SN Unit Analysis: Safeties

TheMalcolmConnection · 05-26-2005, 10:22 AM

Very true. With all the signings of people just for special teams, hopefully we should have one of the top cover units in the league.

Schneed10 · 05-26-2005, 10:33 AM

Yeah it's kind of pointless to sit and evaluate the changes we've had in personnel when you look at our defense. You can't really say that a Pierce for Holdman switch is going to be a good thing or a bad thing. And you can't really say a Smoot for Rogers switch is a good thing or a bad thing.

We went out and signed all kinds of depth. Gregg Williams says he doesn't have first and second string, he just has a team full of starters. He's right. He'll roll various combinations of personnel out there and the D can still be just as good, if not better than last year.

I'm not worried about our secondary one iota, especially if we land RW McQuarters. There's depth left and right in the secondary. I am slightly concerned about our ability to find another QB of the Defense. Don't evaluate Pierce for his speed or talent or any of that crap, it was his recognition and signal-calling that made our D so good last year. We need to find a good replacement for that, and if we do, our D will be better than last year.

JWsleep · 05-26-2005, 11:06 AM

When you look only at players, I guess a "B" is reasonable, though my guess is that if Taylor shows up (which I believe he will), he's a pro-bowler this year. Safety in the NFL requires some experience, and Taylor was a rookie last year.

But who really cares about individual talent (beyond a certain point, that is)? The real reason we should get an A is because of how Williams uses the DB's. His system makes great use of the safeties, puts pressure on the QB from a wide range of places, and puts the CBs in position to make palys when the QB unloads because of pressure. I'll take a great system over great individual talent any day (and I think we have A talent, for what it's worth...).

JWsleep · 05-26-2005, 11:07 AM

In other words, I completey agree with Schneed! (should really read the posts first...

)

RedskinRat · 05-26-2005, 11:36 AM

Last year our run D was supposedly dire (pre season pundit theory) and I don't think we've truly lost anything in any phase of the D for this season.

Still top three, challenging for number 1.

TheMalcolmConnection · 05-26-2005, 11:38 AM

Yeaaaah...I remember them saying that we might have a good secondary, but our run defense was "porous" as I remember that word being used. All I ask is we continue to stop the run like we did last year. I'd love to see us step up against the bigger backs.

skinsguy · 05-26-2005, 11:39 AM

Yeah I think it's way too early to consider any changes being for the better or worse.....especially rookies. However, with the mix of young guys and older vets, I think we have a good mixture on our defense and I believe Williams will have this defense ready. Heck, look at last year when guys were dropping like flies it seemed - yet we still finished the season at number 3...

RedskinRat · 05-26-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

...I remember them saying that we might have a good secondary, but our run defense was "porous" as I remember that word being used.

Aha! That's the word. Yup, over and over.....

So it just goes to show that all the prognosticating is hot air.

TheMalcolmConnection · 05-26-2005, 11:54 AM

Which is also why I'm hesitant to start thinking the D will be as good as this year. (Or at least say it):smashfrea

Schneed10 · 05-26-2005, 11:56 AM

Yeah, we finished as the 3rd ranked defense despite an offense that couldn't sustain drives worth a crap. I remember watching a game late in the season which was being called by Joe Buck and he said something like "this defense really has been nothing short of amazing all season. When you consider how anemic the offense has been, to rank near the top of the defensive rankings is an impressive feat."

There's a saying that the best defense is a good offense. Well this year I see our offense improving, meaning they should keep our D off the field. Our D will seem better in the rankings and in the stats for that reason alone. And I think Williams can get them to play just as well as last year, if not better, if we can fill the signal-calling void.

I think there's a difference between how the stats rank you and how you actually played. The stats can't account for the success of your offense. Last year, in my opinion, we had the #1 D. Pittsburgh and Buffalo finished ahead of us in the rankings, but when you have McGahee and Bettis sustaining drives like they did, it makes the D look better. I don't want to take away from Pittsburgh or Buffalo, but I think we played better on D last year.

Mattyk · 05-26-2005, 12:12 PM

I think it was Culpepper that said the Skins were the best D he faced all year.

Redskins_P · 05-26-2005, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I think it was Culpepper that said the Skins were the best D he faced all year.

So did Rothlesberger (sp)

firstdown · 05-26-2005, 12:16 PM

If our front office gives Williams good to above average players he has the ability to plug the right players into the right schemes to make it work. I feel that we have given him the talent he needs and he will come up with game plans that will keep our D at the top of the NFL. He showed last year this ability with players playing in his system for the first year. We will now be in our second year with Williams(thank god) and our players will know the system even that much better. I don't think we would have let Peirce go for such a little difference in offers if he was not convident he could be replaced. Our worries should remain with our offense.

firstdown · 05-26-2005, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Yeaaaah...I remember them saying that we might have a good secondary, but our run defense was "porous" as I remember that word being used. All I ask is we continue to stop the run like we did last year. I'd love to see us step up against the bigger backs.

I think the prduction from the bigger backs was more of an offensive problem and a lake of production. If they could have only given our D alittle more rest which they deserved they would have been just fine in handling the bigger backs.Just look at the Stealers game and how many attempts it took the bus to gain 100 yards. He should not of had that many oppertunities.

TheMalcolmConnection · 05-26-2005, 12:59 PM

Right. That's what I mean. Also, defensive rankings are based ONLY on yards allowed right? Considering we had so many three-and-outs, it's amazing we were even ranked in the top 10.

05-26-2005, 10:22 AM	#16
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,134	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties Very true. With all the signings of people just for special teams, hopefully we should have one of the top cover units in the league. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

05-26-2005, 10:33 AM	#17
Schneed10 RG Glee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 33 Posts: 7,918	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties Yeah it's kind of pointless to sit and evaluate the changes we've had in personnel when you look at our defense. You can't really say that a Pierce for Holdman switch is going to be a good thing or a bad thing. And you can't really say a Smoot for Rogers switch is a good thing or a bad thing. We went out and signed all kinds of depth. Gregg Williams says he doesn't have first and second string, he just has a team full of starters. He's right. He'll roll various combinations of personnel out there and the D can still be just as good, if not better than last year. I'm not worried about our secondary one iota, especially if we land RW McQuarters. There's depth left and right in the secondary. I am slightly concerned about our ability to find another QB of the Defense. Don't evaluate Pierce for his speed or talent or any of that crap, it was his recognition and signal-calling that made our D so good last year. We need to find a good replacement for that, and if we do, our D will be better than last year.

05-26-2005, 11:06 AM	#18
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 44 Posts: 4,576	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties When you look only at players, I guess a "B" is reasonable, though my guess is that if Taylor shows up (which I believe he will), he's a pro-bowler this year. Safety in the NFL requires some experience, and Taylor was a rookie last year. But who really cares about individual talent (beyond a certain point, that is)? The real reason we should get an A is because of how Williams uses the DB's. His system makes great use of the safeties, puts pressure on the QB from a wide range of places, and puts the CBs in position to make palys when the QB unloads because of pressure. I'll take a great system over great individual talent any day (and I think we have A talent, for what it's worth...). __________________ Hail from Houston!

05-26-2005, 11:07 AM	#19
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 44 Posts: 4,576	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties In other words, I completey agree with Schneed! (should really read the posts first... ) __________________ Hail from Houston!

05-26-2005, 11:36 AM	#20
RedskinRat Official irritant of The WP Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 6,940	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties Last year our run D was supposedly dire (pre season pundit theory) and I don't think we've truly lost anything in any phase of the D for this season. Still top three, challenging for number 1.

05-26-2005, 11:38 AM	#21
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,134	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties Yeaaaah...I remember them saying that we might have a good secondary, but our run defense was "porous" as I remember that word being used. All I ask is we continue to stop the run like we did last year. I'd love to see us step up against the bigger backs. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

05-26-2005, 11:39 AM	#22
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 6,014	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties Yeah I think it's way too early to consider any changes being for the better or worse.....especially rookies. However, with the mix of young guys and older vets, I think we have a good mixture on our defense and I believe Williams will have this defense ready. Heck, look at last year when guys were dropping like flies it seemed - yet we still finished the season at number 3... __________________ Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.

05-26-2005, 11:54 AM	#24
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,134	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties Which is also why I'm hesitant to start thinking the D will be as good as this year. (Or at least say it):smashfrea __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

05-26-2005, 11:56 AM	#25
Schneed10 RG Glee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 33 Posts: 7,918	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties Yeah, we finished as the 3rd ranked defense despite an offense that couldn't sustain drives worth a crap. I remember watching a game late in the season which was being called by Joe Buck and he said something like "this defense really has been nothing short of amazing all season. When you consider how anemic the offense has been, to rank near the top of the defensive rankings is an impressive feat." There's a saying that the best defense is a good offense. Well this year I see our offense improving, meaning they should keep our D off the field. Our D will seem better in the rankings and in the stats for that reason alone. And I think Williams can get them to play just as well as last year, if not better, if we can fill the signal-calling void. I think there's a difference between how the stats rank you and how you actually played. The stats can't account for the success of your offense. Last year, in my opinion, we had the #1 D. Pittsburgh and Buffalo finished ahead of us in the rankings, but when you have McGahee and Bettis sustaining drives like they did, it makes the D look better. I don't want to take away from Pittsburgh or Buffalo, but I think we played better on D last year.

05-26-2005, 12:12 PM	#26
Mattyk ‎\m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 73,204	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties I think it was Culpepper that said the Skins were the best D he faced all year. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

05-26-2005, 12:16 PM	#28
firstdown Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: chesapeake, va Age: 49 Posts: 15,282	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties If our front office gives Williams good to above average players he has the ability to plug the right players into the right schemes to make it work. I feel that we have given him the talent he needs and he will come up with game plans that will keep our D at the top of the NFL. He showed last year this ability with players playing in his system for the first year. We will now be in our second year with Williams(thank god) and our players will know the system even that much better. I don't think we would have let Peirce go for such a little difference in offers if he was not convident he could be replaced. Our worries should remain with our offense.

05-26-2005, 12:59 PM	#30
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,134	Re: SN Unit Analysis: Safeties Right. That's what I mean. Also, defensive rankings are based ONLY on yards allowed right? Considering we had so many three-and-outs, it's amazing we were even ranked in the top 10. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

SN Unit Analysis: Safeties

Redskins Locker Room