Problems with the Defense, IMHO

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I see. So with the score tied, and 5:41 left to play in the game, it doesn't speak poorly of the defense when they allowed an 11-play drive, using up all but one minute and twelve seconds, and giving up the game winning points?

You'll have to explain that one to me.

Just so this is clear, you are going to analyze how well a defense played based on one drive? Okay, well I'm just going to have to differ with you. Perhaps I was watching another game but it was our offense that lost the game, not the defense.

Oh yeah, by the way, our defense scored more points than our offense.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

Just so this is clear, you are going to analyze how well a defense played based on one drive? Okay, well I'm just going to have to differ with you. Perhaps I was watching another game but it was our offense that lost the game, not the defense.

Oh yeah, by the way, our defense scored more points than our offense. Point, set, match.

No, there were other drives one can point to that disproves the Redskin defense 'stood strong' at the end of the game -- for instance, the 87 yard drive at the start of the fourth quarter which began at Oakland's 6 yard line. That drive led to the tying score. Lots of Warpathers conveniently remember only the goal line stand, but the Raiders didn't need a touchdown to win the game. All they needed was a field goal. Pin the blame on whoever you want, Ramseyfan. The fact is, when the Redskins were ahead, the defense allowed 13 points and crumbled -- just like they did last week against Tampa Bay.

You seem to associate my criticism of the defense with excuses for the offense. I've made no such excuses. I just haven't started in with the offense yet.

[sniks]

when 100 yd games are the measuring stick in the nfl thats not too bad.Enough to keep the defense honest if you had a passing game.

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by sniks

when 100 yd games are the measuring stick in the nfl thats not too bad.Enough to keep the defense honest if you had a passing game.

In my opinion, every fumble negates about 50 yards of production. Therefore, Portis is -5 yards today in my eyes. I mean ussually the guy is VERY good about keeping the ball protected and what not, but he was way off today.

[SouperMeister]

Games are won with points, not yardage. Don't look at turnovers as lost production yardage-wise, but instead, focus on field position, points produced off turnovers, and scoring opportunities lost by turnovers in or near the red-zone. Portis' first fumble led directly to Oakland's first field goal. His second fumble was on a first down at the Oakland 30, negating at least a very good opportunity at a FG. Oakland eventually punted after the 2nd fumble, pinning the Skins at their own 10. At a minimum, the two fumbles ended up being a 6 point swing on the scoreboard, and that's the difference of the game. The hidden story of this team's collapse is less about the defense and more about losing the turnover battle every week.

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

In my opinion, every fumble negates about 50 yards of production. Therefore, Portis is -5 yards today in my eyes. I mean ussually the guy is VERY good about keeping the ball protected and what not, but he was way off today.

[sniks]

Not sure about the -50 yds but i did say his fumbles hurt us.Bottom line no tds today and a very weak passing game that is not likely to improve anytime soon.

[sniks]

Why is everybody ripping the def. this week there the only ones who scored a td for us this week.More than our pitiful offense scored.

[MTK]

While the D did give up some plays here and there, today was clearly on the offense.

6 points ain't gonna get it done.

[MTK]

Cooley seemed to be the only one that made any noise today... he had 5-74.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I have got to believe that we just need another wideout and defensive end for our team to be "complete." Our defense would be much better with a pass rush from the front four (something we haven't had in a decade). Our offense would be much better. I really think that we are just a couple holes away from a top notch team.

In hindsight, it would have been great to have signed Burress this past offseason. Without him, I can't see the G-men being nearly as good and I see us with another win or two.

[MTK]

A new defensive line would be nice. And of course a healthy Griffin.

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

A new defensive line would be nice. And of course a healthy Griffin.

I really think our defensive tackles would be set with Griffin in there. Griffin is a great 1 and Salave'a is a solid, solid guy. Our ends are what really needs to genterate the rush, and they arent at all.

[SmootSmack]

I wonder if part of the problem isn't due to Greg Blache's philosophy that sacks aren't as important as batted passes and taking away passing lanes.

Actual quotes from Greg Blache:

"The thing you have to understand is there is much more to playing defense than just getting sacks," Blache said Wednesday. "Here [in Washington], we talk about disruptions – batted balls, altered passes, try to get your hands in a quarterback's throwing lanes to make him adjust the ball."

"If a sack was really important, it would factor into the quarterback rating," Blache explained. "Incomplete passes affect his rating, interceptions affect his rating, but not sacks."

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I wonder if part of the problem isn't due to Greg Blache's philosophy that sacks aren't as important as batted passes and taking away passing lanes.

Actual quotes from Greg Blache:

"The thing you have to understand is there is much more to playing defense than just getting sacks," Blache said Wednesday. "Here [in Washington], we talk about disruptions – batted balls, altered passes, try to get your hands in a quarterback's throwing lanes to make him adjust the ball."

"If a sack was really important, it would factor into the quarterback rating," Blache explained. "Incomplete passes affect his rating, interceptions affect his rating, but not sacks."

Oh, brother. The defensive line coach making excuses for the pass rush. That's just great. It would be different if the linemen were coming close to sacks, creating havoc, and disrupting the quarterback's pacing. But they're not even coming close! There is no pressure. Kerry Collins and Chris Simms the week before had ample time to choose their receivers, get set in perfect throwing motions and make pinpoint deliveries. The bottom line is, opposing passers have generally been able to pick the secondary apart, making key passes yesterday late in the game to tie and then later take the lead.

Sure, they talk about disruptions, but when was the last time you saw a defensive lineman bat down a pass? I can't find stats for QB ratings against the Redskins this year. But Collins was 19 for 36, equalling just over a 50% completion rate -- but remember, several of those were drops by Lamont Jordan and Zack Crockett, and that's what Greg Blache's little cop out doesn't tell you. Sure, the quarterback's rating might be down, but how much of that is attributed to receivers dropping the ball? He finished with 289 yards with one TD and one pick -- and let's be honest, that hasn't happened much either, this defense getting a turnover. Chris Simms was even better.

Mr. Blache, spare us. Pressuring the quarterback is a key facet of any defense. Nobody expects 5 sacks a game. But one sack from the starting defensive ends after 10 games ?!? Don't tell me that's just part of the system. Please, stop talking about disruptions, and coach your players to start making them.

[MTK]

I love big Joe but I think he's more effective in a rotation coming in as the 3rd DT.

The d-line needs a serious overhaul.