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.

[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.

[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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

You're right. The defense made some big mistakes, particularly in terms of pass defense. I just feel the offense was even worse than the defense. Sorry about misinterpreting your posts. I thought you were ignoring the offense's poor performance.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

You're right. The defense made some big mistakes, particularly in terms of pass defense. I just feel the offense was even worse than the defense. Sorry about misinterpreting your posts. I thought you were ignoring the offense's poor performance.

I agree, outside of the Giants game, this was the offense's worst performance. What's disturbing is that this was at home, against a ho-hum Raider defense. The turnover factor is starting to sound like a broken record, but I'll keep playing it -- a minus 3 ratio every game will turn you into a bad team very quick, and it truly is a wonder how this team was ever 3-0 losing the turnover battle early on.

To me, Brunell appeared to have adequate time to throw the ball, but receivers, particularly Jacobs, were simply not getting open. And I don't know what happened to Santana Moss. Towards the end, Gibbs kept calling fly patterns to Jacobs when you'd think they'd be going to Moss who's been money since week one. So I don't know what the problem was there. Cooley was quiet too.

It also appeared that Gibbs gave up on running the ball. With a slim lead heading into the fourth quarter, the last person you'd think would give up on the run is Joe Gibbs, but he did. That took a crucial element of Gibbs' passing attack, the play-action, completely out of the game.

The way I see it, either one of two things happened today. Gibbs' playcalling, Brunell's passing, Portis' fumbles and receivers not getting open account for "just one of those days," or, and I hope this isn't the case -- someone has cracked what has so far been a troubling offensive puzzle: Contain Clinton Portis, do your best to shut down Santana Moss, wait for the fumbles, and you can beat the Washington Redskins.

[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."

[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.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

There are two problems for this year: first, except for Griffin our d-line is mediocre. Second, and this is scary to deal with, it looks like our entire defense could only be slightly above mediocre as well. We all knew, or at least suspected that this might be the case before the beginning of last season, but seemed to forget it after our defense so severely overachieved. Drunk on our own success, every last person on this board - and I absolutely include myself in this - forgot that we are a defensive of relatively pedestrian talent - at least on paper. Moreover, we all forgot that our defense had played above its abilities, remarkably, for an entire season, and would have to continue to overachieve to maintain that level of success. We all praised the genius of Greg Williams, deservedly so, and took it for granted that with Lavar back 21 points a game from the offense this year would get us 14-2.

The key to all of this was the exotic blitz packages that no one could seem to find an answer for. That, and smart linebacker play (led by Pierce) to check the run. We could get to the qb and force a rushed throw on third and long. This disguised the weakness of our front four as well as our relatively mediocre coverage skills, particularly with our second and nickel CB's. Now that teams have learned how to effectively parry any blitz we bring (seemingly 100 percent of the time) it is becoming clear that we don't have the coverage skills downfield to effectively defend the pass. Which brings me back to my first point, that our defensive line is lacking. Until we can count on the guys up front to consistently generating pressure ala Carolina, we are going to continue to get burned.

I know someone will argue that we played well defensively today; that we only gave up 16 points and stood strong at the end of the game. And that's true. But this is the third straight game where our defense had the whole field to stop our opponent with the game on the line and couldn't do it (I'm counting the end of the Eagles game because of the ease with which they got in scoring position, even though we stopped them in the redzone). I'm not trying to beat up on our defense. I love their heart and character, and admire the success they have had as a unit. I'm just suggesting that maybe we need to reevaluate how good we really are.

Sorry this was so long but these last two games have caused alot of emotion to build up inside and this is the best way I can think of to vent (I tried punching my coffee table but that didn't work).

Fantastic post.

I agree 110%.

[offiss]

I don't know how we can really blame our defense, they scored our only TD of the game, [ and outscored our offence for the game ] and held the Raiders to 16 points, we turned the ball over 2 times, they kept the Raiders to a field goal on first and goal at the 1, and did force a TO on that goal line stand which obviously we didn't get, our defense outplayed our offense today without a doubt, when's the last time our offense bailed out our defense? Yet our defense is alway's looked upon to bail out our offense, and when they fail it's their fault not the inability of our offense to seal a game with a first down, or score a TD, do they have their faults on defense? Yes! but they are not nearly the problem our offense is!

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by offiss

I don't know how we can really blame our defense, they scored our only TD of the game, [ and outscored our offence for the game ] and held the Raiders to 16 points, we turned the ball over 2 times, they kept the Raiders to a field goal on first and goal at the 1, and did force a TO on that goal line stand which obviously we didn't get, our defense outplayed our offense today without a doubt, when's the last time our offense bailed out our defense? Yet our defense is alway's looked upon to bail out our offense, and when they fail it's their fault not the inability of our offense to seal a game with a first down, or score a TD, do they have their faults on defense? Yes! but they are not nearly the problem our offense is!

Not to add fuel to the fire, but did you watch last weeks game against Tampa? Our offense did put up 35 points, and our D gave up 36 points. Even our D players said something to the effect, "It's our worst game, so much worse because our offense gave us 35 points," Clark said of the secondary. So that is why people are blaming our D, hell they even blame themselves. I agree that we need to step up on both sides of the ball, but after last years D performance so many were hoping for a repeat and not realizing that we were hurting this bad on our front 4.

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

Not to add fuel to the fire, but did you watch last weeks game against Tampa? Our offense did put up 35 points, and our D gave up 36 points. Even our D players said something to the effect, "It's our worst game, so much worse because our offense gave us 35 points," Clark said of the secondary. So that is why people are blaming our D, hell they even blame themselves. I agree that we need to step up on both sides of the ball, but after last years D performance so many were hoping for a repeat and not realizing that we were hurting this bad on our front 4.

But that was last week. I'm with offiss on this one. Every week its a different unit, player or person, which freaking sucks. This week it was the offenseive unit, last week it was the defensive unit. This team can not put a complete game together for the life of them.