Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=The Goat;581609]Yeah I'm less trusting of Blache's scheme and strategy the more I see. He just doesn't seem to find ways to consistently get pressure on the QB. He also can't seem to pin down the opposing OCs passing attack. Something is amiss.[/quote]

Smoot said they were being very vanilla though. I hope that's the case.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=Ruhskins;581614]Smoot said they were being very vanilla though. I hope that's the case.[/quote]

That's interesting.

Does anybody wonder if Blache isn't demanding 150% right meow to 1) minimize injury risk 2) hide what he plans to bring come sept. 13 (please God let this be the case)?

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=The Goat;581624]That's interesting.

Does anybody wonder if Blache isn't demanding 150% [B]right meow[/B] to 1) minimize injury risk 2) hide what he plans to bring come sept. 13 (please God let this be the case)?[/quote]

When did Blache become a cat? LOL.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=Ruhskins;581625]When did Blache become a cat? LOL.[/quote]

I think he's more like a kitten...bit of a grumpy one but nonetheless. :silly:

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

Haven't read jack, but intriguing thread....Deangelo was Schooled, Smoot fought hard...safeties are fine...
Too bad Springs is gone...better in coverage and better tackling...expecially with bigger guys.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

Brady to Moss will expose almost anyone, unfortunately.

Glad we saw them in preseason so we can work on it!

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

As much as I like Blache and the defense, I largely agree with GTripp. We're a very, very good defense, but we're not elite. Elite defenses produce sacks, many 3&Os, and turnovers.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;581655]As much as I like Blache and the defense, I largely agree with GTripp. We're a very, very good defense, but we're not elite. Elite defenses produce sacks, many 3&Os, and turnovers.[/quote]

Yep...that's the bottom line at this point. Blache still has work to do. Let's hope he's not done scheming and he "gets smarter."

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;581655]As much as I like Blache and the defense, I largely agree with GTripp. We're a very, very good defense, but we're not elite. Elite defenses produce sacks, many 3&Os, and turnovers.[/quote]

I don't think anyone around here thinks we're an elite defense. My only beef w/ Blache is he needs to hide his blitzes a little better.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=GTripp0012;581541]Sounds like your problem is less with the analysis and more with the fact that I was the one bringing it.[/quote]

It's just think that you're always finding things to pick at about the defense. I think everyone here knows that we're not in the same class as Pittsburgh and Balt. They've got better players and their schemes are better. But the scoring defense was very good. Do you agree with that?

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

I'm thinking and hoping that Blache is keeping his cards hidden and we see a different defense scheme-wise on Sept. 13 and following.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

Something tells me that wasn't our all-out defensive attack last night.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

To me the defense looked kinda vanilla. We ran the same blitzes we have seen all preseason. The coaches aren't game planning that much. We really need Carlos for the secondary to be better. We have to remember to that we went up against the best offense in the league last night without our number 1 corner. Our team looked good. we styed with those guys step for step and point for point. Our d did get a big stop at the end of the half. Kudos gentleman!

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

sure carlos rogers didn't play, and deangelo hall got beat by randy moss, but still is good..after that, im a little sketch about our secondary..maybe we should bring in a vet like patrick surtain, and cut tryon.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;581728]sure carlos rogers didn't play, and deangelo hall got beat by randy moss, but still is good..after that, im a little sketch about our secondary..maybe we should bring in a vet like patrick surtain, and cut tryon.[/quote]

Tryon played decent last night. In fact he a impressive pass break up on what I thought was a third down play. I'm not a big fan of his, but I don't see many vets that will offer more than what he does, if so they would be on someone else's roster. If you look at the way the secondary played, it did fine except for whoever paid on Moss. I think letting him go one on one with Hall was not smart. We did play without Rogers, he is a very good corner, maybe our best.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

My point is that Carlos is a bigger bodied cb and could have been able to play a little better against a bigger reciever like Moss.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=GTripp0012;581541]Sounds like your problem is less with the analysis and more with the fact that I was the one bringing it.[/quote]

No Gtripp sounds like your problem is more with this defense (or I suspect this coach). Thanks for the summary you are right I have not read [I]All[/I] of your post on this subject didn't know it was a prerequisite to stating my opinion. I never said we were an elite defense. Oops I said we were a top five defense. As in:
1.) Pittsburgh 2.) Baltimore 3.) Philadelphia 4.) WASHINGTON 5.) New York Giants. (you can google that)

I never said we had elite talent, or that guys didn't get beaten, picked on or hurt last year. I never said we got a lot of sacks or any other stat you find important. I said when looking at this football team over the past few years you really had to play with the numbers to blame this defense for the teams woes (or you have to have an axe to grind.)
As far as the "bottom line" statistic when talking about defense there is only one that matters: points allowed. Point Blank Period. If your defense finishes third in that category and you finish 8 and 8 and miss the playoffs. don't start lecturing us about sacks or quarterback pressures or takeaways. Defense is Defense it is not Offense. It is great when Defense can help put points on the board but their primary job is keeping points off the board. This defense finished third in that category last year.

Find a new subject.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=RedBar;581753]No Gtripp sounds like your problem is more with this defense (or I suspect this coach). Thanks for the summary you are right I have not read [I]All[/I] of your post on this subject didn't know it was a prerequisite to stating my opinion. I never said we were an elite defense. Oops I said we were a top five defense. As in:
1.) Pittsburgh 2.) Baltimore 3.) Philadelphia 4.) WASHINGTON 5.) New York Giants. (you can google that)

I never said we had elite talent, or that guys didn't get beaten, picked on or hurt last year. I never said we got a lot of sacks or any other stat you find important. I said when looking at this football team over the past few years you really had to play with the numbers to blame this defense for the teams woes (or you have to have an axe to grind.)
As far as the "bottom line" statistic when talking about defense there is only one that matters: points allowed. Point Blank Period. If your defense finishes third in that category and you finish 8 and 8 and miss the playoffs. don't start lecturing us about sacks or quarterback pressures or takeaways. [B]Defense is Defense it is not Offense. It is great when Defense can help put points on the board but their primary job is keeping points off the board. This defense finished third in that category last year.[/B]

Find a new subject.[/quote]


Nicely done. :food-smil

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=RedBar;581753]No Gtripp sounds like your problem is more with this defense (or I suspect this coach). Thanks for the summary you are right I have not read [I]All[/I] of your post on this subject didn't know it was a prerequisite to stating my opinion. I never said we were an elite defense. Oops I said we were a top five defense. As in:
1.) Pittsburgh 2.) Baltimore 3.) Philadelphia 4.) WASHINGTON 5.) New York Giants. (you can google that)

I never said we had elite talent, or that guys didn't get beaten, picked on or hurt last year. I never said we got a lot of sacks or any other stat you find important. I said when looking at this football team over the past few years you really had to play with the numbers to blame this defense for the teams woes (or you have to have an axe to grind.)
As far as the "bottom line" statistic when talking about defense there is only one that matters: points allowed. Point Blank Period. If your defense finishes third in that category and you finish 8 and 8 and miss the playoffs. don't start lecturing us about sacks or quarterback pressures or takeaways. Defense is Defense it is not Offense. [B] It is great when Defense can help put points on the board but their primary job is keeping points off the board.[/B] This defense finished third in that category last year.

Find a new subject.[/quote]

Would it be fair to say the Pats win in last night's game tied directly to their D's ability to put 6 points on the board? If your D doesn't make other teams pay for their mistakes, and risk taking, then you embolden other teams to try that risky long shot, why because they know our D won't make them regret it. I hope that changes this year.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=RedBar;581753]No Gtripp sounds like your problem is more with this defense (or I suspect this coach). Thanks for the summary you are right I have not read [I]All[/I] of your post on this subject didn't know it was a prerequisite to stating my opinion. I never said we were an elite defense. Oops I said we were a top five defense. As in:
1.) Pittsburgh 2.) Baltimore 3.) Philadelphia 4.) WASHINGTON 5.) New York Giants. (you can google that)

I never said we had elite talent, or that guys didn't get beaten, picked on or hurt last year. I never said we got a lot of sacks or any other stat you find important. I said when looking at this football team over the past few years you really had to play with the numbers to blame this defense for the teams woes (or you have to have an axe to grind.)
As far as the "bottom line" statistic when talking about defense there is only one that matters: points allowed. Point Blank Period. If your defense finishes third in that category and you finish 8 and 8 and miss the playoffs. don't start lecturing us about sacks or quarterback pressures or takeaways. Defense is Defense it is not Offense. It is great when Defense can help put points on the board but their primary job is keeping points off the board. This defense finished third in that category last year.

Find a new subject.[/quote]

I agree. I really find it hard to put too much blame on the defense. Forcing more turnovers would be a nice bonus though.

Remember to try not to take things too personal though

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=Mattyk72;581720]Something tells me that wasn't our all-out defensive attack last night.[/quote]

I sure hope not.

If there was one facet of the defense that I've had any concerns about it's the secondary. I like DeAngelo Hall, and I think it was a wise move to sign him, but to say there was a competition between him and Randy Moss is like saying there's competition between bugs and windshields.

Good thing we don't have to see him twice a year.

I do wonder how different it would have been with Rogers on the field. And to be fair, we did eventually put up some resistance later in the second quarter.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=Mattyk72;581720]Something tells me that wasn't our all-out defensive attack last night.[/quote]

Yeah I agree with that. Im also gonna play the "its only preseason" card right now. The same one that was being played when JC struggled his first couple preseason games. Carlos presence on the field is a factor as well, but if there is any coach I have full faith in, its Coach Blanche. He will have things tightened up by the start of season and continue to add wrinkles as the season goes on. Im not stressing about the D at all, just want to see the Offense to continue to do the type of things it did last night.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;581756]Would it be fair to say the Pats win in last night's game tied directly to their D's ability to put 6 points on the board? If your D doesn't make other teams pay for their mistakes, and risk taking, then you embolden other teams to try that risky long shot, why because they know our D won't make them regret it. I hope that changes this year.[/quote]

Take last years opponents offenses, and all of their risk taking without repercussion; add their defenses' and special team's scoring and you get 18.3 ppg. For us to be a playoff team our offense is going to have to handle that. I hope our defense can play [U]as well as they[/U] played last year.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

Pick 6's and fumble returns are great but if we have to depend on those to win we are already in trouble.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=RedBar;581753]No Gtripp sounds like your problem is more with this defense (or I suspect this coach). Thanks for the summary you are right I have not read [I]All[/I] of your post on this subject didn't know it was a prerequisite to stating my opinion. I never said we were an elite defense. Oops I said we were a top five defense. As in:
1.) Pittsburgh 2.) Baltimore 3.) Philadelphia 4.) WASHINGTON 5.) New York Giants. (you can google that)

I never said we had elite talent, or that guys didn't get beaten, picked on or hurt last year. I never said we got a lot of sacks or any other stat you find important. I said when looking at this football team over the past few years you really had to play with the numbers to blame this defense for the teams woes (or you have to have an axe to grind.)
As far as the "bottom line" statistic when talking about defense there is only one that matters: points allowed. Point Blank Period. If your defense finishes third in that category and you finish 8 and 8 and miss the playoffs. don't start lecturing us about sacks or quarterback pressures or takeaways. Defense is Defense it is not Offense. [B]It is great when Defense can help put points on the board but their primary job is keeping points off the board. This defense finished third in that category last year.
[/B]
Find a new subject.[/quote]

For the most part I agree with you. But actually we were #6 in points allowed last year, not third:
Pitt 13.9
Tenn 14.6
Balt 15.3
Phil 18.1
NYG 18.4
Wash 18.5

Technically, then, we were not in the top 5 in terms of points allowed. Further, the top 3 defenses were at least a field goal better per game than we were, which argues that we were not "elite," perhaps.

Like I said, I agree with you in essence. A defense which finishes #6 in points allowed is a very good defense. But let's get the facts straight.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=Lotus;581773]For the most part I agree with you. But actually we were #6 in points allowed last year, not third:
Pitt 13.9
Tenn 14.6
Balt 15.3
Phil 18.1
NYG 18.4
Wash 18.5

Technically, then, we were not in the top 5 in terms of points allowed. Further, the top 3 defenses were at least a field goal better per game than we were, which argues that we were not "elite," perhaps.

Like I said, I agree with you in essence. A defense which finishes #6 in points allowed is a very good defense. But let's get the facts straight.[/quote]

Lotus I looked on the nfl's website for defensive points allowed for the [U]regular season only[/U] and we were 3rd if I knew how to reproduce it and copy it here I would. I am not sure where you are looking, but thanks for trying to keep things honest.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=RedBar;581776]Lotus I looked on the nfl's website for defensive points allowed for the [U]regular season only[/U] and we were 3rd if I knew how to reproduce it and copy it here I would. I am not sure where you are looking, but thanks for trying to keep things honest.[/quote]

1 - If it's a per game stat then the number of games is factored in, regardless 16 or 16+ playoffs

2 - If they had lower per game numbers including playoffs (Top competition, i think we all agree) and their numbers are still lower then ours, I would argue that makes Lotus' point more true not less.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=RedBar;581776]Lotus I looked on the nfl's website for defensive points allowed for the [U]regular season only[/U] and we were 3rd if I knew how to reproduce it and copy it here I would. I am not sure where you are looking, but thanks for trying to keep things honest.[/quote]

I got my stats from NFL.com:
[url=http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2008&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=1&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1]NFL Stats: by Team Category[/url]

Notice that these stats are league-wide for the 2008 regular season.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=skinsfan69;580571]No pass rush = no pass defense. But it's not like we don't have question marks. Rogers hasn't put it all together yet. He's played well in stretches but not a whole season. Hall played like shit in Oakland but seemed to play decent when he got here. I think Hall will bounce back and get to his playing level in Atl. Horton should be better but I'm really expecting Landry to start to play at a Pro Bowl level. Smoot is OK. Barring injury and an improved pass rush we should be good in the secondary.[/quote]


Speaking of no pass rush, did you enjoy the privledge of listening to what Greg Blache had to say to Trevor Matich in the post-game interview on Comcast last night? I found it to be quite interesting.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=Longtimefan;581798]Speaking of no pass rush, did you enjoy the privledge of listening to what Greg Blache had to say to Trevor Matich in the post-game interview on Comcast last night? I found it to be quite interesting.[/quote]

[url=http://comcastsportsnet.tv/pages/landing_09/?blockID=72038&feedID=2992]Thaler's Thoughts: Preseason Game No. 3[/url]

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=RedBar;581753]No Gtripp sounds like your problem is more with this defense (or I suspect this coach). Thanks for the summary you are right I have not read [I]All[/I] of your post on this subject didn't know it was a prerequisite to stating my opinion. I never said we were an elite defense. Oops I said we were a top five defense. As in:
1.) Pittsburgh 2.) Baltimore 3.) Philadelphia 4.) WASHINGTON 5.) New York Giants. (you can google that)

I never said we had elite talent, or that guys didn't get beaten, picked on or hurt last year. I never said we got a lot of sacks or any other stat you find important. I said when looking at this football team over the past few years you really had to play with the numbers to blame this defense for the teams woes (or you have to have an axe to grind.)
As far as the "bottom line" statistic when talking about defense there is only one that matters: points allowed. Point Blank Period. If your defense finishes third in that category and you finish 8 and 8 and miss the playoffs. don't start lecturing us about sacks or quarterback pressures or takeaways. Defense is Defense it is not Offense. It is great when Defense can help put points on the board but their primary job is keeping points off the board. This defense finished third in that category last year.

Find a new subject.[/quote]It's difficult to take you too seriously if we're ahead of double digit win teams like Tennessee and Minnesota on defense, despite all the offensive issues that those teams had as well (aside from the fact that one of those teams was a better offense than us, the advantage was on defense).

I think a lot of people agree with you, but I do not and will not because this argument simply doesn't hold very much water with me. I completely understand where you are coming from, re: points are points, but that simply doesn't tell yo enough to draw a realistic conclusion from on the strength of the defense.

You may think it's the only thing that matters, but then we're just not looking at the same things. I don't really even looked at points scored when determining defensive quality. That's how irrelevant it is to me.

So to say that your "use all" way of determining the good from the bad doesn't matter to me would be an understatement. I could care less how many points we give up this year if we make a measurable improvement over last year.

We could conceivably finish 9th or 10th in points allowed and make a big defensive jump--but you might have to be able to look past PA to see that. You know there's little that gets under my skin more than "I disagree because I'm too lazy to think past this point", but understanding that my opinion is in the minority and that it writes a pretty good narrative to just blame the offense for everything, I'll not carry out the point too long.

The bottom line though, is that the defense has plenty of room for improvement. We're definately improved in the front seven, so it's on the secondary if we get a better effort this year.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

And admittedly, the offensive numbers don't look very good if you remove the 4-1 start from the equation. In the final 11 games, we were a demonstrably below average offense.

The defensive numbers were just very vanilla the *entire* season, and while the points against ranking is certainly a function of the consistency the defense showed all season, the defense had no margin for error at the end of the season, and completely collapsed.

I've always maintained: I have no idea if the defense was more to blame for the offense. When we were a great team, we combined highly efficient offense with strong, solid defense. When we were a horrible team, we had inept offense, and swiss cheese defense. When we were in the middle, we were mediocre on both units. That's just sort of the way it's always been.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

The big problem, in my eyes, is not that anyone could think that a defense that gives up 18.5 PPG is doing it's job. It probably is. It's when you extrapolate from the figure there that the blame for 8-8 MUST lie somewhere else since the defense does an above average job of preventing the opponent from scoring. There's nothing in logic or reason that says you know enough from that one number to make that leap of faith.

Ergo, saying the defense is "top five" is a really big leap of faith, and probably doesn't hold up once I bring double-digit win teams who win with defense into the discussion. That's the last word from me, for now.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=SmootSmack;581801][url=http://comcastsportsnet.tv/pages/landing_09/?blockID=72038&feedID=2992]Thaler's Thoughts: Preseason Game No. 3[/url][/quote]


Thanks!! Smack for the link.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;581805]It's difficult to take you too seriously if we're ahead of double digit win teams like Tennessee and Minnesota on defense, despite all the offensive issues that those teams had as well (aside from the fact that one of those teams was a better offense than us, the advantage was on defense).

I think a lot of people agree with you, but I do not and will not because this argument simply doesn't hold very much water with me. I completely understand where you are coming from, re: points are points, but that simply doesn't tell yo enough to draw a realistic conclusion from on the strength of the defense.

You may think it's the only thing that matters, but then we're just not looking at the same things. I don't really even looked at points scored when determining defensive quality. That's how irrelevant it is to me.

So to say that your "use all" way of determining the good from the bad doesn't matter to me would be an understatement. I could care less how many points we give up this year if we make a measurable improvement over last year.

We could conceivably finish 9th or 10th in points allowed and make a big defensive jump--but you might have to be able to look past PA to see that. You know there's little that gets under my skin more than "I disagree because I'm too lazy to think past this point", but understanding that my opinion is in the minority and that it writes a pretty good narrative to just blame the offense for everything, I'll not carry out the point too long.

GTripp, GTripp, GTripp, you really ought to write a book. I didn't know what part of that rant to quote, it's hard to take me seriously and it gets under your skin when a person "is to lazy to look past one point," well sir practice what you preach. Yes, this defense has room to improve but the fact that you don't know if the defense is to blame for the offensive woes, and that you could care a less about points allowed as long as we improve, and all this logic stuff tells me that it is probably best that you remain a sports blog philosopher/bully and not a football coach because at the very end of the day it is about wins and losses and defenses help teams win by keeping points off the board. You can miss the forest for the trees and worry about how statistically sound we are I'll take a defense that gives up 18.5ppg and an offense that can score 19.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

What a Trip!

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

Barnes looked good. And Randy Moss will make anybody look bad. I can't believe the Pats got him for just a 3rd or 4th round pick.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=RedBar;581832]GTripp, GTripp, GTripp, you really ought to write a book. I didn't know what part of that rant to quote, it's hard to take me seriously and it gets under your skin when a person "is to lazy to look past one point," well sir practice what you preach. Yes, this defense has room to improve but the fact that you don't know if the defense is to blame for the offensive woes, and that you could care a less about points allowed as long as we improve, and all this logic stuff tells me that it is probably best that you remain a sports blog philosopher/bully and not a football coach because at the very end of the day it is about wins and losses and defenses help teams win by keeping points off the board. You can miss the forest for the trees and worry about how statistically sound we are I'll take a defense that gives up 18.5ppg and an offense that can score 19.[/quote]Trust me when I say that I have no issue practicing what I preach. Sorry to bully you around with sound logic.

I also would take a defense that gives up 18.5 PPG and an offense that scored 19. Except that just makes you an 8-8 team. Which is what we were last year. The key is to improve both units so the defense gives up 16 PPG and the offense scores 20.5 PPG. That's an 11-5 team with two top ten units.

Wouldn't we all get along so much better if that was the case? If it's about wins and losses, 11-5 would be better than 8-8.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

[quote=SmootSmack;581801][url=http://comcastsportsnet.tv/pages/landing_09/?blockID=72038&feedID=2992]Thaler's Thoughts: Preseason Game No. 3[/url][/quote]

Uhhh, in the words of Walter Sobchak: "He's crackin"

Not sure why Blache is so worked up except to suspect maybe the Danny and Vinnie are asking similar questions of him and he feels the heat where it counts the most? Not sure. Maybe those who think Blache is hiding his regular season scheme are correct (I sure hope so). But again onlookers see a defense boasting phat Al, B. Orakpo and a handful of pretty talented supporting players, but very little pressure on the QB. Questions are basically inevitable and Blache better get used to fielding them unless we see real improvement.

Re: Redskins' Secondary Woes
 

I think it's fair to say we missed Los last night...so long as it's the Los who covered TO in the last season's first meeting. I hope and pray Los has a great year. I hope he's a probowler this season. I think he's got the talent. His head needs to be in the right place.