Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

[quote=irish;753370]I agree, when they were giving up too many points people were focused on how few yards they gave up. Now that they are [SIZE=4]actually keep teams from scoring and creating turnovers[/SIZE] people want to focus on how many yards they give up. [SIZE=4]Who cares how many yards they give up, its an almost meaningless stat[/SIZE].[/quote]

There it is..........

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;753378]Then why do you think we're giving up so much yardage?[/quote]

Look at some of the offenses we've faced so far and where they rank.

Colts #2 in yards, #3 in points
Texans #4 in yards, #6 in points
Cowboys #5 in yards, #14 in points
Eagles #6 in yards, #10 in points
Packers #11 in yards, #13 in points

5 legit offenses that rack up yards and points against pretty much everyone they face.

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

I know this whole thread is about the 3-4, but to me the Skins only play that defense on 1st down. If on 1st down the opposing offense throws an incompletion or otherwise ends up ina 2nd and long and therefore goes to a 3 WR set, the Skins go to the Nickel and 3-4, 4-3 whatever is gone. It seems like at that point they have gone with more 4 down line men 5 Dbs and 2 LBs. I've notice many times on 3rd and long the Skins playing only 2 DT/DE and everyone else standing around at the line. The opposing team doesn't know whose coming (Times Square defense I've heard it called). That's not a 3-4 D either.

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

I agree that we are doing a ton of different schemes...I don't recall which game it was but I was irate about the lock down commitment to the 3-4 which clearly was not working...At that point, Haslett finally relaxed a bit and started playing more 4 man fronts....a LOT more....since then the 4 man fronts have been far more effective than the 3 man fronts he was overly committed to the first 3 games or so.

I think most here agree that we have missing pieces for the 3-4...I am glad Haslett recognized that and adjusted...to be frank....I was worried he wouldn't adjust...and if that was the case....we would have probably be 2-5 right now.

I am certainly still not sold on Haslett...and yes we have gotten lucky....how can you be ranked 31st out of 32 in yardage and expect to win more games that you lose?....eventually that will catch up to you...I don't care what anyone says about turnovers, pts....losing the yardage and time of possession battle is never good....I don't care how you spin it.

If we had lost...which we easily could have, many here would be completely dogging the 3-4 and bringing up yardage as one of the reasons we suck.

What I want to see is a consistant climb out of the bottom ranking for yards...eventually turnovers will even out...a good team cannot depend on turnovers to win....especially not a team wanting to compete for a playoff spot.

Hopefully by the end of the season we will be a 20th ranked defense in yards...seems to be where Haslett teams live.

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

[quote=Mattyk;753387]Look at some of the offenses we've faced so far and where they rank.

Colts #2 in yards, #3 in points
Texans #4 in yards, #6 in points
Cowboys #5 in yards, #14 in points
Eagles #6 in yards, #10 in points
Packers #11 in yards, #13 in points

5 legit offenses that rack up yards and points against pretty much everyone they face.[/quote]

Keep in mind that the 500 yards we gave to these teams contributed to their yardage stats...note their yardage rankings exceed their points...partially due to playing us....but I do see your point

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

If we didn't have the turnovers the 3/4 would be a disaster right now.

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

[quote=skinsnut;753407]Keep in mind that the 500 yards we gave to these teams contributed to their yardage stats...note their yardage rankings exceed their points...partially due to playing us....but I do see your point[/quote]

I don't think that's how statistics are suppose to work.

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

We've been in the --- as least the last 10 years in turnovers..
I don't remember the last time the redskins finished the season in the + in turnovers. (long way to go still..I know)

Is it really a coincidence,that we are in the + the season we switch to the 3-4? I don't think so...

IMO...This team isn't 4-3 at this moment running the 4-3 as of old.

We don't get D-Halls strip and fumble return for a TD at the end of the 1/2 against Dallas.
and NO way Hall gets 4 INT's against the Bears and the 92 yarder for a TD....

That's 2 games alone that we won, just by the turnover itself.

So if we are running the 4-3 defense..this team is sitting at 2-5 right now imo...instead of 4-3
[B]AT BEST![/B]

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

The offense has to help more as well. The Skins are fotunate that their Defense is keeping the other team from scoring, because the offense is not doing much at this point to really help. We really need a solid game out of McNabb and company this weekend.

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

[quote=irish;753370]I agree, when they were giving up too many points people were focused on how few yards they gave up. Now that they are actually keep teams from scoring and creating turnovers people want to focus on how many yards they give up. Who cares how many yards they give up, its an almost meaningless stat.[/quote]People like yards against because defenses that give up a lot of yards tend to keep giving up a lot of yards where points are incredibly dependent on field position and turnover rates.

So you can point to the Redskins struggles with yards and field position and think that this is going to continue to be a meaningful problem. And it is. But as long as turnover rates stay high, the yards against this defense are going to remain academic. Right now, offenses are struggling to pay off their drives with points, and it's because the more plays we force them to make the more mistakes they are going to make in the process.

We're not the best defense at turning offensive mistakes into turnovers, and as long as we keep dropping INTs, I don't see how we are going to improve.

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

[quote=firstdown;753416]If we didn't have the turnovers the 3/4 would be a disaster right now.[/quote]This is probably accurate. The red zone defense has been very good, but not good enough to overcome the amount of times we allow teams to get there on us without the benefit of hilarious gaffes by our opponents.

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

[quote=Mattyk;753377]People seem to get caught up on this notion that we don't have the personnel for the 3-4, but in reality we're not running a straight 3-4. Haslett said they've lined up in the 3-4 about 35% of the snaps so far. This is more of a hybrid D than a true 3-4. Just thought that's worth pointing out again. Also, 3 of the 4 picks Hall had last week came in man coverage, so I also think that we're not playing as much 'soft zones' as we think.[/quote]The base defense in the NFL these days is five defensive backs. So 3-4/4-3 is really a dumb academic argument. It's really about your formation when the other team has 3 receivers on the field. For Blache, that was "screw it, we're going to stay in the 4-3 and give you mismatches in both slots. You probably suck anyway, Matt Cassel."

For Haslett, it's a Clancy Pendergast 2-4 front, which isn't really much different from any other "even" front, such as a 4-2. We do not do very much 3-3-5 defense.

I also think we saw against the Colts that the "ninja" formation with no real shape is a base 4-man front where three of the four are linebackers.

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

It's nice to know we're as good as Pittsburgh, or hell the overrated Green Bay Packers, even though we don't do what they do and are much worse than them.
:spank:

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

Actually we're better than the overrated Packers, we beat them

Re: Redskins move to 34 has paid off.
 

[quote=Mattyk;753484]Actually we're better than the overrated Packers, we beat them[/quote]

I meant in the context of whose defense is better.