Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=Big C;819984]pretty low risk move here. we bring back a guy who has been with the franchise for a while on a 1 year deal who will at least provide depth and has started for us for the last several years. i like the move.[/quote]

This.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

Rocky like many players in this defense last year made a lot of mistakes. A LOT. I wanted an upgrade as well, maybe Barnett, oh well.

Lets not act like he is camp fodder though, he made 155 tackles last season. Played his best games in weeks 12-16. If he is healthy he will start beside London IMO.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

I don't know why you guys are so down on Rocky. He's nothing spectacular, but he's a solid starter and we basically signed him for no money. We definitely gave up too much for him to draft him, but we made a lot of horrible moves back then.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

Happy Rocky day
[YT]TBwfzovE9IU[/YT]

Re: Rocky Returns
 

Rocky was serviceable. I never thought he was terrible. We are in sore need of LBs across the board. I bet we draft 2 LBs next year.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

I think everyone is on the same page (or a few pages away) on Rocky. Alexander is in the mix as well right? I heard he was learning ILB too.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

I think it was a good move for depth. I remember Rocky having a hard time getting playing time when he first got here because he couldn't seem to grasp the defense. He definitely has the physical tools. WTH...one year. Might as well.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

Maybe one of the folks here who has retained tapes of Redskins' games from last year might have this stat on hand - - or might try to go and get it:


I wonder what percentage of the time on defense that the Redskins lined up in a 3-4 defense last year My guess is [B]less than 60%[/B] of the time because I saw them in a 4-3 or a 4-2-5 more than just once in a while.


I do not think that the Redskins were playing 3-4 an overwhelming number of defensive snaps last year.


So - - if you think Rocky might not be ideal for ILB in a 3-4, perhaps that is not what they want to have him do this year. Maybe he is their OLB in the 4-3...???

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;820256]Maybe one of the folks here who has retained tapes of Redskins' games from last year might have this stat on hand - - or might try to go and get it:


I wonder what percentage of the time on defense that the Redskins lined up in a 3-4 defense last year My guess is [B]less than 60%[/B] of the time because I saw them in a 4-3 or a 4-2-5 more than just once in a while.


I do not think that the Redskins were playing 3-4 an overwhelming number of defensive snaps last year.


[B]So - - if you think Rocky might not be ideal for ILB in a 3-4, perhaps that is not what they want to have him do this year. Maybe he is their OLB in the 4-3...???[/B][/quote]
we're not going back to the 4-3, and Rocky may not even be on the team come week 1, this signing could be a back up/camp body signing.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;820256]Maybe one of the folks here who has retained tapes of Redskins' games from last year might have this stat on hand - - or might try to go and get it:


I wonder what percentage of the time on defense that the Redskins lined up in a 3-4 defense last year My guess is [B]less than 60%[/B] of the time because I saw them in a 4-3 or a 4-2-5 more than just once in a while.


I do not think that the Redskins were playing 3-4 an overwhelming number of defensive snaps last year.


So - - if you think Rocky might not be ideal for ILB in a 3-4, perhaps that is not what they want to have him do this year. Maybe he is their OLB in the 4-3...???[/quote]

Four most recent games I've seen (Dallas week 1, Green Bay, Minnesota, Jacksonville) all saw the team play about 80% of their defensive snaps with a 3-4 alignment. The only times they went away from it was on obvious passing downs with different 4 man fronts (sometimes 2 man seeing as how they had two or three guys standing up).

I know with Indy they tried some sort of amoeba defense but other then that I'd say they were true to the 3-4 most of the year. Biggest difference though between the first half of the season and the last half came in the amount of blitzing. First half they were extremely aggressive, second half was more bend don't break.

Chicago might have had more 4 man fronts but I'm guessing that based on how that game served as Haynesworth marquee game in 2010.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;820256]Maybe one of the folks here who has retained tapes of Redskins' games from last year might have this stat on hand - - or might try to go and get it:


I wonder what percentage of the time on defense that the Redskins lined up in a 3-4 defense last year My guess is [B]less than 60%[/B] of the time because I saw them in a 4-3 or a 4-2-5 more than just once in a while.


I do not think that the Redskins were playing 3-4 an overwhelming number of defensive snaps last year.


So - - if you think Rocky might not be ideal for ILB in a 3-4, perhaps that is not what they want to have him do this year. Maybe he is their OLB in the 4-3...???[/quote]

Just under 51% of the total snaps were in a 3-4 in 2011

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=SmootSmack;820276]Just under 51% of the total snaps were in a 3-4 in 2011[/quote]

WOW!! Thanks for the info...

I thought it was close to 60% but never would have guessed it was only about half of the snaps for the season.

So, the Skins do not have to "go back to a 4-3 team" this year because they played a lot of "stuff" other than 3-4 last year - - when the excuse for the poor defense was that they had personnel that did not fit the defense they only played half the time.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

I like having Rocky back for injury insurance too.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=SmootSmack;820276]Just under 51% of the total snaps were in a 3-4 in 2011[/quote]

Source. For all I know you're just throwing up numbers, granted I am to but I have a hard time believing it's as low as 51%. Should be at least around 66% (2/3 = .666666)

I mean sure on 3rd downs I would see crazy formations like this
[IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/25ft6k8.jpg[/IMG]

However most of the time (and I don't mean 51% most) I'm seeing some form of this. 3 down lineman, 2 inside backers, 2 standing outside rushers.
[IMG]http://i56.tinypic.com/ocmsn.png[/IMG]

Re: Rocky Returns
 

I asked. I mean what reason would I have for making it up.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=SmootSmack;820295]I asked. I mean what reason would I have for making it up.[/quote]

You're out to get me. All y'all. Watching me and everything. Trying to ruin my reputation and the chance to make billions of dollars with my YouTube videos. You're just a hatter.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=SmootSmack;820276]Just under 51% of the total snaps were in a 3-4 in 2011[/quote]

How much would that percentage change if you took away the opposing teams punt or field goal attempt plays?

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=warriorzpath;820312]How much would that percentage change if you took away the opposing teams punt or field goal attempt plays?[/quote]
That is special teams so I'm guessing that wouldn't count on defensive snaps.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=steveo395;820462]That is special teams so I'm guessing that wouldn't count on defensive snaps.[/quote]

Right

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=SmootSmack;820470]Right[/quote]

Now I'm interested to see numbers like how often the Giants lineup in a 4-3.

Also in retrospect I was wrong about the Green Bay game. We barely ran any 3-4 instead opting mostly for some sort of 3-3 where Orakpo served as the third linebacker up on the LOS.

I mean sometimes they liked to do this thing where they overloaded two outside backers on 1 side and two down lineman on the other with Fletcher playing insde
[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/2625ttf.png[/IMG]

A lot of the time though I saw this. 3 down lineman, 2 inside backers, and Orakpo on the outside standing up.
[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/kc1d0o.png[/IMG]

So maybe I overestimated the use of the 3-4 against the Packers. However they did use it a lot against the Boys in week 1, the Bucs, and the Jags.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

Although I would expect to re-sign Fletcher for another 2 years after his contract's up at the end of the year or bring in a free agent or early draft pick at ILB, still I wonder if anybody believes Rocky and Riley could be our two starting ILBs next year. If I had to pick one position battle outcome that I most want to happen it would be for Riley to beat out Rocky.

Ugh...and to think we could've used that 2007 2nd round pick (37th overall) from the Rocky trade to select John Beck (40th overall) and would probably have a couple Super Bowls by now.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuu. I make an amazingly insightful post and it gets stuck on the last post of the previous page.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;820523]Fuuuuuuuuuuuuu. I make an amazingly insightful post and it gets stuck on the last post of the previous page.[/quote]

Dirt, "amazing insightful post" read, your genius is not in vain. Even read it prior to your Fuuuuuu post at that!

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=freddyg12;820525]Dirt, "amazing insightful post" read, your genius is not in vain. Even read it prior to your Fuuuuuu post at that![/quote]

Thank you. See when I'm king of the world, last post will be reserved for the bottom of the barrel posters. Not the jenius's like me.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

i see 40 posts per page...

Re: Rocky Returns
 

Judging snaps between a 3-4 and 4-3 is unreliable without inside knowledge of the actual play call. For example, there could be a call based on a 3-4 scheme but Rak chooses to put his hand down for disguise. In this case, what is really a 3-4 play call in terms of schematic responsibilities would look from the outside like a 4-3.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

Rocky didnt impress me last season, hopefully hes adjusted to playin the 3-4 defense.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=Lotus;820745]Judging snaps between a 3-4 and 4-3 is unreliable without inside knowledge of the actual play call. For example, there could be a call based on a 3-4 scheme but Rak chooses to put his hand down for disguise. In this case, what is really a 3-4 play call in terms of schematic responsibilities would look from the outside like a 4-3.[/quote]

Using this logic, you can't tell when they are in a 3-4 so maybe the Skins only played a 'Real 3-4" 10% of the time last year and all that talk about switching defensive schemes was a smoke screen...

Maybe this year they will normally be in a 2-6-3 most of the time but will disguise it so well that people watching will think it is a "3-4" just like last year's "3-4 mirage".

Hey, it could happen - - one of these days you might find another talking horse just like Mr. Ed too.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;820766]Using this logic, you can't tell when they are in a 3-4 so maybe the Skins only played a 'Real 3-4" 10% of the time last year and all that talk about switching defensive schemes was a smoke screen...

Maybe this year they will normally be in a 2-6-3 most of the time but will disguise it so well that people watching will think it is a "3-4" just like last year's "3-4 mirage".

Hey, it could happen - - one of these days you might find another talking horse just like Mr. Ed too.[/quote]

You took my words too far. My point was more subtle than you perceived. I wasn't saying that you can NEVER tell a 3-4 from a 4-3, I just said that sometimes looks can be deceiving.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

And if "looks can be deceiving" as YOU said, then when you saw what you thought was a 3-4 may not have been a 3-4 and so your "count" as to the number of thimes the Skins were "REALLY" in a 3-4 is nothing more than a guess. If you assert that I cannot tell a 3-4 from a 4-3 without knowing what was called in the defensive huddle, then neither can you - - unless you are ready to demonstrate your mind reading abilities.

What I said originally - - and what Smootsmack took to a higher level than I had guessed - - was that the Redskins were not always a 3-4 defense last year. Using the "switch to that scheme" provided a couple of convenient "covers" for the coaching staff so that excuse was carried on; but what I saw with my eyes - - and what Smootsmack confirmed - - was that the Skins played a ton of 4-3 fronts too maybe about HALF the time.

Why was it convenient for the Skins to maintain that they had made this momentous change?

[INDENT]1. Well, the players were not "right" for the 3-4 defense so the defensive coaches could not be totally blamed for the horrible showing last year. Sometimes, that is called CYA...

2. How better to explain the continued intransigence of Albert Haynesworth who the coaches and the GM handed a $21M check in April only to find out that he was an uncoachable toad in August? He and the coaches disagreed on "the scheme" and it wasn't that he and the coaches simply could not get along... It would not behoove the coaches to point out that half the time they called exactly the defensive front that Fat Albert preferred to be in - - but he still dogged it. Looking at it that way MIGHT call into question the level of control the coaches had in the locker room and/or their motivational talents.

3. The focus on the "defensive changes" took some of the scrutiny off the fiasco happening on the offensive side of the ball where the coach and the offensive coordinator could not work with the QB that the team traded for in April.[/INDENT]
Those two "trobulemaking" guys are gone now. If there are going to be excuses/diversions this year, new ones will need to be manufactured

So, this year, do you think the Skins will be a 3-4 team for 80% of the defensive snaps? I don't. I think Jim Haslett's defensive concept is to mix up the fronts - - as it has been in other of his stops in the league. The success or failure of the defense will be due to the competency of the players to make the defense work. Haslett is NOT one of the top defensive coordinators in the league but he is not a stumblebum either.

It's the players that matter more... And this year, the only "distraction" for the moment is the question as to whether or not this is the dawning of the John Beck Era or the sunset of Mike Shanahan's reputation as a shrewd judge/developer of QB talent.

Re: Rocky Returns
 

Well I just said 3-4 about 50% of the time, that doesn't mean 4-3 the other 50%

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=SmootSmack;820847]Well I just said 3-4 about 50% of the time, that doesn't mean 4-3 the other 50%[/quote]

You are correct - - and as I mentioned in my original query that got us off on this line of discussion, I saw several other defensive formations during last year that were "not 3-4 fronts".

The point here is that far too many people have simplistically assigned the Redskins' defensive "issues" last year to a "change in the scheme". Well, that change - - the one for which the players were ill-equipped to execute properly - - was only out there about half the time.
[INDENT][B]Aside:[/B] If changing schemes and coordinators is all that bad for players to adjust to, then the Redskins might be a playoff team this year. [B]Nineteen [/B]teams in the NFL have changed at least one of their coordinators; the Redskins have not. If you believe strongly in the "changing coordinators is a tough thing" nonsense, you can get 8-5 in more than one place that the Skins will win 7 games or more.[/INDENT]
Since this thread started out to be about Rocky McIntosh, let me say that the Redskins defensive woes last year should not be hung around the necks of the linebackers any more than any other part of the defense. Of the 3 linebackers who saw the most time last year, Fletcher and Orakpo are more than adequate at their positions and Rocky did not embarrass himself out there on the field.

It would appear that Rocky and his agent severely overestimated the level of interest out in NFL-land for Rocky's services at an elevated salary level. But that fact - - a large factor in his re-signing with the Skins - - should not lead to the conclusion that Rocky is a guy who cannot get out of his own way. He can play in a 3-4 and he can play in a 4-3. He will not be a star in either system but he will be adequate in both. Someone said earlier on here that he is not spectacular but he is solid. Whoever said that is spot-on...

Re: Rocky Returns
 

[quote=That Guy;820742]i see 40 posts per page...[/quote]

me too

Re: Rocky Returns
 

Just make reference to the Madden playbooks.