As a DE.. hell no you wouldn't want to play in a 3-4... you are a clogger and asked to do all the dirty work while the outside backers get the credit for sacks and making plays.. the dline in a 3-4 is very unrewarding.

That is why, people railing on Corey Williams this year didn't really watch him play.. he did what they asked him to do and played fairly well for his first year in the system.. played with effort, but on the stat sheet.. it shows very little. Hence.. not everything can be translated from stats themselves.

But as a outside backer if we would want to play in the scheme.. the answer would be hell yeah..

When I hit a couple of the Midwest camps back in the day.. they taught both techniques for line play of both systems.. in a 3-4 no matter the position along the line.. you were taught to play as wide as you possibly could.. almost like a offensive lineman, chip on the olineman as much as you can.. after a two hour live session of playing the 3-4.. you were dog ass tired.

In a 4-3, dependant on position and scheme (Basically, one gap or two) you either played wide at times or they taught you techniques for penetrating, busting a gap and defeating one on ones.. premise here is that you are the front line of the defense and taught to make plays..

Unlike the 3-4, where more often than not your job was to allow the backers to make the plays cleanly.. making a play was secondary in the thought process.

As I grew faster and started to develop, they moved me into the linebacker spots.. if I played outside.. I liked the 3-4 better.. where I played was mostly inside in school and in most camps.. then I actually preferred the 4-3 front over the 3-4.. the traffic was lessened in that front.. it is all perspective in talking to the players and positions within the fronts.

---

I'm not as informed about 3-4 as I am about 4-3, but from what I gather it required tremendous discipline from the front 3, they have to maintain gap discipline, taking on blockers and leaving the LBs free to do their thing.

If I'm right in my understanding, then this D-line is really ill equipped for a 3-4. We struggled with gap control and discipline in the 4-3. It was a seemingly weekly issue.

What's more, I'm starting to buy into the theory more so that our starting DEs in Jenkins and Kampman are so effective in rushing the passer that making them switch to a 3-4 would end in a loss because Poppinga / Chillar / who ever else that plays OLB won't be able to generate the consistent rushes those two generated when playing together.

---

I'm calling it. Quote me. Winston Moss will be our new DC

---

It would seem more and more likely, yes. But then why fire someone like Washington? He knows the scheme and his players certainly performed.

Is it just a matter of making it look like a house-cleaning? If so, that's pretty weak. Just admit that your DC was a problem and reset w/ someone like Moss at the helm. Maybe that isn't as sexy as turning it all over, but at least it's more honest to the fanbase.

The more of this sort of silliness goes on, the more I wonder about the leaders (head coach, front office). I'm not saying I'm down on them or that I'll start calling for "the right heads to roll", but an off-season without shenanigans like this would be welcome.

I guess I'm just going to have to wait and see what actually pans out.

---

Granted it is too early in this process to cry foul yet.. I will agree with you on the fact, that we need a productive, drama free, no open questions type of offseason.

I think some of the confusion on this whole deal is the Rams interview with Moss, a process that hasn't been completed yet.

If Moss is the selection for the next DC and they announce it now, if the Rams select Moss, we are left holding the bag and in a jackpot again for a rumor filled offseason.

If Moss isn't the selection for the DC, then it is clear the Mike McCarthy is doing him a favor but leaving him in a status quo type position..

They couldn't continue with the old staff in place for weeks and then make a move, that wouldn't be right to the outgoing gents.. they have to secure employment and probably relatively soon. So you have to be fair to them as well.

Poor timing and circumstances again? Maybe we just have a knack for that. :lol:

---

I'm sincerely hoping that the part I bolded above is true, but I'm hoping the favor is not dumping him before his interview process w/ STL is done for perception reasons, and not saying "you can stay here if you don't get that job." As I stated before (and I think you may have also said it), if you judge by the performance of the players, Moss doesn't deserve a job any more than Washington, and perhaps less. I just don't get how he's the guy that stays, unless some folks like Bozz are right and they're going to hand the defense over to him.

And if that's the case I say again, why fire the assistants that were performing well if your intent is to keep the system you have (or at least somewhat)? If Sanders was in fact the problem, then you dump him (and anyone else in his boat), keep the assistants that were clamoring for change and those who performed well, and just tell us (the fans) the truth: "We like our scheme, but we felt we needed to change up the leadership of that scheme." You don't fire everyone BUT Moss, thereby giving the impression that you're truly cleaning house, only to then hand him the keys. That's the stuff that gets in my craw and starts itching, you know?

BUT. You're right. Too early to get all up-in-arms yet. See what happens, and maybe that'll be a pleasant surprise.

---

If this story is true, I can think of no finer endorsement for Nolan. Dan Snyder, aka boy wonder, aka arrogant has way more- money- than-sense, aka a single-handed-destroyer of what was once a well-respected franchise, aka jerko## prima-Donna pri##.. (Don't care much for Dan :pottytrain2: )

This thread was mentioned in another thread... but it made me want to say here that the #1 reason I've seen so far for completely overhauling the defensive staff was the (what seems fairly solid) rumor that the coaching staff wasn't on the same page, and stifled their dissent for the sake of team chemistry or whatnot. You just can't have a split defensive coaching staff, especially if the D ends up under-performing. We're definitely going to question this move going forward, considering how big it was and what the possible replacements are, but that IS a legitimate reason for such a big move, imho.

---

Agreed. Something had to be done on the defensive side of the ball - well, a couple things. One of them, to be sure, was the coaching, and that would appear to be underway. The other is personnel, so if Thompson and co. address that in the off-season then I think we have reason for optimism.

---

It might also sound pleasant to people's ears that with a new hire the GM will most often be on the hunt for players that fit. It will be highly unlikely after the hire that Thompson is going to hear " oh, yeah, all these guys are perfect for what I want to do and we won't need anybody."

Regardless of who it is there will almost have to be some new blood brought in player-wise.

---