Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

There's been a lot of criticism about our secondary play, particularly Hall, from Sunday. This is a decent article about our identity as a secondary (off coverage vs. press coverage) and how it plays to each players strengths and weaknesses. [url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/blogs/redskins-confidential/Chalk-talk-Why-the-Redskins-play-off-man-coverage.html]Chalk talk: Why the Redskins play off-man coverage | Washington Examiner[/url]

It's interesting to see the difference between Hall, Smoot, Tryon and Rogers.

[I][B]In Atlanta, Hall made the Pro Bowl playing off-man; in Oakland he got cut playing a lot of press. Not everyone prefers playing off-man. Fred Smoot is better in press coverage, as is Justin Tryon. Rogers is probably the most adaptable. Against New York, though, it didn’t matter.[/B][/I]

I hope this gives more context and insight rather than saying "XXXX sucks!!" although it didn't give any as to why Rogers can't catch. Just sayin. :confused:

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

It might be wise for Gray and Zorn to compromise. Not good for the HC and SC to disagree on how the defense should/or is going to be played. I did however, hear Zorn in one of his PC's say he did think it was neccessary for our DB's to get a little closer to the receivers. Will be interesting to see what follows.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

Here's the damn deal. We've been watching the off-man coverage going back to Grilliams' days here. It gets toasted more often than the coaches would lead you to believe based on what I have seen, regardless of how well it is played. I don't like it. They need to get their asses on the WRs. If we're going to pressure the QB doesn't it make sense our CBs should closer to the WRs sooner? What the hell is the point of getting pressure if we're just letting the QB diagnose off-coverage and throw out of the pressure before the CBs can make a play. Those two don't seem to mesh. How about this...play some off-coverage and some press. Mix it up. This is my main issue with Blache...he sees defense in absolutes. Do it his way, because it is the best, and ignore individual ability and skill. That was the BEST thing and Grills...he dramatically altered schemes week to week based on the opponent. We had a different identity every week.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=Longtimefan;590655]It might be wise for Gray and Zorn to compromise..... [/quote]Zorn needs to tell Blache he wants more aggression from his defense. Blache needs to adjust his scheme and tell Gray what to coach in the secondary.

That being said, this isn't Gray's fault. He's only a postion coach and I'm sure is doing what Blache has told him to do. It really doesn't matter what type of coverage is played in the secondary, if the offense knows pre-read what the coverage is 80% of the time, the secondary is going to look bad.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;590665]Zorn needs to tell Blache he wants more aggression from his defense. Blache needs to adjust his scheme and tell Gray what to coach in the secondary.

That being said, this isn't Gray's fault. He's only a postion coach and I'm sure is doing what Blache has told him to do. It really doesn't matter what type of coverage is played in the secondary, if the offense knows pre-read what the coverage is 80% of the time, the secondary is going to look bad.[/quote]

It seems like scheme-wise Grey gets to dictate a lot of what the secondary does and how they do it. I am sure Palermo gets to dictate rotation and technique for the Dline and likewise Olivadotti gets to do the same for the LBs. Blache's job is coordinate the whole thing. Make the base calls and make sure everyone is putting together the pieces in a way that can work. The only place where I see continued questionable technique is the secondary (more accurately...the only place where it is apparent to my less than professional eyes).

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=FRPLG;590666]It seems like scheme-wise Grey gets to dictate a lot of what the secondary does and how they do it. I am sure Palermo gets to dictate rotation and technique for the Dline and likewise Olivadotti gets to do the same for the LBs. Blache's job is coordinate the whole thing. Make the base calls and [B]make sure everyone is putting together the pieces in a way that can work[/B]. The only place where I see continued questionable technique is the secondary (more accurately...the only place where it is apparent to my less than professional eyes).[/quote]There-in IM(LTP)O is the problem. The NFL is a copycat league.....Blache needs to get some Giants/Eagles game film and start copying.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;590668]There-in IM(LTP)O is the problem. The NFL is a copycat league.....[B]Blache needs to get some Giants/Eagles game film and start copying[/B].[/quote]

Yes Sir!

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;590665]Zorn needs to tell Blache he wants more aggression from his defense. Blache needs to adjust his scheme and tell Gray what to coach in the secondary.

That being said, this isn't Gray's fault. He's only a postion coach and I'm sure is doing what Blache has told him to do. It really doesn't matter what type of coverage is played in the secondary, if the offense knows pre-read what the coverage is 80% of the time, the secondary is going to look bad.[/quote]

Agreed, all the assistants need to be in-sink with the HC. There needs to be an agreement as to how it's going to be played with everyone on the same page. There cannot be contrasting philosophies, the minds have to be in agreement. Idon't know whose fault it is, or even if it could be considered a fault, it's just a situation that needs to be worked out to the satisfaction of the HC. who should have the final say.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

I've got a question for you Sammy since you apparently know what you're talking about, great posts by the way, The article says Pittsburgh only uses play off-man coverage, why such a big difference in their results and ours? Is it because they disguise better and mix things up a lttle more?

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

The scheme works, but as the article points out they just need better execution of it.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

At least I won't blame this on Hixon:)

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;590683]At least I won't blame this on Hixon:)[/quote]

Well we do practice against our own receivers. :)

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=Mattyk72;590682]The scheme works, but as the article points out they just need better execution of it.[/quote]

But what makes Pittsburgh so much better at it then us? Going by the article I'm assuming we have the same schemes. I'm really not trying to be smartass in any way I'm just curious. If it's purely execution then I'm fine with the scheme because it works very well for Pitt. If they do something differently than us I'd like to know what it is. I may be wrong but I think our personell should put us on the same level as them. I definitely believe our execution is lacking at this point and expect it to get better, it's only been one game and maybe that is the answer.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=53Fan;590693]But what makes Pittsburgh so much better at it then us? Going by the article I'm assuming we have the same schemes. I'm really not trying to be smartass in any way I'm just curious. If it's purely execution then I'm fine with the scheme because it works very well for Pitt. If they do something differently than us I'd like to know what it is. I may be wrong but I think our personell should put us on the same level as them. I definitely believe our execution is lacking at this point and expect it to get better, [B]it's only been one game and maybe that is the answer[/B].[/quote]

I would go with that too.

Everyone (not pointing you out) seems to want all these answers after just one game, and really it's just not that cut and dry. We still have 15 games left, alot can and will happen over the course of the season. I think too many people are taking the results of one game, putting it under the microscope, and assuming that's how the rest of the year will go.

Re: Interesting read on our secondary philosophy
 

[quote=Mattyk72;590721]I would go with that too.

Everyone (not pointing you out) seems to want all these answers after just one game, and really it's just not that cut and dry. We still have 15 games left, alot can and will happen over the course of the season. I think too many people are taking the results of one game, putting it under the microscope, and assuming that's how the rest of the year will go.[/quote]

Got to agree with you here.

Unless I'm missing something, the Giants, who won 12 games last year, scored 16 offensive points and our defense caused 1 interception and 1 fumble.

I'm not sure I'm ready to throw the defense under the bus yet.