Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=NLC1054;809335][B]Baller? Dude played 12 games in 2009. And even then he frequently got "hurt". He had 4 sacks[/B]. The whole defense had 40. This isn't a one year thing. If giving him respect means letting him do whatever he wants...I don't want that guy.[/quote]

thank you.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=30gut;809336]I don't get your point here.

You think he wasn't a good player in 2009 because he had 4 sacks in 12 games?
That's a pretty weak argument.
Does that mean that Ngata had a bad season too he played 14 games w/ 1.5 sacks.

Here's some facts about Al's 2009 season:
Lets not have revisionist history.
Albert Haynesworth has been one of the top DL throughout his career.
To say otherwise is wrong because it just ain't true.

I'll be the first to say that Al needs to be gone.
But he's an asshat because he's a great player that held talent hostage last year.[/quote]

He was a bum in 09. We didn't get the guy that was in Tenn.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=skinsfan69;809364]He was a bum in 09. We didn't get the guy that was in Tenn.[/quote]

The more reasons why Shanahan and Haslett shouldn't have pinned their 3-4 NT hopes on Haynesworth period.

I know people (rightfully so) get worked up over AH, but in the end I think it was a mistake for Shanny and Haslett to depend on him to be their answer for the NT position. And I think this is a focus of this particular discussion. Once this didn't work out, their back up plan was to pin their hopes on Kemo, who was a big question mark in regards to health, had not played the position for (I think) four years, and was on the decline.

As I have said before, Shanny should've drafted T. Cody with that second rounder we wasted on McNabb and by now we could have been set at the NT position.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=skinsfan69;809364]He was a bum in 09.[/quote]I guess because you say so it must be true right?
Despite the facts showing showing otherwise.
You make a great argument, here's my counter:
He wasn't a bum in 2009.
Pretty good huh?

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

I don't want to get into the AH debate again, so back on topic; GT mentioned a player supply issue w/so many teams using the 3-4. I think the 3-4 has come into vogue due to the no. of quality OLB/DE guys out there. Even though OLB in a 3-4 is a harder position to learn due to some coverage responsibilities, there are more good athletes that fit that body type. Even the 4-3 DEs are lighter these days. So I think finding pass rushers that fit the 3-4 as OLB is easier than finding good 4-3 DEs. We'll see if that's true w/Kerrigan.

On the flip side, good DTs & NTs are always in demand. GT makes the point that the skins d line was aging & would've been an issue even if we ran the 4-3. This draft took some steps to address the d-line.

Overall, I don't fault the transition to 3-4 too much due to the emphasis that was placed on aggressiveness & creating turnovers. They weren't as successful as we would've liked in that regard, but they seemed to realize they didn't have the personel to just shut teams down, they would have to make big plays.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=skinsfan69;809364]He was a bum in 09. [B]We didn't get the guy that was in Tenn.[/B][/quote]

The inability to get production out of veteran free agent acquisition seems to plague this team. With a few exceptions (London Fletcher comes to mind), we haven't been able to get productivity out of a big time FA signing, and that includes this FO regime (McNabb). I do hope that they are able to change this in the seasons to come.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=30gut;809336]I don't get your point here.

You think he wasn't a good player in 2009 because he had 4 sacks in 12 games?
That's a pretty weak argument.
Does that mean that Ngata had a bad season too he played 14 games w/ 1.5 sacks.
[/quote]

Come on, sir. That argument is weak sauce. Ngata and Haynesworth played completely different positions. By the definition of a 3-4 defensive end, Haloti Ngata isn't supposed to get a lot of sacks. He's a run stuffer and tackler first, pass rusher second.

All Albert wants to do is rush the quarterback (that's what he's said he wants to do), so you'd think a guy who only wants to rush the quarterback would have the same sort of production he'd had in the two years prior. Now, I will concede that having Haynesworth in there helped the rest of the defense get their sacks by getting double teams, which opened things up for other pass rushers.

But he still pulled himself off the field. Playing in 12 games and then leaving some of those twelve games early? No es bueno. Albert has the most active "off" switch of any player in the NFL. Those four sacks he got? He got three in the first eight games of season. Which is okay. Then he didn't get a sack until [i]week 15[/i] in 2009. That's to go along with pedestrian numbers in tackles and creating no turnovers.

When the man wants to turn it on and play, he can play with the best of them. But when he doesn't? He's okay-ish.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Moving away from the AH debate (which this thread really shouldn't turn into) I think the key to our defense this year will be the defensive line. I think we are on the verge of having a great OLB group in Orakpo and Kerrigan. Without a D-Line that can push and take up the opponents O-Line, their talents will be wasted.

Also, we need to have a second ILB to play along with Fletcher. Who will that be? I don't know, but I'd like to see a young player step into this role and take over Fletcher once he is done.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

I really like Robert Henson. I know he's undersized or whatever...but so is Fletcher. And I've never seen one guy go so hard in the fourth game of the preseason. The guy wants wants to play so hard. "I want winners! I want people who wanna win!"

Here's an interview I did with him for Bleacher Report back around draft time.

I also want to see Perry Riley step up. I think between those two guys we might be solid at inside linebacker if they're really ready to play.

[url=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/683974-2011-washington-redskins-an-interview-inside-linebacker-robert-henson]Here's the article.[/url]

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=NLC1054;809411]I really like Robert Henson. I know he's undersized or whatever...but so is Fletcher. And I've never seen one guy go so hard in the fourth game of the preseason. The guy wants wants to play so hard. "I want winners! I want people who wanna win!"

Here's an interview I did with him for Bleacher Report back around draft time.

I also want to see Perry Riley step up. I think between those two guys we might be solid at inside linebacker if they're really ready to play.

[url=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/683974-2011-washington-redskins-an-interview-inside-linebacker-robert-henson]Here's the article.[/url][/quote]

You're KC Clyburn? No kidding. I don't care for much of what's on Bleacher Report, but I think your work is pretty good.

Makes sense, as you've had good posts here too

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=NLC1054;809393]Come on, sir. That argument is weak sauce. Ngata and Haynesworth played completely different positions.[/quote]Calling the facts from 2009 weak sauce is a good arguement?
Haynsesoworth played DT in 2009 much harder to get sacks as DT then a 3-4End.
But, even sack total aside how but snaps played?
You can believe whatever you want, but the stats support that Haynesworth played well in 2009.

[quote]Now, I will concede that having Haynesworth in there helped the rest of the defense get their sacks by getting double teams, which opened things up for other pass rushers.[/quote]Agreed.

[quote]But he still pulled himself off the field. Playing in 12 games and then leaving some of those twelve games early?[/quote]In 2009? When did he pull himself off the field? And how did he leave early in those 12 games yet amass such a high % of snaps played?

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=Ruhskins;809404]Moving away from the AH debate (which this thread really shouldn't turn into) I think the key to our defense this year will be the defensive line. I think we are on the verge of having a great OLB group in Orakpo and Kerrigan. Without a D-Line that can push and take up the opponents O-Line, their talents will be wasted.

Also, we need to have a second ILB to play along with Fletcher. Who will that be? I don't know, but I'd like to see a young player step into this role and take over Fletcher once he is done.[/quote]Re: (AH)I try to get out but they keep pulling me back in.

I think Jenkins fit well as a 2-gap DE and will be a huge improvement over Golston.
I also think Jenkins will be in the rotation at NT with Bryant, Nield and maybe a healthier Kemo.

I just wish that we had someone along the starting DL that had some quick upfield pass rush ability.
I think Holliday, Jarmon and Scott are our best pass rushing 1-gap style penetrating DL.

I think Kerrigan will be an upgrade at the OLB spot.
I don't want to speculate on his upside but I expect at the very least competent level of play and enough pass rush to at least take advantage of some decent match-ups when the OL slide protects towards Rak.
The question and challenge for both he and Rak is to improve in pass coverage.

I'm content to give Riley and Henson their shot at the ILB spot next to Fletch next this year.
Both have a physicality and violence to their games that I think Rocky lacked and I assume they can cover better then Rocky b/c struggled badly there too.

I'm looking forward to watching how our defense evolves.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Don't forget Lo Alexander at ILB, he may be more cut out for that position & he's got great size for it. If Rogers or his replacement (Barnes mabye?) keep the same level at cb, I can see our d being much improved. That cb position is the only one I'm worried about.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=30gut;809376]I guess because you say so it must be true right?
Despite the facts showing showing otherwise.
You make a great argument, here's my counter:
He wasn't a bum in 2009.
Pretty good huh?[/quote]

He couldn't even stay on the field for two plays in a row. His sorry ass would fall down and flap around like a fish out of water, get carried off on a stretcher and then when he got his breath he'd come back on the field. And I bet if you took a poll inside the locker room the players would agree with me. The guy makes a great play and then takes the next 10 off. Even the guy on the Rams said he basically tires out after a few plays. To me he's a big fat bum who is also a heist man. I honestly don't know how he can look himself in the mirror taking all that money and acting like dick on and off the field.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=Ruhskins;809382]The inability to get production out of veteran free agent acquisition seems to plague this team. With a few exceptions (London Fletcher comes to mind), we haven't been able to get productivity out of a big time FA signing, and that includes this FO regime (McNabb). I do hope that they are able to change this in the seasons to come.[/quote]

That's cause it's stupid to overpay other teams players. It rarely works and that's why I'm 100% behind drafting for the next 2-3 years. It has a better chance of working when a team is already a contender but even then it's risky. I hate free agency and trading for other teams guys.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=skinsfan69;809443]That's cause it's stupid to overpay other teams players. It rarely works and that's why I'm 100% behind drafting for the next 2-3 years. It has a better chance of working when a team is already a contender but even then it's risky. I hate free agency and trading for other teams guys.[/quote]

so far w/the exception of the McNabb trade, Allen & MS have shown they value draft picks. Getting 12 this year after starting w/8 was just what the team needed.

I would also like to see fewer free agents, but in Denver Shanny was never opposed to bringing in vets that could help him, even paying big $. Will be the same here, has been so far. I think we'll see greater value but I expect there will still be a no. of signings.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Stupid to overpay? Yes. Stupid to pay period? Not so much.

The thing is...you can't fix every hole you want to in the draft. Even with several good draft classes, you have to think, how many of those guys will be come legitimate starters?

When you really look at it, (thinking very loosely) you're looking for your starters in rounds 1-3, and [i]maybe[/i] 4. The rest of the draft is mainly to add depth. That, and every position isn't going to be well represented in the draft.

This year's draft was weak on DBs, safeties especially. It was obvious that last year that free safety was a hole, as well as the depth at strong safety. Kareem Moore wasn't going to be an answer. Barnes played well enough for a corner playing safety, but they really want him to play corner more than anything.

So when O.J Atogwe becomes a free agent, and you're staring down a very weak class of safeties, and you don't have any proven guys who can play the position, then it makes sense to add a free agent. And they not only added a free agent, but they paid him in a deal that was very fair to both sides and was the right amount of money for O.J's skill level and his age.

The problem in the past wasn't that we added free agents; it was that we added free agents at positions we didn't need to add free agents at, and then them made them deals that they couldn't refuse, because Vinny was a ****ing dumbass and would set the market price for a guy too high, and no team was willing to come close to the kind of money we were offering.

Whereas with Bruce and Mike, we invited O.J in, talked with him extensively, offered him a fair deal...and then let him walk out to test the rest of the market place. The Vikings pursued him hardcore, but since he wasn't 1.) pressured into taking a deal from us and 2.) allowed to see what other teams would offer for his services, he decided to come here.

I think a team like Atlanta has done a good job of drafting talented players while also spending wisely in free agency. There can be balance doing both. It's easier when you're already a contender, but when you've got as many holes as the Redskins have, and as little depth, then you need free agency to fill the holes.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=freddyg12;809438]Don't forget Lo Alexander at ILB, he may be more cut out for that position & he's got great size for it. If Rogers or his replacement (Barnes mabye?) keep the same level at cb, I can see our d being much improved. That cb position is the only one I'm worried about.[/quote]

I just don't see that happening. If it were college ball then fine. But to put a guy at a position that he's never played before at the NFL level isn't going to work.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=skinsfan69;809546]I just don't see that happening. If it were college ball then fine. But to put a guy at a position that he's never played before at the NFL level isn't going to work.[/quote]

Those rules don't apply for OG/DE/DT/OLB Lorenzo Alexander

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Position changes seem to be the norm for Zo, and he excels at whatever he does.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=skinsfan69;809546]I just don't see that happening. If it were college ball then fine. But to put a guy at a position that he's never played before at the NFL level isn't going to work.[/quote]

I guess your argument could be considered true in the sense that last year he played OLB for the first time & started, yet our 1st round pick this year is a guy that will likely take that spot. But LA has obviously stuck around cause he has adjusted to new positions.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=freddyg12;809450]so far w/the exception of the McNabb trade, Allen & MS have shown they value draft picks. Getting 12 this year after starting w/8 was just what the team needed.

I would also like to see fewer free agents, but in Denver Shanny was never opposed to bringing in vets that could help him, even paying big $. Will be the same here, has been so far. I think we'll see greater value but I expect there will still be a no. of signings.[/quote]

well they also threw away a few more to get Brown coming off an injury. they blew it last year, they got the concept right this year. now let's see if any of these guys can play. they need to hit some home runs with this past draft class.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

They traded a pick for Brown and a pick. Don't call that throwing away picks for Brown

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=SmootSmack;809563]They traded a pick for Brown and a pick. Don't call that throwing away picks for Brown[/quote]

Wasn't it a 3rd and a 4th for a 29 year old that didn't play a snap in 09 and was coming off two injuries? Either way it was a bad trade cause of Brown's age and the risk factor.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

if Brown walks after one year, thats a waste. Just like McNabb walking after a year.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

The alternative was starting either a late round right tackle, or starting Stephen Heyer at right tackle. Yeah, when it comes to trading for Jammal Brown, I'm not going to complain a whole lot, risk factor or not. We needed a right tackle, we got a right tackle, and we couldn't get the guy we wanted (Ryan Harris). JB played hurt most of the season, but he and everyone else knew that he was going to have to play until the scar tissue in his leg broke up a little bit, and when it did, he played much better.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=skinsfan69;809566]Wasn't it a 3rd and a 4th for a 29 year old that didn't play a snap in 09 and was coming off two injuries? Either way it was a bad trade cause of Brown's age and the risk factor.[/quote]

A 3rd OR a 4th for a 5th OR 6th (believe it ended up being Niles Paul) and a two-time Pro Bowler coming off one injury (the first time he'd missed significant playing time in his career)

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=NLC1054;809570]The alternative was starting either a late round right tackle, or starting Stephen Heyer at right tackle. Yeah, when it comes to trading for Jammal Brown, I'm not going to complain a whole lot, risk factor or not. We needed a right tackle, we got a right tackle, and we couldn't get the guy we wanted (Ryan Harris). JB played hurt most of the season, but he and everyone else knew that he was going to have to play until the scar tissue in his leg broke up a little bit, and when it did, he played much better.[/quote]

Who would you rather have Brown or Harris. Both are injury prone, both are good when healthy, both can fit our offense. The age and pro bowls are the only difference between the two, however the one without the pro bowls is better suited/familiar more with our offense

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

[quote=SmootSmack;809571]A 3rd OR a 4th for a 5th OR 6th (believe it ended up being Niles Paul) and a two-time Pro Bowler coming off one injury (the first time he'd missed significant playing time in his career)[/quote]

I still think that the Brown trade was a good one. If he doesn't walk, he'll be healed and improved this year and we will have a heck of a tackle tandem.

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

What a coincidence: [B][U]Study: Haynesworth still a top-three DT July, 6, 2011[/U][/B]
[QUOTE=By Dan Graziano]According to a study by our pals at Pro Football Focus, Albert Haynesworth ranks as the third-best 4-3 defensive tackle in the NFL over the past three years[/QUOTE]
[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast]NFC East Blog - ESPN[/url]

Re: Recent Switches to 3-4 Defense Usually Mean Improvement
 

Then I'd gladly bite my tongue and swallow my pride if he is on any other team except ours and playing at a Pro Bowl level.