Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;941738]Here's something though: were the DBs just losing personal battles? It really didn't look like it to me.[/quote]

IMO the DB's looked worse than they were because the front 7 did not win their personal battles.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=cultbrennan59;941831]how bad is our secondary?

Bad enough to make a thread for it apparently..[/quote]
~~~~~~~~
haha!

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=44 goes 50 gut;941609]Third round picks are not usually penciled in as day one starters.[/quote]

No, but when you say usually I am assuming that means a team that has solid depth. Also maybe not a starter, but still getting playing time as a safety or corner. That Lerib pick has baffled the hell out of me since we made it.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=warriorzpath;941850]The poor defensive showing is all on Haslett.[/quote]

Exactly. The Giants had a piss poor secondary ravaged by injuries last year and won a superbowl.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

Not all picks are going to contribute right off the bat. We could just as easily have a 3rd round rookie RT or DB riding the pine too. A guy like LeRibeus is one injury away from being an important player.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=punch it in;941882]Exactly. The Giants had a piss poor secondary ravaged by injuries last year and won a superbowl.[/quote]

Speaking of which, did you see Justin Tryon get embarrasingly beaten for a TD again yesterday? Last week Miles Austin, this week Mike Williams...

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=takethecake;941885]Speaking of which, did you see Justin Tryon get embarrasingly beaten for a TD again yesterday? Last week Miles Austin, this week Mike Williams...[/quote]

Yeah, he is in there as a third stringer. Thats my point though is that one of our cast offs is starting for them and they still manage to win. Because unlike Haslett they are able to adjust and scheme with who they have and somehow make it work - it surely isnt because of the talent (Tryon?!?) I totally blame Haslett.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=44 goes 50 gut;941661]Conclusion: Three years isn't enough time or draft picks to address every area of the team. I conclude this because it's right there in black in white. Point out the starters they should have drafted and then pick who you subtract from the team to draft him.

They have had literally NO chance to use a high pick on a top DB without sacrificing an IMPACT player in other areas that were even less stocked with talent than the secondary was.



The previous administration left them with a big contract (Hall), two low character guys coming into their first free agency with talent but also with clear undeniable issues and zero depth.[/quote]

Great post, I completely agree. Another thing to point out is that St Louis did their homework before this game. They knew that if they played a dropback passing game like Brees did last week their patchwork o-line would get destroyed by our pass rush, so they smartly based their offense around 3-step drops. Of course, the fact that we used a soft zone 10 yards off their receivers didn't help either, but basically, St Louis made our secondary look worse by gameplanning to nullify our defensive strengths and exploit our weaknesses.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=Mattyk;941883]Not all picks are going to contribute right off the bat. We could just as easily have a 3rd round rookie RT or DB riding the pine too. A guy like LeRibeus is one injury away from being an important player.[/quote]

Yeah I am somewhat being a monday morning GM - but even during the draft I was thinking corner, safety, or RT. LeRibeus wasnt really on anybodies board at that time I dont think. I will accept Alfred Morris as a makeup pick though...........:)

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[I]Our secondary is our weakest link on the whole team at the moment, and it'll need to be addressed in the offseason, but as of now our front 7 could of covered our poor secondary play I thought IF Haslett played man up and put lots of pressure on teams, but the soft zone yesterday hoping for big INT's he had going yesterday is just going to make us look even worse every game here on out.[/I]

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;941621]it's one of the worst in the league, Hall is really the only decent player we have. Wilson always gets beat[/quote]

:nono:

U guys hate on hall way too much. He's not champ Bailey but He's not a scrub either

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;941921]U guys hate on hall way too much. He's not champ Bailey but He's not a scrub either[/quote]

Wilson is pretty good as well. C. Griff is the weak link here. Crawford might grow to be pretty reliable as well. It'll be interesting to see Meriweather in action when he comes back. Gomes has been holding down safety really well though.

[QUOTE=DynamiteRave;941922]Wilson is pretty good as well. C. Griff is the weak link here. Crawford might grow to be pretty reliable as well. It'll be interesting to see Meriweather in action when he comes back. Gomes has been holding down safety really well though.[/QUOTE]

Wilson is OK yes but it seems like he's behind his guy more than hall IMO. But of course our whole secondary is really shaky

Also speaking of secondary, I know I've always talked about Reed and how bad he is but yesterday he was the first player on the field warning up and one of the last one off.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

I will say this about Hall: look at his interview on Redskins.com -- he made no excuses, did not blame the refs for the outcome, or anything. He gave props to the Rams for playing hard and he basically said the team has to be better. No whining. No pouting. Just matter-of-fact responses.

And that is what I would want to see from our players (along with better defense on the field).

I expect a better and more polished effort next Sunday, even if the holes left by the Rams game are hard to fill.

[QUOTE=skinsfaninok;941921]U guys hate on hall way too much. He's not champ Bailey but He's not a scrub either[/QUOTE]

Im not calling him a scrub. Just that your post about wislon always getting beat and hall bein good seemed almost sarcastic.

[QUOTE=skinsfaninok;941927]Also speaking of secondary, I know I've always talked about Reed and how bad he is but yesterday he was the first player on the field warning up and one of the last one off.[/QUOTE]

Now can we talk about how bad he is again? Lol

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;941925]Wilson is OK yes but it seems like he's behind his guy more than hall IMO. But of course our whole secondary is really shaky[/quote]

Okie, I respectfully disagree. I consider Josh Wilson to be a serious baller. Every corner gets beat sometimes but for the most part Wilson is rock solid IMO.

BTW, you jinxed us by going to the game. :) I hope you had a good time anyway.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;941921]U guys hate on hall way too much. He's not champ Bailey but He's not a scrub either[/quote]

The thing about Hall though is he's a classic Jekyl and Hyde. One series he'll be Darrell Revis the next he'll be Laron Landry (the cover guy). I think if theres one thing we all can agree on it's that he's not consistent.

[quote=calia;941928]I will say this about Hall: look at his interview on Redskins.com -- he made no excuses, did not blame the refs for the outcome, or anything. He gave props to the Rams for playing hard and he basically said the team has to be better. No whining. No pouting. Just matter-of-fact responses.

And that is what I would want to see from our players (along with better defense on the field).

I expect a better and more polished effort next Sunday, even if the holes left by the Rams game are hard to fill.[/quote]

That surprises me but it's a pleasant surprise. Seems like he's matured as a leader.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

I'm a pretty firm believer that an excellent pass rush can hide even the worst of secondaries, and I think what did us in yesterday was an excellent game plan on the 'Rams side combined with a lack of pass rush on our side. Their game plan was to get the ball out as quick as possible, and it seemed they were prepared for our zone coverages. Bradford never held the ball for long, and even when he did we didn't have a good enough pass rush to make it affect his throws. With Rak and Carriker now out for the season we really need to come up with an effective way to get a pass rush, whether it be unconventional blitzes or whatever, otherwise it will be a long season. If we can't get a rush on the other side of Kerrigan they will be able to double team him for the rest of the season and it will effectively neutralize our pass rush. It seems it's time for Has' to earn his money at d-coordinator, and I'm not terribly enthused given his lack of adjustments in the past.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=Chico23231;941606]Well you took a Center/Guard with your 3rd round pick who has been inactive the first 2 games of the season when we desperately needed a Right Tackle, Cornerback or Safety.

Should we just expect a complete zero from McRib, an early third round pick, this year? I cant get over the logic of that poor move.[/quote]

Drafting purely based on need is the best way to assemble a roster full of players that can't play. If they liked a CB or Safety best when their pick came up they would have drafted them. For the first time in a long time I trust the people making these decisions.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=celts32;942078]Drafting purely based on need is the best way to assemble a roster full of players that can't play. If they liked a CB or Safety best when their pick came up they would have drafted them. For the first time in a long time I trust the people making these decisions.[/quote]

Yeah I agree but its a still a balance, you take several needs and look at best play available. I dont think there was a great disparity McRib and others available at Tackle, CB, & Safety. Interesting in the preseason Gettis was chosen to get the start over McRib for Chester at Guard. Shanny likes versatility among with linemen, but why was that? There is nothing set in stone stating Gettis has to back up Chester. Gettis, a sixth round pick, was ahead of McRib and more nfl ready. Hey were building depth which is great, but there has been a SERIOUS lack of a plan at RT, Safety and Corner. I think Bruce and Shanny have made mistakes. To rely on Jamal Brown who has never been healthy with us or an undraft FA with Willie Smith is negligent. To let Carlos go and be a probowler with our issues at corner is negligent. M Williams and Merriweather are not long term answers at Safety, Atogwe was a similar type of pick up the year before. Its not fair im putting this on McRib, but more or less im making a point of its not hard to see why we have continous struggles at the same positions.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=mooby;941969]I'm a pretty firm believer that an excellent pass rush can hide even the worst of secondaries, and I think what did us in yesterday was an excellent game plan on the 'Rams side combined with a lack of pass rush on our side. Their game plan was to get the ball out as quick as possible, and it seemed they were prepared for our zone coverages. Bradford never held the ball for long, and even when he did we didn't have a good enough pass rush to make it affect his throws. With Rak and Carriker now out for the season we really need to come up with an effective way to get a pass rush, whether it be unconventional blitzes or whatever, otherwise it will be a long season. If we can't get a rush on the other side of Kerrigan they will be able to double team him for the rest of the season and it will effectively neutralize our pass rush. It seems it's time for Has' to earn his money at d-coordinator, and I'm not terribly enthused given his lack of adjustments in the past.[/quote]


The problem with the getting a pass rush right now is that the holding penalty goes unnoticed more with the substitute referees. Their backup offensive lineman looked liked pro bowlers on sunday.

I think that we knew going into the game that they would fear our pass rush and would focus on the short pass to move the ball -- which makes it even MORE mind boggling to me that the plan was to play a soft zone coverage as if we were afraid of getting beat deep. I wanted to see our DBs pressing more often in man coverage. ESPECIALLY after amendola's 5th or 6th catch in the first quarter.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

Our secondary is as good or bad as the gameplan and our pass rush allow them to be.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

hopefully we can come to terms w doug dutch. he's a deep sleeper to get the most defense ball gamer for pass throws in english

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=Lotus;941948]Okie, I respectfully disagree. I consider Josh Wilson to be a serious baller. Every corner gets beat sometimes but for the most part Wilson is rock solid IMO.

BTW, you jinxed us by going to the game. :) I hope you had a good time anyway.[/quote]

Wilson is a solid #2 and borderline #1 corner IMO. His smallish size probably holds him back more than anything. His instincts and skill level are, as you point out, pretty darn solid.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=mooby;941969]I'm a pretty firm believer that an excellent pass rush can hide even the worst of secondaries, and I think what did us in yesterday was an excellent game plan on the 'Rams side combined with a lack of pass rush on our side. Their game plan was to get the ball out as quick as possible, and it seemed they were prepared for our zone coverages. Bradford never held the ball for long, and even when he did we didn't have a good enough pass rush to make it affect his throws. With Rak and Carriker now out for the season we really need to come up with an effective way to get a pass rush, whether it be unconventional blitzes or whatever, otherwise it will be a long season. If we can't get a rush on the other side of Kerrigan they will be able to double team him for the rest of the season and it will effectively neutralize our pass rush. It seems it's time for Has' to earn his money at d-coordinator, and I'm not terribly enthused given his lack of adjustments in the past.[/quote]

They never affected his timing, pushed the pocket in, or changed his throwing lanes. He was way too comfortable all game. I think that was the reason they didn't switch to man, we would have got beaten over the top.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=Evilgrin;942153]They never affected his timing, pushed the pocket in, or changed his throwing lanes. He was way too comfortable all game. I think that was the reason they didn't switch to man, we would have got beaten over the top.[/quote]

Possibly, but by staying in zone with no pass rush they were still able to effectively move the ball at will.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

One thing of note that I believe needs to be considered: This is basically a new secondary and it's going to take some time for them to gel. We have two new starting safties and Hall is now playing the slot in nickel situations. I don't think they're as bad as they looked on Sunday, but I have a feeling we'll struggle all season against the small speedy receivers unless we start to generate pressure consistently.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

Barnes is available now

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;942211]Barnes is available now[/quote]

So do we still get our pick from the Loins? Was the deal simply contingent on his being on their week 1 roster?

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

^ No.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

I think the secondary can be good if they utilize matchups properly, and play more physical. Playing zone defense, by it's nature, is passive, whereas press-man is aggressive and physical. Getting beat deep is the major problem with press, which is why keeping the safeties back is paramount without shut-down corners.

What I like about C.Griffin is he is a big, physical corner. He matches up well against the big, physical receivers on their schedule like Green, Little, Nicks, Bryant, and Jones among others. Of course, he will need safety help deep as he can't stay with elite receivers, but he can physically handle them on the line. Disrupting patterns and throwing off timing are huge advantages for a defense.

I think Hall in the slot is good as he is able to make plays from there, and isn't tasked with covering #1's. Playing him near the line allows him to blitz or cover running backs when no slot is in.

Wilson is a good matchup for most receivers, except the physical ones, and is as close to a shut down corner as the team has. Why wasn't he on Amendola the whole game is mystifying. Crawford looks like he will be decent in the future, and should see more playing time as the season progresses.

Between Gomes and Meriweather, strong safety looks decent as either can play the run or pass effectively.

Free Safety is a weakness with Williams, but playing a press-man should not allow the free release that gives the offensive player an advantage. I think Williams would be better covering half the field in a cover 2 than playing centerfield. Free safety might be a high priority next year.

The secondary has issues for sure, but I think the coordinators could use them more effectively to achieve better results.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

^ Fantastic post jdc65. I've been wondering if Haslett and Morris both agreed on the ultra soft coverage we saw against STL? Or if Morris would have played it tight man coverage more like the NO game, and Haslett overruled him?

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=The Goat;942269]^ Fantastic post jdc65. I've been wondering if Haslett and Morris both agreed on the ultra soft coverage we saw against STL? Or if Morris would have played it tight man coverage more like the NO game, and Haslett overruled him?[/quote]

The Redskins played soft coverage towards the end of the NO games, and it looked like it carried over to the Rams game.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

[quote=Ruhskins;942271]The Redskins played soft coverage towards the end of the NO games, and it looked like it carried over to the Rams game.[/quote]

I forgot that. What the deuce? Why go away from what's working?

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

Wilson would be a #1 on most teams in the NFL that don't have pure studs. Revis, Bailey, etc..

Man could you Imagine if we had Bailey, Rogers, Hall, Taylor, Landry.. lol

Oh how times change.

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

effing terrible

/thread

Re: How bad is our secondary?
 

We will have to wait until the off-season for this to change obviously but an idea of Where to start Could be sign aqib talib and draft tyrann mathieu to be our ss if he declares which I suspect he will.