Changes
-
Well, we already know about Daniels getting worked into the lineup in rotation with BMac...but that is not the only thing on the horizon.
The Browns are going to be working in Shantee Orr into the OLB rotation. I have been wondering why he has not been utilized there. He was a natural pass rushing OLB when in Texas....and had 7 sacks (or there abouts) in his year opposite Peek in the last season they played the 3-4. I think letting him concentrate on that position instead of swinging him back and forth between ILB will make a big difference. I really anticipate him giving us a boost in sacks/pressures.
Orr will be included in a four-man rotation at outside linebacker as Crennel tries to get some fourth-quarter production out of his defense.
"I've been trying for the last two years to get back to the 3-4 after Houston changed to the 4-3. It better fits my abilities," Orr said.
In preseason, Orr played inside and outside. Now he'll concentrate on the outside as a pass rusher. The Browns have only five sacks from outside linebackers. Rookie Alex Hall has three and Kamerion Wimbley has two.
Hall's most recent sack was four games ago against the Giants. Wimbley had one sack against Denver.
"That's the key to any defense," Orr said. "When you have a dominating guy inside [nose tackle Shaun Rogers], you need to get a good rush off the edge."
As for Wimbley, Crennel said: "It has been an unproductive year as far as sack totals. But Wimbley's been a consistent player, [and gives] consistent effort. I think he's improved as a player. We'll just keep working with him to see if we can improve that [sack] total so that everyone feels a little better about him."
Hall has not had sack since the Giants game...and Wimbley is still not getting enough...so hopefully this works.
As for Daniels...I like the idea of rotating him in. He is 6'1" 195, so he is a much bigger and more physical presence in the secondary than EITHER our starting CB's (BMac 5'10 185, Wright 5'10 190)...so he may give us a better matchup against bigger receivers...and may be a better option for CB blitzes.
Regarding Harrison and his disappearing act....Crennel has addressed it and promised more of him in BOTH HALVES of the game:
"We planned to try to use him and that's why we got him into the game in the first half. Sometimes it happens that maybe the ball doesn't get in your hands. The ball wasn't in his hands as much the second half. We're going to try to see if we can be a little more consistent about getting the ball in his hands."
Let's hope this is true.
And finally, many of us have wondered alloud why we don't switch to the 4-3. RAC actually talks about it and says they considered it...until R.Smith went down on the IR....
Crennel conceded that he considered switching his base defense to a 4-3 alignment earlier in the season, but when end Robaire Smith was lost for the season with an Achilles' injury in Game 2 "that option was taken away."
I have to admit the option would be much more appealing with R.Smith in the mix...so maybe next year we make the switch no matter who the coach is.
Well, we already know about Daniels getting worked into the lineup in rotation with BMac...but that is not the only thing on the horizon.
The Browns are going to be working in Shantee Orr into the OLB rotation. I have been wondering why he has not been utilized there. He was a natural pass rushing OLB when in Texas....and had 7 sacks (or there abouts) in his year opposite Peek in the last season they played the 3-4. I think letting him concentrate on that position instead of swinging him back and forth between ILB will make a big difference. I really anticipate him giving us a boost in sacks/pressures.
Hall has not had sack since the Giants game...and Wimbley is still not getting enough...so hopefully this works.
As for Daniels...I like the idea of rotating him in. He is 6'1" 195, so he is a much bigger and more physical presence in the secondary than EITHER our starting CB's (BMac 5'10 185, Wright 5'10 190)...so he may give us a better matchup against bigger receivers...and may be a better option for CB blitzes.
Regarding Harrison and his disappearing act....Crennel has addressed it and promised more of him in BOTH HALVES of the game:
Let's hope this is true.
And finally, many of us have wondered alloud why we don't switch to the 4-3. RAC actually talks about it and says they considered it...until R.Smith went down on the IR....
I have to admit the option would be much more appealing with R.Smith in the mix...so maybe next year we make the switch no matter who the coach is.
Bullcrap, they could go 4-3 right now with Wimbley and Hall on the line with no drop in production. It's just more Romeo face-saving. Also, Harrison didn't get the ball in his hands much in the second half? How about not at all???
-
4-3 is the last thing this team needs to try to take on right now. If you think our LBs aren't good enough to play in the 3-4, this wouldn't fix anything. It makes the D weaker. Still would have the same LBs, and a whole pile of DTs. for Wimbley/Hall to play DE, these are the same LBs you say aren't good enough, you end up putting 5 of these "terrible" LBs on teh field at the same time, whereas at least in the 3-4, there are only 4...
I'll never understand why anyone in this world wants to run a 4-3.
-
4-3 is the last thing this team needs to try to take on right now. If you think our LBs aren't good enough to play in the 3-4, this wouldn't fix anything. It makes the D weaker. Still would have the same LBs, and a whole pile of DTs. for Wimbley/Hall to play DE, these are the same LBs you say aren't good enough, you end up putting 5 of these "terrible" LBs on teh field at the same time, whereas at least in the 3-4, there are only 4...
I'll never understand why anyone in this world wants to run a 4-3.
4-3 is the last thing this team needs to try to take on right now. If you think our LBs aren't good enough to play in the 3-4, this wouldn't fix anything. It makes the D weaker. Still would have the same LBs, and a whole pile of DTs. for Wimbley/Hall to play DE, these are the same LBs you say aren't good enough, you end up putting 5 of these "terrible" LBs on teh field at the same time, whereas at least in the 3-4, there are only 4...
I'll never understand why anyone in this world wants to run a 4-3.
i agree wholeheartedly.
-
All the 3-4 haters should keep in mind that Cowher used a 3-4 in Pittsburgh.
-
All the 3-4 haters should keep in mind that Cowher used a 3-4 in Pittsburgh.
All the 3-4 and 4-3 haters should take note that both of these D's have upside and downside and both can be very effective.....................
The Steel Curtain and the Purple People Eaters the best defenses ever used the 4-3
as did the magnificent Giants of 86 and the Bears of 85 and all of the great 49er teams
Not to say I am against the 3-4 ..........but you better have strong fast mobile LB's with moves to make it work
and draft accordingly
and oh btw ...........NE under Belichick has vasilated in both directions using both schemes even now...............
Take it for what it is worth..................
I closes by saying we have neither the personnel for the 3-4 or 4-3 and have tried to shoehorn fatness into a 3-4 in recent years
-
I hate to agree with rich...but our DL is too damn BIG!!! I have said this a million times to no avail...there are at least 1 (and usually 2) guys in the 290-310 range on a 3-4 DL....and we have ALL OF OURS over 320!!! It just doesn't give you enough lateral movement. Basically we are playing 3 DT's on the line...and that just doesn't work!
-
I hate to agree with rich...but our DL is too damn BIG!!! I have said this a million times to no avail...there are at least 1 (and usually 2) guys in the 290-310 range on a 3-4 DL....and we have ALL OF OURS over 320!!! It just doesn't give you enough lateral movement. Basically we are playing 3 DT's on the line...and that just doesn't work!
I hate to agree with rich...but our DL is too damn BIG!!! I have said this a million times to no avail...there are at least 1 (and usually 2) guys in the 290-310 range on a 3-4 DL....and we have ALL OF OURS over 320!!! It just doesn't give you enough lateral movement. Basically we are playing 3 DT's on the line...and that just doesn't work!
R. Smith did fit that weight bill at 310. But after he went down, yeah, CLE was left w/ no one else on the lighter side to play DE.
-
4-3 is the last thing this team needs to try to take on right now. If you think our LBs aren't good enough to play in the 3-4, this wouldn't fix anything. It makes the D weaker. Still would have the same LBs, and a whole pile of DTs. for Wimbley/Hall to play DE, these are the same LBs you say aren't good enough, you end up putting 5 of these "terrible" LBs on teh field at the same time, whereas at least in the 3-4, there are only 4...
I'll never understand why anyone in this world wants to run a 4-3.
4-3 is the last thing this team needs to try to take on right now. If you think our LBs aren't good enough to play in the 3-4, this wouldn't fix anything. It makes the D weaker. Still would have the same LBs, and a whole pile of DTs. for Wimbley/Hall to play DE, these are the same LBs you say aren't good enough, you end up putting 5 of these "terrible" LBs on teh field at the same time, whereas at least in the 3-4, there are only 4...
I'll never understand why anyone in this world wants to run a 4-3.
I agree completely about converting in the middle of the season however i really like the 4-3 but i want to see it under a different coaching staff otherwise its meaningless i prefer an aggressive 3-4 but the guys you need to make an aggressive style 3-4 dont grow on trees pittsburgh and new england gobble them up because they know what they are looking for we obviously dont but anywho RAC was a fool for converting to a 34 defense with the guys we had to begin with...
I fail to understand why we switched to a 3-4 to begin with being we never have had the right parts to make it work right we do have most the pieces needed for an effective 4-3 most our guys are 4-3 players that have failed to produce in a 3-4 setting..
-
Player personnel should dictate a 4-3 or a 3-4 not the coaches. You need a legitimate Mike 'backer and I don't think DQ is it. Whether Robaire is healthy or not, we don't have the personnel to run it
Our 2 biggest off-season aquisitions are Rogers and Williams both from 4-3's.
-
And Rogers has been a huge hit in the 3-4. Corey Williams is learning, but he was a guy people around the league have thought could play in either system.
I still go back and thinking coaching/scheme are the biggest problem on this D.
Masters said:
And Rogers has been a huge hit in the 3-4. Corey Williams is learning, but he was a guy people around the league have thought could play in either system.I still go back and thinking coaching/scheme are the biggest problem on this D.
That's true and most of the argument for either 4-3, 3-4 is based on the "Base" version of either defense. And the good defenses don't run basic stuff anyway. Some teams throw so many wrinkles at an offense no one knows where the hell their rushing in from. We sure don't do much variety in that regard. As you said "Coaching and Schemes."
-
Masters said:
And Rogers has been a huge hit in the 3-4. Corey Williams is learning, but he was a guy people around the league have thought could play in either system.I still go back and thinking coaching/scheme are the biggest problem on this D.
That's true and most of the argument for either 4-3, 3-4 is based on the "Base" version of either defense. And the good defenses don't run basic stuff anyway. Some teams throw so many wrinkles at an offense no one knows where the hell their rushing in from. We sure don't do much variety in that regard. As you said "Coaching and Schemes."
88fingerslewy said:
That's true and most of the argument for either 4-3, 3-4 is based on the "Base" version of either defense. And the good defenses don't run basic stuff anyway. Some teams throw so many wrinkles at an offense no one knows where the hell their rushing in from. We sure don't do much variety in that regard. As you said "Coaching and Schemes."exactly where I was going with it. CLE is far too predictable on D. If I can spot where the blitz (on those few occassions they do) is coming from before the snap, I am sure most NFL QBs can.
-
@ rich: the '86 giants ran a 3-4. it's why lawrence taylor was an OLB and not a DE. also, the '85 bears ran a 4-6, a massively aggressive version of the 4-3. the 49ers won with offense and solid yet somewhat unspectacular defense. i'd say the division of great Ds is pretty even between four-man lines and three-man ones.
@ masters & 88fingers: the problem is definitely the scheme and aggression. we're too passive and our blitzes are way, way, way too obvious. with the Qb seeing them, the line can see them, too, and easily pick them up. tucker's a good DB coach and could someday be a good DC, but for right now, he's just not creative enough and rac's not taking charge the way he should.
the teams that run good 3-4s are baltimore and pittsburgh. san diego did for a while, but that fell apart when wade phillips left for dallas. new england's version is too passive; i'm not a fan of it at all, and that is, unfortunately, the version of the 3-4 that romeo runs.
-
Here's something: Shaun Smith sucks. He is too fat and out of shape to play DE in a 3/4, period.
I agree with WPB on this. Robaire was a big blow, but this defense has not played well when Smith has played and I think it's more than a coincidence.
Smith = all talk and no action = sucking wind and standing still wrestling with a tackle.
-
It doesn't matter what the scheme is, if execution isn't there, nothing is going to work.
The Browns do not have the right personnel to run the 4-3.
I remember 5 years ago everyone was crying for a 3-4 because the 4-3 wasn't working. Stick with the 3-4 and get players that can play it and a coach who can motivate.
I have seen a lot of 4-3 projections out there that are flat out wrong anyway. For one, Corey Williams would be a DT in a 4-3, not a DE. Second, the Browns linebackers would be terrible in a 4-3. Who would start? Jackson, Davis and Williams would all project to be inside guys in a 4-3.
What this team needs is to execute the way a 3-4 is supposed to. There is too much confusion between players on the field and that goes back to coaching. Does anyone really think the 3-4 would look this bad if Cowher or Marty were coaching? I doubt it. In fact, I am willing to bet you would see completely different personnel on the field instead of guys like Willie Mac and Andra Davis.
-
All the 3-4 and 4-3 haters should take note that both of these D's have upside and downside and both can be very effective.............
I agree Rich.....it is the players playing it and the coaches coaching it.
All in all, I prefer a 3-4. It gives you a faster team with more options...we just don't utilize any options.
-
3-4 is phenominal if aggressively designed....Must have great linebackers to play it. we don't have anything close to great linebackers. Andra davis is a 4-3 linebacker and useless in a 3-4. Dqwell looking like a huge bust. Wimbley better start to show up in these last games or I will think he is a huge bust as well.
Rey in 09"
.jpg.a1a2b9a0c33008fdaf4097d8fe2cfd64.jpg "Riffer X"){kind=avatar}
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login