Doc Walker One-on-One Interview with Vinny Cerrato

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Improving the offense would also have the affect of improving the offense.

Obviously, but my point was one offensive player (RT) isn't going to instantly make the offense more potent but that additional player on defense can help in creating turnovers, improving field position and putting points on the board. A right tackle's not going to do that.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Obviously, but my point was one offensive player (RT) isn't going to instantly make the offense more potent but that additional player on defense can help in creating turnovers, improving field position and putting points on the board. A right tackle's not going to do that.

I think that Haynesworth was the big free agent, so they signed him. Now everybody is turning him into an offensive threat because everybody knows that the offense was the problem last year. When offense is the problem you should try to fix the offense. Don't sign a defensive tackle, because he's the big splashy name and then tell me it's going to cure the offensive woes as well.

If we don't get better in the passing game, none of these other things will matter. The Redskins whole future is dependent on the emergence of Thomas, Kelly, and/or Davis as positive factors. No one can say how that turns out, so there is nothing to discuss, so we start inventing arguments. Defense is not the problem. The offensive line is not the problem (you don't like our O-LIne? Take a look at Arizona's and they went to the big game. Their LT had three holding calls and they still might have won) THE RECEIVERS and to a lesser extent the QB IS THE PROBLEM.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think that Haynesworth was the big free agent, so they signed him. Now everybody is turning him into an offensive threat because everybody knows that the offense was the problem last year. When offense is the problem you should try to fix the offense. Don't sign a defensive tackle, because he's the big splashy name and then tell me it's going to cure the offensive woes as well.

If we don't get better in the passing game, none of these other things will matter. The Redskins whole future is dependent on the emergence of Thomas, Kelly, and/or Davis as positive factors. No one can say how that turns out, so there is nothing to discuss, so we start inventing arguments. Defense is not the problem. The offensive line is not the problem (you don't like our O-LIne? Take a look at Arizona's and they went to the big game. Their LT had three holding calls and they still might have won) THE RECEIVERS and to a lesser extent the QB IS THE PROBLEM.

Arizona had a good line compared to ours (I'm sure it's a younger line). I mean how else do you protect a statue like Warner? Plus, AZ's receiving corps is 10 times better than ours (no comparison). Their run block sucked, but their passing game made up for that deficiency.

I do agree that the offensive line must be dealt with, but let's not forget that adding Dockery was huge. I don't think there was a great offensive lineman out there in free agency (other than Jordan Gross and Jason Brown), but Dock was a big improvement. I do hope they address the offensive line in the draft, but as I said before, the guys that are currently there need to step it up as well.

I thin everyone expects the rookies to develop and contribute, and for JC to improve from last year as well. I think improving the offensive line will help, but you're right there has to be improvements in the passing game as well. I don't mind the Redskins improving their defense, other teams are improving areas where their strength lies (i.e. Giants and their 20-deep defensive line). While we had a good defense last year, it wasn't an elite defense like Baltimore's or Pittsburgh's.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Arizona had a good line compared to ours (I'm sure it's a younger line). I mean how else do you protect a statue like Warner? Plus, AZ's receiving corps is 10 times better than ours (no comparison). Their run block sucked, but their passing game made up for that deficiency.

Arizona's passing game works because of their QB and Receivers and in spite of a line that is in no respect superior to the Redskins. Warner is a statue. A statue that get's rid of the ball quickly.

Of course the Redskins would be better if Campbell had 5 seconds to throw every time, but there is not a QB in the leauge that gets that kind of protection anymore. You have to unload it because no matter who the Redskins have up front, the pressure is coming. It's the nature of the game today.

[SC Skins Fan]

Given the discussion of Mayo I went searching for info on him from last year and found this little gem.

Titans Select RB Chris Johnson With The 24th Pick - ESPN Video - ESPN

You'd think he was talking about Darren McFadden, except...

Raiders Select RB Darren McFadden With The Fourth Pick - ESPN Video - ESPN

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Arizona's passing game works because of their QB and Receivers and in spite of a line that is in no respect superior to the Redskins. Warner is a statue. A statue that get's rid of the ball quickly.

Of course the Redskins would be better if Campbell had 5 seconds to throw every time, but there is not a QB in the leauge that gets that kind of protection anymore. You have to unload it because no matter who the Redskins have up front, the pressure is coming. It's the nature of the game today.

Theres another thread where we can talk about Campbell and i think he's been discussed to death. For 2009, he is our quarterback. With that established, it makes more sense to look at what we can do to this team to be more successful with him as our QB.

Our defense was good last year, but it wasnt dominant. didnt create many turnovers or score many (if any) points on defense. Our offense was by far the weaker unit, but our defense rarely gave our offense the ball with a short field. As a result, the pressure was always on the offense.

If we can add a stud pass rusher to our already upgraded defense, we're going to have mroe sacks, more pressures and more turnovers. The pressure will be taken off the offense. Campbell will have more opporunities to throw the ball in the red zone and now he'll have atleast TWO large targets in Cooley and Davis. If either Davis or Kelly steps up, then we can become a legitimate redzone threat. Worst case scenario, we get a field goal or two a game that we wouldnt have otherwise. Last year, we lost alot of games by that much.

More than anything else, adding an elite pass-rusher will ensure that doesnt happen again this year.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Obviously, but my point was one offensive player (RT) isn't going to instantly make the offense more potent but that additional player on defense can help in creating turnovers, improving field position and putting points on the board. A right tackle's not going to do that.

True but it might make a difference for us not 3 and outing.. or getting to the 50 and having to punt... or in scoring position, being driven back out of FG range, etc

the offense still has to take advantage of the situation given

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

True but it might make a difference for us not 3 and outing.. or getting to the 50 and having to punt... or in scoring position, being driven back out of FG range, etc

the offense still has to take advantage of the situation given

I agree with this. Against Pittsburgh, for example, our defense forced two TOs early on which gave the offense the ball at or inside the 50. What did the offense do? They had to settle for FGs. I don't care how dominant a defense is, you need an offense that is capable of scoring more than 10 points. After the midway point of the season 10 points a game was about all our offense could muster.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I agree with this. Against Pittsburgh, for example, our defense forced two TOs early on which gave the offense the ball at or inside the 50. What did the offense do? They had to settle for FGs. I don't care how dominant a defense is, you need an offense that is capable of scoring more than 10 points. After the midway point of the season 10 points a game was about all our offense could muster.

F that was frustrating. I mean it's easy to get excited about our defense going into this season and forget about what the big problem was last year.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I agree with this. Against Pittsburgh, for example, our defense forced two TOs early on which gave the offense the ball at or inside the 50. What did the offense do? They had to settle for FGs. I don't care how dominant a defense is, you need an offense that is capable of scoring more than 10 points. After the midway point of the season 10 points a game was about all our offense could muster.

Truth is though, if not for that blocked punt (a unit that sucked all year), we probably win or are at least in the game in the second half.

BHA pointed this out in another thread, but the general lethargy of the offense in the first quarter when game strategy is fairly neutral was terrible all season long. We always performed better later in the game than we did earlier in it, but whereas a healthy offensive unit led comebacks against New Orleans and Philadelphia (two very good teams), they failed to come back against the St. Louis', Pittsburgh's, Baltimore's, and Cincinnati's of the world.

There was a pretty clear line between the aptitude of this team in the second half of games drawn in the sand between Weeks 5 & 6, and then again between Weeks 14 & 15. What two events occurred during those two weeks?

1) In Week 5, Chris Samuels hurt his knee and was less effective from that point out the rest of the year.

2) In Week 14, Samuels tore his labrum and missed the rest of the year.

The season-long issue with sustaining offense was a receivers issue. But the ability that the team had early on in the year to put teams away and not turn the ball over appeared to be a line-based issue. As the line decline, those dominant fourth quarters turned to mediocre performances in losing efforts as we chased points against the best defenses in the league.

Bottom line: If we want a great offense, we need to rebuild the OL and have the Receivers develop. If we want to win close games, simply one or the other will suffice.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Truth is though, if not for that blocked punt (a unit that sucked all year), we probably win or are at least in the game in the second half.

BHA pointed this out in another thread, but the general lethargy of the offense in the first quarter when game strategy is fairly neutral was terrible all season long. We always performed better later in the game than we did earlier in it, but whereas a healthy offensive unit led comebacks against New Orleans and Philadelphia (two very good teams), they failed to come back against the St. Louis', Pittsburgh's, Baltimore's, and Cincinnati's of the world.

There was a pretty clear line between the aptitude of this team in the second half of games drawn in the sand between Weeks 5 & 6, and then again between Weeks 14 & 15. What two events occurred during those two weeks?

1) In Week 5, Chris Samuels hurt his knee and was less effective from that point out the rest of the year.

2) In Week 14, Samuels tore his labrum and missed the rest of the year.

The season-long issue with sustaining offense was a receivers issue. But the ability that the team had early on in the year to put teams away and not turn the ball over appeared to be a line-based issue. As the line decline, those dominant fourth quarters turned to mediocre performances in losing efforts as we chased points against the best defenses in the league.

Bottom line: If we want a great offense, we need to rebuild the OL and have the Receivers develop. If we want to win close games, simply one or the other will suffice.

It's hard to disagree with this. We definitely need to get younger up front. I just sense that too many people are in denial about the dismal state of our receiving corps. It's just as easy to assume everything will magically improve on the line as it is with the receivers which is what I hear. "I'm sure Thomas and Kelly will come around." Really? Why on earth do you think that? I'd rather put my money on Jansen being the Comeback Kid than on those two doing anything. You can't just chalk everything up to the fact that the offensive line is less than All-Universe. Not you, but a lot of people in here.

It's like a baseball team that averages less than 1 run a game and then blames the pitching because they only have 1 Cy Young candidate instead of 4.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

It's hard to disagree with this. We definitely need to get younger up front. I just sense that too many people are in denial about the dismal state of our receiving corps. It's just as easy to assume everything will magically improve on the line as it is with the receivers which is what I hear. "I'm sure Thomas and Kelly will come around." Really? Why on earth do you think that? I'd rather put my money on Jansen being the Comeback Kid than on those two doing anything. You can't just chalk everything up to the fact that the offensive line is less than All-Universe. Not you, but a lot of people in here.

It's like a baseball team that averages less than 1 run a game and then blames the pitching because they only have 1 Cy Young candidate instead of 4.

The other thing is that the defense is at fault as well. They don't give up points often, but if you allow the other team to control the ball and chew up clock (which unquestionably happened), well then you are going to be responsible for the limited amount of points your team scores. One defensive TD all year? For real?

In general, the receivers, the OL, and the defense (specifically, the outside linebackers and the play-calling, not so much the DL now) have vast room for improvement.

And, I don't disagree for you that it's not a foregone conclusion that the next great receiving tandem of the Skins is in house. But Davis looks good, and in Kelly's case, what we have is a lack of information, not necessarily negative feedback.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The other thing is that the defense is at fault as well. They don't give up points often, but if you allow the other team to control the ball and chew up clock (which unquestionably happened), well then you are going to be responsible for the limited amount of points your team scores. One defensive TD all year? For real?

In general, the receivers, the OL, and the defense (specifically, the outside linebackers and the play-calling, not so much the DL now) have vast room for improvement.

And, I don't disagree for you that it's not a foregone conclusion that the next great receiving tandem of the Skins is in house. But Davis looks good, and in Kelly's case, what we have is a lack of information, not necessarily negative feedback.

I'm sure Greg Blache would be the first to say he wants more turnovers and points off turnovers and to generally create more chaos and general disarray. In a way, the fact that they DIDNT do much if any of that makes their defensive ranking even MORE impressive. I don't mind people criticizing the defense in areas where they need improvement. You can always improve.

I think what bothers me is that they make these arguments as a way of explaining our offensive ineptitude. If I was a member of the Redskins defense and I heard people saying, "Well, too bad the offense didn't get a little more help from the defense - we might have done something", I wouldn't know whether to laugh or to cry. Any criticism of the defense should be kept seperate from the problems our offense faces RIGHT NOW because those problems are far more serious and deeply entrenched than the defensive ones. Once Zorn gets same of his basic issues sorted out, then I would be willing to entertain an analysis of field position and turnover ratio and so forth. We have to be able to move the ball before we start going there.