Greg Blache Defensive Scheme!!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

Blache played to our defensive strength, which was clearly the range and athletic ability of our DBs. With Haynesworth and Orakpo, we will get to the QB much more. Their presence all but guarantee one-on-one matchups for Andre Carter and Cornelius Griffin. Add in Montgomery, Golston, Daniels, and Alexander, and we have a nice deep rotation on the D-line. I predict that Blache will use much the same scheme at the beginning of next season to see if we can hit the QB consistently while rushing four.

Please explain how leading the NFL in 6+ man blitzes is playing to the strengths of the secondary.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Please explain how leading the NFL in 6+ man blitzes is playing to the strengths of the secondary.

That was exactly my point - Blache had enough trust that our DBs could hold the fort while throwing multiple blitzes due to our weaker front 7. Wouldn't that be the definition of playing to the strength of our DBs? As I mentioned, I would expect to see far fewer blitzes out of the gate this season, and a far more balanced defense, especially if our front 4 applies consistent pressure.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

That was exactly my point - Blache had enough trust that our DBs could hold the fort while throwing multiple blitzes due to our weaker front 7. Wouldn't that be the definition of playing to the strength of our DBs? As I mentioned, I would expect to see far fewer blitzes out of the gate this season, and a far more balanced defense, especially if our front 4 applies consistent pressure.

It's a fair point, if you believe that simplifying the game is playing to the strength of the defensive backfield. I see it more as taking the game out of their hands and putting it in the offenses' blitz recognition ability. I always thought playing to the strength of your secondary means rushing four and asking them to make sure all the passing lanes are shut down.

Which is what I hope to see more of this year with Haynesworth, but I'm legitimately worried that Blache will fall into old habits.

[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.

[SouperMeister]

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.

Our relative lack of success with the blitz can partially be blamed on talent. Our best blitzer by far was Marcus Washington, but he battled injuries his last 2+ years. I thought that Landry would have been a GREAT blitzer as a strong safety, but we've had to move him out of his comfort zone after Sean Taylor's death. I would love to see Kareem Moore eventually demonstrate enough discipline to play Free Safety, allowing Landry to play his more natural position at Strong Safety. As for fancy stunts and blitz disguises, I'm optimistic that Big Albert changes everything for our front 7. We will get to the QB with far fewer blitzes this year, which will lead to big plays by the DBs - mark those words.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

Our relative lack of success with the blitz can partially be blamed on talent. Our best blitzer by far was Marcus Washington, but he battled injuries his last 2+ years. I thought that Landry would have been a GREAT blitzer as a strong safety, but we've had to move him out of his comfort zone after Sean Taylor's death. I would love to see Kareem Moore eventually demonstrate enough discipline to play Free Safety, allowing Landry to play his more natural position at Strong Safety. As for fancy stunts and blitz disguises, I'm optimistic that Big Albert changes everything for our front 7. We will get to the QB with far fewer blitzes this year, which will lead to big plays by the DBs - mark those words.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

Our relative lack of success with the blitz can partially be blamed on talent. Our best blitzer by far was Marcus Washington, but he battled injuries his last 2+ years. I thought that Landry would have been a GREAT blitzer as a strong safety, but we've had to move him out of his comfort zone after Sean Taylor's death. I would love to see Kareem Moore eventually demonstrate enough discipline to play Free Safety, allowing Landry to play his more natural position at Strong Safety. As for fancy stunts and blitz disguises, I'm optimistic that Big Albert changes everything for our front 7. We will get to the QB with far fewer blitzes this year, which will lead to big plays by the DBs - mark those words.

I completely agree. Previously it was hard to compare our pass rush with the Steelers because of the talent differential up front. I am hoping that our offseason moves have considerably closed that gap.

[30gut]

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 agree with you here bro, we blitz far too much for the results we get.
My problem with out blitzing is that we don't do a good job of disguising it.
Disguise is the key to blitzing success.
You have to create confusion as to where the pressure is coming from.
If a QB can see where the blitz is coming from he'll just re-assign the 'Mike' backer and the blitz will be picked up, hat-on-hat.
We need to create situations where there is hesitation and confusion.
This is why i like the idea of playing Orakpo/Washington as DE/OLB it gives the defense some versatility.

And its not only 3-4 teams can do this.
Jim Johnson with the Eagles and Spagnulo w/ the Giants mix in many zone-dogs and fire-zones.
It seems that we just bring an extra man or two into the box and basically annouce their intentions.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

I think Blache got a big assist from Zorn in the Seattle game.
I remember reading that Zorn talked to Blache about how to gameplan for Hasselbeck/passing game.

I thought the playcalling and defensive game management against the 49ers was horrible.

I hate how in the 2nd Cowboys game we couldn't stop a freakin toss/sweep.

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This argument is akin to saying something like, "if meteorologists are undeniably better predictors of weather than sportscasters, then how come it rained yesterday?" It's neither here nor there. Philadelphia was ranked ahead of us by every defensive measure, points, yards, etc, and they had to defend way, way more drives.

Per game yardage totals and points totals don't consider how often you faced an opponents drive, because the style of the offense (slow vs. fast) will affect how many drives a defense has to defend. Also, a defense that struggles to get off the field will have to face fewer drives. We actually weren't very good at getting three and outs, as much as we were at eventually forcing punts.

But it was a few things that put us behind the Tampa's and Chicago's of the world in defense last year, and I think turnovers are a big part of that. I don't have any doubt that they will improve in those phases this year, Blache-permitting. Interesting points, you make.

First of all, you can't say that it is not important that our defense outperformed their defense twice, on the field, head-to-head. Your point is completely arbitrary from the perspective you think that fact is meaningless. You're choosing which facts are relevant and which are not. 4th and 6th in yards and points respectively and 2nd in 3 and outs, good TOP, then you're doing things right, and you're just breaking it down into whatever stats you think are important. If you say the Steelers can't have the best defense because they are ranked 26th in penalty yards and 23rd in forced fumbles. I can base my arguments on whatever stats I choose as well. Let's say strength of schedule...what if the Saints played the Lions 16 times a year, their stats on defense would be better, but I wouldn't say they had a better defense than the Redskins last year. We had a tough schedule in the NFC East going up against good offenses, while the AFC North plays bad offenses and it inflates their stats.

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Whenever you take the lead with 1 minute to go, and you lose, it falls on the defense. I don't care what went before, at the 2 minute warning, if you have the lead, a CHAMPIONSHIP DEFENSE stops the opponent (um especially one with a new head coach and no wins at that time!)

That happened to Baltimore against Tennessee, but I wouldn't say they didn't have a championship defense, and Tennessee's offense is by no means a powerhouse. Stuff happens.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by an23dy

First of all, you can't say that it is not important that our defense outperformed their defense twice, on the field, head-to-head. Your point is completely arbitrary from the perspective you think that fact is meaningless. You're choosing which facts are relevant and which are not. 4th and 6th in yards and points respectively and 2nd in 3 and outs, good TOP, then you're doing things right, and you're just breaking it down into whatever stats you think are important. If you say the Steelers can't have the best defense because they are ranked 26th in penalty yards and 23rd in forced fumbles. I can base my arguments on whatever stats I choose as well. Let's say strength of schedule...what if the Saints played the Lions 16 times a year, their stats on defense would be better, but I wouldn't say they had a better defense than the Redskins last year. We had a tough schedule in the NFC East going up against good offenses, while the AFC North plays bad offenses and it inflates their stats.

Why would our stats be of equal value if mine clearly answer the question at hand more directly?

I don't ask this as to say, "I'm right and your wrong", but while I think you bring some good points, I don't think your stats are backing what you think they are backing.