• 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.

The one thing I hope many of you learn from this preseason so far

BB,

Do you think the presense of Atogwe at FS may allow D Hall to take more chances at CB?

Reason I ask is that Hall is at his best when taking chances. He had a few INTs last year and, as everyone knows, these are game-changers. I would like to think thats why the coaches keep him around and that they are aware of the shortcomings that are associated with the chances he takes.

Finally, I feel somewhat qualified to answer a football question. I played FS from JV (7th-9th grade) to varsity in HS and did ok at the position. The one thing I always wanted from the CBs was a certain consistency - to stay with the receivers on fly patterns as I closed in to double team. On shorter routes, hook patterns, and slants, I wanted them to be sure of any chances that they were taking. Being alone with a speedy receiver is not a good thing - CBs traditionally have more speed than safeties. Look at how DeSean Jackson burned LaRon Landry last year at FedEx - classic example of a safety having to take a speedy receiver all alone.

It's one thing to play a zone and have the Sam, Will, or Mike dropping back in coverage. It's another when M-T-M is called and a risk-taking CB blows the coverage. The first time some receiver burns DHall, I'm sure Atogwe will have a thing or two to say to him. Hopefully, DHall will get the message. Chicago last year was amazing, but he had only two INTs the rest of the season. Not good, imho.
 
If the powers that be think that the 3-4 is the defense they want to run long term, what were they supposed to do? Start collecting the pieces needed and have those players run a 4-3 until there are enough in place to make the switch?

I am hoping that was sarcasm because the answer should be an obvious yes.
 
I am hoping that was sarcasm because the answer should be an obvious yes.

I have to disagree, Ryman. If I know I am going 3-4 then I want to make the switch ASAP so that the players I project to work in that scheme will get as many reps as possible in it. For example, continuing to play Orakpo at RDE with his hand in dirt would only have delayed his progress as an OLB in the 3-4. I'd rather get the growing pains out of the way with as soon as possible for as many guys as possible, even if it means stinking the joint up in the short term.
 
Neo, you would be wrong (in the football world). I will try to explain. But first I need to ask, why would you go to a 3-4? do you believe the 3-4 is inherently better? Do you think that an alignment is more important than fitting scheme to your players? is the aligment more important than the aggression of the playcalls?

when you make a switch you do it to improve your defence. to expect improvement you need to have the expectation that you will do better immediately with room to improve even more down the road, to have that expectation you need to have at the very least, a majority of players who you believe will do better in the new scheme, if you do not, then you are basically expecting to get worse which is not the goal. EVERY TEAM THAT MAKES THE SWITCH does it with the expectation that there will be immediate improvement and then major improvement down the road, because otherwise you lose your job. now the most important point that counters your logic is this, out of all the players that would have "delayed progress" how many are even on the team now? all we did was get experience in the 3-4 for a bunch of guys who arent here anymore, so basically in real world terms we paid for training for people who dont work here anymore.

as a DC they should have known that many of our players were going to be very poor fits in a 3-4 and that the key cog (Orakpo) didnt have the skillset to play OLB at a superior level in a 3-4. and that the scheme didnt fit any of our players, other than landry before he got hurt, who exactly did this switch benefit? Carriker because he got a job? was getting carriker a job better for us than keeping Carter?

What bugged me the most when people would talk about switching to the 3-4 (before shanny btw) was when they would say " Rak would be the perfect 3-4 olb because of his build" actually he lacks the basic skillset to play OLB effectively, he played OLB in the 4-3 decently because the dude is a superior athlete but he would be a superior end in the right 4-3 whereas he will never be more than an above average OLB in a 3-4. Or "Chris Wilson would be better" except we cut him, and now so did the fecals.

Key stat Raks sack numbers dropped significantly despite having a huge increase in his number of pass rush attempts, thats because his best moves arent OLB style moves, his best moves are all based off of bullrush moves, with a decent rip move to the inside and a spin move that he uses sometimes but about 90% of the time its pure power and bullrush, at OLB you want a guy who uses dips, and pure speed around the edge.

the problem that we had was that we had no depth at LB (a prime key requisite for teams making this switch) we had almost no depth at DT (the second spot where you need depth) we had lots of depth at DE ( a spot that you end up trading most of the guys away lol) and it showed when we moved a DT to OLB.

the argument that we needed to "take our lumps while adjusting" is nothing more than an excuse, yes Green bay had a few rough games but they still improved immediately because they had depth at LB and DT, and invested a few picks in the switch, we literally did nothing and we lacked the depth at the right spots. it was either a planned fail or just very poor coaching.
 
Neo, you would be wrong (in the football world). I will try to explain. But first I need to ask, why would you go to a 3-4? do you believe the 3-4 is inherently better? Do you think that an alignment is more important than fitting scheme to your players? is the aligment more important than the aggression of the playcalls?

Why would I switch? To be honest, I probably would not have but not for the reasons you espouse. Rather, I am traditionalist. The Redskins are, traditionally, a 4-3 defense with an offense featuring a power running game that takes deep shots off play action. I liked the character of those teams and still do.

For the record, I still hate running anything like Walsh's West Coast offense for the above reason.

And no, I do not preach alignment over working to a players strengths. I think Gibbs is in the Hall of Fame because he molded his scheme to work with the guys he had when he came to Washington rather than fit square pegs into round holes like so many coaches. I also think he second go around with the Skins was something of a failure because he DIDN'T mold the scheme to the players strengths as much as ask the players to mold themselves to the scheme.

Now, having said all that, I see a lot of the teams at the top of the defensive rankings, at least the ones that scare me the most, are running a 3-4. Not all, but most. Pittsburgh, Baltimore (granted, they switch back and forth), Green Bay and San Diego are all using it. It gets more speed on the field and in the modern game, speed kills.

Is it inherently superior? I'm hardly an expert but there is certainly solid circumstantial evidence to support the 3-4 enjoying a better statistical position in the NFL at the moment.

when you make a switch you do it to improve your defence. to expect improvement you need to have the expectation that you will do better immediately with room to improve even more down the road, to have that expectation you need to have at the very least, a majority of players who you believe will do better in the new scheme, if you do not, then you are basically expecting to get worse which is not the goal. EVERY TEAM THAT MAKES THE SWITCH does it with the expectation that there will be immediate improvement and then major improvement down the road, because otherwise you lose your job. now the most important point that counters your logic is this, out of all the players that would have "delayed progress" how many are even on the team now? all we did was get experience in the 3-4 for a bunch of guys who arent here anymore, so basically in real world terms we paid for training for people who dont work here anymore.

Gonna have to disagree here. Anytime a switch of system occurs, whether in football or anything else in this life, I expect a dip in performance. Sometimes a massive dip. Might I recommend you read Blood, Sweat and Chalk to see what I am talking about. Nearly ever major innovation in football on either side of the ball produced a dip in performance while players wrapped their heads and bodies around systems. Once mastered, however, those systems flourished.

the argument that we needed to "take our lumps while adjusting" is nothing more than an excuse, yes Green bay had a few rough games but they still improved immediately because they had depth at LB and DT, and invested a few picks in the switch, we literally did nothing and we lacked the depth at the right spots. it was either a planned fail or just very poor coaching.

I can't argue with you over players skill sets as I just don't know enough to do it but I can over the argument about taking our lumps. It is part of life and I don't see anyone making a switch of any kind from one system to another not having a learning curve.

As for the team doing nothing last year, I rather agree with you. More should have been done to get the right players but I don't see how it could have been done with the moves made on the offensive side of the ball. Sure, in hindsight the McNabb move was bad and we needed that 2nd rounder for defense but other than that I'm sure what else we could have done.

I apologise I missed your final statement where you said short term, I should have asked you what you define short term as. I define it as 4 games.

For me it depends. I can go with anything from your 4 game definition all the way up to 2 seasons.
 
You make several good points and I agree with much of what you wrote, however the taking lumps and having slightly worse performances is where i take issue, having a slight degradation in performance for long term gain is one thing, having season long extreme degradation in performance is another. Many teams make this switch with little to no poor performance, we did not. and worse yet, with all the roster turnover we will go through the "learning curve" yet again and probably 2 more times.
 
I think this is where we really differ in opinion, Ryman. The root of the issue, as it were. I didn't see what happened last season as "extreme degradation", at least not till later in the year when we started seeing more injuries. I saw a decrease, sure, but not extreme. However, I did not see the "great" defense others seemed to see the year before.

I think much of what we saw last year was as much the culmination of years of neglect in terms of serious personnel evaluation and acquisition as a change in system.
 
despite the statistics the Redskins defense from 2005-2009 was a unit that often failed to get the opposing offense off the field on third downs and allowed a lot of drives for end of game points.

the club had few turnovers and didn't apply a consistent pass rush. it was a bend but don't break defense, that kept the team at around .500.

Not exactly the kind of record that makes you want to immortalize the coaching or talent or the front office that put it all together, does it?

This team needs more to advance. Any of us that saw this team win Super Bowls in the past knows that.
 
I didnt say anything about 2 games Lanky, please dont put words in my mouth, I make strong enough statements without someoen doing that for me. even if this defence becomes a top 10 defence next year the change was still a fail as for at least 2 season it was pathetic.

The 2 games comment was me being facetious. And we don't know how the D will look this year, so your "at least 2 seasons" comment is your anti 3-4 bias showing through. ;)

anyone could build a decent defence in 3 seasons, and if they dont make it at least a top 5 defence by year 3, its an epic fail. especially when they have invested some serious resources.

So, just to be clear - essentially you are saying every single team that had a defensive coordinator for at least 3 years, but never produced a top 5 defense is an "epic fail?" That's how your statement reads to me, but I want to make sure I'm reading it correctly.

That's a long list, Bro.
 
Ryman, as Lanky has pointed out, that's a pretty strict requirment. Do you then say they need to stay in teh top five every year? Every other year? Every third year?

I posted the defensive rankings for the Pats a while back over the last decade, and Belichick, whom everyone seems to consider some sort of defensive savant, would need to be fired under those guidelines, iirc.
 
No Lanky, those requirements arent for every defence, those requirements are for teams who have at least a decent defence but who make vast changes. IMHO as long as a team is in the top 10 the majority of the time and gives a team a chance at a win, its a win, but when you have a decent defence but decide to make massive changes you had better see vast improvement and you had better see it quickly. the NFL stand for not for long, if you dont.
 
My problem with that Ryman, as others have said, is that we had a good defense statistically, on paper. As you know, games aren't played on paper, they're played by tiny men inside your TV set. As Neo said (I think, or Lanky), when was the last time you felt completely confident in our defense holding the other team to a three and out at the end of a close game on a potential game-winning drive? Statistically just don't cut, brother.
 
My problem with that Ryman, as others have said, is that we had a good defense statistically, on paper.

I felt all those years, even under Williams, that we had a defense that was ranked high and scared no one.

Nick
 
It is very hard on a defence to have to compensate for having an offence that scares no one, I know thats why we dialed down trhe aggression, and it annoyed me, if anything we should have been more aggresive but they were always worried that if a team broke a big one we wouldnt be able to come back. and at least decent on paper is better than horrible on the field.
 
It is very hard on a defence to have to compensate for having an offence that scares no one, I know thats why we dialed down trhe aggression, and it annoyed me, if anything we should have been more aggresive but they were always worried that if a team broke a big one we wouldnt be able to come back. and at least decent on paper is better than horrible on the field.

People say that, but how many three and outs did our D generate in those years in the first quarter or even in the first half? A big component of the D's fatigue is that they never got the o off the field.

The O was pretty bad too in a lot of those years too, but the D was a mirage. For example, if the O scored in any quarter, there was a 89% liklihood that the opposing O would score on the very next drive. It was practically clockwork. You know it's true. You saw it over and over again for yourself.
 
Ryman, your criteria are so subjective they will change based on whoever's looking at the defenses, as evidenced by the amount of argument about our own defense. This board is filled with knowledgeable fans, but let's be clear, we're all pretty homerish. If people here are saying the defense wasn't as good as its ranking, it really wasn't.

I think Nick hit the nail on the head - we had a statistically high-ranking defense that scared exactly nobody. They forced no turnovers, and couldn't make the big stop when it was necessary.
 
I felt all those years, even under Williams, that we had a defense that was ranked high and scared no one.

Nick

It scared me, Nick. Pretty much every week.
 
It scared me, Nick. Pretty much every week.


williams defense his first year here was a good one. after that....I agree.......we never had the stellar athletes on D to put us over the top...especially on D-line. always a "bend but don't break" defense...that played like a "bend-over but don't squeal" defense.
 
williams defense his first year here was a good one. after that....I agree.......we never had the stellar athletes on D to put us over the top...especially on D-line. always a "bend but don't break" defense...that played like a "bend-over but don't squeal" defense.

Williams' first year of D here was good - but mostly because opposing teams didn't have to do much against us. They ran vanilla offenses, because our O couldn't put any points on the board. I think we averaged what, 11 points a game? Truly pathetic. So opposing team offenses didn't show their playbooks against us because it was unnecessary.
 

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