Redskins vs Bucs Defensive Review: Tryon Something New

[MTK]

Originally Posted by RedBar

Sammy even the village idiot can see Tripps biases. Sorry if you cannot.

If you have a different view on things feel free to offer up your thoughts rather than taking a shot at the guy for watching the tape and telling us what he thinks.

[freddyg12]

Great job tripp. I'm also pulling for K. Moore, I thought he looked really promising in limited time last year & was disappointed that in the first few games he didn't play.

So your comment about the d. line play when AH isn't in; I hadn't noticed it being much different. I have noticed that several run plays have gone by AH's gap as he shoots upfield. Of course, if that's his assignment or the "freelancing" that blache has allowed, then you can't blame him.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Kareem Moore, whose range in the deep secondary frees up LaRon Landry for some in the box play, Rogers, Hall, and Tryon............................The other thing the Redskins did with their zone coverages was that they played Kareem Moore as the free safety for his first significant playing time of the season, and let Landry play in the box. He's still a horrific tackler, that LaRon Landry, but he's a player that offenses actually have to gameplan around when he's in the box, instead of just not putting any deep post routes in the gameplan during the week.

I don't understand the benefit of playing Landry in the box or why teams would gameplan around him when tackling remains an issue for him.

I would consider benching Landry for awhile to get his mind right or finding out if Moore can be effective in playing in the box SS w/ Landry staying at FS.

It would give the base defense package flexibility in match-ups with 2 safeties that can cover on the field together.

[The Goat]

Tripp I have a follow-up question from the last two games/reviews. Is the Orakpo experiment at SLB something Blache is finally veering away from? Wondering if you've counted how many snaps Rak is taking at the position each game? I mean if we're a better defense when he's on the line why try to force more of the LB thing. Also there's nothing wrong w/ swapping AC and Rak at RDE.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I thought that about Tripp last year, but this season I think he's been much more objective and willing to admit errors

But you know and I know you have specific biases as well, understandably so

I have to admit that GTripp does a LOT of work doing analysis. If he were more objective, he probably would be able to land a job in football. It seems that he is too biased though. But yeah we all have biases, so I can't really say too much about that.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Tripp I have a follow-up question from the last two games/reviews. Is the Orakpo experiment at SLB something Blache is finally veering away from? Wondering if you've counted how many snaps Rak is taking at the position each game? I mean if we're a better defense when he's on the line why try to force more of the LB thing. Also there's nothing wrong w/ swapping AC and Rak at RDE.

Orakpo doesn't play on 100% of the plays, but its something close to that number. Maybe 85%.

He's not playing SLB less frequently when the Redskins are in their base 4-3, but the team is in the 4-3 less frequently then it has been in the past.

Blache is probably the only defensive coordinator in the league who doesn't match his defensive personnel with the offensive personnel. It's quite common, actually, probably standard for the opponent to get into 3 WRs, and the Redskins to show a 4-3 front. Our defensive response is to back off the blitz when this happens and get into a sort of cover three defense, which more or less puts Orakpo and/or McIntosh one on one with a back in any sort of coverage scheme.

In the offseason, I previewed how our 4-3 defense could prevent major issues for teams in 3 WR sets because if your OL has to match up with 5 pass rushers, you can't really pick that up and expect to win your one on ones. But our coverage woes have cornered Blache into dropping into a cover two or cover three look, and that's more or less how the Lions beat us.

We're starting to get away from those 4-3 fronts with the Cobra and Dime formations. This puts Orakpo on the DL, and allows you to blitz Landry if you so choose. The problems are still similar: you can match up McIntosh against a back one on one and chip away at the Redskins 7 yards at a time. But the Cobra formation is a better use of our personnel, and is a more versatile formation in general. If Blache isn't going to match his personnel with the offenses personnel, going with 5 or 6 DBs allows him to stay in that formation no matter what the offensive personnel is, and stay out of terrible mismatches.

This is not really about the Orakpo experiment necessarily. Orakpo at OLB was a nice idea in theory, just like Jason Taylor at OLB was. But because of the issues in the secondary, we went from a situaiton where we expected the defense to dicate to the offense that they needed to be careful not to get their QBs hurt, to completely playing on our heels and allowing mismatches all over the field.

A full time move to a 4-2-5 base defense would fit our personnel fantastic. If we're going to be in the 4-3 at all, we've got to have good enough secondary play to blitz Orakpo as we feel fit, and still feel confident that we can win on the outside. Rogers and Hall are starting to develop as a DB tandem, but in the interim, I'd use Doughty, Moore, and Horton to try to stop opposing offenses.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Orakpo doesn't play on 100% of the plays, but its something close to that number. Maybe 85%.

He's not playing SLB less frequently when the Redskins are in their base 4-3, but the team is in the 4-3 less frequently then it has been in the past.

Blache is probably the only defensive coordinator in the league who doesn't match his defensive personnel with the offensive personnel. It's quite common, actually, probably standard for the opponent to get into 3 WRs, and the Redskins to show a 4-3 front. Our defensive response is to back off the blitz when this happens and get into a sort of cover three defense, which more or less puts Orakpo and/or McIntosh one on one with a back in any sort of coverage scheme.

In the offseason, I previewed how our 4-3 defense could prevent major issues for teams in 3 WR sets because if your OL has to match up with 5 pass rushers, you can't really pick that up and expect to win your one on ones. But our coverage woes have cornered Blache into dropping into a cover two or cover three look, and that's more or less how the Lions beat us.

We're starting to get away from those 4-3 fronts with the Cobra and Dime formations. This puts Orakpo on the DL, and allows you to blitz Landry if you so choose. The problems are still similar: you can match up McIntosh against a back one on one and chip away at the Redskins 7 yards at a time. But the Cobra formation is a better use of our personnel, and is a more versatile formation in general. If Blache isn't going to match his personnel with the offenses personnel, going with 5 or 6 DBs allows him to stay in that formation no matter what the offensive personnel is, and stay out of terrible mismatches.

This is not really about the Orakpo experiment necessarily. Orakpo at OLB was a nice idea in theory, just like Jason Taylor at OLB was. But because of the issues in the secondary, we went from a situaiton where we expected the defense to dicate to the offense that they needed to be careful not to get their QBs hurt, to completely playing on our heels and allowing mismatches all over the field.

A full time move to a 4-2-5 base defense would fit our personnel fantastic. If we're going to be in the 4-3 at all, we've got to have good enough secondary play to blitz Orakpo as we feel fit, and still feel confident that we can win on the outside. Rogers and Hall are starting to develop as a DB tandem, but in the interim, I'd use Doughty, Moore, and Horton to try to stop opposing offenses.

Nice post GTripp. I agree.