Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

Can someone please help me understand: Why HAVEN'T we picked up another DT or DE? Don't get me wrong; I love what GW is doing. Great scheme + great judge of talent = Great D. But I've thought all along the pass rush from our D Line last year was sorely lacking, and I'm not sure that Philip Daniels alone will change that. So, I really AM curious about what GW is thinking in not picking up another D Lineman, while at the same type bringing in lots of linebackers and DBacks. I can only guess that the real answer lies in that old saying that you can usually win a ball game if you win on 2 of the 3 teams. In the Skins case, I think this year we're bringing in sooo many LBs and DBs because we're trying to do everything we can to win on Defense and Special Teams. But that brings me back to the same question, if we really are focusing on trying to win on D and STs, why not get another DT or DE??? I just don't understand why we're not working to get better/better depth there. Anyone have a clue?

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

the skins last year were a perfect example of why games are won in the trenches. o-line was very mediocore, and DL did great with run support but absolutely no pass rush besides griffin. and when your starting CB is tied with your best DL in sacks... something isnt right. our oline was horrible at picking up zone blitzes and our DL was horrible in the pass rush. i love that we blitz, but when we blitz the outside, we have almost no penatraton up the gut allowing the opposing qb to step up in the pocket.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I think we might pick up a DT or DE after tommorow's cuts. I hope so anyway.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

It's simple, who is out there to pick up??

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

Maybe this is me speaking... but from what I've seen Greg William's doesn't rely on a bigtime DE to get sacks. We blitz a lot of the time. Our defensive line has 2-3 great ends to play the run. We have enough power inside to push the pocket a little bit and stop the run. I think that's their job and they do it just fine.

We're going to bring a lot of outside pressure. As long as our Dline can occupy their O line, they are doing their job.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

Matty has it right--there's no one we can get that's worth it, and we don't have the cap space anyway. These guys all will compete for the positions we need some depth at, and--this is a big factor--they all can most likely help on special teams.

And I agree with Daseal about Williams' D--he brings the pressure from all over, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

(What does "maybe this is me speaking" mean??? Are you not sure that you're you? Could you be wrong about that one, Daseal? ;) )

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

i was wondering the same thing about no de or dt. maybe they know something that we don't know. i think we have tricks up our sleeves for the big day tomorrow. i know we supposedly don't have no money but i think we are going to get some quality players and let go some surprising people tomorrow.

Sean Taylor will be the greatest safety to ever play the game, period!!

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I'm sure Williams would love a stud DE, trouble is it's not easy to find these days.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Maybe this is me speaking... but from what I've seen Greg William's doesn't rely on a bigtime DE to get sacks. We blitz a lot of the time. Our defensive line has 2-3 great ends to play the run. We have enough power inside to push the pocket a little bit and stop the run. I think that's their job and they do it just fine.

We're going to bring a lot of outside pressure. As long as our Dline can occupy their O line, they are doing their job.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree. Dline is just to keep blockers off our LBs and DBs. They did the job they were asked and did it well. Sure, it would be great to find a pass rushing DE, but just as Matty said, they are hard to come by and even in the first rounds of the draft, there's just no guarantees with DEs.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

We tried to grab Courtney Brown but he didn't like our offer. I think it's cool that we can finally say to guys "Hey, come over and be part of the best defense in the league" and let them take it or leave it. Trying to buy our way to a winning roster didn't work.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I'm sure that we are still looking hard to find a stud DE, but I think that Williams thinks we can get it done with Daniels, Evans, and Clemons.

Next years may be the year we try to shore up those position a little more.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

If we could get it done with Clemons just EMERGING as a great pass rusher and Daniels out of the line-up for most of the season, I think we can REALLY get it done at full strength.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]If we could get it done with Clemons just EMERGING as a great pass rusher and Daniels out of the line-up for most of the season, I think we can REALLY get it done at full strength.[/QUOTE]
Great point!
I don't really see any major upgrades out there for our D-Line. Maybe somone will get cut Jun 1st that would help us. But there is nothing to drool over out there right now.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

This is definately a focus-area for the next off-season. If they can't sign someone early in free agency, they are sure to look at trying to use either their 2nd or their 3rd rounder on a DE, possibly both considering their draft tactics this year and last - drafting double at positions of need in the hopes that one of the two will work out.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

[QUOTE=GoSkins!]We tried to grab Courtney Brown but he didn't like our offer. I think it's cool that we can finally say to guys "Hey, come over and be part of the best defense in the league" and let them take it or leave it. Trying to buy our way to a winning roster didn't work.[/QUOTE]

And that was my point exactly in starting this thread. We have seen many free agent DT and DEs go by the board, and we saw many DT and DEs getting drafted. The only D-Lineman we've considered was Courtney Brown, and the 4 UNDRAFTED rookies that are on our squad. SO, SURE, there's may be no quality D-Linemen out there now, but my question remains: Why have we being going after soo many LBs and DBs and not any D-Linemen? We can spend the $$$ on LBs and DBs, but not DLs?? I think the most intelligent response I've seen is that we may be considering the using the 3-4 a lot more.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I think Carlos Rogers is going to be key. I believe one reason we didn't have to rely on a bigtime DE to get sacks last year was that Springs and Smoot could man cover and that basically gave you an extra player or two to blitz.

So the question is Rogers and his man-coverage abilities. Or Walt Harris or whoever it is that starts.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I think the main reason we have so many RBs, LBs, and TE types is for special teams. You don't send big DEs and DTs out on kickoff coverage units. You need powerful and fast players who can cover ground and are willing to take on big collisions.

I think when Joe Gibbs looked at our team this offseason, he said priority 1 was improving special teams. Then after that, he figured WR and CB were practically secondary priorities.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I understand the concern about the Dline; conventional wisdom says a good defense starts with a good front four. The thing is, Williams' doesn't run a coventional defense. He uses backs and linebackers to get the job done.

Moreover, why mess with success. We were the #3 defense last season and the only D-lineman we had to speak of was Cornelius Griffin.

Finally, D-Linemen don't come cheap - especially pass-rushing D-Linemen. Where would we get the money to get one? (If you're thinking the draft.....remember, D-Linemen usually take several years to develop).

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]I think the main reason we have so many RBs, LBs, and TE types is for special teams. You don't send big DEs and DTs out on kickoff coverage units. You need powerful and fast players who can cover ground and are willing to take on big collisions.

I think when Joe Gibbs looked at our team this offseason, he said priority 1 was improving special teams. Then after that, he figured WR and CB were practically secondary priorities.[/QUOTE]

Yes, if you read my post which started this thread, I stated that you can usually win a ball game if you win on 2 of your 3 teams, and that perhaps the Skins we're bringing in many LBs and DBs because they were trying to win games on Defense AND Special Teams. So, I understand what you're saying. It still doesn't explain why we didn't pick up a single stud DT or DE. I'm starting to think GW will surprise everyone and start using the 3-4 a lot more.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I agree that it would be nice to have a pass rushing DE but I like the fact that we can effectively stop the run forcing the other team beat us with there passing attack. I mean look at how many games we made teams one diminsional. Personaly I would rather have a team try to beat us with there air attack rather than rushing. And since no one could run on us last year, well that puts the game in the hands of the D, our D forced the opposing offense to become predicable...

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

We will be flat out better in our secondary this season, which will allow our LB's to really get after the QB, our D-line just need's to stop the run that's it, of coarse it would be nice to have a big time DE but you can't have everything, we are very fortunate to have William's who can get the job done without a major pass rushing DE.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

[QUOTE=Redskins8588]Personaly I would rather have a team try to beat us with there air attack rather than rushing.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree. How demoralizing is it to see a defense give yp 5 yards per carry? I love to see runner's gang-tackled in the backfield.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

[quote]We will be flat out better in our secondary this season[/quote]

I question this for two reasons. I don't trust Harris/Rogers (whoever starts) quite yet. Not saying they CAN'T play Smoot's role, but it has yet to be seen. I think that will be what makes or breaks a winning or losing season for us. The play of our secondary. With the emergence of Matt Bowen back onto the field, expect to get burned in the passing game some. Whenever we have to put him in coverage, I close my eyes, count to 5-8 (depending on where the ball is) then say DAMN, because 90% of the time they score a TD.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

That's exactly why I'm thinking that Bowen will be cut. He's a huge liability in the passing game.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

Perhaps Bowen's past liabilities in the passing game were more due to poor coaching and an even poorer defensive scheme?

We really didn't get a chance to see him much last year. Even if he is on the roster this year, which isn't a guarantee at this point, with the way Williams rotates guys I wouldn't expect to see Bowen back there in critical situations if Williams does view him as a liability in coverage.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

True. I see him playing a Clemons role or being used as a decoy for pass rushes.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

LAVAR ARRINGTON will be blitz mania this year......Lavar will come from all angles.....I think the two DE we have just have to stand up and stop the run and have a little outside contain.....but I think Lavar could very easily have 8-10 sacks this year......I probably would think more like 8!! If he is healthy we don't need a DE rush specialist!

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I think people would just like the idea of someone that's a DE being a pass-rusher. The way Williams works, he makes everyone a pass-rusher, so I wouldn't be too worried about the lack of a true DE on one side since we have Daniels on the other.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]That's exactly why I'm thinking that Bowen will be cut. He's a huge liability in the passing game.[/QUOTE]

I liked Bowen rushing the passer and he appeared to be a pretty decent tackler. True, he doesn't have the coverage skills that we would like for him to have, but I personally don't want to see him get cut.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I'd like to cap space he would bring to possibly sign McQuarters. I'd love to have McQuarters as a backup.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

Matty even in his limited playtime last year he allowed one TD and at least one other long pass play. Thats just from the top of my head. The guy simply can't cover. I've heard what a big hitter he was, the only people he knocked out were Redskins in training camp.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

When did he give up a long TD? I don't recall.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I could have sworn it was against the Giants. I could be wrong.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

yeah, during the giants game, to a rookie i think, he looked slow and wasn't even close to the guy... it was like he wasn't even trying (or he's just really that bad) :/

bowen did get 2 sacks in one game vs tampa though... he's good as a rusher or against the run, but he's only 2/3rds of what you need a good safety to be.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I have nothing against him except for that one fact. He's a hitter and a great blitzer. Even if he were used as a decoy in blitzes, I would be OK with that because most would assume that if Bowen comes in that we are going to use him to blitz and he he backs off and Arrington comes.

I think that might be an ideal situation.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]I have nothing against him except for that one fact. He's a hitter and a great blitzer. Even if he were used as a decoy in blitzes, I would be OK with that because most would assume that if Bowen comes in that we are going to use him to blitz and he he backs off and Arrington comes.

I think that might be an ideal situation.[/QUOTE]


That sounds like a good plan! This is why I love GW's defense....the blitz will come from anywhere at any given time. Not all the pressure to rush the QB is placed on the DL or the LBs.

But heck, we can't be too critical on Bowen and talking about how he was burned because we would have to also talk about how Taylor was burned against our Cowboy foe.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

But comparatively, Taylor got burned FAR less times than Bowen even though Bowen only played in a few games. Not only that, this goes back to when Bowen played regularly in the starting lineup. I just don't like the idea of having a $2 mil cap hit with him sitting the bench.

Especially when Clark and others played so well.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

Yeah, I see your point - although I kind of look at it from a point of view as to the "what if" Bowen had played the whole season scenario. He could have been burned several more times, then again his coverage skills could have improved. Overall, I don't believe Bowen is a great cover guy, but I think he is of value to us to keep him.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

If keeping him means we couldn't sign some of our rookies or miss out on McQuarters, I say cut him. If we were to cut him for no reason, that's the only situation I'd have a problem with.

Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?
 

I think Coach Williams is counting on a healthy Phillip Daniels, there was no DE available in the draft that was better than what we already had.