Greg Blache Defensive Scheme!!

[GTripp0012]

But when you get right down to defense, and you ask: how many points per drive do you guys give up, the Redskins finished 6th in that measure last year (9th in yards per drive). Even though that doesn't consider turnovers, that's the very high water mark for determining how strong of a defense we are. If anyone was wondering, the five teams I listed as "undeniably better" finished 1-5 in pts per drive. They all created more turnovers and opportunities for the offense than ours did, and that's why I wouldn't even rank us as high as No. 6 based on last years results.

It's all mental masturbation anyhow. Our defense set the tone for the entire season, playing better than .500 ball at the beginning of the year, and worse than .500 in the end of the year. The overall product was almost perfectly average. I, too, hope to see more contributions from the offense this year, but the FO was correct to invest the help on the defensive side.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But when you get right down to defense, and you ask: how many points per drive do you guys give up, the Redskins finished 6th in that measure last year (9th in yards per drive). Even though that doesn't consider turnovers, that's the very high water mark for determining how strong of a defense we are. If anyone was wondering, the five teams I listed as "undeniably better" finished 1-5 in pts per drive. They all created more turnovers and opportunities for the offense than ours did, and that's why I wouldn't even rank us as high as No. 6 based on last years results.

It's all mental masturbation anyhow. Our defense set the tone for the entire season, playing better than .500 ball at the beginning of the year, and worse than .500 in the end of the year. The overall product was almost perfectly average. I, too, hope to see more contributions from the offense this year, but the FO was correct to invest the help on the defensive side.

GT curious what you think was behind that 2nd half (of the season) dip in defense? Looking at injuries Marcus was out the most...we went 7-4 when he played and 1-4 when he didn't overall i believe. Springs was there off and on too but IMO his performance late in season was pretty paltry. Anyway i'm sure there was more too it than injuries so curious what you think.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Goat

GT curious what you think was behind that 2nd half (of the season) dip in defense? Looking at injuries Marcus was out the most...we went 7-4 when he played and 1-4 when he didn't overall i believe. Springs was there off and on too but IMO his performance late in season was pretty paltry. Anyway i'm sure there was more too it than injuries so curious what you think.

Statistically, I can say the biggest decliners were:

1) Horton
1a) Horton
2) McIntosh
3) Evans
4) Carter (mostly due to injury, some regression to mean)

And then there was some regression to mean from Rogers, who was other-worldly in the first six games.

The rest of the decline was Blache being overtly dumb.

But then of course there were the other culprits who we're disappointing the whole year:

1) Smoot
2) Landry
3) Jason Taylor, to an extent

I thought Blache called a pretty good first half of the season, but maybe that was just the schedule. A lot of inexperienced offensive lines and poor passing offenses made all the blitzing not-ineffective. But then when we saw that Dallas' and New York's of the world, it was pretty embarassing to watch.

And for the record, I thought Blache called strong games against the Seahawks and Ravens (and an excellent one against Philly). But the decline was in full swing by that point. This suggests, to me at least, that while Blache was hardly at all responsible for the decline, he simply became part of the problem in the second half of the season.

[MTK]

How about the fact the level of competition was simply stronger in the 2nd half of the season?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

How about the fact the level of competition was simply stronger in the 2nd half of the season?

Maybe bro...although we did play the Saints, Cowboys and Cards early on came up w/ wins...but our offense was scoring about twice as many points (24 instead of 12). I was sort of hinting earlier that maybe the offensive collapse had something to do w/ the defense wearing down.

Edit: i mean the offensive collapse partially caused the defense to get wore down...not the other way around

[GTripp0012]

I thought the two highest intensity games the defense played were against the Cowboys and Giants, but we were in some pretty lousy calls.

Overall, I thought the first half and second half of the schedule were pretty even talent-wise. We went two and one against the crap teams in the first half of the year, and one and two against the crap teams in the second half. The big difference was all in the Cowboys, and Giants games I thought. We were completely outschemed in those games.

Now, I don't think that means we're likely to be outschemed by them in the future, but I think that was the number one cause for the 6 second half losses, is that even when we played a great game and won the battle in the trenches, we got beaten on the chalkboard anyway.

But that's the big difference. In the first half of the year, our best defensive efforts became wins against good teams. In the second, they became losses to good teams. They were somewhat inconsistent all year long.

[FRPLG]

I've always felt, with both Blache and Williams, that our approach on defense has been to go smoke and mirrors. With the lack of a real pass-rush we always seem to be pretty much a one-trick pony (stop the run). So the Greg(g)s really play to that one-trick, overkill it really, and hope it is enough. Against lesser teams and early on before teams figure it out it does work but then offenses adjust and we really have no where to go. Just not enough dynamicism because of talent. I am concerned also that we get so ingrained with that mentality than even when we finally get the right mix of talent to be more dynamic we don't shift accordingly. Really there has to be a strategic plan to advance the defensive scheme and it's effectiveness through talent acquisition pointed towards a defensive vision. I am hopeful that we only run our current schemes out of the recognition of our short-comings and that there really is a long-term vision, coaching-wise, for where we want the defense to be.

[saden1]

Apparently the 4th best defense in the league that was supplemented with mediocre offense needs tweaking. Lets hope we can jump the Ravens and the Steelers next year.

p.s. I'm trying to be cute.

[NYCskinfan82]

GB a good coach he now on paper has a DL that will require the opposing OL to keep TE & RB to block, leaving opposing OF with less options. GB did wonders with what he had.

[GTripp0012]

I think the lessons taken from last season include:

1) Never, ever blitz Eli Manning
2) You can blitz McNabb or Romo, but only to exploit a matchup in the trenches. Not just for the abstract concept that is "pressure."

[Monksdown]

Blitz Eli! But don't show him what the blitz is before the snap. I agree with you Gtripp about the futility of blitzing to apply pressure, when the quarterback is 95% confident that he's got a hat on every head.

[53Fan]

I think if we would've gotten better results blitzing we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The Steelers blitz effectively, the Redskins don't. At least not up to this point. For the amount of times we blitzed, the results were pathetic. I'm not sure how anyone can argue with that. Our sack totals were pathetic and I don't remember a lot of times where the pass wasn't completed because of pressure from the blitz. Maybe some, but not enough to justify blitzing as much as we did. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember our blitzes creating nearly as much havoc as some of the better defenses in the league. Nothing against Blache but that's just a fact. Simplifying the defense is one thing, but thinking you can beat the opponent all the time without disguising anything is just arrogant.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

I think if we would've gotten better results blitzing we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The Steelers blitz effectively, the Redskins don't. At least not up to this point. For the amount of times we blitzed, the results were pathetic. I'm not sure how anyone can argue with that. Our sack totals were pathetic and I don't remember a lot of times where the pass wasn't completed because of pressure from the blitz. Maybe some, but not enough to justify blitzing as much as we did. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember our blitzes creating nearly as much havoc as some of the better defenses in the league. Nothing against Blache but that's just a fact. Simplifying the defense is one thing, but thinking you can beat the opponent all the time without disguising anything is just arrogant.

The Steelers run a 3-4. Everything they do is a blitz because their LBs have gap responsibilities and at least one of them is basically a Linemen in atwo point stance on every play. In no way can one compare a 3-4 and a 4-3. The Steelers are successful because they good talent and a few GREAT talents.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The Steelers run a 3-4. Everything they do is a blitz because their LBs have gap responsibilities and at least one of them is basically a Linemen in atwo point stance on every play. In no way can one compare a 3-4 and a 4-3. The Steelers are successful because they good talent and a few GREAT talents.

Compare it any way you want. The point is, they get to the QB and we don't. Whether it's the Steelers or anyone else, the point of blitzing is to sack or disrupt the QB and we don't do much of either when we blitz. That's just the facts and the point I'm trying to make. Why blitz so much if it's ineffective? When a team continually blitzes and is ineffective, I would think that would put a smile on any QB's face. You've just taken some of your D-players out of the way.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

I think if we would've gotten better results blitzing we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The Steelers blitz effectively, the Redskins don't. At least not up to this point. For the amount of times we blitzed, the results were pathetic. I'm not sure how anyone can argue with that. Our sack totals were pathetic and I don't remember a lot of times where the pass wasn't completed because of pressure from the blitz. Maybe some, but not enough to justify blitzing as much as we did. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember our blitzes creating nearly as much havoc as some of the better defenses in the league. Nothing against Blache but that's just a fact. Simplifying the defense is one thing, but thinking you can beat the opponent all the time without disguising anything is just arrogant.

I think the DIII blitz package is what you were noticing. Poor disguising of pressure, no real imagination, very vanilla pressure schemes all around.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The Steelers run a 3-4. Everything they do is a blitz because their LBs have gap responsibilities and at least one of them is basically a Linemen in atwo point stance on every play. In no way can one compare a 3-4 and a 4-3. The Steelers are successful because they good talent and a few GREAT talents.

Ok, so compare it to the 4-3 Giants or Eagles. Both have much more complex pressure packages than the 2008 Redskins. You can say it was based on talent, and the Giants have more "talent" in the front seven, but I'd say it was scheme.