I can't believe you guys complain about a player when our team is finally shutting down a teams running game. Give me break. Those guys have played awsome. Did you think those tackles are actually taken up the linemans blocks and allowing the linebackers and the safties the oppurtunity for tackles. Watch and know football and then comment. And to the comment that the ball was thrown in Nobles groin, be real dude, he slapped the ball with his hand and he was 10 feet from the QB. WATCH PLEASE

[QUOTE=joecrisp]I think Griffin's outstanding performance thus far is due in large part to the overachieving performances of Noble and Salave'a alongside him. Though all three players are "defensive tackles", Griffin's role is significantly different from that of the other two tackles. Noble and Salave'a are nose tackles, occupying the center and guard, and providing Griffin-- who generally plays the more athletic 3-technique-- with an easier path into the backfield. Since most blocking schemes are designed to double-team the nose tackle with the guard and center, it is the duty of the nose tackle to keep those blockers occupied, and prevent them from sliding off and blocking Griffin. This allows Griffin, as well as the other front-seven defenders, to penetrate and make plays. Thus, the statistical performance of those defenders is largely a product of how well the nose tackle is doing [i]his[/i] job-- which generally doesn't reward him with eye-popping stats of his own.

That's not to say that Noble or Salave'a are great defensive tackles. They're quietly effective at performing their assigned duty, which is to provide the more physically talented tackle next to them with more opportunities to make plays. You'll never see these guys racking up lots of sacks or tackles, but I'm sure if you asked Greg Blache, Gregg Williams or Cornelius Griffin, they'd tell you that Noble and Salave'a are a big reason why this defense is doing so well.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. I know what a nose tackle is and I think Williams and Blache would point to Cornelius Griffin, Renaldo Wynn, Ron Warner and Demetric Evans for the success of the line. When I think of the epidemy of a nose tackle, I think of Dave Butz. Big, not physically agile but successful at beating his man. Defensive Tackles are not called that for the purpose of occupying the center and the guard so that the Defensive End can get to the backfield. Their job intels getting to the QB and stopping the run. More than often the defensive tackles have to beat the man in front of him. They are given assignments on the man that they are lined-up in front of and the success at the line depends on the individuals effort to beat his man.

[QUOTE=CRT3]I can't believe you guys complain about a player when our team is finally shutting down a teams running game. Give me break. Those guys have played awsome. Did you think those tackles are actually taken up the linemans blocks and allowing the linebackers and the safties the opportunity for tackles. Watch and know football and then comment. And to the comment that the ball was thrown in Nobles groin, be real dude, he slapped the ball with his hand and he was 10 feet from the QB. WATCH PLEASE[/QUOTE]

90% of the threads that are posted on this website are "punk protests" about individual players who they feel should be replaced for one reason or another. You sir , probably have never played the game otherthan on your television screen. Save your armchair analysis and comments to yourself. Because last I checked, not one person on this website has a superior knowledge on any given subject. If they think they do, they should apply online for a "Redskins Dream Job."

[QUOTE=SUNRA]I disagree..[/QUOTE]Ah, yes. I thought you would. Perhaps you would be more agreeable to the opinion of "an experienced coach," rather than an "enlightened fan":

[url="http://www.thewarpath.net/camp04/Blache.mp3"]http://www.thewarpath.net/camp04/Blache.mp3[/url]

In case you don't feel like listening to the clip:

[i]Greg Blache on the differences between nose tackles and 3-techniques:[/i]

"Your 3-technique is more of a pass rush, more of an athletic type of tackle. Your nose tackle is more of a run player, he's the anchor, he's the focal point of the defense. You want to force them to have to block him with two people; mathematically you start a domino effect if they've got to block him with two people to run the ball inside. If you can do that, then everything else kind of stems off of that.

But your 3-technique is definitely much more of a playmaker, whereas your nose, your shade, is more of an anchor guy."

[i]Blache on which particular players fit into those different roles:[/i]

"Right now, Joe Salave'a and Brandon Noble are more true nose tackles. Jermaine Haley's a little bit of each; he can play the "3", he can play the nose. Joe Salave'a can play the "3" in a clutch, and Brandon's smart enough to be able to line up there and do it, but those guys are concentrating more at the nose."

ouch, rack JC!

[QUOTE=SUNRA]90% of the threads that are posted on this website are "punk protests" about individual players who they feel should be replaced for one reason or another. You sir , probably have never played the game otherthan on your television screen. Save your armchair analysis and comments to yourself. Because last I checked, not one person on this website has a superior knowledge on any given subject. If they think they do, they should apply online for a "Redskins Dream Job."[/QUOTE]
so you think everyone knows as much about football as joecrisp or curmudgeon???

sorry, but that's wrong, we got some people here who know a lot more than most casual fans.

Yes, let's all keep our armchair analysis and comments to ourselves. That should make for quite an impressive message board.

90% of these threads are indeed armchair analysis and comments. Isn't that why most of us read this site? To share our thoughts and read others?

[QUOTE=SUNRA]90% of the threads that are posted on this website are "punk protests" about individual players who they feel should be replaced for one reason or another. You sir , probably have never played the game otherthan on your television screen. Save your armchair analysis and comments to yourself. Because last I checked, not one person on this website has a superior knowledge on any given subject. If they think they do, they should apply online for a "Redskins Dream Job."[/QUOTE]
Well I think I have superior knowledge on alot of subjects. I don't ever say I have superior knowledge on the Redskins though. I predicted 16-0 but they quickly have shot down that prediction. But I do have a little knowledge on technique and tactics of a football game. Not a tremendous amount but enough that I can accuratly say IT IS MORE THEN YOU.

Are you trying to say that our defense is not playing awsome? I stated that right? Are you trying to disagree with me on the fact that our interior linemen have taken up blockers so as to allow the backers and safties to attack the ball? Do you really think the ball was thrown at Nobles nuts? Please answer my questions with legitmate answers. Otherwise go root for the Cowgirls or maybe you are a Eagles fan? :Flush:

[QUOTE=joecrisp]Ah, yes. I thought you would. Perhaps you would be more agreeable to the opinion of "an experienced coach," rather than an "enlightened fan":

[url="http://www.thewarpath.net/camp04/Blache.mp3"]http://www.thewarpath.net/camp04/Blache.mp3[/url]

In case you don't feel like listening to the clip:

[i]Greg Blache on the differences between nose tackles and 3-techniques:[/i]

"Your 3-technique is more of a pass rush, more of an athletic type of tackle. Your nose tackle is more of a run player, he's the anchor, he's the focal point of the defense. You want to force them to have to block him with two people; mathematically you start a domino effect if they've got to block him with two people to run the ball inside. If you can do that, then everything else kind of stems off of that.

But your 3-technique is definitely much more of a playmaker, whereas your nose, your shade, is more of an anchor guy."

[i]Blache on which particular players fit into those different roles:[/i]

"Right now, Joe Salave'a and Brandon Noble are more true nose tackles. Jermaine Haley's a little bit of each; he can play the "3", he can play the nose. Joe Salave'a can play the "3" in a clutch, and Brandon's smart enough to be able to line up there and do it, but those guys are concentrating more at the nose."[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's what I thought. You used my comments concerning the experienced coach vs. the enlightened fan to support your point about Noble and Salave'a, but you didn't comment about my point which was that the defense should turn an INT into a TD. Your comment was , now we're asking the defense to score off of the turnover, like the defense isn't doing enough." After you mentioned that, Coach Blache commented extensively about his goal to have the defense turn INT'S or fumbles into TD's. His explanation being that given the history of the defense, it was happy to get the turnover, but not forseeing the possiblility to score with effective blocking. I would like for you to comment about this specific point since you didn't on that thread.

[QUOTE=That Guy]so you think everyone knows as much about football as joecrisp or curmudgeon???

sorry, but that's wrong, we got some people here who know a lot more than most casual fans.[/QUOTE]

No I don't think that at all. When I read threads that use "he sucks or he's trash on almost every other thread they post, it let's me know the lack of vocabulary and knowledge base they are operating from. CRT3 made a comment "Watch and know football, then comment." I had to "check" him because no matter what we watch there will be a different viewpoint on some or all of the subject matter. To make the statement watch and know, then comment presupposes he knows which is arrogant to say the least. No matter what we would like to conceptualize in our minds, not one of us is superior in intellect or analysis because if we were we would be making a living at sports analysis and statistical data. Otherwise you like myself, are just a fan. Not an authority. Just a fan.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]ouch, rack JC![/QUOTE]

Wow, are we cheerleading now? Read my response to JC. You might find it interesting.

[QUOTE=SUNRA]Yeah, that's what I thought. You used my comments concerning the experienced coach vs. the enlightened fan to support your point about Noble and Salave'a, but you didn't comment about my point which was that the defense should turn an INT into a TD. Your comment was , now we're asking the defense to score off of the turnover, like the defense isn't doing enough." After you mentioned that, Coach Blache commented extensively about his goal to have the defense turn INT'S or fumbles into TD's. His explanation being that given the history of the defense, it was happy to get the turnover, but not forseeing the possiblility to score with effective blocking. I would like for you to comment about this specific point since you didn't on that thread.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm... I thought I [i]did[/i] address that issue in the thread to which that point was relevant:

[url="http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=3393&page=2&pp=15"]http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=3393&page=2&pp=15[/url]

Anyway, here's the quote from that thread in which I respond to that inquiry:

[QUOTE="joecrisp"]I took exception to your suggestion that the defense needed to score more points because you were trying to defend Mark Brunell's ineptitude by asking why the defense wasn't scoring points. I thought that suggestion was a little absurd, considering that the defense's primary purpose is to stop the opposing offense from scoring points-- and this defense is among the best in the league at achieving that goal.
Points scored by the defense are something that shouldn't be counted upon-- they certainly help, and it certainly makes sense to explore the possibility of improving upon that aspect of the game, but you can't reasonably expect to lean upon the defense to score touchdowns week in and week out to win games. That's the offense's primary purpose, and this offense isn't getting the job done.

And by the way, this "enlightened fan" has sought out Greg Blache for enlightenment about defensive tactics, has spoken with him about his defensive philosophy, and has a deep respect and admiration for the man. I completely agree with his opinion that the defense can improve in the area of capitalizing on turnovers. But that doesn't mean we should direct our blame to the defense for losses which were clearly the result of ineptitude on the part of the offense and special teams.

Defenses like the Ravens of 2000 are extraordinarily rare, and the fact that it would take a defensive effort of that magnitude to overcome the deficiencies of this offense is absolutely appalling. Forgive me if I'm too busy dissecting the offense to point fingers at the defense.[/QUOTE]
To extend that response to your question, SUNRA, I think it's obvious that this team needs to do whatever it can to put points on the board. But I also think the offense's inability to score is of far greater concern than that of the defense. That's why you evoked such an incredulous response from me when you posted the following:

[QUOTE="SUNRA"]Instead of complaining about what Brunell isn't doing, Let's talk about how our defense can score some points off of turnovers when the offense is struggling.[/QUOTE]
Taken in the context of the ongoing debate over the offensive struggles and whether Brunell should be the starting quarterback, it seemed as if you were trying to deflect the blame for the team's struggles to the defense. I don't know if that was your intent, but that's certainly how it came off.

Perhaps you were simply pointing out something that also needs to be considered-- in addition to all of the offensive problems-- and that's a justifiable point. It just seemed like you were trying to substitute the defense as some sort of surrogate scapegoat, and I found that rather galling, given the tremendous job they've done stopping opposing offenses.

[quote=SUNRA]No matter what we would like to conceptualize in our minds, not one of us is superior in intellect or analysis because if we were we would be making a living at sports analysis and statistical data. Otherwise you like myself, are just a fan. Not an authority. Just a fan.[/quote]

I disagree with your statement that everyone is equal... i just don't think its true, and you don't need to be the best stat guy or be pro to be good enough at it, or better than others... there's people here (like me, probably curmudgeon) that make more off bets than we lose, and thats definately a version of stat analysis FOR MONEY, even if its not a primary source of income.

Remember, being a pro at something doesn't mean you're good at it, it just means that you make money off it.

and it really did come off as sounding like you thought brunell wasn't to blame for not scoring points, but it was the D's fault for not putting up more scores...

[QUOTE=smootsmack]Yes, let's all keep our armchair analysis and comments to ourselves. That should make for quite an impressive message board.

90% of these threads are indeed armchair analysis and comments. Isn't that why most of us read this site? To share our thoughts and read others?[/QUOTE]
LOL

I agree, the whole idea of this site all about "armchair analysis"!!

[QUOTE=SUNRA]Wow, are we cheerleading now? Read my response to JC. You might find it interesting.[/QUOTE]
I'm not rooting for anyone, I just thought JC had a pretty strong response especially on the nose tackle subject, which I see you didn't respond to at all.