who is to blame for the defencive debacle last year?

Rymanofthenorth said:

there is no such thing as a multiple year transition when it comes to defence and especially the 3-4, if you arent immediately better its a fail, sorry OM and tsf, Om you know better, I know you do you have seen the stats. you could perhaps argue that it takes 2 seasons, but anything more than 2 seasons of crapulence is an abject failure, and yes a drop from decent to leagues worst is a debacle no matter which way you spin it. You dont change your scheme to get worse, you change it to improve, unless of course your desire is to drop games. last I checked, the point of the NFL was to win games. Say what you want about fatty, when he was playing football, he was a difference maker when used correctly. all I have to say is CHICAGO, last season. add in the fact that we have gotten rid of almost every player from last year and it shows that it was a pisspoor fit from the get go. if we arent top 5 defencively next year (not this year because we all know this year will be terrible) I want some apologies lol.
will we be better in the long run because of it? probably because it will contribute heavily to several losing seasons after which we will draft higher. was it the right decision to make absolutely not and it was one of the biggest fails in modern coaching history.

Click to expand...

Wait, so it is your contention that any team who does not have a top 5 defense 2 years after switching to a 3-4 has failed? That's a long list, bro.

And please, get over the "if used correctly" thing. Even when used correctly Haynesworth wasn't always dominant, and you know this. He was dominant when he felt like playing football, which was probably 10-20% of the time, which is probably being generous.

I'm going to have to side with Ryman here for the most part. The switch isn't a problem per se but a wholesale switch to a completely new system when you don't have more than maybe one or two players suited to it and your D is already top ten is bad execution of a shaky plan and is indeed a pretty epic failure. Haynesworth's bull merely compounded a problem we were going to be stuck with no matter what.

Switching this year after they actually acquired some 3-4 personnel would have made sense. Doing it the way it was done last year -when you had guys that were clearly built for a 4-3 and had played and proven themselves to be a liability in the 3-4 before - did not. There is transition from one unit to another with some growing pains and there is a wholesale throw away season when you do the square peg round hole thing. They did the latter.

Transition is understandable....going from top 10 or top 5 perennially to 30th or worse because you're (by all appearances) just insistent on making a switch is inexcusable. The more fundamental issue here is why you'd feel the need to change a unit that had been the strength and foundation of the team for a decade when the Offense couldn't get out of it's own way most times. Seriously...why change a unit that is consitently top 10 and occasionally top 5? Change for a reason like the unit sucking donkey balls, OK. Change for change's sake...meh.

I'm willing to cut em slack for a lot of things and willing to back off and give them at least 3 years to make changes and turn things around before I really start griping but I've always thought the switch to the 3-4 a year early was a stubborn, cut off your nose to spite your face kind of result.

The top 10 or top 5 defense thing is so disingenuous. Sure, our defense was decent several of the few past seasons, but what did it get us? Not a damn thing. 3 of the final 4 teams in the playoffs last season were 3-4 defenses, and the Bears lucked into the NFCCG. Period. This is all you need to know.

EDIT: And the defense has been top 5 in yards exactly once in the past 6 seasons, and top 5 in points zero times.

I'll actually go outside the box on this one and say that the defense wasn't that bad. I don't care about the stats. These games were lost by the offense as the D kept us in most of them. We almost always had a chance and came up short.

Pretty much all of the observations I've seen here are pretty accurate. But I just don't see them as failures as much as I see them as growing pains.

I like some the additions this year and hope the D can gel a bit more this year. Unfortunately I don't necessarily see the offense bringing it home this year either, though. Let's see what the running game brings, though.

Rok rok AUN!

No it's not disingenuous at all. Just because we didn't get wins from it doesn't mean it wasn't a successful unit. The NFL goes in cycles, I couldn't care less what 3 of the 4 team were doing last year. Belichick by all accounts is going back to a more 4-3 dominant scheme this year and that pendulum has swung back and forth a number of times over the years. The fact is our D worked well with some serious age and talent issues let alone the character crap from the likes of AH. The scheme itself worked, how many games have we lost because the O couldn't put up even 3 points in the stretch the last decade? How many times have we had our D spend over 40 minutes on the field and STILL have us in the game even though the other team was literally calling out our O plays at the line?

Gutting that D the way it was was dumb, transitioning it when you actually acquire some 3-4 players...fine. Not what I'd do but at least that reflects some plan being executed with some forethought. The way it was done last year showed everything BUT a plan.

Oh and I did say "occasionally" when mentioning top 5. Once merely confirms my point. They were usually top ten, sometimes top 5. Sounds exactly like the type of unit I want to change instead of the bottom ten perennially Offense.

Lanky Livingston said:

The top 10 or top 5 defense thing is so disingenuous. Sure, our defense was decent several of the few past seasons, but what did it get us?

Click to expand...

I agree with this. We may have had a top ten d, but when the game mattered what happened? Since Williams, how often did the opponents take the ball straight down the field and score a touchdown to win the game? This d we had always seemed to fail when it mattered. No one feared it. No one was stopped by it.

We seemingly always had fourth quarter leads and then would lose.

Not saying going to the 3-4 was a good idea. I disagreed with it and the results last year were attrocious, but the idea that we've had a good d is not really true either.

Dik Shuttle said:

I'll actually go outside the box on this one and say that the defense wasn't that bad. I don't care about the stats. These games were lost by the offense as the D kept us in most of them. We almost always had a chance and came up short.

Click to expand...

I have to strongly disagree with this. The Texans, Rams, Colts, Eagles pt 2, Giants pt 1 & Cowboys pt 2 games are all squarely on the defense's shoulders. That's 6 games in which the D gave up 210 points. At that rate they would have given up 560 points in one season!

burgold said:

I agree with this. We may have had a top ten d, but when the game mattered what happened? Since Williams, how often did the opponents take the ball straight down the field and score a touchdown to win the game? This d we had always seemed to fail when it mattered. No one feared it. No one was stopped by it.

We seemingly always had fourth quarter leads and then would lose.

Not saying going to the 3-4 was a good idea. I disagreed with it and the results last year were attrocious, but the idea that we've had a good d is not really true either.

Click to expand...

I would challenge you all to go back and look at TOP in those games and then ask yourselves how much of those late game collapses had to do with being gassed after our O (which always seemed to challenge for the league lead in 3 and outs) sent them on the field yet again with no rest between series or left them with a turnover inside our own 50. They were a bend don't break unit many years for sure but I recall many a game they were done when it came down to clutch time because they'd been on the field for what seemed like the whole game.

It doesn't matter. The point is to get a stop. Our D was horrible throughout games of gettting three and outs. Part of the reason we had terrible TOP is that we never forced punts or got turnovers.

10-6 Ain't bad - and how many of those points were due or related to turnovers?

Heh aint that the truth....man if CR could have held on to even a 3rd of the balls that hit him in the numbers those D's would have had MUCH better stats. The point is to keep points off the board which our team has done well but I get your point. I just think the D was dramatically affected by the O's inability to hold on to the ball or get TD's when they did get it. The leading the league in 3 and outs also kills a D, even if they get a turnover our O more often than not wouldn't do squat with it.

WERD

CounterTrey said:

Heh aint that the truth....man if CR could have held on to even a 3rd of the balls that hit him in the numbers those D's would have had MUCH better stats. The point is to keep points off the board which our team has done well but I get your point. I just think the D was dramatically affected by the O's inability to hold on to the ball or get TD's when they did get it. The leading the league in 3 and outs also kills a D, even if they get a turnover our O more often than not wouldn't do squat with it.

Click to expand...

ya herd?

-Perd Hapley

Rymanofthenorth said:

there is no such thing as a multiple year transition when it comes to defence and especially the 3-4, if you arent immediately better its a fail, sorry OM and tsf, Om you know better, I know you do you have seen the stats. you could perhaps argue that it takes 2 seasons, but anything more than 2 seasons of crapulence is an abject failure, and yes a drop from decent to leagues worst is a debacle no matter which way you spin it. You dont change your scheme to get worse, you change it to improve, unless of course your desire is to drop games. last I checked, the point of the NFL was to win games. Say what you want about fatty, when he was playing football, he was a difference maker when used correctly. all I have to say is CHICAGO, last season. add in the fact that we have gotten rid of almost every player from last year and it shows that it was a pisspoor fit from the get go. if we arent top 5 defencively next year (not this year because we all know this year will be terrible) I want some apologies lol.
will we be better in the long run because of it? probably because it will contribute heavily to several losing seasons after which we will draft higher. was it the right decision to make absolutely not and it was one of the biggest fails in modern coaching history.

Click to expand...

If they completely suck for years to come, you're right. But you can't make a determination after one year.

Also, I'm tired of this team making moves in the hope that it pay immediate dividends. Invest in your team. Teams that run the 3-4 have a lot of advantages these days with player personnel and strategy. Therefore, I think it was a good move to INVEST in becoming a 3-4 defense.

Let me turn the coin on its head. If we are a top 5 defense this year and next year, etc., would you say that the switch to a 3-4 was an "abject failure?"

Tulane Skins Fan said:

If they completely suck for years to come, you're right. But you can't make a determination after one year.

Also, I'm tired of this team making moves in the hope that it pay immediate dividends. Invest in your team. Teams that run the 3-4 have a lot of advantages these days with player personnel and strategy. Therefore, I think it was a good move to INVEST in becoming a 3-4 defense.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The Redskins have squandered draft picks & cap space on used-up veterans for far too long now, and haven't built a foundation. Shanahan & Allen have the daunting task of starting from scratch. This roster has been run into the ground by Vinny Cerrato...its gonna take time. Even if the defense isn't a top 20 D this year, the rebuild continues & its not necessarily an "abject failure." That's pretty ludicrous.

What will be more important is seeing what the players actually do. Do they fight until the end, or do they mail it in once the game or season is lost? Does the defense show fight when down by 21 points in the 4th quarter, or do they roll over and give up like dogs? Does the defense hit as hard week 12 when they're either out of the playoff race or their hopes hang by dental floss? Week 14? Week 16, when the Vikings come to town who will most likely be fighting for a playoff spot, do we play the role of spoiler, or usher them into the postseason?

These are the things I will be watching for - its a rebuild, so rankings and statistics will be mostly useless. You want to look for guys who WANT to be here, and who will be kicking ass regardless of the situation. The one thing that is clear in ALL of this is that Albert Haynesworth is NOT that type of guy. They could not get rid of him fast enough!

The more I think about it the more I am convinced the Redskins made the right choice last year in changing their defensive system (if it was going to be changed) in Year 1 of the program.

The lack of fourth and fifth year free agents due to the uncapped season hurt the Redskins' ability to bring in the younger talent on D that they have been able to in 2011 and instead the team went with older, cheaper players to bridge to this season like Kemoeatu, Holliday and Phillip Daniels.

But the truth is with the age on the defense after the 2009 season a shift of some proportion in terms of personnel was necessary even if we kept the 4-3.

It's nice to see the team sign younger free agents like Wilson, Bowen and Cofield instead of the 32 year old former pro bowler coming off a season-ending injury as was often the case in the past.

It's also nice to see a #2 draft choice like Jarvis Jenkins walking around Redskins Park. We haven't had enough of those in recent years.

Another younger guy like DeJon Gomes has impressed a bit as well as an outside choice at strong safety.

they couldn't do as much cuz they gave all that moolah to Haynesworth up front.

I don't think there is reason to blame anyone. Our defense was not that much worse last year than it was in 2009. It improved in some areas, but degraded in others. I see a lot of fans think that yds per game is a qualifier for a good defense. I disagree. I think it comes down to pts per game and turnovers. I've put this in other threads, but I am going to say it here as well.

I know stats can go deeper than this. However, this is the bottom line. Sorry, I tried breaking these into easy to read columns, but cannot figure it out. The number on the left is 2009 and the one on the right is 2010.


2009 2010
Yds 319.7 389.2
Rank 10 31
PtsPG 21 23.6
Rank 15 T21
Int 11 14
Rank T26 T19
TD 0 1
FR 6 13
Rank 29 T7
Td 0 1


Yes, we allowed more YDSper game, but does that matter? What matters is did they stay out of scoring range. We dropped 2.6 PPG. Not a huge drop in my opinion. In fact our 'wretched' defense was T21 in PPG with the Eagles last year.

Now, I do not see anyone saying that the Eagles Defense was horrible last year, yet they allowed the same amount of PPG. The key difference was they only allowed 327.2 Yds per game. They still fired their D Coordinator. Why? Yds per game does not matter. PPG and turnovers do.

In 2010, we had 3 more INT plus a TD. In 2010, we had 7 more fumble recoveries plus a TD. Now what was the reason for the extra turnovers? I am not implying that it was the switch, but what really was the cause?

I guess my point is, the 2009 and 2010 defenses are very similar regardless of scheme. Some things improved while others worsened. Our defense in 2009 was not very good, neither was our 2010 defense. We may have been a better 4-3 defense in 2010 if the scheme was kept the same, but honestly, that cannot be proven. We could have been worse.

As of right now, I am o.k. with the switch. 6 out of the top 10 defenses last year, for PPG, ran some variation of a 3-4. Of those 6, 5 made the playoffs.

the Omniscient said:

I guess my point is, the 2009 and 2010 defenses are very similar regardless of scheme. Some things improved while others worsened. Our defense in 2009 was not very good, neither was our 2010 defense. We may have been a better 4-3 defense in 2010 if the scheme was kept the same, but honestly, that cannot be proven. We could have been worse.

Click to expand...

I think this is the key paragraph (although I agree with your entire post): the 2009 defense wasn't that great. Using that as a measuring stick for the 2010 unit is kinda silly in that regard.

There really weren't any compelling free agents last year on defense other than Peppers and he was 30 years old.

This year there were a number of guys in their mid-20's that were available and the Redskins snagged three of those players in Cofield, Bowen and Wilson.

The reason the Redskins went with Kemoeatu last year at NT was there wasn't a fabulous alternative out there for the 3-4. Anthony Bryant played better than expected toward the end of last year when he got on the field, but he had been out of the NFL for the past couple of years.

Of course if the Redskins had kept their #2 pick that could have provided another player a la Jarvis Jenkins to throw into the mix on the DL or OL.

But one player was not going to change the fortunes of this team last year.

Last year was rock bottom.

And I say that with the acknowledgment that we might not win many more games this year. But at least this team in 2011 is a YOUNG team with players who hopefully have improvements to make and greater contributions to look forward to.

Last year there were no such hopes outside of Trent Williams and Brian Orakpo.

The balance of the roster was old, injured or simply lacking in talent to play the game.

burgold said:

I agree with this. We may have had a top ten d, but when the game mattered what happened? Since Williams, how often did the opponents take the ball straight down the field and score a touchdown to win the game? This d we had always seemed to fail when it mattered. No one feared it. No one was stopped by it.

We seemingly always had fourth quarter leads and then would lose.

Not saying going to the 3-4 was a good idea. I disagreed with it and the results last year were attrocious, but the idea that we've had a good d is not really true either.

Click to expand...

I cannot understand why this is such a mystery. Our offense was more to blame for many of the late game losses than our defense. We had no grind it out, burn the clock out type of offense. We would run it on 1st and 2nd and be stuck in 3rd and long all the time. Or the Offensive Coordinator would do something stupid like call a passing play on first down late in the game when we could have run the clock down to next to nothing.

The multitude of close losses we had were in large part because of time possession more than any fault of our defense. By the time the game was wearing down, the opposing offenses would have 4 & 5 possessions in the 4th quarter. If our offense could have scored more often in the 4th quarter or at least run some clock off, our defense would not have been so tired by the end of the game. Many of those losses would have been wins.