Quote:
Originally Posted by hail_2_da_skins
I think the off-season moves rank a C for me. The team did a great job of upgrading the secondary and the linebackers, but I am really worried about the defensive line. It's my personal belief, that excellent defensive line play can make a mediocre secondary and linebackers look good. Pressure on the quarterback and line stuffing protects the back seven. It's especially bad for the Redskins because the defensive line has been neglected for years. Daniels and Griffin are very good linemen, but they are often injured and the drop off from starters to backups is tremendous. Golston and Montgomery will have to really step it up this year and I think coach Williams believes they will. I will believe it when I see it. I'm hoping it will work out but I have my doubts.
|
Well, that's kinda the crux of the disagreement. Someone posted (and it got reprinted in JLC's Washington Post blog) that the significant difference between the 2005 and 2006 D's was the drop off in game changing plays made by the secondary. Undoubtedly, the drop off of impact plays was the result of poor play by both the line
and the secondary but which was more to blame for the drop off?
The coaches seem to think it was the back 7 that failed and that the line, as constituted, will create enough pressure to make things work. As I said, given their track record, I will go with the coaches at this point. (
Disclaimer: Given the obvious apparent need at DL, I reserve the right to w/draw my endorsement after four games if the D is performing poorly AND the DL is arguably the main culprit).
I think its fair to say that everyone here would feel better if a playmaker or two had been signed for the line and that we all have our doubts concerning the DL. It's just the level of concern that seems to be in debate.