Greg Blache Defensive Scheme!!

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

I think if we would've gotten better results blitzing we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The Steelers blitz effectively, the Redskins don't. At least not up to this point. For the amount of times we blitzed, the results were pathetic. I'm not sure how anyone can argue with that. Our sack totals were pathetic and I don't remember a lot of times where the pass wasn't completed because of pressure from the blitz. Maybe some, but not enough to justify blitzing as much as we did. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember our blitzes creating nearly as much havoc as some of the better defenses in the league. Nothing against Blache but that's just a fact. Simplifying the defense is one thing, but thinking you can beat the opponent all the time without disguising anything is just arrogant.

I think the DIII blitz package is what you were noticing. Poor disguising of pressure, no real imagination, very vanilla pressure schemes all around.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The Steelers run a 3-4. Everything they do is a blitz because their LBs have gap responsibilities and at least one of them is basically a Linemen in atwo point stance on every play. In no way can one compare a 3-4 and a 4-3. The Steelers are successful because they good talent and a few GREAT talents.

Ok, so compare it to the 4-3 Giants or Eagles. Both have much more complex pressure packages than the 2008 Redskins. You can say it was based on talent, and the Giants have more "talent" in the front seven, but I'd say it was scheme.

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Why would our stats be of equal value if mine clearly answer the question at hand more directly?

I don't ask this as to say, "I'm right and your wrong", but while I think you bring some good points, I don't think your stats are backing what you think they are backing.

You don't understand. I'm trying to say your stats are arbitrary. You choose which stats you think are important, but if you're at the top in most stats then there's a reason for that and you've got a good defense no matter what nitpicking you may do. When it comes down to it, we played Philly twice, same number of drives, same opportunity/field/conditions and we beat em twice and our defense outplayed them twice. And if you don't think so then you didn't watch the same games as me.

Also, Tampa's defense isn't what it used to be and neither is Chicago's. By the end of the season Tampa's defense was getting torn apart. Tampa Bay had an easy schedule. I thought the NFC South was overrated and they played the AFC West and NFC North, which is probably as easy as possible. Chicago gave up almost 50 more yards a game than us and more than 3 points/game.

I would rank our defense about 5th. I think Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Tennessee were better over the course of the year, but anybody else I think the Redskins were better than. The only reason others don't is because the Redskins defense doesn't get media attention because they haven't historically been a great defense and their fantasy football stats aren't that good because they don't get TD's and turnovers.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by an23dy

You don't understand. I'm trying to say your stats are arbitrary. You choose which stats you think are important, but if you're at the top in most stats then there's a reason for that and you've got a good defense no matter what nitpicking you may do. When it comes down to it, we played Philly twice, same number of drives, same opportunity/field/conditions and we beat em twice and our defense outplayed them twice. And if you don't think so then you didn't watch the same games as me.

Also, Tampa's defense isn't what it used to be and neither is Chicago's. By the end of the season Tampa's defense was getting torn apart. Tampa Bay had an easy schedule. I thought the NFC South was overrated and they played the AFC West and NFC North, which is probably as easy as possible. Chicago gave up almost 50 more yards a game than us and more than 3 points/game.

I would rank our defense about 5th. I think Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Tennessee were better over the course of the year, but anybody else I think the Redskins were better than. The only reason others don't is because the Redskins defense doesn't get media attention because they haven't historically been a great defense and their fantasy football stats aren't that good because they don't get TD's and turnovers.

Alright, I understand. Nothing I'm doing is arbitrary, it's all quite straightforward, but you don't see it the same way. Gotcha.

See the problem with Philly vs. Washington determining who has the better defense is that: 1) if there's only two teams in the entire population, nothing can tell the difference between bad offense and good defense. You saying that our defense clearly outplayed their's might just be their offense getting clearly outplayed by ours, and 2) there's 14 games that you're just totally ignoring. Not arbitrarily, but as I said before, you aren't actually backing what you think you are backing. Because no one agrees with you that the other 14 games shouldn't be counted.

The Redskins were top ten in most stats, and are probably were a top ten defense when you get right down to it. But what if I say, and defend, them being the 12th best defense? There's nothing arbitrary about that, it's just a ranking based on evidence. Furthermore, there was such a huge, undeniable gap between us and the five "elite" defenses last year, that when you start to establish an NFL average defense from the 2008 season, it comes out somewhere around the 10th or 11th best team. Just because of the obscene quality of the defenses at the top of the list (obviously, the best in years). Again, nothing remotely arbitrary about that, just standard normal distribution.

I think you have no idea how good Minnesota and Philadelphia's defenses were last year, and any argument that suggests we were better than them last year is going to be arbitrary and circumstantial, because there was such a huge chasm between the two. I guess that's just my opinion there, but it just not a strong argument to say that they were in the top five last year defensively. Let's face it, if we had a top five defense, we would have made the playoffs. Every one of my top five defenses did make it, and none of them had any more offense to note than we did.

Again, I think you can debate if they're 6th or 11th or whatever. You can say, "we have a better defense the Giants", and I can respond "even though they create turnovers and we do not?" and you can say "yes" and that's that. I would just question who the one picking the arbitrary numbers is right now.

[Coff]

Originally Posted by Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor

I'm tired of stopping the run first then pass rush.

Since when do we actually do the latter?

[skins89moss]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Whenever you take the lead with 1 minute to go, and you lose, it falls on the defense. I don't care what went before, at the 2 minute warning, if you have the lead, a CHAMPIONSHIP DEFENSE stops the opponent (um especially one with a new head coach and no wins at that time!)

i agree with that 100% CRedskinsrule. You understand the game of football that a Championship defense will find a way to preserve the win in the final minutes with the lead. Last year our defense was good but not a Championship defense.

[Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor]

Originally Posted by Coff

Since when do we actually do the latter?

Its always been that way. Greg Blache always have stated that sacks don't matter which I think is very stupid considering the fact that sacks could get teams in 3rd and longs and also out of field goal range. Pressure busts pipes and he should realize that.

I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt and say that he did not let the d-line rush the passer first since he did not have the talent to do so. This year there will be no benefit of doubt. He should be fired if we can not get to the quarterback with Haynesworth collasping pockets everywhere.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

And mediocre corners like Torrence give up more than most.

He was not bad in nickel and dime packages

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Alright, I understand. Nothing I'm doing is arbitrary, it's all quite straightforward, but you don't see it the same way. Gotcha.

See the problem with Philly vs. Washington determining who has the better defense is that: 1) if there's only two teams in the entire population, nothing can tell the difference between bad offense and good defense. You saying that our defense clearly outplayed their's might just be their offense getting clearly outplayed by ours, and 2) there's 14 games that you're just totally ignoring. Not arbitrarily, but as I said before, you aren't actually backing what you think you are backing. Because no one agrees with you that the other 14 games shouldn't be counted.

The Redskins were top ten in most stats, and are probably were a top ten defense when you get right down to it. But what if I say, and defend, them being the 12th best defense? There's nothing arbitrary about that, it's just a ranking based on evidence. Furthermore, there was such a huge, undeniable gap between us and the five "elite" defenses last year, that when you start to establish an NFL average defense from the 2008 season, it comes out somewhere around the 10th or 11th best team. Just because of the obscene quality of the defenses at the top of the list (obviously, the best in years). Again, nothing remotely arbitrary about that, just standard normal distribution.

I think you have no idea how good Minnesota and Philadelphia's defenses were last year, and any argument that suggests we were better than them last year is going to be arbitrary and circumstantial, because there was such a huge chasm between the two. I guess that's just my opinion there, but it just not a strong argument to say that they were in the top five last year defensively. Let's face it, if we had a top five defense, we would have made the playoffs. Every one of my top five defenses did make it, and none of them had any more offense to note than we did.

Again, I think you can debate if they're 6th or 11th or whatever. You can say, "we have a better defense the Giants", and I can respond "even though they create turnovers and we do not?" and you can say "yes" and that's that. I would just question who the one picking the arbitrary numbers is right now.

You originally said the Eagles have an undeniably better defense than us. I don't understand how you can say that. Maybe you really are sure in your mind of that, but I'm not sold on that at all. I think it would be much easier to say the Eagles offense is better than the Redskins offense and our special teams was nothing special. And if that's the case then how did we beat them twice? From the games that I watched I remember our defense outplaying them.

And in terms of turnovers you're only looking at the one side of it. The Redskins were the ONLY team in the NFL last year to never give up more than 27 points in a game. That's consistency and that may not be flashy and get media attention about the defense on NFL Live or Sportscenter or have guys like Dawkins acting like an animal or the fat Williams guys getting in trouble with water pills and Jared Allen doing vitamin water commercials or any Pro Bowlers, but I think if people actually watched the games and paid attention to the defense they would see it differently. Also people don't look at the turnovers in terms of we were always in close games last year so teams didn't have to take any risks against us. When your offense can get you a lead (28th in points) other teams have to take more chances in order to catch up, which causes more turnovers.

I think our offense was really bad and we got unlucky losing some close games. Also, just because you're a top 5 defense it doesn't mean you automatically make the playoffs. I could argue we were the 4th best defense so I just don't see how you can be so sure those other 5 were better than us.

But all I was really saying is there's a lot more of what goes into how good a defense is than just the stats you're using. You gotta think about what offenses they play, what their offense does (if they keep putting the defense in bad positions), and a whole lot of other stuff that you can't just average with stats. Just because a team is 10th in interceptions, 10th in yards, 10th in yards allowed per drive, etc, it doesn't mean they're the 10th best defense. There are a lot of important factors not related to the team defensive statistics. I think it's more of an opinion than a statistical analysis.

[John Denny]

The additions of Orakpo and Haynesworth will definitely help our pass rush which ultimately will improve our defense. We're deep at D-line so we should have a solid rotation so the guy stay fresh. The trick will be can we actually time the blitzes. That's where I thought we didn't execute. We tipped our hand too early or were unable to secure the sack if we did get to the QB.
It's hard to call for the coordinator's head when players don't execute but ultimately it's his responsibility to make sure they do so.
I think we'll be an elite defense this year, especially since we have cap room left. We can get a vet. OLB plus sign some other players (OT, WR, OG and maybe even a MLB). You know damn well Snyder is going to use every bit of cap room to improve the team (a couple 1-yr deals would be ideal).

Every fan wont like the teams scheme from time to time either on offense or defense. I didnt like how ex-DC Gregg Williams use to play our CBs and I dont like how Blache doesnt seem to put pressure on offenses that leads to turnovers.

The bottom line is though as long as the scheme ranks near the top I really dont care what we run. Hopefully Haynesworth and Orakpo create more pressure which will lead to more options for Blache on defense.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by an23dy

...
But all I was really saying is there's a lot more of what goes into how good a defense is than just the stats you're using. You gotta think about what offenses they play, what their offense does (if they keep putting the defense in bad positions), and a whole lot of other stuff that you can't just average with stats. Just because a team is 10th in interceptions, 10th in yards, 10th in yards allowed per drive, etc, it doesn't mean they're the 10th best defense. There are a lot of important factors not related to the team defensive statistics. I think it's more of an opinion than a statistical analysis.

Just pointing out, that last year our Defense faced the awesomeness of Cleveland, Cincinatti, St Louis, Detroit.

The D was definitely able to step up at times(against Philly, AZ, etc), but they were not consistent. Also, and I showed this in another thread, but you can get it from Pro Football reference, our D struggled on the opening drive more often than not. I know our offense did too, but most games the D gave up either a FG or TD on the opening drive.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by an23dy

I think our offense was really bad and we got unlucky losing some close games. Also, just because you're a top 5 defense it doesn't mean you automatically make the playoffs. I could argue we were the 4th best defense so I just don't see how you can be so sure those other 5 were better than us.

But all I was really saying is there's a lot more of what goes into how good a defense is than just the stats you're using. You gotta think about what offenses they play, what their offense does (if they keep putting the defense in bad positions), and a whole lot of other stuff that you can't just average with stats. Just because a team is 10th in interceptions, 10th in yards, 10th in yards allowed per drive, etc, it doesn't mean they're the 10th best defense. There are a lot of important factors not related to the team defensive statistics. I think it's more of an opinion than a statistical analysis.

Yeah, I agree to an extent. I mean I wouldn't argue we had a top 5 D, but I agree that our offense's poor play had an impact on our D's stats. Someone mentioned they didn't hold on in the last couple min of games and a "championship team" would have, and that's true. Our D obviously wasn't good enough last year to win it all, but it is hard to scrutinize them too much because in those games they were on the field WAY too long. I don't think you can hold that against GB either.

As far as the pass rush. If I remember correctly the D wasn't generating much pressure in the last couple years of GW. The fact is we have had a serious talent deficiency on the DL and LB's (only as far as pass rush is concerned) for many years. Let's see what they can do with some real talent up front.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by an23dy

You originally said the Eagles have an undeniably better defense than us. I don't understand how you can say that. Maybe you really are sure in your mind of that, but I'm not sold on that at all. I think it would be much easier to say the Eagles offense is better than the Redskins offense and our special teams was nothing special. And if that's the case then how did we beat them twice? From the games that I watched I remember our defense outplaying them.

And in terms of turnovers you're only looking at the one side of it. The Redskins were the ONLY team in the NFL last year to never give up more than 27 points in a game. That's consistency and that may not be flashy and get media attention about the defense on NFL Live or Sportscenter or have guys like Dawkins acting like an animal or the fat Williams guys getting in trouble with water pills and Jared Allen doing vitamin water commercials or any Pro Bowlers, but I think if people actually watched the games and paid attention to the defense they would see it differently. Also people don't look at the turnovers in terms of we were always in close games last year so teams didn't have to take any risks against us. When your offense can get you a lead (28th in points) other teams have to take more chances in order to catch up, which causes more turnovers.

I think our offense was really bad and we got unlucky losing some close games. Also, just because you're a top 5 defense it doesn't mean you automatically make the playoffs. I could argue we were the 4th best defense so I just don't see how you can be so sure those other 5 were better than us.

But all I was really saying is there's a lot more of what goes into how good a defense is than just the stats you're using. You gotta think about what offenses they play, what their offense does (if they keep putting the defense in bad positions), and a whole lot of other stuff that you can't just average with stats. Just because a team is 10th in interceptions, 10th in yards, 10th in yards allowed per drive, etc, it doesn't mean they're the 10th best defense. There are a lot of important factors not related to the team defensive statistics. I think it's more of an opinion than a statistical analysis.

Calling the offense "really bad" as opposed to something more rooted in what they actually were (slow-moving, turnover-averse, and lacking big play scoring ability) is a necessary justification to explaining how we could only be 8-8 with an elite defense. Of course, once you come to the realization that the defense was less-than-elite, in pretty much every possible way, then it becomes easier to accept the offense for what it was, and not have this justification dilemma with our record.

Philadelphia played 12 games against the same teams in the same locations as we did. They basically played the same schedule as us. Despite the slow moving, drive-limiting nature of our playing style, they STILL managed to give up fewer total yards, and points than us, while forcing more turnovers. They were undeniably better. Continuing to deny it is pretty crazy, considering the 4th ranking in pts against and yards against you hold so dearly is one behind the Eagles, and their scores in that category are far more legitimate, thanks to having faced more opponent drives than we did.

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Philadelphia played 12 games against the same teams in the same locations as we did. They basically played the same schedule as us. Despite the slow moving, drive-limiting nature of our playing style, they STILL managed to give up fewer total yards, and points than us, while forcing more turnovers. They were undeniably better. Continuing to deny it is pretty crazy, considering the 4th ranking in pts against and yards against you hold so dearly is one behind the Eagles, and their scores in that category are far more legitimate, thanks to having faced more opponent drives than we did.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Just pointing out, that last year our Defense faced the awesomeness of Cleveland, Cincinatti, St Louis, Detroit.

Your argument is akin to saying if meteorologists play the Pittsburgh Steelers 4 times in a 16 game season they have the toughest schedule in the NFL. It is neither here nor there. Four games isn't an entire season, how about the Saints, Cardinals, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles. If your argument is that Philadelphia had a harder schedule, you're wrong. Look up whatever stats you want on that for the 16 games and you can see that. Philly also played Cleveland, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. The only different teams we played were New Orleans (#1 in points and yards) and Detroit (actually ranked better than the Redskins in points), but yeah they were bad.

In any case teams are different over the course of the year, even if its in the same location. We were a completely different team in in the beginning of the season versus the end, and you can say that about a bunch of teams. But for 2 of those 12 games, one near the beginning and one near the end that were on the same day at the same location I saw one defense outperform the other both times, but apparently that was undeniably oppositely viewed by you, irrelevant to you, or maybe you just missed the games.

If you're arguing that the Redskins offense (28th in points) is better than the Eagles offense (6th in points) you're wrong. That's like arguing the St. Louis Rams defense (28th) is better than the Vikings defense (6th).

The differences in most of the stats between the Redskins and Eagles are small (0.4 points) and 10 yards so I'm saying small differences in stats like that don't matter when there are so many other variables involved from week to week and you don't even really know how important those stats are to a good defense. Slowing teams down not taking risks and making them make the small play slows them down and makes less drives for the other team. Is that a stat? No, but does it make a good defense, maybe. I think that it is wrong to be so sure based on a selection of stats that you choose that doesn't take other variables into consideration. You can have your opinion, but I think that you're opinion the Eagles are undeniably better is crazy and I feel my opinion that it's not UNDENIABLE is more reasonable. And evidence is the fact that many other people will agree with me that the Redskins defense could have been better than the Vikings or Eagles last year. And if you think all those people are crazy, then I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and maintaining your original opinion.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by an23dy

Your argument is akin to saying if meteorologists play the Pittsburgh Steelers 4 times in a 16 game season they have the toughest schedule in the NFL. It is neither here nor there. Four games isn't an entire season, how about the Saints, Cardinals, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles. If your argument is that Philadelphia had a harder schedule, you're wrong. Look up whatever stats you want on that for the 16 games and you can see that. Philly also played Cleveland, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. The only different teams we played were New Orleans (#1 in points and yards) and Detroit (actually ranked better than the Redskins in points), but yeah they were bad.

In any case teams are different over the course of the year, even if its in the same location. We were a completely different team in in the beginning of the season versus the end, and you can say that about a bunch of teams. But for 2 of those 12 games, one near the beginning and one near the end that were on the same day at the same location I saw one defense outperform the other both times, but apparently that was undeniably oppositely viewed by you, irrelevant to you, or maybe you just missed the games.

If you're arguing that the Redskins offense (28th in points) is better than the Eagles offense (6th in points) you're wrong. That's like arguing the St. Louis Rams defense (28th) is better than the Vikings defense (6th).

The differences in most of the stats between the Redskins and Eagles are small (0.4 points) and 10 yards so I'm saying small differences in stats like that don't matter when there are so many other variables involved from week to week and you don't even really know how important those stats are to a good defense. Slowing teams down not taking risks and making them make the small play slows them down and makes less drives for the other team. Is that a stat? No, but does it make a good defense, maybe. I think that it is wrong to be so sure based on a selection of stats that you choose that doesn't take other variables into consideration. You can have your opinion, but I think that you're opinion the Eagles are undeniably better is crazy and I feel my opinion that it's not UNDENIABLE is more reasonable. And evidence is the fact that many other people will agree with me that the Redskins defense could have been better than the Vikings or Eagles last year. And if you think all those people are crazy, then I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and maintaining your original opinion.

We played New Orleans and Detroit, they played Atlanta and Chicago. Please cut the shit. Their schedule was harder. Not that it matters over 16 games when 14 are basically the same, and they still beat us in every single defensive metric, most by a long shot. It's pretty much undeniable that their defense was better, at least among objectivity. If you aren't concerned about being objective, then it's just an entirely different viewpoint: fan.

Would you, in the future, not quote me with saying what CRedskinsRule says. I mean, he's right, but we're also two different people. Thanks.

But I do thank you for claiming argument consistency from TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. That's one of the more entertaining things that has ever happened from around these parts. Now I pretty much can't take you seriously anymore. I think you'll understand.

The rest of your post just seems to be a never-ending series of strawmans that varies between arguments that he made, neither of us made, and no one has ever made.

P.S. The fact that drive total has become a non-quantifiable statistic in this debate means it's pretty much over.