Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc65
I am also having difficulty with the sudden switch to a 3-4. With a win now mentality being displayed by offensive acquisitions, why drastically alter the defensive alignment that was built for a 4-3? If the team was rebuilding on offense with youth and an eye on the future, then a switch to a 3-4 makes more sense. It appears to me now that the entire front 7 needs to be replaced save for Orakpo. Fletcher is questionable in a 3-4, and is probably in his last year. Carter does not fit, not sure about where McIntosh fits, Daniels is a 1 down player, Golston is also questionable in a 3-4.
Losing Haynesworth would leave us with a line-up of : Jarmon, Kemoeatu/Montgomery, Daniels/Golston; and a linebacking corps of: Alexander/Carter, McIntosh/Henson, Fletcher, and Orakpo. This to me is a weak front 7, and we still have secondary issues.
How horrible would it be if the offense is improved, but the defense is noticeably weaker?
It could conceivably cost us a playoff spot.
|
This is what I am struggling with. McNabb wasn't brought here for a rebuilding process, he mentioned that in his press conference.
I thought that Al was the problem until I heard that Haslett wanted to run a 4-3 but was told that a 3-4 was our base defense. Why wouldn't you fix the offense this year then worry about moving to the 3-4 next year?
So Albert is taking all the heat for this situation (I still think he should show up) but the whole thing with Albert was self-imposed not by the D-Coordinator but by the head coach who has a long track record of making bad defensive decisions.
It is almost like he went out of his way to alienate AH to show that he is in charge.