New Defensive Philosophy Paying Off

The defense has been very impressive, but that fact just adds to the frustration.

Washington has made opposing quarterbacks look very bad, and has still found ways to lose. The two quarterbacks that beat them, Favre and Eli Manning had a combined four INT's and only one TD. They've been decent against the run and are a few missed tackles away from being the best overall defense in the league. However, the offense has been unable to capitolize on the success of the defense for several reasons(Patchwork offensive line, drops, running game, etc.).

A team cannot go very far when they physically dominate an opposing team, and still find ways to lose. Good teams find ways to win games that they should lose, like the Cowboys did last week against Buffalo. The Redskins on the other hand, are still having trouble winning games that they should WIN. Until they're able to rectify that, they're going to be having the same type of up and down seasons that they've have for the last several years.

The defense has been very impressive, but that fact just adds to the frustration.

Washington has made opposing quarterbacks look very bad, and has still found ways to lose. The two quarterbacks that beat them, Favre and Eli Manning had a combined four INT's and only one TD. They've been decent against the run and are a few missed tackles away from being the best overall defense in the league. However, the offense has been unable to capitolize on the success of the defense for several reasons(Patchwork offensive line, drops, running game, etc.).

A team cannot go very far when they physically dominate an opposing team, and still find ways to lose. Good teams find ways to win games that they should lose, like the Cowboys did last week against Buffalo. The Redskins on the other hand, are still having trouble winning games that they should WIN. Until they're able to rectify that, they're going to be having the same type of up and down seasons that they've have for the last several years.It may seem like we are finding ways to lose because in our two losses this year we've had second half leads that we haven't been able to hold, but in reality that's not what's happening.

To me, finding ways to lose would be defined by a team that consistently dominates its opponent week in and week out (something that with the exception of the Giants game, we have done), but always loses the game at the end. Not in a sample size of two, but a consistent and measurable performance over time in which it becomes a near certainty that said team can not win a close game.

Obviously this does not apply to us. We opened up 2-0 playing two close games.

So then, by my defination, we aren't at all finding ways to lose. We are playing teams very close, and all the big plays are going against us. There were only two big plays in that game yesterday, and that was the pass to Lee for 60 whatever yards, and Moss' fumble that was returned by Woodson. While it's unfortunate that Moss turned the ball over, 90% of all fumbles will not be returned in the way Woodson was able to.

Outside of those two plays, theres no question who played better. Granted, you can't expect to win giving up those plays, but you also can't expect everything to go smoothly though the game.

Drops, fumbles, and assinine 3rd and short play still considered, we would have won that game barring two somewhat-uncharasteristic plays.

If held the pats below 20 points, then I can say that this defense is great

To me, finding ways to lose would be defined by a team that consistently dominates its opponent week in and week out (something that with the exception of the Giants game, we have done), but always loses the game at the end. Not in a sample size of two, but a consistent and measurable performance over time in which it becomes a near certainty that said team can not win a close game.

I disagree that a team needs to lose all close games to be considered finding ways to lose. Washington is only .500 in close games this season, but I do agree that the sample is too small for a definitive answer. However the the two losses occured due to very similar circumstances, which could be leading to a trend.

And as far as the big plays going against Washington, that's basically my point. All Washington had to do yesterday was execute at a fair level on offense. By the end of the 3rd quarter, big plays weren't needed. I understand the need for moderate aggression, but attempting a misdirection sweep on 3rd and 1, and an end around on a sloppy field with a player that relies on speed and quick cuts was just asking for trouble.

I disagree that a team needs to lose all close games to be considered finding ways to lose. Washington is only .500 in close games this season, but I do agree that the sample is too small for a definitive answer. However the the two losses occured due to very similar circumstances, which could be leading to a trend.

And as far as the big plays going against Washington, that's basically my point. All Washington had to do yesterday was execute at a fair level on offense. By the end of the 3rd quarter, big plays weren't needed. I understand the need for moderate aggression, but attempting a misdirection sweep on 3rd and 1, and an end around on a sloppy field with a player that relies on speed and quick cuts was just asking for trouble.

It was 2nd and 4 or 5. Gibbs said the reason they ran it is because last time they did Santana broke it for a huge gain. That was all Santana's fault don't go after the coaches for that. The coaches were probably trying to just keep the defense on their toes and see if they can bust a big game without throwing the ball to receivers who couldn't catch it.

It was 2nd and 4 or 5. Gibbs said the reason they ran it is because last time they did Santana broke it for a huge gain. That was all Santana's fault don't go after the coaches for that. The coaches were probably trying to just keep the defense on their toes and see if they can bust a big game without throwing the ball to receivers who couldn't catch it.Gibbs must either be thinking about a Moss run in seasons past or he's going senile - going into the GB game, Moss had a total of 2 yards rushing on 2 carries.

Not to be a broken record, but I hate that Gibbs/Saunders feel a need to "trick" a team with misdirection when we're moving the ball with the lead and momentum.

It was 2nd and 4 or 5. Gibbs said the reason they ran it is because last time they did Santana broke it for a huge gain. That was all Santana's fault don't go after the coaches for that. The coaches were probably trying to just keep the defense on their toes and see if they can bust a big game without throwing the ball to receivers who couldn't catch it.

I'm not blaming anyone but Moss for the fumble. However it's common knowledge that finesse plays and rainy, slick conditions don't go well together. It was an odd play call at a critical time in the game.

Not to be a broken record, but I hate that Gibbs/Saunders feel a need to "trick" a team with misdirection when we're moving the ball with the lead and momentum.

Because the weather conditions were bad?