who is to blame for the defencive debacle last year?

[Rymanofthenorth]

Mike, if we were transitioning to another scheme, then we wouldnt have had such a dramatic drop off, we didnt transition anything we switched, and expected guys who had previously failed in the 3-4 to suddenly be awesome at it and a guy who expressed no intterest in playing the 3-4 we somehow thought would change his mind. if we had drafted players and used an offseason to get 3-4 players it wouldnt have been such a joke, instead we just signed more old guys who didnt fit and the wondered why we are one of the few teams who has made the change that epic failed it?

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Agreed. My opinion is not going to change either.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Mike, if we were transitioning to another scheme, then we wouldnt have had such a dramatic drop off

You keep saying this - but why don't you think so? They went from 6th in points and 4th in yards in 2008 to 18th in points and 10th in yards in 2009. That's a 12 spot drop and a 6 spot drop. In 2010, they went from 18th in points to 21st, and 10th in yards to 31st - a 3 spot drop and a 21 spot drop. If they had continued their pace from the previous season, they'd have been 26th in points and 16th in yards...NOT a good defense.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Theomni- (to avoid confusion lol) the two defences are not comparable. Fletcher isnt taking control of anything he had a solid year numbers wise but had far fewer tackles at or near the LOS than he usually does. we need someone who understands the 3-4 and we have noone, Haslett has shown he is clueless about scheming.

The defence had no help from the offence in the year everyone is bashing it yet managed to be in the top 10, this last year we actually had some offence and the defence was far worse. I agree we will agree to disagree and at the end of this season I will be expecting a lot more people to say " you were right last year, you were right this year, I apologise for doubting." (lol joking, I would prefer we somehow were good, I just dont see it happeneing, if it does I will make an I was wrong thread.)

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Lanky, if we had tweaked the scheme we would have had less roster turnover and we would have gotten better performances from our guys we already had. thats not something that can be argued.

we didnt trransition, that would imply we put resources into changing, what we did was stupid we just completely swapped out our old scheme, that never works.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Lanky, if we had tweaked the scheme we would have had less roster turnover and we would have gotten better performances from our guys we already had. thats not something that can be argued.

we didnt trransition, that would imply we put resources into changing, what we did was stupid we just completely swapped out our old scheme, that never works.

Of course it can be argued - it didn't happen and therefore everything said about it is pure speculation.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

so let me get this straight, now you are arguing that we would have had the same drop off if we had merely tweaked the scheme, and added a couple of players (at olb and fs) and added a bit more aggressivness that we ended up having after a complete scheme swap that resulted in some of our best players riding the pine for a large part of the seasona nd others playing out of position?

 

[Lanky Livingston]

so let me get this straight, now you are arguing that we would have had the same drop off if we had merely tweaked the scheme, and added a couple of players (at olb and fs) and added a bit more aggressivness that we ended up having after a complete scheme swap that resulted in some of our best players riding the pine for a large part of the seasona nd others playing out of position?

No, I was responding to the following quote: "if we had tweaked the scheme we would have had less roster turnover and we would have gotten better performances from our guys we already had. thats not something that can be argued."

Now you are adding all types of caveats. As Mike likes to say, if my Aunt had acorns, she'd be my Uncle!

 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

so let me get this straight, now you are arguing that we would have had the same drop off if we had merely tweaked the scheme, and added a couple of players (at olb and fs) and added a bit more aggressivness that we ended up having after a complete scheme swap that resulted in some of our best players riding the pine for a large part of the seasona nd others playing out of position?

I can't speak for Lanky, but what I'm saying is that the previous scheme we had sucked and it wasn't getting the job done. A change in scheme was warranted. I also believe that given that fewer teams use the 3-4, there are personnel and tactical advantages to using the 3-4.

I think it was the right move in the long run.

 

[Henry]

There's no need to overthink this. We brought in a new coach. For whatever reason he wanted to run a new scheme. New coaches do this ALL THE TIME. It's not a sign of incompetence, stubbornness, idiocy, or some grand conspiracy to make the team bad. It's what new coaches do.

Unfortunately we had an old, cap-strapped-lazy-ass-not-motivated-in-any-way-and-in-need-of-serious-housecleaning team. This, coupled with the aforementioned scheme change, and only a handful of draft picks, caused us to seriously suck. It really shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.

 

[fansince62]

There's no need to overthink this. We brought in a new coach. For whatever reason he wanted to run a new scheme. New coaches do this ALL THE TIME. It's not a sign of incompetence, stubbornness, idiocy, or some grand conspiracy to make the team bad. It's what new coaches do.

Unfortunately we had an old, cap-strapped-lazy-ass-not-motivated-in-any-way-and-in-need-of-serious-housecleaning team. This, coupled with the aforementioned scheme change, and only a handful of draft picks, caused us to seriously suck. It really shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.

you're right. my only caveat is that I think Shanahan/Allen wasted a year. The rebuild should have started in a massive way last year. the second rnd pick for McNabb? seems to me they had a totally different plan in mind last yr than they do this yr......so it's open how much of present problems trace to mistakes Shanahan/Allen made.

 

[the Omniscient]

Actually TSF, half of the league is going to play the 3-4 or some variation of. IMO only the NT position is the hard one to find. The other front 7 players are projections and you just have to hit them properly.

I don't know that a scheme change was warranted Ryman could be right in saying that a scheme tweak would be ideal, but we do not know if the tweak would have been beneficial. That is something we cannot measure. We could have been better, we could have been worse.

There was nothing solid about our defense in 2009. When your defense was as bad as it was in 2009, it is easy to argue for a scheme change. That is why I do not mind the change. If this is the way Shanny wants to go, then great. Either way, we were looking at a rebuild on defense. If our defense was as great as some people lead you to believe, then the change would not have occured.

Ryman - You can just say Omni Are you really saying that Fletcher being in the defense all last year was not beneficial to him helping the team out this offseason? Do you really expect people to believe that?

Also, how are the 2009 and 2010 defenses not comparable? Final question, what made the 2009 defense a top 10 defense? You keep saying this. So what was it exactly that made them top 10? Besides the whole overrated YPG stuff.

 

[Henry]

you're right. my only caveat is that I think Shanahan/Allen wasted a year. The rebuild should have started in a massive way last year. the second rnd pick for McNabb? seems to me they had a totally different plan in mind last yr than they do this yr......so it's open how much of present problems trace to mistakes Shanahan/Allen made.

Oh I agree. Don't even get me started on the McNabb fiasco.

But if we're talking about defense, eh. We decided to run a new scheme and in the first year we didn't run it very well. This is not an unprecedented development of earth-shattering proportions.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Omni-Fletchers struggles in this scheme are more of physical limitations not mental, playing in it more isnt gonna solve that. almost half the teams in the NFL now run 3-4, the teams that do it well, have the best 3-4 dcs.

Henry, im ok with changing schemes,, thats a fact of life, what im not ok with is epic failures when doing so. If you can find me ONE other team in the past 5 seasons that did what we did and had such poor results I will be amazed. its not a multi year thing, changing schemes always (seriously check the numbers) results either in modest improvement or huge improvement, or its a bad fit and teams abandone it, there really sint much middle ground.

 

[the Omniscient]

Omni-Fletchers struggles in this scheme are more of physical limitations not mental, playing in it more isnt gonna solve that. almost half the teams in the NFL now run 3-4, the teams that do it well, have the best 3-4 dcs.

My point was mental, that is why I said he helped with the offseason. It was beneficial that he learned the system last year and has been helping others along. Sometimes, I don't think you read things through.

Also, you never answered the following questions. I think they are important to the discussion. I am not trying to be smart with you, I seriously would like to know your position, especially with all of the 'TOP 10' statements.

Also, how are the 2009 and 2010 defenses not comparable? Final question, what made the 2009 defense a top 10 defense? You keep saying this. So what was it exactly that made them top 10? Besides the whole overrated YPG stuff.

 

[Elephant]

Also, you never answered the following questions. I think they are important to the discussion. I am not trying to be smart with you, I seriously would like to know your position, especially with all of the 'TOP 10' statements.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&season=2009&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go

This is not just yards per game but the entire game stats. It is not just a meaningless stat either. The teams in the top 10 are teams that belonged in the top 10.

 

[the Omniscient]

This is not just yards per game but the entire game stats. It is not just a meaningless stat either. The teams in the top 10 are teams that belonged in the top 10.

I know where to find stats. The teams in the top 10 are not necessarily the top 10 defenses.

When you first go to the site it organizes them by YPG. The teams in the top 10 are the teams with the top 10 YPG. Click on the PPG and it will adjust them to PPG. You can do this with all of the stats. It does not take all the stats into consideration and tells you these are the top 10 teams.

It does not matter that the Skins were a top 10 YPG team. YPG is not a good measurment of a succesful defense. YPG by itself, is a meaningless stat. It only has meaning once you add in several other factors.

If you want to see a better defensive measurement go to: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

This site uses statistical analysis to break down everything. It has its shortcomings as it will explain, but it will also support your position of ranking our 2009 defense in the top 10. I can also use it to support my position that it was average. Anyways, you will notice that it takes a lot more than YPG into account.

I am done with this thread. If you all think YPG is the best measurement, there is no since in having a discussion with you. Like I said earlier, I am bowing out...this time I mean it.

 

[Elephant]

For God's sake man! Even the link you provided ranks the Redskins defense in 09 as the 10th ranked defense in the league!!! Yet you still think it supports your argument by suggesting they were average? OK, I will say even if they were not slightly above average, if they were merely average in 2009...

The 2010 defense sucked! A huge drop off!

 

[Ax]

Holy Jumping Jesus Christ!!! If tonight's game doesn't do anything else, I truly hope it will change the conversation to the now, from the then.

But, I guess I can add another parting shot, too.

It can be argued that making the change, when we did it, was either, not that big a deal, or astronomically ignorant. I think there are legitimate points to both opinions.

My biggest gripe was, if you're gonna do it, maximize your efforts. The failure to recognize that Andre Carter would never fit, and therefore get what we could in a trade, instead of the nothing we did get. On the field, or in a trade. That was an epic fail.

Same for Fatso. Epic fail.

There was other stuff, but those are the big two.

Now, I think we'll be much improved this year. Which is what the conversation should be about. Though Haslett is still a concern.

 

[Elephant]

Now, I think we'll be much improved this year. Which is what the conversation should be about. Though Haslett is still a concern.

I do believe that is the current argument which is why the past keeps creeping into the conversation. Some of us don't believe Haslett is capable of running a quality defense here, using the drop off in production as a measuring stick. Some say you can't measure success in one year or there wasn't much of a drop off in the defense. Then there is the counter that says a drop off was significant and the decline we saw here in DC shows something more than just a simple change to a 3-4, rather a terrible choice in the way it was schemed and the loss of possible draft choices by trading the veterans who didn't fit.