The 4-3 Defense and the Princeton Offense
Tim, myself, and @joshrosen had an illuminating, albeit brief, conversation on Twitter Sunday night regarding the Browns' apparent switch to a 4-3 Defense.
Ever since the possibility of this transformation came up, I've been asking myself a simple but important question.
Why do the Browns want to become a 4-3 Defense?
Is the 4-3 Defense more effective than the 3-4 Defense they have been running?
Does Pat Shurmur only understand how to coach a 4-3 Defense?
Does Tom Heckert only know how to supply players for a 4-3 Defense?
What, really, is the point?
This is a crucial question because obviously the two kinds of defenses need different types of personals. In the simplest terms, the 4-3 needs one more starting end than the 3-4. The 3-4 needs one more starting linebacker than the 4-3.
This means that a personnel overhaul is coming. Free agents will be signed. Draft picks will be used. Trades could be made.
If the 4-3 was really more effective than the 3-4, you would think that the two teams competing in the Super Bowl this Sunday would be deploying it.
The Browns had a bunch of weaknesses already. Now they have one more - defensive players who are not suited for the 4-3.
If Pat Shurmur only knows how to coach a 4-3, I'm not sure what to say. As a former Offensive Coordinator, ostensibly, he should understand both types of defenses. And since there isn't going to be an Offensive Coordinator on this coaching staff at all, I don't see how Shurmur will have any time to spend on the defense as is.
So what was it? Heckert can figure out 3-4 personnel, can't he? He did so last year. Was Dick Jauron such a can't miss hire that the Browns had to have him - and Jauron, we know, has a history coaching the 4-3?
This seems unlikely since they did, after all, interview other candidates.
When Tim, Josh, and I were exchanging messages about this, Tim made what I thought was a great point: "Any time a coach preferentially imposes a system w/o considering strengths of his personnel it is mistake."
While I would hesitate to use the "always" that is buried implicitly inside of Tim's tweet, I largely agree. If a coach is going to demand his team play a certain style or within a specific system that runs counter to the personnel he was given he better make a compelling argument for why.
Here, in Cleveland, we're watching this movie already. Byron Scott came in and kicked out Mike Brown's offensive and defensive systems, simply for the sake of his own familiarity. Sure, Scott has had success running the vaunted Princeton Offense before, but he did so with superstar point guards Chris Paul and Jason Kidd at the helm. A carbon copy of either one of those two point guards is not on this team.
So, I ask, what was the point of installing a new system? Because Scott liked the Princeton Offense more?
This is a classic mistake by upper management. We all have our preferences, but our preferences must serve a purpose or they won't be effective at anything beyond making ourselves feel more comfortable.
Which, when your job is winning games, shouldn't really be at the top of the priority list.
Ultimately, changing systems means re-education and changing personnel - and it probably means some amount of regression. In the case of the Cavs, this has actually worked out well, since it is better for the organization in the long run that the team is tanking this badly this quickly.
When it comes to the Browns, however, another year of regression is unacceptable. Otherwise, why bother firing Eric Mangini if you're just planning on getting worse anyway?
You don't. You fire Mangini to get better. And there is reason to wonder if switching to the 4-3 will make getting better in 2011 at least slightly more difficult for the Cleveland Browns.