Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


How bad is our secondary?

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-18-2012, 11:27 AM   #61
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Re: How bad is our secondary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
Well you took a Center/Guard with your 3rd round pick who has been inactive the first 2 games of the season when we desperately needed a Right Tackle, Cornerback or Safety.

Should we just expect a complete zero from McRib, an early third round pick, this year? I cant get over the logic of that poor move.
Drafting purely based on need is the best way to assemble a roster full of players that can't play. If they liked a CB or Safety best when their pick came up they would have drafted them. For the first time in a long time I trust the people making these decisions.
__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-18-2012, 12:01 PM   #62
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 11,644
Re: How bad is our secondary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by celts32 View Post
Drafting purely based on need is the best way to assemble a roster full of players that can't play. If they liked a CB or Safety best when their pick came up they would have drafted them. For the first time in a long time I trust the people making these decisions.
Yeah I agree but its a still a balance, you take several needs and look at best play available. I dont think there was a great disparity McRib and others available at Tackle, CB, & Safety. Interesting in the preseason Gettis was chosen to get the start over McRib for Chester at Guard. Shanny likes versatility among with linemen, but why was that? There is nothing set in stone stating Gettis has to back up Chester. Gettis, a sixth round pick, was ahead of McRib and more nfl ready. Hey were building depth which is great, but there has been a SERIOUS lack of a plan at RT, Safety and Corner. I think Bruce and Shanny have made mistakes. To rely on Jamal Brown who has never been healthy with us or an undraft FA with Willie Smith is negligent. To let Carlos go and be a probowler with our issues at corner is negligent. M Williams and Merriweather are not long term answers at Safety, Atogwe was a similar type of pick up the year before. Its not fair im putting this on McRib, but more or less im making a point of its not hard to see why we have continous struggles at the same positions.
__________________
Ditka for President
Chico23231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 12:46 PM   #63
Special Teams
 
imaskin4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 283
Re: How bad is our secondary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooby View Post
I'm a pretty firm believer that an excellent pass rush can hide even the worst of secondaries, and I think what did us in yesterday was an excellent game plan on the 'Rams side combined with a lack of pass rush on our side. Their game plan was to get the ball out as quick as possible, and it seemed they were prepared for our zone coverages. Bradford never held the ball for long, and even when he did we didn't have a good enough pass rush to make it affect his throws. With Rak and Carriker now out for the season we really need to come up with an effective way to get a pass rush, whether it be unconventional blitzes or whatever, otherwise it will be a long season. If we can't get a rush on the other side of Kerrigan they will be able to double team him for the rest of the season and it will effectively neutralize our pass rush. It seems it's time for Has' to earn his money at d-coordinator, and I'm not terribly enthused given his lack of adjustments in the past.

The problem with the getting a pass rush right now is that the holding penalty goes unnoticed more with the substitute referees. Their backup offensive lineman looked liked pro bowlers on sunday.

I think that we knew going into the game that they would fear our pass rush and would focus on the short pass to move the ball -- which makes it even MORE mind boggling to me that the plan was to play a soft zone coverage as if we were afraid of getting beat deep. I wanted to see our DBs pressing more often in man coverage. ESPECIALLY after amendola's 5th or 6th catch in the first quarter.
imaskin4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 12:55 PM   #64
The Starter
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,099
Re: How bad is our secondary?

Our secondary is as good or bad as the gameplan and our pass rush allow them to be.
__________________
No longer were NFL coaches dealing inflexibly with spread [QBs] in ways that caused stunted development for players like [A. Smith and Vick] now, the idea is to bring what the quarterback can do, and what he should do, together as an organic whole
30gut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 02:28 PM   #65
Playmaker
 
los panda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: los angeles, ca
Age: 29
Posts: 4,063
Re: How bad is our secondary?

hopefully we can come to terms w doug dutch. he's a deep sleeper to get the most defense ball gamer for pass throws in english
__________________
7 9 21 28 33 42 43 44 49 65 70 81
los panda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 02:36 PM   #66
Registered User
 
The Goat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,662
Re: How bad is our secondary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Okie, I respectfully disagree. I consider Josh Wilson to be a serious baller. Every corner gets beat sometimes but for the most part Wilson is rock solid IMO.

BTW, you jinxed us by going to the game. I hope you had a good time anyway.
Wilson is a solid #2 and borderline #1 corner IMO. His smallish size probably holds him back more than anything. His instincts and skill level are, as you point out, pretty darn solid.
The Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 02:39 PM   #67
Impact Rookie
 
Evilgrin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 648
Re: How bad is our secondary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooby View Post
I'm a pretty firm believer that an excellent pass rush can hide even the worst of secondaries, and I think what did us in yesterday was an excellent game plan on the 'Rams side combined with a lack of pass rush on our side. Their game plan was to get the ball out as quick as possible, and it seemed they were prepared for our zone coverages. Bradford never held the ball for long, and even when he did we didn't have a good enough pass rush to make it affect his throws. With Rak and Carriker now out for the season we really need to come up with an effective way to get a pass rush, whether it be unconventional blitzes or whatever, otherwise it will be a long season. If we can't get a rush on the other side of Kerrigan they will be able to double team him for the rest of the season and it will effectively neutralize our pass rush. It seems it's time for Has' to earn his money at d-coordinator, and I'm not terribly enthused given his lack of adjustments in the past.
They never affected his timing, pushed the pocket in, or changed his throwing lanes. He was way too comfortable all game. I think that was the reason they didn't switch to man, we would have got beaten over the top.
Evilgrin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 02:42 PM   #68
MVP
 
mooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NoVa
Age: 26
Posts: 11,888
Re: How bad is our secondary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilgrin View Post
They never affected his timing, pushed the pocket in, or changed his throwing lanes. He was way too comfortable all game. I think that was the reason they didn't switch to man, we would have got beaten over the top.
Possibly, but by staying in zone with no pass rush they were still able to effectively move the ball at will.
mooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 03:12 PM   #69
Camp Scrub
 
aircoryell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 94
Re: How bad is our secondary?

One thing of note that I believe needs to be considered: This is basically a new secondary and it's going to take some time for them to gel. We have two new starting safties and Hall is now playing the slot in nickel situations. I don't think they're as bad as they looked on Sunday, but I have a feeling we'll struggle all season against the small speedy receivers unless we start to generate pressure consistently.
__________________
http://i.imgur.com/EAvhb.gif

I have seen the promised land, and it is beautiful.
aircoryell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 04:47 PM   #70
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,677
Re: How bad is our secondary?

Barnes is available now
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 05:01 PM   #71
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,622
Re: How bad is our secondary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Barnes is available now
So do we still get our pick from the Loins? Was the deal simply contingent on his being on their week 1 roster?
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 05:01 PM   #72
Registered User
 
The Goat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,662
Re: How bad is our secondary?

^ No.
The Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2012, 11:55 PM   #73
Special Teams
 
jdc65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 246
Re: How bad is our secondary?

I think the secondary can be good if they utilize matchups properly, and play more physical. Playing zone defense, by it's nature, is passive, whereas press-man is aggressive and physical. Getting beat deep is the major problem with press, which is why keeping the safeties back is paramount without shut-down corners.

What I like about C.Griffin is he is a big, physical corner. He matches up well against the big, physical receivers on their schedule like Green, Little, Nicks, Bryant, and Jones among others. Of course, he will need safety help deep as he can't stay with elite receivers, but he can physically handle them on the line. Disrupting patterns and throwing off timing are huge advantages for a defense.

I think Hall in the slot is good as he is able to make plays from there, and isn't tasked with covering #1's. Playing him near the line allows him to blitz or cover running backs when no slot is in.

Wilson is a good matchup for most receivers, except the physical ones, and is as close to a shut down corner as the team has. Why wasn't he on Amendola the whole game is mystifying. Crawford looks like he will be decent in the future, and should see more playing time as the season progresses.

Between Gomes and Meriweather, strong safety looks decent as either can play the run or pass effectively.

Free Safety is a weakness with Williams, but playing a press-man should not allow the free release that gives the offensive player an advantage. I think Williams would be better covering half the field in a cover 2 than playing centerfield. Free safety might be a high priority next year.

The secondary has issues for sure, but I think the coordinators could use them more effectively to achieve better results.
jdc65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 01:21 AM   #74
Registered User
 
The Goat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,662
Re: How bad is our secondary?

^ Fantastic post jdc65. I've been wondering if Haslett and Morris both agreed on the ultra soft coverage we saw against STL? Or if Morris would have played it tight man coverage more like the NO game, and Haslett overruled him?
The Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2012, 01:31 AM   #75
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 16,018
Re: How bad is our secondary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goat View Post
^ Fantastic post jdc65. I've been wondering if Haslett and Morris both agreed on the ultra soft coverage we saw against STL? Or if Morris would have played it tight man coverage more like the NO game, and Haslett overruled him?
The Redskins played soft coverage towards the end of the NO games, and it looked like it carried over to the Rams game.
__________________
R.I.P. #21

New words created on The Warpath:
Rewalsr - Somretimes - Fualt - Jersesy - Itiot - Composetory
Afeard - Storgn - Empliment - Gaissn - Saftys - Minnisota
Faviort - Hatter - Phsyched - Foof - Heloing - Brutual
Stroried

"Give an opinion and move on. Your life doesn't depend on winning the internet." -FRPLG
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.29833 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25