On Blache

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by MrJL

Personally, I've thought the O's come together a couple of times late in the game. Such as the fourth down TD against the Ravens and the 80-some yard drive that didn't get anything against the Bengals but still got them to the half yard line. That suggests something was coming together on the O. Then the D gives up another score and the O has to abandon what finally started working because a one score game is now a two score game.

The problem is that when the offense finally "comes together" late in these games, the defense has been out in the field a lot and they are running out of steam. I could be wrong, but in the Bengals game, the Redskins did not complete a 1st Down until well into the 2nd Qtr. So you have an entire quarter of the offense going 3 and out, and the defense playing a lot.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Joe Kidd

What happened on that last drive when the Bengals held the ball for something like 8-9 minutes? The Skins have been burned in the 4th quarter a bunch this year, for whatever reason in crunch time they falter. I'm not saying it's all on Blache, but there's just something there that makes you wonder why they can't close teams out in the 4th.

I'd say that our D faltered in the first 1/4 thes week and not in the fourth.

[freddyg12]

I think GT's points from the breakdown of the cincy game are well taken. In a nutshell, the D plays tough enough to keep us in games but at crucial times the blitz calls are so predictable that any qb can spot them. Smoot matched up 1 on 1 v. Housh. on 3rd down is asking for trouble.

I know Blache could be under pressure from Zorn to get more pressure on the qb, so I'll at least give him an out there. And we don't have any good blitzers really (maybe Horton). But the blitzes never surprise anyone, including me!

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'd say that our D faltered in the first 1/4 thes week and not in the fourth.

I have posted this many a times, but for as good as our D is, they have been horrible every 1st quarter. They usually picked up as the game went along, but as our offensive struggles have risen, they have, of late, faltered in the 4th quarter too. 2nd and 3rd quarters, the D has been stellar.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'd say that our D faltered in the first 1/4 thes week and not in the fourth.

He's got a good point, they controlled the clock for over 7 minutes in the 4th quarter on one drive.

[MrJL]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

The problem is that when the offense finally "comes together" late in these games, the defense has been out in the field a lot and they are running out of steam. I could be wrong, but in the Bengals game, the Redskins did not complete a 1st Down until well into the 2nd Qtr. So you have an entire quarter of the offense going 3 and out, and the defense playing a lot.

well, the Post just did an article on this today. In the first half, in the past five losses we've had the ball just slightly more than half the half. In the 3rd after 15 minutes rest they've held the ball an average of 6:36. That's not bad. Over the first 45 minutes the other team has only held the ball 2 minutes and 13 seconds longer than us.

[GTripp0012]

Seems to be a lot of discussion over whether or not Blache should be credited for adjustments that help us play better as a game goes along. This is a good discussion, as the Redskins rarely stay with a bad gameplan for an entire game. Is that a credit to our DC? I don't know.

I generally think Blache waits too long to make adjustments, but going through the game film probably distorts reality a little bit as there is not much time between plays to analyze whats going on where he has plenty of time.

I can not say conclusively that the Redskins would be a better defense without Greg Blache calling the shots. I can say with great confidence that they would not be any worse.

We may miss Blache as a DL coach if/when he retires, but I think (my opinion is) that a change in defensive coaching will -- if not immediately -- generate positive results in the long term.

I hope I'm right, because if the problem with the pass rush is personnel related, we're pretty much screwed for the future one way or another.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins

Talk abut a laugher... wow.... you ARE the best analyist on this site...

1st) Bulger IS listed... 136 passing yards vs Skins... over 40 on the last heave... spectacular.. it's called READING... left to right, top to bottom...

2nd) Leftwich did well, but has not played any other significant time at ALL this season to compare...

3rd) Orlovsky' numbers were break even...60% comp/88 QBR - 58.4% comp/80.3 overall .. definitely NOT much worse against others like YOUR ignorant statement was...

YOU failed to mention Romo, who we played just FOUR games ago who had a 72.4 QBR and 2 Ints in the game. Matter of fact... he had his 2nd & 4th worst QBRs against us (out of 11 games)...

I can keep going...

How about McNabb? 196 yds, 58.6% comp, 0 TDs, 79.1 QBR vs Skins - 60.9% comp,86.7 QBR overall...

or Eli Manning?? 54.3% & 61.8% comp, 61.1 & 88.5 QBRs vs Skins - 60.3% comp, 86.4 overall...

So that leaves ONE QB this ENTIRE 14 GAME SEASON who had a remotely BETTER day than usual.. Ryan Fitzpatrick with an amazing 55% comp and one London Fletcher or Mike Green CATCH away from a QBR in the 60's...

I mean... obviously you WANTED me to call you out on being TOTALLY incorrect by carrying this on... right?

You use '...' so much that I can't really get the flow of what your point is. I see a lot of potentially useful statistics, but they're just thrown at me in a way that I can't hope to understand what your point is.

Basically, your argument lacks logical flow. It's coming off somewhat like:

"A bunch of horrible passers look especially horrible when playing the Redskins. Doesn't this prove that we're great!?!?! Also, points!"

Well, no, but perhaps you are trying to prove something more concrete. I can't tell.

You're also using assumed change in QB Rating to make a point that QB Rating is poorly designed to prove. But I see what you are saying with the completion %....sort of.

My point: we're a below average pass defense --and I could throw a books-worth of stats at you to prove this-- and I don't feel like we should be based on the individual talent we have in the secondary AND on the pass rush

[Hail to the Redskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You use '...' so much that I can't really get the flow of what your point is. I see a lot of potentially useful statistics, but they're just thrown at me in a way that I can't hope to understand what your point is.

Basically, your argument lacks logical flow. It's coming off somewhat like: A bunch of horrible passers look especially horrible when playing the Redskins. Doesn't this prove that we're great!?!?! Also, points! Well, no, but perhaps you are trying to prove something more concrete. I can't tell.

You're also using assumed change in QB Rating to make a point that QB Rating is poorly designed to prove. But I see what you are saying with the completion %....sort of.

My point: we're a below average pass defense --and I could throw a books-worth of stats at you to prove this-- and I don't feel like we should be based on the individual talent we have in the secondary AND on the pass rush

OK this is the last comment I'll make on this subject.

You originally called ME out on not understanding statistics. Then you said that QBs we face have worse days against everyone else in the league.

I then pointed out that we are ranked in the top 10 in pretty much every pass defense category and that you were wrong. I showed, with CLEAR statistics that only one QB in 14 games has a romotely better day that usual. You read, and obviously understand what I was pointing out because of the next ludicrous statement you make in response, then act like YOU can't understand the logic of statement made because you can't make a truly valid argument to facts & numbers I present.

You actually make a mocking statement saying we have faced "A bunch of horrible passers"??

Romo? McNabb? Manning? Roethlisberger? Hasselbeck? Brees? Warner? These are horrible passers?

Whatever. I can't argue with this kind of talk anymore.

Look, I'm not trying to bash you here, but I will defend myself when someone attacks my intelligence.

I can't really make myself much more clear. Anyone who thinks we have a "below average pass defense" should NOT be trying to belittle or trash ANYONE else's statements.

If you are this site's premeir football analyst and feel like you have to belittle facts someone else points out, because you feel threatened (I guess), don't worry, most people don't have the time to put in the hours you do... including me. (Oh, sorry for the ... now you may not be able to understand my whole post)

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I can not say conclusively that the Redskins would be a better defense without Greg Blache calling the shots. I can say with great confidence that they would not be any worse.

We may miss Blache as a DL coach if/when he retires, but I think (my opinion is) that a change in defensive coaching will -- if not immediately -- generate positive results in the long term.

Its hard to knock a top 5 defense.
I think that Blache is a decent DC but has limits.

His defense line appears designed to stop the run and struggles getting pressure.
Our ends rarely just go balls out at the QB is always seems like a controlled rush.
As opposed to the Colts, their defensive line is all about pass rush and they try to stop the run on the way to the QB.

Another problem that i've heard mentioned in this thread is that our blitzes lack disguise.
Blache doesn't really hide the fact that he is blitzing, opposing teams can easily read and adjust to our blitzes. This has put our corners (Smoot, Rogers) in a bad spot when we all out blitz.

Steelers, Ravens, Giants, Eagles, Bears all have a very creative blitz/package with lots of zone-blitz.
They show that 7-10 are blitzing but often only rush 4 but which 4 is difficult to figure out pre-snap.
The brief confusion this disguise creates is often enough to give the pass rusher the advantage, the confusion also distorts the QBs reads.
In the face of an blitz look QBs often check to a hot read, against a zone-blitz they might find a DE or LB sitting in the hot zone forcing him to hold the ball or even an interception.
(e.g. DT -Ngata & DE/LB Suggs both have 2 picks)

The defense has done enough to keep us in most games, but i agree with GT that Blache isn't getting the most out of our current defense in terms of pressure.

My problems with Blache:

1) Where has Chris Wilson been? Where was James playing time? (when we had him)-Where was Rob Jackson early in the season? Why wasn't their a rotation at DE earlier in the year?

2) Why doesn't Rocky blitz/rush more (instead cover where he isn't that great)

3) Why doesn't Blache turn the D-line loose more?

4) Why doesn't Zorn zone-blitz or disguise the blitzes?

[MrJL]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Its hard to knock a top 5 defense.
I think that Blache is a decent DC but has limits.

His defense line appears designed to stop the run and struggles getting pressure.
Our ends rarely just go balls out at the QB is always seems like a controlled rush.
As opposed to the Colts, their defensive line is all about pass rush and they try to stop the run on the way to the QB.

Another problem that i've heard mentioned in this thread is that our blitzes lack disguise.
Blache doesn't really hide the fact that he is blitzing, opposing teams can easily read and adjust to our blitzes. This has put our corners (Smoot, Rogers) in a bad spot when we all out blitz.

Steelers, Ravens, Giants, Eagles, Bears all have a very creative blitz/package with lots of zone-blitz.
They show that 7-10 are blitzing but often only rush 4 but which 4 is difficult to figure out pre-snap.
The brief confusion this disguise creates is often enough to give the pass rusher the advantage, the confusion also distorts the QBs reads.
In the face of an blitz look QBs often check to a hot read, against a zone-blitz they might find a DE or LB sitting in the hot zone forcing him to hold the ball or even an interception.
(e.g. DT -Ngata & DE/LB Suggs both have 2 picks)

The defense has done enough to keep us in most games, but i agree with GT that Blache isn't getting the most out of our current defense in terms of pressure.

My problems with Blache:

1) Where has Chris Wilson been? Where was James playing time? (when we had him)-Where was Rob Jackson early in the season? Why wasn't their a rotation at DE earlier in the year?

2) Why doesn't Rocky blitz/rush more (instead cover where he isn't that great)

3) Why doesn't Blache turn the D-line loose more?

4) Why doesn't Zorn zone-blitz or disguise the blitzes?

Blache doesn't turn the D-Line loose because he believes stopping the run is more important. Zorn doesn't call the blitzes. Wilson has been in occasionally. James was even in once in a blue There is a rotation at DE when everyone is healthy. Taylor, Carter, Evans and Wilson

[shack]

The Short List:

Bill Cowher - A solid manager and a good judge of talent. Will get the most out of his players, and unlike Jim Zorn, will utilize whatever talent is on the roster.

Gregg Blache - Bring in new offensive and defensive coordinators. I love the way Blache has handled himself, and his players, during these most difficult times. We don't need a genius/guru for a head coach, we need a leader of men. The players respect Gregg Blache, he's an experienced good leader. We already have a lot of talent on the roster. We're 5 players away (2 D-Linemen, 2 O-Lineman, 1 bad-ass pass rushing linebacker) from being a serious contender, and after we get Albert Haynesworth via free agency we'll be that much closer.

That interview Zorn gave earlier in the week he was asked if he would adjust his scheme in order to better utilize the players he has, his response was probably not. I just don't know if he gets it. To say he's developing as a head coach is insanity to me, these are the professional ranks. We don't have time for him to figure it out. Either he's ready to lead or he's not, and it has nothing to do with the fact that this is his rookie year as a head coach. For example; I bet Joe Gibbs can't change a flat tire, and I've heard Tony Stewart say they keep him as far from the garage as possible. Some people are natural leaders and some you can’t put in charge. No matter how smart they are.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by shack

The Short List:

Bill Cowher - A solid manager and a good judge of talent. Will get the most out of his players, and unlike Jim Zorn, will utilize whatever talent is on the roster.

Gregg Blache - Bring in new offensive and defensive coordinators. I love the way Blache has handled himself, and his players, during these most difficult times. We don't need a genius/guru for a head coach, we need a leader of men. The players respect Gregg Blache, he's an experienced good leader. We already have a lot of talent on the roster. We're 5 players away (2 D-Linemen, 2 O-Lineman, 1 bad-ass pass rushing linebacker) from being a serious contender, and after we get Albert Haynesworth via free agency we'll be that much closer.

That interview Zorn gave earlier in the week he was asked if he would adjust his scheme in order to better utilize the players he has, his response was probably not. I just don't know if he gets it. To say he's developing as a head coach is insanity to me, these are the professional ranks. We don't have time for him to figure it out. Either he's ready to lead or he's not, and it has nothing to do with the fact that this is his rookie year as a head coach. For example; I bet Joe Gibbs can't change a flat tire, and I've heard Tony Stewart say they keep him as far from the garage as possible. Some people are natural leaders and some you can’t put in charge. No matter how smart they are.

Does anyone really think Tennessee will let Haynesworth get away??

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Hail to the Redskins

OK this is the last comment I'll make on this subject.

You originally called ME out on not understanding statistics. Then you said that QBs we face have worse days against everyone else in the league.

I then pointed out that we are ranked in the top 10 in pretty much every pass defense category and that you were wrong. I showed, with CLEAR statistics that only one QB in 14 games has a romotely better day that usual. You read, and obviously understand what I was pointing out because of the next ludicrous statement you make in response, then act like YOU can't understand the logic of statement made because you can't make a truly valid argument to facts & numbers I present.

You actually make a mocking statement saying we have faced "A bunch of horrible passers"??

Romo? McNabb? Manning? Roethlisberger? Hasselbeck? Brees? Warner? These are horrible passers?

Whatever. I can't argue with this kind of talk anymore.

Look, I'm not trying to bash you here, but I will defend myself when someone attacks my intelligence.

I can't really make myself much more clear. Anyone who thinks we have a "below average pass defense" should NOT be trying to belittle or trash ANYONE else's statements.

If you are this site's premeir football analyst and feel like you have to belittle facts someone else points out, because you feel threatened (I guess), don't worry, most people don't have the time to put in the hours you do... including me. (Oh, sorry for the ... now you may not be able to understand my whole post)

I don't think this should be about you vs. me: who knows more? Why would I stoop down to that level? It's not an argument that anyone on this board, besides you, should or would give a crap about.

I never once accused you of not knowing what you are talking about. I thought your argument was built the wrong way (kinda like the Redskins). You decided, presumably based on the games you've seen, that the Redskins defense is great, offense is terrible, and that you might be able to prove this statistically. Statistics were never designed to be used like that. The context-neutral statistics I cite in ALL of my game reviews suggest that the defense and offense are close to equally responsible for the downfall of the team. Not coincidentally, this is also what I see on film. Imagine that.

What you did bring to light is that, the Redskins have faced a bunch of passers that are having awful years. When you cite Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck, you're only helping to defend my point. When you cite Brees, and Warner, you're actually bringing solid evidence to the contrary. Which makes this a good discussion. Those guys are MVP candidates. We shut them down. Why haven't we done that all season long?! Why did Ryan Fitzpatrick and Mark Bulger succeed where Brees and Warner failed? Why are we totally helpless against Eli Manning and Tony Romo (and possibly McNabb, depending on the outcome of Sunday's game). Should we be?

But the problem here is that you are lumping the good passers with the bad passers with the disappointingly bad, with the surprisingly bad, and then you use a series of double standards. ("Don't you think Roethlisberger is great?! What about Hasselbeck?")

I enjoyed your game by game breakdown of how passers did against us. You also changed the metric you were using to suit your argument, because the primary metrics you used, completion percentage and QB Rating, did not fit your argument in all the cases. Which means, that by definition, your argument was weak. I didn't have to respond, because you already knew from the research that you weren't as right as you thought you were. That was MY point.

The main thing, is I can't respond to your point, until you make a point. I think you are trying to say that we have an above average pass defense. But your defense for it is weak. Since you can't come to terms with me on proper opponent adjustments for the Leftwich half, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Matt Hasselbeck, Dan Orlovsky, Mark Bulger, or against one of the other passers we should have shut down, but didn't, I suggest we shrink the sample and talk about a case by case study.

Brees and Warner struggled against this pass defense, like you said. Romo and Manning, in those must win games, have had no trouble whatsoever, broken pinky, wet ball, whatever the conditions. Why exactly, are you contesting, that the performance of two home games in September should outweigh two more important home games in November in your argument? Why are you giving the defense a pass in those games?

Very simple. The two best performances vs. our two worst. All else equal, why should September games be weighed more heavily in your mind than November games within the division. Are injuries a factor in your mind? Or are you simply refusing to admit the defense f'ed up at any point this season.

---------------------------------

PS -- If you bother to respond to this, you first must consider the fact that you might be wrong, and I might be right here. If you can't do that, don't bother responding to this. You will be wasting your time.

You aren't necessarily wrong, that's not what I'm trying to say. But if your whole purpose of reading this is to try to prove, against strong evidence to the contrary, that you are right, it's just not worth what you are going to put into it. I mean, you obviously haven't put as much thought into it as I have.

And don't bother with any personal attacks either. You haven't been around here long enough to offend me.

[MTK]

game set and match to gtripp