who is to blame for the defencive debacle last year?

I can't buy that. The "top ten" defenses we had were always in the bottom of the league for turnovers, and repeatedly were incapable of stopping game-ending drives.

I guess if you really feel that those "top ten" defenses were really great, then you'd call last year a debacle. But those defenses were always overrated by that single stat of yards per game. They simply weren't that good: no turnovers, mediocre points per game stats.

Thank you El. I dont see how we give last years defence a pass because the team was bad when 2 years ago our offence was atrocious as well. Counter trey is absolutely correct.

Om, you know better than that, I didnt say failure to improve, I said that an epic failure would be easily determined by a very obvious set of stats. a drop from 10 to 30 is pretty epic, we didnt improve in any stats other than turnovers, and that was only because early on we tricked teams by being so unsound. once they got film we had games like the fecals debacle. we didnt fail to improve, thats disingenuous, we failed completely. You dont change systems to do worse. anyone who would make that switch KNOWING WE WOULD DROP LIKE THAT IS EITHER TRYING TO DROP GAMES OR NOT GOING TO BE EMPLOYED VERY LONG.

the Bottom line is that 2 years ago we had a top 10 defence, guys can blame our losses on that defence all they want but the fact remains that it is inarguable that it was a top 10 unit, despite being an aging unit that was lacking in aggression. our record that year was not due to our defence alone and its intellectually dishonest to suggest it was. Haynesworth was not used properly and still had a decent year we saw flashes of what he was capable of, but in that system he was two gapping way too much and yes he bitched about it. the one thing that is being ignored is that aside from one anomalous game, we were in almost every game that season while last year we knew if we were down a td we were done like dinner because everyone moved the ball on us.

Lets look at all the so called PRO 3-4 arguments because they are incredibly easy to debunk.
1- we needed to switch because we were old.... except that last year we actually got OLDER on defence as we cut our experienced players for other teams washed up guys who then failed in this scheme. if we had simply maintained what we had and added an OLB and a FS we would have had a far superior defence merely by ramping up the aggression, Landry is not a middle field safety. if we had stayed in a 43 we would have been able to replace players as needed not all at once.

2-we had players who would benefit from the switch.
you mean like Orakpo, who had fewer sacks playing in this 3-4 scheme despite almost twice the rush attempts? who else genuinely fit the 3-4 better on our roster? because Rak actually fits the 4-3 far better than the 3-4, he is a decent to solid OLB in a 3-4 I believe he would be an elite rusher in a 4-3 as evidenced that in his rookie year he made most of his big plays with his hand in the dirt. people were saying this switch would benefit blades who was cut, wilson who never got on the field even when we played a former DT at OLB ffs, who exactly did we have that this scheme fit? Now ask me who this scheme actually hurt? Carter who was a probowl DE the year before, became a bench player, Gholston who was a solid rotation guy, barely decent in the 3-4, Fletcher went from making tackles at or near the LOS to making then downfield, macintosh looked lost in some games, AH nuff said, Lorenzo looked ok in comparison to AC who was terrible,Jarmon looked out of place trying to soak blocks.

3-that 3-4 defences take time to build..... actually thats a huge myth, teams that switch to the 3-4 know within a half season if its going to work or not, the teams who benefit from the switch almost always have 3 things in common, depth at LB (which we in no way had) Depth at DT(again we had 2 gholston and AH) and draft picks to fill holes (which as a team that needed an entire offence rebuilt we again did not have as we had traded away a pile of draft picks). thats literally 3 for 3 that we didnt have. check the stats my friends, 3-4 defences dont take time, they take resources and they take a smart DC scheming around the players they have.

4- 3-4 defence is easier to build..... a few seasons ago the steelers made a living drafting 3-4 players later because nobody esle wanted them, now that almost half the teams run a 3-4 certain positions are at a premium, NT and OLB are not easy to fill as they used to be. 3-4 DE is even getting tougher to fill. its actually easier to hide flaws in a 4-3.

Turnovers are nice, and they are a function of aggressivness in a scheme, not the scheme itself, 4-3 teams have just as many turnovers when you compare apples to apples, (good teams) thats why that argument doesnt hold water when discussing this switch.

TSF if we are a top 5 defence this year and the years after is highly unlikely but yes it would have been worthwhile, IF WE START WINNING GAMES.

Rymanofthenorth said:

Om, you know better than that, I didnt say failure to improve, I said that an epic failure would be easily determined by a very obvious set of stats. a drop from 10 to 30 is pretty epic,

3-that 3-4 defences take time to build.....

4- 3-4 defence is easier to build

Click to expand...

I think you are talking to me, the OM thing. If you are, I never claimed you said 'failure to improve.’ I was generalizing the thoughts of the Skins fanbase.

I think you, as well as others, see top 10 ranked defense and think everything is rosy, when in fact, it is not. I think what I am trying to convey is eluding you as well as others. Maybe I am not the right person to deliver the message.

YPG is not that important in the grand scheme of things. There may be some correlation here and there, but correlation does not mean causation. I will not argue that teams caught on to our defense as the year progressed, mainly because of the decrease in turnovers. That is to be expected.

I will say that our 4th down defense in 2009 was significantly better than 2010. No arguments here at all.

One thing I think is important is that 5 of our last 8 games, we held opponents to under 20 pts. That is better than the Chargers who had the #1YPG and the #10 PPG. We were hot and cold. The Eagles game makes our defense look way worse for the final 8 games. The first 8 games we allowed 21.25 PPG (one of my qualifiers for a good defense). The final eight we allowed 25.87, a huge difference. Take out that Eagles game (an outlier) and we averaged 21.14. I know it is not fair to remove a game, I just wanted to emphasize that it was a debacle. However, I do not believe our defense got 'significantly’ worse as the season wore on.

I could go on about YPG, but honestly, I don't think it will do any good.

Also, points 3 & 4 of your post...do you think they contradict themselves? Because I do. In 3 you are basically saying that you should know within 8 games whether or not a system change is appropriate. In 4, you are admitting that it is hard to find the proper personnel for the change. Which one is it? Is it easy or is it hard?

Ryman, I'm still waiting for a response to this:

Lanky Livingston said:

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?

Click to expand...

Ryman, you use a lot of words. I know--I used to also.

We are one season into the switch. We were a 4-12 team with absolutely zero playmaking ability on defense. In the first year of a new regime, WITH a sea-change switch to a more aggressive style of defense, we not only improved drastically in turnover production--the Achilles Heel of this defense for years--but we also improved our win total by 50%

Again, that's where we are after one year.

Talk to me again after, say, 2 years, when we might actually have SOME kind of reasonable basis to start making prounouncements about the degree of success or failure and wisdom in the switch. Right now it's all just a lot of opinion supported by hot air.

Everyone wants to give credit for our ineptitude to the offense and NOT the defense when our unit was top 10. Well how about the Patriots & Packers? Shouldn't their stellar offensive numbers take credit away from their defenses? They've got great offenses - New England has been top 10 in points and yards every season since 2004 except 2006 when they were 11th in yards. Green Bay has had a top 10 offense in points & yards every year except 2005 and 2006, when Green started to struggle with injuries. On the flip side of the coin, since 2004 the 49ers have been ranked above 22nd in points scored only once (18th in 2009) and never above 23rd in yards. Their defensive rankings have also struggled.

Maybe, just maybe, the correlation between strong offense and strong defense is much more pronounced than anyone is giving credit? Baltimore in 2000 - nobody will argue that they were some sort of offensive juggernaut, but they didn't need to be. The only thing they needed was to hold onto the ball, and not make dumb mistakes. Dilfer, Sharpe & Lewis were splendid at this, and the Ravens won the superbowl.

Om nails it again - its a team sport. And the Redskins' offense has struggled for years now, because of years of ignoring the QB, offensive line and RB spots. Three things the Patriots and Packers never ignored.

Rymanofthenorth said:

TSF if we are a top 5 defence this year and the years after is highly unlikely but yes it would have been worthwhile, IF WE START WINNING GAMES.

Click to expand...

I agree its about winning games. Which leads me to say that top 5 defense or not, I think if our defense helps us win games it will be worthwhile. Again, I don't think the yards per game ranking means much.

Rymanofthenorth said:

Turnovers are nice, and they are a function of aggressivness in a scheme, not the scheme itself, 4-3 teams have just as many turnovers when you compare apples to apples, (good teams) thats why that argument doesnt hold water when discussing this switch.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. If they had switched to a more aggressive 4-3 that caused turnovers and kept points off the board, I would have given them just as much leeway last year and been just as happy. I don't care if its 3-4 or 4-3, but I don't think the previous defenses we had were really anything special. In fact, they were deficient in a lot of ways.

the Omniscient said:

I think you are talking to me, the OM thing. If you are, I never claimed you said 'failure to improve.’ I was generalizing the thoughts of the Skins fanbase.

I think you, as well as others, see top 10 ranked defense and think everything is rosy, when in fact, it is not. I think what I am trying to convey is eluding you as well as others. Maybe I am not the right person to deliver the message.

YPG is not that important in the grand scheme of things. There may be some correlation here and there, but correlation does not mean causation. I will not argue that teams caught on to our defense as the year progressed, mainly because of the decrease in turnovers. That is to be expected.

I will say that our 4th down defense in 2009 was significantly better than 2010. No arguments here at all.

One thing I think is important is that 5 of our last 8 games, we held opponents to under 20 pts. That is better than the Chargers who had the #1YPG and the #10 PPG. We were hot and cold. The Eagles game makes our defense look way worse for the final 8 games. The first 8 games we allowed 21.25 PPG (one of my qualifiers for a good defense). The final eight we allowed 25.87, a huge difference. Take out that Eagles game (an outlier) and we averaged 21.14. I know it is not fair to remove a game, I just wanted to emphasize that it was a debacle. However, I do not believe our defense got 'significantly’ worse as the season wore on.

I could go on about YPG, but honestly, I don't think it will do any good.

Also, points 3 & 4 of your post...do you think they contradict themselves? Because I do. In 3 you are basically saying that you should know within 8 games whether or not a system change is appropriate. In 4, you are admitting that it is hard to find the proper personnel for the change. Which one is it? Is it easy or is it hard?

Click to expand...

I was talking to OM, OM the Bard, lol. but no 3 and 4 are not contradicting at all. you know right away if your team will make the transition, and yes its harder now to find the players than it was when only 3-4 teams ran the 34. Teams who make the swap based on anything but the fact that they will improve, are not going to be succsessful.

OM, our record was not due to our defence,, just as our wins last season were not the credit of the defence. My entire point is that it doesnt take multiple years to improve a defence, thats why this was a fail.

Lanky if we are a top 5 defence this season I will immediately bow to your prescience. if we yet again are a bottom third defence this season and most likely the next (especially if we dont ditch Haslett, will you admit you were wrong?)

Rymanofthenorth said:

Lanky if we are a top 5 defence this season I will immediately bow to your prescience. if we yet again are a bottom third defence this season and most likely the next (especially if we dont ditch Haslett, will you admit you were wrong?)

Click to expand...

You still haven't answered my question.

And no, I don't give much credence to yardage rankings for defense - I'm much more interested in points allowed and one other simple little stat: WINS.

Rymanofthenorth said:

I was talking to OM, OM the Bard, lol. but no 3 and 4 are not contradicting at all. you know right away if your team will make the transition, and yes its harder now to find the players than it was when only 3-4 teams ran the 34. Teams who make the swap based on anything but the fact that they will improve, are not going to be succsessful.

Click to expand...

I guess I am a dummy then I don't understand how the defense is supposed to improve immediately when it is hard to find players for it.

the Omniscient said:

I guess I am a dummy then I don't understand how the defense is supposed to improve immediately when it is hard to find players for it.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Then why make the switch with an average, at best, defensive coordinator until you start to get players for the scheme? Why not just transition as you get those players?

I argued against Ryman last year early in the season when he suggested that our defense should have immediate results. He provided a stat that showed most teams that had made the switch had some success in their 1st year in the 3-4. Not one team that made the switch had such a dramatic drop off as the Redskins did last year.

Was our defense as good as people suggested the year before? Maybe not, but one thing is certain, they were not nearly as bad in 2009 as they were in 2010.

Lanky Livingston said:

Ryman, I'm still waiting for a response to this:

Click to expand...

That question has no place in this discussion. We are not talking about any other team, not every other team had a #5 ranking 2 years prior and a #10 ranking the year before the switch and then dropped to 2nd to last in the NFL the year of the switch. And while I argued against Ryman for using that barometer last year, I have seen a decent defense, not overly great and schemed poorly by Blache, turn into a terrible defense schemed atrociously by Haslett.

3 years ago we had the #5 ranked team in the league. That is why he uses that barometer. I will cede your point that that may have been a little more generous a ranking than the team actually was in 2009, but the drop off in our defense was unprecedented in the NFL among teams that made the switch from 4-3 to 3-4.

the Omniscient said:

I guess I am a dummy then I don't understand how the defense is supposed to improve immediately when it is hard to find players for it.

Click to expand...

which would preclude making the change before you have at least half the pieces in place? GB improved almost immediately, the only team that did a slow transition (and it was basically 2 seasons including offseasons) were the patsies who were never a pure 3-4 team more of a hybrid defence.

you dont make a change based on players you would like to have, you base it on what you have on the roster and perhaps what you can go out and get quickly.

Elephant said:

Exactly! Then why make the switch with an average, at best, defensive coordinator until you start to get players for the scheme? Why not just transition as you get those players?

I argued against Ryman last year early in the season when he suggested that our defense should have immediate results. He provided a stat that showed most teams that had made the switch had some success in their 1st year in the 3-4. Not one team that made the switch had such a dramatic drop off as the Redskins did last year.

Click to expand...

See my other thread - those teams that succeeded already had good teams. The Redskins, were NOT good.

Was our defense as good as people suggested the year before? Maybe not, but one thing is certain, they were not nearly as bad in 2009 as they were in 2010.

Click to expand...

I disagree. They won 4 games in 2009, 6 games in 2010.

Elephant said:

That question has no place in this discussion. We are not talking about any other team, not every other team had a #5 ranking 2 years prior and a #10 ranking the year before the switch and then dropped to 2nd to last in the NFL the year of the switch.

Click to expand...

Well, that's now how I read his argument, so I guess Ryman will have to clear it up. So then what is the measure for improvement this year?

And while I argued against Ryman for using that barometer last year, I have seen a decent defense, not overly great and schemed poorly by Blache, turn into a terrible defense schemed atrociously by Haslett.

Click to expand...

With older personnel, etc. Why not switch and see who can play and who can't?

3 years ago we had the #5 ranked team in the league. That is why he uses that barometer. I will cede your point that that may have been a little more generous a ranking than the team actually was in 2009, but the drop off in our defense was unprecedented in the NFL among teams that made the switch from 4-3 to 3-4.

Click to expand...

6th in points, 4th in yards - but the team finished 8-8. So as a team, they failed.

Lanky Livingston said:

See my other thread - those teams that succeeded already had good teams. The Redskins, were NOT good.

I disagree. They won 4 games in 2009, 6 games in 2010.

Click to expand...

I ceded that they may not have been as good as the rankings suggest. But if you seriously think they were as bad in 2009 as they were in 2010 then...well, it's useless discussing this any further.

As far as the 4-12 to 6-10 argument, you do realize who the previous Head Coach was, right? You could have increased our win total from the previous year had you been at the helm. And I will suggest that had we stayed in the 4-3 defense, we would have won at least 2 more games last year. A change may have needed to be made in the scheme, but the scheme that was decided on was a terrible scheme to run last year and as long as Haslett is running things I don't see it getting much better. Better? Yes, but not much better.

IMO the defense between 2009 and 2010 are pretty much on par with each other. I made that point earlier. The only thing that was better in 2009, and by a large margin, was 4th down %. Everything else was very similar.

When the defense is this bad, why not go ahead and make the switch completely? I think the complete switch really helped London Fletcher take control of the defense this offseason. It allowed him and the other vets to bring along the newcomers.

Honestly, we do not know how this D will play. I am expecting big things in year 2, but we will see. Last year was a lost season and it was foolish to go into it thinking that it was going to be anything more.

With that, I am bowing out. I have made my points and stick by my guns on this one. We had these same discussions last year and it did not do any good. We should all agree to disagree and leave it at that.