D-Lineman??? We Dont Need No Stinkin D-Lineman

[Schneed10]

I was going to start my own thread on this, but it fits well here. Check out this guest blog analysis on JLC's Redskins Insider blog.

It basically says that if you add up sacks, interceptions, and forced fumbles, you get a number that the author calls "Defensive Impact Plays." Makes sense, those are the types of plays that end a drive and heavily impact the game. As you'd imagine, our team saw a big decline in Defensive Impact Plays in 2006. But what's funny, DIPs made by the defensive line really didn't decline all that much, the biggest drop occurred amongst the LBs and secondary.

Now I'd argue that the fact that we gave up 4.5 yards per carry last year instead of 4.1 in 2005 and 3.1 in 2004 had a lot to do with that. Our defensive line gave up more yards on the ground, meaning there was less opportunity to blitz and hence the secondary and LB's didn't have the same shots at sacks and INTs. But another argument could be made that GW couldn't attack with his defensive line all that much because the deep coverage was so poor and he needed to compensate with more zones.

It was a great analysis by this kid (UVA student), and it's starting to sway me into thinking that secondary was a bigger need than defensive line. I think we still have things to address with our run defense up front, but here's hoping the additions of Landry, Smoot, and Fletcher lead to greater flexibility in coverage and a more attack-oriented defense.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I was going to start my own thread on this, but it fits well here. Check out this guest blog analysis on JLC's Redskins Insider blog.

It basically says that if you add up sacks, interceptions, and forced fumbles, you get a number that the author calls "Defensive Impact Plays." Makes sense, those are the types of plays that end a drive and heavily impact the game. As you'd imagine, our team saw a big decline in Defensive Impact Plays in 2006. But what's funny, DIPs made by the defensive line really didn't decline all that much, the biggest drop occurred amongst the LBs and secondary.

Now I'd argue that the fact that we gave up 4.5 yards per carry last year instead of 4.1 in 2005 and 3.1 in 2004 had a lot to do with that. Our defensive line gave up more yards on the ground, meaning there was less opportunity to blitz and hence the secondary and LB's didn't have the same shots at sacks and INTs. But another argument could be made that GW couldn't attack with his defensive line all that much because the deep coverage was so poor and he needed to compensate with more zones.

It was a great analysis by this kid (UVA student), and it's starting to sway me into thinking that secondary was a bigger need than defensive line. I think we still have things to address with our run defense up front, but here's hoping the additions of Landry, Smoot, and Fletcher lead to greater flexibility in coverage and a more attack-oriented defense.

With Barber gone from the Gmen we can almost knock 3/4 of a yard average off.