• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

FatPickled: Why the Redskins Should Draft a Lineman, but Of Course They Won't

And he still could have been a strength, if he'd bought into the system. He never did, and pouted like a 5 year old. And no, I still don't buy your argument that a guy that talented can only play one way - its silly at best. And no, you don't need to rehash it and tell me how dumb I am for not agreeing with you; I can just go back and read one of your 9012432532 threads on the topic if I need a refresher. :)

Ryans reply
I never said he can only play one way I said that his skill set means that he is best used as an attacking upfield type player, this again is not a point that can be argued, it is not opinion it is fact. the reason there are so many threads is that so many people make such dumb statements, and btw the fat guy wasnt even the guy who was most affected by this change, Carter and Rocky would also like a word lol.



Actually, there's at least 3 - two of them are playing in the superbowl this Sunday; one lost a weekend ago to the Steelers.


Ryans reply
Umm you do understand that both the steelers and the packers have far more 3-4 talent than we do right? you understand that we do not have any players in the 3-4 who are at the level of their counterpart on those teams THEREFORE NO ITS NOT A GOOD REASON TO CHANGE TO THE SAME DEFENCE IN FACT ITS ABJECT STUPIDITY. if we had some players who were even close it might not have been such a fail, but we dont so it was. so what was the third?



Clay Matthews was the 26th overall pick - no need to tank. Takes time to build a defense; whether or not we have the competence to get the right guys in is another thread altogether, however assuming we do, it doesn't happen overnight.

Ryans reply,
You sort of countered your own point, good drafting is often caused by knwing your system and finding players who fit. I dont think we know the system.



You're making the assumption that Jarmon would be an every down contributor like Daniels has been, which may or may not be the case. The point is, if you need to replace those guys anyway, why not replace them with 3-4 personnel? Jarmon and Rak are good fits in the 3-4 D. Now we use draft picks to build around them. Its pretty simple, Ry.

Ryans reply
Jarmon was doing pretty well until he hurt his knee, he was going to be fighting daniels for the reps and best case he won, worst case he was still gonna get some reps. Jarmon is not in fact a good fit in the 3-4 he was sadly the best of a bad set of options, the lose weight gain weight was sort of funny but counterproductive. and Rak is actually not a good fit in the 3-4 thus far, with more rushes as a 3-4 olb he had less sacks than as a situational 4-3 olb and pass rush end. its pretty simple lanky, some numbers dont lie.



Dominate like in 2009 when we went 4-12? Because that's the kind of domination I personally can do without.

Ryans reply
No in 2009 we didnt use our players to their utmost, we ran a simple unaggressive scheme and still played wel enough to be a top 10 defence despite having one of the worst offences in recent history. our record was indicative of the injuries suffered on offence and not on a defence that more than held its own with little support, had we ramped up the aggression and added 2 players (olb and FS) we would have filled the actual holes and been far better off.



Fletcher looked like the youngest guy on the field at the pro-bowl. He's got 2, maybe 3 more solid years left in him. As to the lack of depth, I'm sure they will look to sign an OLB in free-agency, as well as draft one at 10 or 41 (42?).


ryans reply
he may have look good in a game where the other team wasnt playing, but this season he made far more tackles down the field than he usually does and he missed a lot of tackles, dont mistake inflated numbers from THE FRONT 40 BEING DOMINATED, for him playing very well, he was solid but he was also overmatched a lot and used in coverage far too often, I think given his body type he might give us 1 or two more solid years.



I'm sure Green Bay had similar thoughts before drafting Raji and Matthews in the same year. Could happen to us this year. Last year they saw what they had on the roster for the 3-4, this year they will re-build accordingly. The sad truth is, there just wasn't enough draft picks last year to address everything, and there probably won't be this year.

Ryans reply
They had good players in place to make the swap, they depth at DT and LB which are key, the only guy who was hurt by it was Kampmann, they had a great set of starting linebackers with good depth, they had 4 DT's all of whome made the switch because of build and skillset, whereas we had one decent DT (Gholston) one guy who wasnt gonna be a great NT in AH and no other guys in the fornt seven other than Rak who was supposedly gonna be our demarcus ware. the sad truth is that we didnt have any players to make the switch and our draft picks this year are needed to rebuild a brutal offence. so knoiwing this, who could possibly think this was a good switch, your point you just made was an argument for my side.




Well actually, there are plenty. And aren't we beyond this point yet, Ryman? Yes, we may have had a decent 4-3 defense last season; that's not the point. The 3-4 has proven to be even better. I suppose you thought we would compete for a superbowl with a better defense last year? I've got sad news for you Ry, this team is a lot further off than that.

ok name some umm how did the 3-4 prove to be better for us? was it the fact that we finished alsmot dead last in almost every category? I have sad news for you lank, the 3-4 performed exactly as I said it would, we are worse off than if we hadnt changed and AS YOU JUST SAID, we probably wont be able to fix it this year either.



The turnovers were nice, but you're right - that was the function of more aggressive playcalling. All I need to see is this: 4 of the top 5 & 7 of the top 10 defenses this past season ran a 3-4. (6 of the top 10 scoring defenses, also)


I added into your post under Ryans reply as I am not savvy with the quoting
 
[ QUOTE ] text [/ QUOTE ] (no spaces) to quote text. Or, you can use the editor in the reply to thread screen; its the text bubble.

I never said he can only play one way I said that his skill set means that he is best used as an attacking upfield type player, this again is not a point that can be argued, it is not opinion it is fact. the reason there are so many threads is that so many people make such dumb statements, and btw the fat guy wasnt even the guy who was most affected by this change, Carter and Rocky would also like a word lol.

Well, like I said, Carter is 32 - stupid to plan a defense around a 32 year old. Rocky has had a history of injury, and when healthy, still isn't the greatest OLB (3-4 or 4-3). Overpursues a lot, etc. Maybe they were looking past those guys.

Umm you do understand that both the steelers and the packers have far more 3-4 talent than we do right? you understand that we do not have any players in the 3-4 who are at the level of their counterpart on those teams THEREFORE NO ITS NOT A GOOD REASON TO CHANGE TO THE SAME DEFENCE IN FACT ITS ABJECT STUPIDITY. if we had some players who were even close it might not have been such a fail, but we dont so it was. so what was the third?

Dude, for someone who likes to shout stupidity at everyone who disagrees with him, you sure can't see the forest through the trees. Of course we don't have the personnel the Steelers and Packers do; the Steelers have run a 3-4 since at least 2004 when Lebeau got there. This is the second full year for the Packers, and they hit home runs on two picks last year (doesn't always happen). That's not a reason to disregard the 3-4 altogether.

Not to mention - this is a copycat league; so you're essentially calling the entire NFL stupid, as every team has copied another team at some point, because that team had success.

You sort of countered your own point, good drafting is often caused by knwing your system and finding players who fit. I dont think we know the system.

No, I didn't. I also said whether or not we have the FO guys to draft the right talent is another thread altogether, and it still is. Two completely different issues. Also, if they can't draft 3-4 guys, what makes you think they can draft 4-3 guys?

Jarmon was doing pretty well until he hurt his knee, he was going to be fighting daniels for the reps and best case he won, worst case he was still gonna get some reps. Jarmon is not in fact a good fit in the 3-4 he was sadly the best of a bad set of options, the lose weight gain weight was sort of funny but counterproductive. and Rak is actually not a good fit in the 3-4 thus far, with more rushes as a 3-4 olb he had less sacks than as a situational 4-3 olb and pass rush end. its pretty simple lanky, some numbers dont lie.

Rak has gotten good pressure on the QB from what I've seen.

No in 2009 we didnt use our players to their utmost, we ran a simple unaggressive scheme and still played wel enough to be a top 10 defence despite having one of the worst offences in recent history. our record was indicative of the injuries suffered on offence and not on a defence that more than held its own with little support, had we ramped up the aggression and added 2 players (olb and FS) we would have filled the actual holes and been far better off.

Eh, that would have been one way to go. I'm sure the Packers were a player or two away from being dominant at the 4-3 also, but they decided to go 3-4.

he may have look good in a game where the other team wasnt playing, but this season he made far more tackles down the field than he usually does and he missed a lot of tackles, dont mistake inflated numbers from THE FRONT 40 BEING DOMINATED, for him playing very well, he was solid but he was also overmatched a lot and used in coverage far too often, I think given his body type he might give us 1 or two more solid years.

Learning a new system, and without a true NT.

They had good players in place to make the swap, they depth at DT and LB which are key, the only guy who was hurt by it was Kampmann, they had a great set of starting linebackers with good depth, they had 4 DT's all of whome made the switch because of build and skillset, whereas we had one decent DT (Gholston) one guy who wasnt gonna be a great NT in AH and no other guys in the fornt seven other than Rak who was supposedly gonna be our demarcus ware. the sad truth is that we didnt have any players to make the switch and our draft picks this year are needed to rebuild a brutal offence. so knoiwing this, who could possibly think this was a good switch, your point you just made was an argument for my side.

1) Its Golston, not Gholston.
2) Already addressed Rak - seemed to get good pressure on the QB this year.
3) Shanahan addressed the OL last year, will probably see a few more late-round picks in that direction. Need a WR, but other than that, the offense is coming together.

ok name some umm how did the 3-4 prove to be better for us? was it the fact that we finished alsmot dead last in almost every category? I have sad news for you lank, the 3-4 performed exactly as I said it would, we are worse off than if we hadnt changed and AS YOU JUST SAID, we probably wont be able to fix it this year either.

Wow. You are beyond stubborn with this. Just because you say its a bad reason, doesn't make it true.

No response to this?

Lanky Livingston said:
The turnovers were nice, but you're right - that was the function of more aggressive playcalling. All I need to see is this: 4 of the top 5 & 7 of the top 10 defenses this past season ran a 3-4. (6 of the top 10 scoring defenses, also)
 
When the Packers went to a 3-4 defense a couple of years ago, they had 2 picks in the top 26. That is a solid way to build up a new unit.
 
[ QUOTE ] text [/ QUOTE ] (no spaces) to quote text. Or, you can use the editor in the reply to thread screen; its the text bubble.



Well, like I said, Carter is 32 - stupid to plan a defense around a 32 year old. Rocky has had a history of injury, and when healthy, still isn't the greatest OLB (3-4 or 4-3). Overpursues a lot, etc. Maybe they were looking past those guys.

carter is 32, haynesworth is 30 jarmon is early 20's rak is early 20's rocky is mid 20's seems reasonable enough to build a defence that suits all of those players considering they werent the only ones who fit the 4-3 better, you make it sound like Carter was the only non 3-4 player we had when in actuality Rak is the only one we have
Dude, for someone who likes to shout stupidity at everyone who disagrees with him, you sure can't see the forest through the trees. Of course we don't have the personnel the Steelers and Packers do; the Steelers have run a 3-4 since at least 2004 when Lebeau got there. This is the second full year for the Packers, and they hit home runs on two picks last year (doesn't always happen). That's not a reason to disregard the 3-4 altogether.

so how is running the same defence with different people making sense to you? you just said that they were 2 of the 3 reasons to run it now you admit that the steelers have run it for 6 years and the Packers run it now, and that the packers spent 2 first rounders on their new fornt seven AND LETS NOT FORGET THEY ALREADY HAD DEPTH AT THE RIGHT POSITIONS. I shout stupidity because you are either ignoring the most important fact or are unable to grasp it. You do not run a defence based on players you do not have PERIOD
Not to mention - this is a copycat league; so you're essentially calling the entire NFL stupid, as every team has copied another team at some point, because that team had success.

yes its a copycat league, but who do teams copy? teams doing the copying without doing their homework end up like the lions or the bengals
No, I didn't. I also said whether or not we have the FO guys to draft the right talent is another thread altogether, and it still is. Two completely different issues. Also, if they can't draft 3-4 guys, what makes you think they can draft 4-3 guys?

because they have done ok thus far recently at least
Rak has gotten good pressure on the QB from what I've seen.

he got less pressure with more rushes despite supposedly being turned loose in this scheme than he did playing OLB in the 4-3 and then rushing from the DE spot, thats a huge warning flag to anyone paying attention
Eh, that would have been one way to go. I'm sure the Packers were a player or two away from being dominant at the 4-3 also, but they decided to go 3-4.

you arent paying attention , they went 3-4 because it fit jolly, jenkins, hawk,bishop, et all, then they got a stud OLB and a NT with 2 firsts, we had who exactly? Haynesworth who said he wouldnt play nose and golston lmao
Learning a new system, and without a true NT.

it showed we sucked
1) Its Golston, not Gholston.
2) Already addressed Rak - seemed to get good pressure on the QB this year.
3) Shanahan addressed the OL last year, will probably see a few more late-round picks in that direction. Need a WR, but other than that, the offense is coming together.



Wow. You are beyond stubborn with this. Just because you say its a bad reason, doesn't make it true.

No response to this?

no it being a bad reason makes it a bad reason, you still have yet to make an actual argument as to how this was a good decision short or long term. btw shanny didnt do a very good job addressing the oline last year its still the weakest part of this team
 
Well there is your problem, everyone knows you don't drink cok . . . oh . . . wait. Was that my out loud voice?
 
Do you guys think we have a player on the roster right now worthy of starting on the D-Line? Carriker? Maybe..
 
On an average team Carriker is a full-time starter in the 3-4. On a very good defensive team Carriker is a rotation guy that sees 15-20 snaps a game between DE and NT.

And this discussion brings up the other major point I was trying to make about 2010.

The Redskins have found several players that can be contributors here.

I just don't know that Torain, Armstrong, etc. are going to make those contributions as full-time starters or rather as 'role' players :)

Armstrong may end up being a very good #3 receiver.

Torain may end up as a change of pace back for the Redskins.

Carriker may fit into the same category of contributor, but not core starter.
 
I think years of no star players has dampened people's expectations severely. I still have yet to hear a good reason why Armstrong won't be more than a "potential #3 receiver."
 
The Redskins philosophy baffled me. If Shanahan wanted to win as many games as possible in 2010 he should have kept the 4-3 for that season and started to deconstruct it now. Seemingly, that instant respectability was what he was hoping for after the McNabb trade.

So, it appears he was working at cross purposes. And that's why the 2010 Redskins didn't have a record that was much better than 2009 AND why the team didn't acquire and develop that many younger players.

We were caught in the middle, in 'no man's land' in terms of organizational direction.

After spending months studying the Redskins (Shanahan and Snyder seem to have been talking about a role here early in the 2009 season), it makes me wonder what Shanahan was looking at.

Could he have been so cavalier to think that defensive football was so much easier to change/adapt to that a full press to the 3-4 could be accomplished with an older unit of players suited to the 4-3?
 
Its completely confusing if it was win now, then he would have to literally be retarded about defence to force the 3-4 change, if it was build for the future why sign mcnabb and the old running backs and not make any real changes on defence playerwise?

There didnt seem to be any sort of cohesive plan and that worries me, was Bruce just hanging out? does shanny have a clue about talent evaluation on defence? how did they decide that haslett was the guy to bring in?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top