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.