing a continually improving process where players, coaches and the system all continuously improve the results until you outperform the other teams. If you're right, your approach is better. If I'm right, mine is. There really is no bridge between them.

I don't agree with your assessment of my views. Go figure.
Although, your views on AH fit better into what you say is my model, than what you say is yours.

Deadskins wrote:I don't see the point in teaching the 3-4 scheme to the 5 or six players who are not going to be playing for the team in the next year. Why not keep the 4-3, and maybe sprinkle in some 3-4 until you have the personnel? I can't believe you are seriously arguing the opposite.

You do make a good point that a lot of the guys learning the schemes will not be here next year. Why not sprinkle in some 3-4 until you have the personnel? I don't think Shanahan knows who to sprinkle anything. I think that he is a damn the Torpedoes full speed ahead guy.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

welch wrote:

brad7686 wrote:my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

If Shanahan and his choice for defensive coordinator want the 3-4, then they should -- and did -- install it from the first. They have to train players to the 3-4, and find players to fit. That's happening, and it won't be smooth.

Remember the reverse: in the first year of free-agency / salary cap, the Redskins lost an all-pro linebacker. A big star and a great player in the 4-3. They signed Carl Banks, an all-pro in the 3-4, from the Giants. Banks didn't fit.

Players don't necessarily fit in both defenses, but if the coaches want a 3-4 defense, then the defense will slip for a time.

There is no reason to believe that the defense won't improve next year.

My issue from that is with all the holes on offense, the defense shoulda stayed 4-3, and then coulda transitioned easier if he went a hybrid, then 3-4. This cold thurkey 3-4 and trying to fix an anemic offense at the same time is horrible.

I honestly believe taht as the season went on, the defense got worse. We've NOT been getting to the QB as much, NOT been getting the TOs as we did in the 1st 1/2 of the season. Our newness wore off (hello Zorn 6-2 start) and teams found out we're not that good at the 3-4. I honestly believe that we could have been better at the 4-3. Didn't the reigning Super Bowl Champs win with a 4-3? 3-4 may be dominating now, but 4-3 is not inept as some college football offenses are in NFL. It can be viable. This defensive transition added AT LEAST one year to our rebuild.

You won't get any argument from me on this. And I think I was wrong all along. Looking back, I think a transition to a 3-4 probably would have made more sense, similar to what Parcells did down in Dallas. I am glad that they went to a 3-4 in the sense that I believe it's a better defense to disguise the rush, but if the decision was to move to the 3-4, it should of happened over a course of a few years while we stockpiled players to fit in the 3-4.

The fact is, that we made the switch, and now we have to wait. Another way to look at it though is that we probably get better draft picks by changing immediately because we're not winning as many games, so maybe it's not that bad. Would you rather be 8-8 with the 16th pick in the draft and not in the playoffs, or 5-11 with a top 7 pick and not in the playoffs.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:All this talk about it taking so long to transition to the 3-4 is not accurate IMO, either. If you have the players, I think the change can be made in one season. I see no reason to make the switch now if we don't have the personnel to run the scheme. If the players we do have don't fit in the 3-4, and will be gone when we do finish the implementation, then what value is there in teaching it to them now? Why go through these growing pains if these aren't even the players we will have running the scheme in two years?

I agree. The Packers are a perfect example of a team that made the transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in one offseason. Unlike us, though, they had the players to make it work.

It becomes a catch 22 though. We can't switch because we don't have the right players, but then what do we do? Sign 3-4 players and stick them in the 4-3?

I'm not sold completely on the 3-4, but given that we're going to go to it, it's better to just do it given that our D has struggled with turnovers and key stops and sacks and our O has so much work to do. I prefer to get all the pain over at once rather then spread it out.

Actually that's exactly what Parcells did in Dallas. He was hell bent on moving to the 3-4, but didn't his first two years there while he drafted 3-4 players and played a hybrid defense. Looking back, we probably should have transitioned a bit more than we did. Haslett has called plenty of 4-3 in his career, so it would have made sense. I'm all on board with the 3-4 switch, just would have liked it to be transitioned a bit.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:All this talk about it taking so long to transition to the 3-4 is not accurate IMO, either. If you have the players, I think the change can be made in one season. I see no reason to make the switch now if we don't have the personnel to run the scheme. If the players we do have don't fit in the 3-4, and will be gone when we do finish the implementation, then what value is there in teaching it to them now? Why go through these growing pains if these aren't even the players we will have running the scheme in two years?

I agree. The Packers are a perfect example of a team that made the transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in one offseason. Unlike us, though, they had the players to make it work.

It becomes a catch 22 though. We can't switch because we don't have the right players, but then what do we do? Sign 3-4 players and stick them in the 4-3?

No, but you don't make the switch until after you have signed the players.

You wouldn't do this either. You run a hybrid defense along the way, like what Williams is running in NO.

chiefhog44 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

welch wrote:

brad7686 wrote:my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

If Shanahan and his choice for defensive coordinator want the 3-4, then they should -- and did -- install it from the first. They have to train players to the 3-4, and find players to fit. That's happening, and it won't be smooth.

Remember the reverse: in the first year of free-agency / salary cap, the Redskins lost an all-pro linebacker. A big star and a great player in the 4-3. They signed Carl Banks, an all-pro in the 3-4, from the Giants. Banks didn't fit.

Players don't necessarily fit in both defenses, but if the coaches want a 3-4 defense, then the defense will slip for a time.

There is no reason to believe that the defense won't improve next year.

My issue from that is with all the holes on offense, the defense shoulda stayed 4-3, and then coulda transitioned easier if he went a hybrid, then 3-4. This cold thurkey 3-4 and trying to fix an anemic offense at the same time is horrible.

I honestly believe taht as the season went on, the defense got worse. We've NOT been getting to the QB as much, NOT been getting the TOs as we did in the 1st 1/2 of the season. Our newness wore off (hello Zorn 6-2 start) and teams found out we're not that good at the 3-4. I honestly believe that we could have been better at the 4-3. Didn't the reigning Super Bowl Champs win with a 4-3? 3-4 may be dominating now, but 4-3 is not inept as some college football offenses are in NFL. It can be viable. This defensive transition added AT LEAST one year to our rebuild.

You won't get any argument from me on this. And I think I was wrong all along. Looking back, I think a transition to a 3-4 probably would have made more sense, similar to what Parcells did down in Dallas. I am glad that they went to a 3-4 in the sense that I believe it's a better defense to disguise the rush, but if the decision was to move to the 3-4, it should of happened over a course of a few years while we stockpiled players to fit in the 3-4.

The fact is, that we made the switch, and now we have to wait. Another way to look at it though is that we probably get better draft picks by changing immediately because we're not winning as many games, so maybe it's not that bad. Would you rather be 8-8 with the 16th pick in the draft and not in the playoffs, or 5-11 with a top 7 pick and not in the playoffs.

The whole problem with ShanAllen year one (which is why I'm hypercritical) is b/c some aspects they seem to be trying to rebuild (blow up 4-3 for 3-4) but then trade away what they did for McNabb (win now). Inconsistant from the very beginning. Trying to pick up vets to sub in for the defensive transition was a horrible thing to do THIS PAST YEAR b/c of the extended RFA market.

I realize that we did switch and I have to bite the bullet (after all, I am just a fan), but I don't have to do it quietly. And rarely do I do anything quietly.

It's about time!! I, for one, don't mind growing pains when we have solid leadership at the helm and with that, this team should improve each and every year moving forward.

What's not to like about that?!?!!?

Countertrey wrote::up:



but... for the record... this doesn't mean that I'm going to capitalize redskins...

Be careful, or the activists will sue you for disrespecting the native American people.

Justice Hog wrote:It's about time!! I, for one, don't mind growing pains when we have solid leadership at the helm and with that, this team should improve each and every year moving forward.

What's not to like about that?!?!!?

Until I see positive progress, there's nothing to like, and I've seen all the growing pains, and no growing so far.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Justice Hog wrote:It's about time!! I, for one, don't mind growing pains when we have solid leadership at the helm and with that, this team should improve each and every year moving forward.

What's not to like about that?!?!!?

Until I see positive progress, there's nothing to like, and I've seen all the growing pains, and no growing so far.

Every year it's the same thing...
Portis is old and the Redskins need a replacement, well CP is back on IR and still maybe the best back with TWO years off but they don't have to rely on Betts and Cartwright, they have Williams and Torrain is back. James Davis may be better than both of them. Anthony Armstrong leads the NFC with a 20.7-yard per catch average. Heyer isn't the first option a tackle regarless of the situation anymore and he might be able to play guard. Banks gets postive yardage on his returns, Haynesworth is no longer in the locker room and Grossman may never see the field again. These aren't giant steps but they are steps forward.

1niksder wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Justice Hog wrote:It's about time!! I, for one, don't mind growing pains when we have solid leadership at the helm and with that, this team should improve each and every year moving forward.

What's not to like about that?!?!!?

Until I see positive progress, there's nothing to like, and I've seen all the growing pains, and no growing so far.

Every year it's the same thing...
Portis is old and the Redskins need a replacement, well CP is back on IR and still maybe the best back with TWO years off but they don't have to rely on Betts and Cartwright, they have Williams and Torrain is back. James Davis may be better than both of them. Anthony Armstrong leads the NFC with a 20.7-yard per catch average. Heyer isn't the first option a tackle regarless of the situation anymore and he might be able to play guard. Banks gets postive yardage on his returns, Haynesworth is no longer in the locker room and Grossman may never see the field again. These aren't giant steps but they are steps forward.

If these are our positives, then we are in BIG BIG trouble.

I love CP, but he is basically done. I hope he proves me wrong though as he is one of my favorite (if not my favorite) skin. Davis may be better than Torain & Williams, but that isn't saying much. None of those 3 have the talent to be a featured (or even consistently producing) RB in the NFL.

Armstrong has proven to be an average #3 WR at best; and who cares about his 20.7 yards per catch (even though it is actually 18.2). HE ONLY AVERAGES 2.8 RECEPTIONS PER GAME!!!!!! Wow, get Canton on the phone....

Heyer is horrible, regardless of what position he plays. The best thing that can happen to this team would be for him to get cut.

Losing Haynesworth for no compensation is not what I call progress. When he plays, he is one of the best in the game. The fact that the HC or GM couldn't get AH to step up and get on the same page isn't what I call a positive.

And who cares about Grossman. What does he have to do with anything? He is our second string QB. Placing that in the positives only shows that there are basically no positives to emphasize.

Now the pickup of Banks was absolutely a positive. He has been the best thing about this season. Truly the only REAL postiive that occured this year.

Lets get real. That is a sad, sad list of positives from the year. If this is what we have to look forward to in the future, we are in for sad times.

markshark84 wrote:
If these are our positives, then we are in BIG BIG trouble.

We've been in BIG BIG trouble for some time

markshark84 wrote:I love CP, but he is basically done. I hope he proves me wrong though as he is one of my favorite (if not my favorite) skin.

Portis looked good when he played, and now he's out for basically another year. He might not not get back to where he was but he might still get the job done with some help.

markshark84 wrote:Davis may be better than Torain & Williams, but that isn't saying much. None of those 3 have the talent to be a featured (or even consistently producing) RB in the NFL.

That's what has been said about all of Shanahan's running backs, I just wish they didn't all run the same way.

markshark84 wrote:Armstrong has proven to be an average #3 WR at best; and who cares about his 20.7 yards per catch (even though it is actually 18.2). HE ONLY AVERAGES 2.8 RECEPTIONS PER GAME!!!!!! Wow, get Canton on the phone....

He doesn't have the most accurate passer throwing him the ball, and that passer getting sacked some 35 times won't help. I called it progress but if you want to call Canton knock yourself out.

markshark84 wrote:Heyer is horrible, regardless of what position he plays. The best thing that can happen to this team would be for him to get cut.

Heyer isn't a NFL OT but he's a undrafted player that's made the squad under three different regimes, two being headed by Super Bowl winning coaches. So what do we know

markshark84 wrote:Losing Haynesworth for no compensation is not what I call progress. When he plays, he is one of the best in the game. The fact that the HC or GM couldn't get AH to step up and get on the same page isn't what I call a positive.

I said he was out of the locker room, and they haven't lost him. He won't be back but he is still under contract with the Redskins. Albert didn't want to get on the coaches page, so he's been banned. It's been the other way around for so long people actually think the GM and HC are wrong.

markshark84 wrote:And who cares about Grossman. What does he have to do with anything? He is our second string QB. Placing that in the positives only shows that there are basically no positives to emphasize.

Now the pickup of Banks was absolutely a positive. He has been the best thing about this season. Truly the only REAL postiive that occured this year.

It's a positive when you find out your #2 isn't a #2 before it's in a game that matters. That's why I brought it up as a positive. Why did you call Banks a absolute positive after saying Grossman "only shows that there are basically no positives to emphasize"? Was it because Banks had more productive snaps at QB than Grossman?

markshark84 wrote:Lets get real. That is a sad, sad list of positives from the year. If this is what we have to look forward to in the future, we are in for sad times.

Lets really get real. The Redskins were 4-12 last year and are under new management, they are going through scheme changes on both sides of the ball and trying to rebuild the roster to fit the new scheme. The culture at Redskins Park was one that said it was a good place to come and get paid for what you've done in the past, the new group is also trying to change this perception so you take your positive where you find them.

1niksder wrote:... Lets really get real. The Redskins were 4-12 last year and are under new management, they are going through scheme changes on both sides of the ball and trying to rebuild the roster to fit the new scheme. The culture at Redskins Park was one that said it was a good place to come and get paid for what you've done in the past, the new group is also trying to change this perception so you take your positive where you find them.

count me in - we're better than we were, that's real easy to see for anyone that wants to really look at things

the guys not liking what is happening here are just biased because they don't like a couple of things that happened & are too small to admit that they're wrong about this FO and this coaching staff

no worries - we are who we are and we are getting better - I'm kind of enjoying rubbing it in

1niksder wrote:Lets really get real. The Redskins were 4-12 last year and are under new management, they are going through scheme changes on both sides of the ball and trying to rebuild the roster to fit the new scheme. The culture at Redskins Park was one that said it was a good place to come and get paid for what you've done in the past, the new group is also trying to change this perception so you take your positive where you find them.

Agreed, 100%. Some people are going to dismiss whatever positives that get brought up — and that's OK, I can understand their frustration — but the improvements are there and something that the team is going to build on going forward.

When we have a playoff year in 2011 or 2012, all of the media is going to be talking about how we came out of nowhere (kind of like Gibbs's second year as coach), but Redskins fans will have seen the improvement from day one and will know that it was no accident.

1niksder wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Heyer is horrible, regardless of what position he plays. The best thing that can happen to this team would be for him to get cut.

Heyer isn't a NFL OT but he's a undrafted player that's made the squad under three different regimes, two being headed by Super Bowl winning coaches. So what do we know

This is the question I keep asking myself. if he is so horrible, why does he keep making the team? Obviously, the coaches see something all these fans who say he sucks don't. Personally, I have seen him have a few good games and many bad ones. He does seem to screw up at the most inopportune times, whether it be letting up a sack, or committing a game altering penalty. They must be seeing good things in practice, or on film, or they just love his versatility.

1niksder wrote:Was it because Banks had more productive snaps at QB than Grossman?

Actually, yes. Grossman has had a negative number of productive snaps, so Banks actually does have more.

Until it gets on the field, it ain't progress, and we haven't put it on the field.