Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1170734]No he wasn't. Terrence knighton was not good at commanding double teams per every Cooley Film breakdown. Try to watch the 2nd philly game of 2015. He was barely doubled at all. He was so bad, he was out of the league the very next year and despite being 30 years old is still unemployed.

Whenever he was legitimately doubled (again philly game) he was washed out of the play so far it affected others around him. He was lazy and could not hold his ground which is exactly the opposite of his assignment.

The only reason I remember that game is I went back with pen and paper and posted about it on here.

Do you have a specific game you are thinking of where he played well or just commenting in general?[/quote]

One dimensional? Yes. Ineffective run stopper? Not even close. Congrats on wasting your time there, arm chair scout.

Pro Football Focus in March 2016:

[quote]
While Knighton failed to standout as Washington’s nose tackle in 2015, he made a solid contribution. As a two-down run defender, he finished with a respectable 76.9 overall grade, recording 18 defensive stops. Considering Knighton played only 38 percent of snaps, his production was respectable. With the depth they now have at five-technique in Chris Baker, Jason Hatcher, Ricky Jean-Francois, and Stephen Paea, Washington can afford to limit Knighton to early downs. Although far from an exciting move, keeping Knighton on a short-term deal makes sense.[/quote]

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=Schneed10;1170735]One dimensional? Yes. Ineffective run stopper? Not even close. Congrats on wasting your time there, arm chair scout.

Pro Football Focus in March 2016:[/quote]

Who wrote that?

Link or it didn't happen.

I am betting the grades that went into the average were compile by a bunch of Englishmen who churn out grades on every NFL player by Monday morning. They truly take the time to break it down!

Link or it didn't happen.

He was garbage and 32 teams in the NFL ignored PFF. His respectable grade from PFF, and their determination of a "solid contribution" earned him not even a vet minimum contract.

Arm chair scout? He is out of the league at 30 and uninjured. Did you read your post before you copy and pasted? He should have been signed if PFF was remotely accurate.

I am not an arm chair scout, I do faithfully listen to Cooley's break downs and more times than not go back and watch the game again if I am interested in something.

It isn't a waste of time if you enjoy it.

Also, it isn't nice to call people sarcastic names.

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1170742]Who wrote that?

Link or it didn't happen.

I am betting the grades that went into the average were compile by a bunch of Englishmen who churn out grades on every NFL player by Monday morning. They truly take the time to break it down!

Link or it didn't happen.

He was garbage and 32 teams in the NFL ignored PFF. His respectable grade from PFF, and their determination of a "solid contribution" earned him not even a vet minimum contract.

Arm chair scout? He is out of the league at 30 and uninjured. Did you read your post before you copy and pasted? He should have been signed if PFF was remotely accurate.

I am not an arm chair scout, I do faithfully listen to Cooley's break downs and more times than not go back and watch the game again if I am interested in something.

It isn't a waste of time if you enjoy it.

Also, it isn't nice to call people sarcastic names.[/quote]

[url]https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-kirk-cousins-tops-redskins-list-of-free-agent-priorities/[/url]

For fuck's sake. Could it possibly be that he was indeed good against the run, yet teams decided that skill wasn't worth much given how little he's on the field?

The simpler explanation is often the correct one. Stop overthinking, putz.

Re: New Look Defense
 

Disagreeing with you and a dude with a degree from the University of Bristol from the UK with a degree in philosophy and psychology on how bad Knighton was does not a putz make.

[url]https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-breitenbach-975755113[/url]

Other teams pit, bal, houston, have dedicated NT that play limited snaps and they make rosters. Knighton was just bad according to (literally) every Cooley Film breakdown from 2015.

Using Knighton, a bust who can't make a roster in his prime years, is not a strong argument either way on the importance of the NT position.

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1170744]Disagreeing with you and a dude with a degree from the University of Bristol from the UK with a degree in philosophy and psychology on how bad Knighton was does not a putz make.

[url]https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-breitenbach-975755113[/url]

Other teams pit, bal, houston, have dedicated NT that play limited snaps and they make rosters. Knighton was just bad according to (literally) every Cooley Film breakdown from 2015.

Using Knighton, a bust who can't make a roster in his prime years, is not a strong argument either way on the importance of the NT position.[/quote]

Then what of Corey Peters.

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=Schneed10;1170745]Then what of Corey Peters.[/quote]

Are his responsibilities the same as a NT in our 3-4?

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1170746]Are his responsibilities the same as a NT in our 3-4?[/quote]

Yes. They run a one-gapping 3-4.

Re: New Look Defense
 

Putz.....
Cool word.....
Attention getting but not over inflammatory.
Higher than average chance the convo will continue without rage quitting.

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=Schneed10;1170747]Yes. They run a one-gapping 3-4.[/quote]

What about him? He is good at the position despite not having the prototypical size?

Let's get him then.

Most of the people who effectively play NT are bigger than the average 3-4 DE, he is not. I think ability trumps dimensions.

The back and forth has been how much of a premium to put on NT in a 3-4. We have been plugging spare parts in and then saying that it doesn't matter because they play that position so few snaps.

Ziggy Hood, a journeyman has been our best NT in the past 3 years and he doesn't have prototypical size either.

I believe if the team is going to stay with a 3-4 and commit to putting a personnel package on the field for 20-25% of the game, then the guy in the middle, anchoring the defense, is worth more investment than the team has so far. That's all.

Re: New Look Defense
 

Just hope that this new look defense can help the team. Defense wins you the game and possibly championship.

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1170749]What about him? He is good at the position despite not having the prototypical size?

Let's get him then.

Most of the people who effectively play NT are bigger than the average 3-4 DE, he is not. I think ability trumps dimensions.

The back and forth has been how much of a premium to put on NT in a 3-4. We have been plugging spare parts in and then saying that it doesn't matter because they play that position so few snaps.

Ziggy Hood, a journeyman has been our best NT in the past 3 years and he doesn't have prototypical size either.

I believe if the team is going to stay with a 3-4 and commit to putting a personnel package on the field for 20-25% of the game, then the guy in the middle, anchoring the defense, is worth more investment than the team has so far. That's all.[/quote]

I think you just want disruptive players at any spot, I don't see anything particularly special or different about NT. We got a guy on the DL in Allen who could turn into a guy like Calais Campbell or some semblance of Watt. Those are the standard-setting 3-4 defenses (Texans and Cards), and my point was that you can win with or without a traditional NT, as long as you're disruptive from the edge and from somewhere in the interior.

Top two picks this year went to the line and the edge. That's what they're doing, trying to get disruptive players wherever they can.

I don't get the obsession with this one position.

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=Schneed10;1170751]I think you just want disruptive players at any spot, I don't see anything particularly special or different about NT. We got a guy on the DL in Allen who could turn into a guy like Calais Campbell or some semblance of Watt. Those are the standard-setting 3-4 defenses (Texans and Cards), and my point was that you can win with or without a traditional NT, as long as you're disruptive from the edge and from somewhere in the interior.

Top two picks this year went to the line and the edge. That's what they're doing, trying to get disruptive players wherever they can.

I don't get the obsession with this one position.[/quote]

I don't believe it is an obsession as much as a healthy concern, the team has been trying to fit square pegs in round holes much like they have at safety.

I believe the results the team have gotten at safety and NT are pretty predictable considering they have been converting CBs, LBs, 4-3 3 tech guys like Cofield. When they haven't been trying to convert people to S or NT, they have been relying on the over the hill gang like Ryan Clark, Whitner, Golston, (Cofield was a bit of both)

I guess my biggest gripe with the team is playing a scheme that calls for a NT and not having anyone who can play it effectively and not making any real effort or investing any real resources into getting someone who can.

I have the same gripe with the team on the S position.

It is probably overblown.

I believe from a moneyball, metric standpoint a 4-3 is the way to go from a pure numbers perspective. I believe there are more players available through the draft and college ranks who skill set match up with a 4-3. I think DE are easier to find than OLB.

If there are more players to pick from, then the team has a better shot at making quality picks or signing quality FA. (and the Patriots switched back, which is probably the best reason)

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1170803]I don't believe it is an obsession as much as a healthy concern, the team has been trying to fit square pegs in round holes much like they have at safety.

I believe the results the team have gotten at safety and NT are pretty predictable considering they have been converting CBs, LBs, 4-3 3 tech guys like Cofield. When they haven't been trying to convert people to S or NT, they have been relying on the over the hill gang like Ryan Clark, Whitner, Golston, (Cofield was a bit of both)

[B]I guess my biggest gripe with the team is playing a scheme that calls for a NT and not having anyone who can play it effectively and not making any real effort or investing any real resources into getting someone who can.[/B]

[B]I have the same gripe with the team on the S position.[/B]

It is probably overblown.

I believe from a moneyball, metric standpoint a 4-3 is the way to go from a pure numbers perspective. I believe there are more players available through the draft and college ranks who skill set match up with a 4-3. I think DE are easier to find than OLB.

If there are more players to pick from, then the team has a better shot at making quality picks or signing quality FA. (and the Patriots switched back, which is probably the best reason)[/quote]

I think you have a valid point about the lack of proper attention to the NT position.

We've done more at the S position this offseason by signing Swearinger, moving Cravens to SS, and drafting Nicholson.

Re: New Look Defense
 

We just have to keep in perspective that we had NOTHING on the defensive line last year, except for an adequate rotation guy in Ziggy who was forced to start, and the now departed Baker who was an average starter.

They completely overhauled the line, getting two free agents (one to replace the departed Baker) and drafted a guy who looks like a difference maker.

Then they've brought in a few scrap heap guys to try to fill the NT position, the hail-mary variety. Which yeah, you'd like a difference maker at every spot on the defense.

I think given how much they've done on the defensive line this offseason, it's annoying to hear the complaints. It's unrealistic to expect more than they did, given salary cap and available talent.

I think it's a quibble that ignores the realities of the player market. You can't expect them to solve every need in one offseason, but on the defensive line they damn near did. Choosing to focus on the one line position where they didn't grab a real solution frankly comes across as a little bratty.

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=Schneed10;1170812] It's unrealistic to expect more than they did, given salary cap and available talent.

I think it's a quibble that ignores the realities of the player market. You can't expect them to solve every need in one offseason, but on the defensive line they damn near did. Choosing to focus on the one line position where they didn't grab a real solution frankly comes across as a little bratty.[/quote]

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_draft_history#2010_Draft[/url]

They have drafted exactly one hand in the dirt defensive lineman (Jarvis Jenkins) in the first four rounds since going to the 3-4 in 2010. Nobody does a 7 year rebuild in the NFL. They haven't prioritized it and it shows.

My gripe isn't about this year or last; my gripe is the systemic neglect of the front seven, particularly the D line. I realize there are legitimate differences of opinion regarding the importance of the 3 down lineman in a 3-4, but we haven't acquired rock star OLB over the past 7 years either.

If disagreeing with consistently neglecting the D line (including NT) is bratty, then I am guilty as charged.