Peppers says he wants to explore free agency

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by A10sROCK

Some say the "DL is fine" and their are others who always argue for more DB picks. The truth is that our defense could not hold the best QB down because we have no pass rush. A quick review:

Gholston and Montgomery are decent but would be backup on other teams.
Griffin is on his last legs and the far downside of his career.
Taylor, Carter and Evans together had less sacks then a single, good DE.
The age and level of play of our DL is below average and getting worse. It needs talent and new blood.

The best defenses constantly draft for the DL - every year. They can constantly apply pressure on the QB, get turnovers and points for their teams.

Yet, Blache and Vinny seem to want to reject the winning philosophy of the elites and look for experienced DL players who cost huge dollars against the cap and then coast to retirement on Danny's and our fans dime.

The DL is NOT fine!

Well, yeah, if you go out of your way to create weaknesses for all of our current guys, then I would say the correct conclusion is that we need new players.

[A10sROCK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, yeah, if you go out of your way to create weaknesses for all of our current guys, then I would say the correct conclusion is that we need new players.

Are you saying you think we have a good pass rush or even a decent DL?

All I'm saying is that a couple good draft DL picks over the next two years could bring this line back to the top. Something this team hasn't done over the last decade.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by A10sROCK

Are you saying you think we have a good pass rush or even a decent DL?

All I'm saying is that a couple good draft DL picks over the next two years could bring this line back to the top. Something this team hasn't done over the last decade.

I'm in no way saying that we shouldn't pick some defensive lineman high in the next few drafts. What I am saying is that we already have a considerable amount of talent there. In the case of the ends, it's certainly older talent, there's no doubt about that.

It would be a mistake for us to go cutting everyone though. Our line is much stronger against the run than the pass, and what we can't do consistently against the pass is not evidence that we can't do anything right with the current guys.

Here's the bare bones point: if we can't get to the passer with the talent we already have, bringing in other players isn't going to help us get there. Which, again, doesn't mean I think we should ignore the position in the draft continually. We should take defensive linemen in the draft when it makes sense to do so.

[A10sROCK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm in no way saying that we shouldn't pick some defensive lineman high in the next few drafts. What I am saying is that we already have a considerable amount of talent there. In the case of the ends, it's certainly older talent, there's no doubt about that.

It would be a mistake for us to go cutting everyone though. Our line is much stronger against the run than the pass, and what we can't do consistently against the pass is not evidence that we can't do anything right with the current guys.

Here's the bare bones point: if we can't get to the passer with the talent we already have, bringing in other players isn't going to help us get there. Which, again, doesn't mean I think we should ignore the position in the draft continually. We should take defensive linemen in the draft when it makes sense to do so.

Ok, I understand. Good points. I'm not for cutting the entire DL, even if it is one of the oldest in the NFL. what I'm saying is that it needs a major infusion of young talent this draft and next, using some of our top selections.

Something that this team hasn't done for years. K. Lang was our last high draft pick. Unfortunately we also need to draft for the OL for the same reasons.

BL - we have consistently proved you can't 'buy' a top DL; you need to also draft for it using first day picks.

[RedskinMike]

Originally Posted by A10sROCK

Are you saying you think we have a good pass rush or even a decent DL?

All I'm saying is that a couple good draft DL picks over the next two years could bring this line back to the top. Something this team hasn't done over the last decade.

you seem to forget we had the #4 ranked defense in the league

[A10sROCK]

Originally Posted by RedskinMike

you seem to forget we had the #4 ranked defense in the league

We could not beat anyone that had won more than 9 games. We had an 8-8 record. We have a good defense. We could have a great defense with one or two elite DL.

I know this statistic - which is based on yardage yielded. Yet, our defense got few sacks and few turnovers and points for their team.

In the NFL you've got to be able to generate turnovers and points on the defense. We could not; nor could not stop the best QB.

This justification is why this team can't improve past 8-9 wins because for a decade we've drafted WR and DB, or used our FA money to chase aged players. Our overall win-loss statistics shows the result of that philosophy regardless of the coaches.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by A10sROCK

We could not beat anyone that had won more than 9 games. We had an 8-8 record. We have a good defense. We could have a great defense with one or two elite DL.

I know this statistic - which is based on yardage yielded. Yet, our defense got few sacks and few turnovers and points for their team.

In the NFL you've got to be able to generate turnovers and points on the defense. We could not; nor could not stop the best QB.

This justification is why this team can't improve past 8-9 wins because for a decade we've drafted WR and DB, or used our FA money to chase aged players. Our overall win-loss statistics shows the result of that philosophy regardless of the coaches.

If our offense would have been average, we could have won more than 9 wins. Arizona didn't have a top 10 defense, yet they are in the SB. We had a very good defense, but did not have the offense to compliment it. AZ has a very good offense, and their defense got better and were able to beat all these teams during the playoffs.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

If our offense would have been average, we could have won more than 9 wins. Arizona didn't have a top 10 defense, yet they are in the SB. We had a very good defense, but did not have the offense to compliment it. AZ has a very good offense, and their defense got better and were able to beat all these teams during the playoffs.

I bolded this because it's a very good point, I feel. Sometimes, if poorly talented defenses can stay healthy through the whole year, 4-5 months is just enough time for the talent to bubble to the top, and problems that seemed like they would just make a one-and-done playoff teams, they tend to go away "at the right time". So, I think it's a good point that if you build the offense, the defense can come at the right time, regardless of how much you did/didn't invest in it.

But I have to disagree with the rest of your post. The difference between Arizona's offense and ours was philosophical, not necessarily inefficient. Arizona needed to score points to outpace the defense, while Washington prefered to keep the ball on the ground and speed up the game.

Was Arizona's offense better than ours? Yeah, I think I (and everyone else) would say so. But it's not a good comparision, because Arizona's offense was NOT as good as Atlanta, New York, Miami, when you consider the philosophy and the turnovers. Arizona offense, for most of the year at least, was closer to us then it was to the elite offenses. They still managed to win 9 games though.

I also can't wrap my head around the fact that an average offense would have resulted in a 10+ win season. I mean, you can rank our defense a bunch of different ways, none of them are particularly impressive to me. They are 4th in some rankings, 5th in others, and it's probably the most mediocre 4th or 5th in NFL history.

Not to say that defense wasn't the strength of the team, but it (as you mentioned) was an 8-8 team, one with poor special teams, and an offense that was hardly inept, even if all of our games were low scoring.

I would say if we had a great defense, we would have won 10-11 games by playing ball control offense and improved special teams. As it is, we were decent there, and won 8 games, which is about what I expected considering our pythag stats.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I bolded this because it's a very good point, I feel. Sometimes, if poorly talented defenses can stay healthy through the whole year, 4-5 months is just enough time for the talent to bubble to the top, and problems that seemed like they would just make a one-and-done playoff teams, they tend to go away "at the right time". So, I think it's a good point that if you build the offense, the defense can come at the right time, regardless of how much you did/didn't invest in it.

But I have to disagree with the rest of your post. The difference between Arizona's offense and ours was philosophical, not necessarily inefficient. Arizona needed to score points to outpace the defense, while Washington prefered to keep the ball on the ground and speed up the game.

Was Arizona's offense better than ours? Yeah, I think I (and everyone else) would say so. But it's not a good comparision, because Arizona's offense was NOT as good as Atlanta, New York, Miami, when you consider the philosophy and the turnovers. Arizona offense, for most of the year at least, was closer to us then it was to the elite offenses. They still managed to win 9 games though.

I also can't wrap my head around the fact that an average offense would have resulted in a 10+ win season. I mean, you can rank our defense a bunch of different ways, none of them are particularly impressive to me. They are 4th in some rankings, 5th in others, and it's probably the most mediocre 4th or 5th in NFL history.

Not to say that defense wasn't the strength of the team, but it (as you mentioned) was an 8-8 team, one with poor special teams, and an offense that was hardly inept, even if all of our games were low scoring.

I would say if we had a great defense, we would have won 10-11 games by playing ball control offense and improved special teams. As it is, we were decent there, and won 8 games, which is about what I expected considering our pythag stats.

I just feel that in some games, if we had been just a little bit better offensively, we could have won those games. I feel that in the second half of the season, the offense was unable to take advantage of the few turnovers that we had. In other games, tough stops made by the defense did not result in points when the offense took over. Or the offense could not move the ball in order to run the clock out (although we won that game, this happened during the last Philly game).

Our defense was not great, and I agree with you on that. We did not have the type of defense that Baltimore or Tennessee had, which can carry a team to 11 or 12 wins. However, we did have a good defense that led to 8 wins, while I feel we had an offense bad enough to lose 8 games. Had our bad offense been a little bit better, maybe we could have topped 9 or 10 wins.

There are people here that focus on the defense as a reason for our 8-8 season. And yes, we were probably the worst 4th or 5th ranked defense. However, if it wasn't for this defense, we could have gone worst than 8-8. Yes our defense needs to be addressed and improvements could be made. But let us not forget that major things need to happen with our offense. Otherwise, I don't think the defense can carry this team any longer.

[RedskinMike]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

If our offense would have been average, we could have won more than 9 wins. Arizona didn't have a top 10 defense, yet they are in the SB. We had a very good defense, but did not have the offense to compliment it. AZ has a very good offense, and their defense got better and were able to beat all these teams during the playoffs.

could'nt have said it better myself