Washington Redskins: 5 Reasons Why Redskins Defense Must Switch to 4-3

The decision to switch to a 3-4 scheme was one of the most controversial choices made by Mike Shanahan when he took charge in 2010.

The Washington Redskins had always been a 4-3 team. The franchise had a proud history of operating with a four-man line, and in the years prior to Shanahan, the defense was a regular member of the league's elite.

It's hard to describe the 3-4 transition as a success. The switch robbed the team of a chance to post a quick turnaround from 2009's 4-12 disaster. But instead of taking advantage of an already stout defense, to concentrate on producing a potent offense, the Redskins have laboured to equip themselves with the specific personnel necessary for a 3-4.

Several players have needlessly been wasted, attempting to adapt to the requirements of the new system.

No excuses can be made for Albert Haynesworth, but was it really the smartest move to force the 3-4 on a unit containing both the massive defensive tackle and Andre Carter?

The 3-4 scheme has yielded some improvement in year two, But several players still seem ill-suited to the system.

So the question remains, would the Redskins not be better served reverting back to the defense they trusted for he vast majority of their existence?

Here are five reasons why the team should consider a move back and how they can make the 4-3 work.

5. Gets More from the Current Personnel

This is the foundation for everything else on the list. Personnel is the key to the suitability of any defensive system.

It's the reason why the 3-4 hasn't quite been the success fans and coaches had hoped for. In key areas, the Redskins defense is left vulnerable thanks to players who are not suited to the demands of a 3-4.

A 4-3 front would get more out of these players and lead to a more dominant, collective defensive effort. A more personnel-friendly scheme would allow defenders to play more aggressively and with greater freedom.

4. Brian Orakpo and Ryan Kerrigan Would Be Free to Concentrate on Pass Rushing

Playing outside linebacker has added new coverage and run support responsibilities to the games of converted defensive ends Brian Orakpo and Ryan Kerrigan.

Even though the outside linebackers are the primary pass rushers in a 3-4, the alignment also requires the players to go through an increased number of reads at the line of scrimmage.

Orakpo, in particular, has often struggled with the demands of diagnosing and making more plays in space. But Orakpo is one of the league's finest pass rushers when he lines up with his hand on the ground.

Kerrigan excelled as a member Purdue's defense while operating as a strong-side defensive end.

Returning to a 4-3 would allow Orakpo and Kerrigan to revert back to their natural positions. With fewer decisions to make before the snap, the productive duo could be expected to boost their already respectable sack totals.

3. Stephen Bowen Has the Potential to Be a Productive Interior Rusher

Regularly operating with a four-man line could better suit the skill set of Stephen Bowen. The ex-Dallas Cowboy has the potential to develop into an effective three-technique rusher in a 4-3 front.

Bowen has a decent repertoire of moves and displays some real promise as a pass rusher. Putting him in a 4-3 would allow Bowen to take advantage of his skills and rush the passer on a more regular basis.

Many 4-3 fronts can be tweaked to create one-on-one matchups for a talented interior rusher. With Bowen on the inside, the Redskins would be able to increase the number of stunts and games they are able to run.

2. The 4-3 Offers Better Protection to the Linebackers

The 4-3 front would better protect linebackers London Fletcher and Rocky McIntosh. Both Fletcher and McIntosh have always performed best when granted the freedom to operate in space.

The 3-4 has required them to try and make plays in amongst blockers at the line of scrimmage. Being a dedicated pro, Fletcher has worked hard to try and make himself a success in the 3-4.

But even Fletcher has lost some of his effectiveness now that he has to engage linemen and adopt a more straight-ahead, plugger's mentality.

McIntosh has been an active, sideline-to-sideline type of player throughout his Redskins career. The increased physical demands of the 3-4 have rendered him ineffective.

Having to deal with linemen does not suit two players who lack the ideal size to man the inside in a 3-4. This problem has become even more prevalent thanks to the Redskins' struggles to find a natural, two-gap nose tackle.

Four down linemen would occupy more of an opposing blocking scheme and keep Fletcher and McIntosh clean. The duo would then have the freedom to let quickness and athleticism once again dictate their style of play.

1. The 4-3 Better Supports Man Coverage

A 4-3 defense offers better support for the consistent use of man coverage. Although it's true that not much changes for the secondary, regardless of defensive fronts, 3-4 teams do often rely on a lot of zone coverage.

Usually, the three linemen in a 3-4 are not particularly dynamic pass rushers. As the main pressure often has to come from blitzing one or more linebackers, 3-4 defenses frequently trust a safe zone behind their additional rushers.

In a 4-3, three out of the four linemen are usually above average pass rushers. Even if the interior line does not feature great athletes, the extra push provided by two tackles serves to increase the threat to the pocket.

The increased potential for pressure offered by a four-man line allows 4-3 defenses to take more chances with man coverage concepts.

More one-on-one coverages are steadily beginning to once again proliferate NFL defensive playbooks. After years of zone coverages being the vogue, teams are beginning to favour a more aggressive approach against the physical mismatch posed by the modern, prototype wide receiver.

A 4-3 front would give the Redskins a more reliable, every-down pass rush threat and let the secondary get in the faces of opposing receivers and press more at the line of scrimmage.

Final Justifications

The argument always comes back to personnel. The Redskins are loaded with talent defensively. As admirably as they have performed this season, it's hard not to feel that the defense should be better than it is.

Jim Haslett has coached a 4-3 in the past. His most impressive defense came with the 2000 New Orleans Saints. Haslett terrorised the league with his fearsome and active four man front.

Going with a system that better suits the natural tendencies and instincts of the players could yield more impressive results.

The current scheme is littered with players more use to a 4-3. Players like Barry Cofield and Adam Carriker do their best to master the new system. But why create a transition where one was not really needed? Why have Brian Orakpo learning coverages and zone drops when he should be dedicated to rushing the backfield?

Many 3-4 schemes operate with pure pass rushers at outside linebacker. But these are hybrid versions and not the Pittsburgh Steeler-like, traditional two-gap style the Redskins are trying to emulate.

Lots of defenses would like to play like the Steelers. But Pittsburgh has spent over two decades entrenched in the 3-4, drafting and moulding the right players to fit the scheme.

For all the pass rushing exploits of James Harrison and LaMarr Woodley, they are first and foremost fine linebackers and not merely glorified defensive ends in a standing position.

Waiting for the 3-4 to properly take hold will cost the Redskins additional time and players. This will inevitably prolong a transition back to success that has already taken too long for many fans.