Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


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

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2005, 11:00 PM   #16
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,678
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.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 05-31-2005, 11:28 PM   #17
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,303
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.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 11:35 PM   #18
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 8,317
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).
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 12:32 AM   #19
Special Teams
 
Tahoe Skin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 100
Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Tahoe Skin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 12:44 AM   #20
Playmaker
 
Redskins8588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ridgway, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,519
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...
__________________
"I am the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" - Sean Taylor
Redskins8588 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 01:13 AM   #21
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 8,317
Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redskins8588
Personaly I would rather have a team try to beat us with there air attack rather than rushing.
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.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 01:39 AM   #22
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,220
Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?

Quote:
We will be flat out better in our secondary this season
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.
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 08:30 AM   #23
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 32
Posts: 17,524
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.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 09:03 AM   #24
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,793
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.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 09:10 AM   #25
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 32
Posts: 17,524
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.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 11:02 AM   #26
Special Teams
 
skinnyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Age: 37
Posts: 111
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!
skinnyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 11:06 AM   #27
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 32
Posts: 17,524
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.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 11:30 AM   #28
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,524
Re: Lots of RBs, DBs, LBs, but why no DT or DE?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection
That's exactly why I'm thinking that Bowen will be cut. He's a huge liability in the passing game.
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.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 11:45 AM   #29
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 32
Posts: 17,524
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.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 12:53 PM   #30
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,220
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.
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is online now   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 10:11 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 0.28723 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