Defensive Systems and Current Roster

[London Kev]

As long as we get the new guy in place in time for free agency, I don't really have a strong preference who it is. I'm leaning more to ditching the 3-4 completely, but with all of the three and four receiver sets it's a bit of a moot point.

 

We currently have a spine-less defense and have had for years now. Whoever we bring in, this needs to be addressed.

[Renegade7]

I don't want a defense that doesn't blitz.  It may take a minute to get the talent to pull that off with our dline, but in the meantime, I want us to be aggressive.

[MartinC]

2 hours ago, skins island connection said:

 

 It seems that they're in a 2 gap most of the time when in a true 3-4.

 But when a LB comes in to fill the 4th spot, they still seem to be running a 2 gap, unless I'm not seeing it correctly. But the idea of a LB who goes up against an o-lineman who out-weighs him by 60+ lbs almost clears the way for a RB or QB to roll that direction; then it becomes a game of chase, when another LB or safety has to come up for support it leaves a bigger hole in the middle.

 

A true 4-3 with actual linemen playing a 1 gap looks best for the situation, being the current players for the most part are not that good, especially in the LB dept. It was kinda difficult at times to figure out exactly what was going on out there; numerous times we'd see Whitner next to a LB and both are totally out of play, like one of them was just lost [ my guess is Whitner ].

 

From what I see we run mainly 1 gap. We may mix it up from time to time but I'd say our base defense is 1 gap.

[Voice_of_Reason]

9 hours ago, Darth Tater said:

I really find it funny when people think our talent on defense sucks.  I guess they are saying Barry was an excellent DC.

I'm saying the talent sucked and the coaching was horrific.  These are not mutually exclusive.  Both can be, and were, true.

[Dro889]

10 hours ago, Darth Tater said:

@DC9

 

Did not say or imply that parts of our defense are bad, just that since our overall defense was mediocre (we did NOT suck), one would have to be implying Barry was a great DC.

 

That defense was 100% Garbage.

 

Honestly the 4-3 amd 3-4 scheme crap isnt that important because nickle is probably the most used defense in the NFL.

[William Barbour]

Well.. If Gus Bradley becomes the defensive coordinator. His 4-3 scheme is similar to what the Giants ran in their Super Bowl run and the Seattle Seahawks. A 4-3 "Nascar" scheme is based off of athletic Defensive Lineman and a Hard nose run stopping MLB. It transitions to a Nickel package more smoothly then a 3-4.

 

I dont see Baker fitting in this scheme. Which sucks because hes our best defensive lineman. I would assume they would move either Murphy or Preston Smith inside similar to Bennett in Seattle or Tuck from NYG. 

 

My dark horse in this defense is going to be Anthony Lanier. I think he will excel in a 4-3 and become a good player on this defense. 

 

This is all assuming we get Gus Bradley as our DC

[carex]

1 hour ago, Dro889 said:

 

That defense was 100% Garbage.

 

Honestly the 4-3 amd 3-4 scheme crap isnt that important because nickle is probably the most used defense in the NFL.

 

it does matter because teams still acquire and train players based on their base defense

[Voice_of_Reason]

11 hours ago, carex said:

 

it does matter because teams still acquire and train players based on their base defense

That's actually not entirely true.  They acquire players to play both their base and nickle defenses.

 

I used to be a real huge fan of the 3-4.  But with the fact that teams are in Nickle so much, which has 4 down linemen, I actually think it makes more sense today to run a 4-3, though be able to slip into some 3-4 on occasion as a wrinkle.

The reason is that you have essentially the same DL requirements for base and nickle. 

 

If you're running a 3-4, you need a NT that you play in base who generally leaves the field when you go nickle.  Also, the typical nickle is 4-2-5, so of your 4 base LBs, only 2 are generally on the field.  And your typical 3-4 OLBs are pass-rushers.

 

There are obviously 1000 different variants to get different players on the field, but organizations definitely acquire players for different packages. 

 

 

 

 

[skinny21]

13 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I'm saying the talent sucked and the coaching was horrific.  These are not mutually exclusive.  Both can be, and were, true.

 

I think the question (or maybe disconnect?) is essentially - how did a defense devoid of talent with horrific coaching manage to rank 19th in points allowed?  Or, how were they not last in yardage?  

 

 

Edit:  sorry, I should have used "suck" instead of "devoid of"

[RandyHolt]

Maybe we ranked 19th in points allowed in part because of offense was able to sustain long drives consistently all year. We often hear about "keeping the ball out of quarterback Xs hands" as a aid to defenses.

 

But mainly we were 19th in points allowed because Barry largely ran a bend don't break. It can gets things done, well, other than stuffing RBs for loses, pressuring QBs and offenses aggressively, dictate the game to the offense.  The BDB won't pitch a shutout, nor will it get schooled for fiddy.

 

It's high time to end the 3-4 charade. If we do find a huge nose, teams will just go hurry up on him, gas him, and render him useless.

[Master Blaster]

14 hours ago, William Barbour said:

 If Gus Bradley becomes the defensive coordinator.

 

I dont see Baker fitting in this scheme.

 

This is all assuming we get Gus Bradley as our DC

 

 

I'm not sure how you can say this when the Seahawks wanted Baker.

 

I came to post the exact opposite.  My only question being he might be seen as a NG in that scheme (like Mebane), and not sure if he wants to play it.

[lavar1156]

I don't want Baker back because he's not that good. He's just better than most of the players we have so it appears that he's good.

[Master Blaster]

6 minutes ago, lavar1156 said:

I don't Baker back because he's not that good. He's just better than most of the players we have so it appears that he's good.

 

 

I go back and forth on this.  To me it depends on the price. 

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, RandyHolt said:

Maybe we ranked 19th in points allowed in part because of offense was able to sustain long drives consistently all year. We often hear about "keeping the ball out of quarterback Xs hands" as a aid to defenses.

 

But mainly we were 19th in points allowed because Barry largely ran a bend don't break. It can gets things done, well, other than stuffing RBs for loses, pressuring QBs and offenses aggressively, dictate the game to the offense.  The BDB won't pitch a shutout, nor will it get schooled for fiddy.

 

It's high time to end the 3-4 charade. If we do find a huge nose, teams will just go hurry up on him, gas him, and render him useless.

Pretty sure our TOP was right around 30min.  Maybe a case can be made in a different way, but TOP doesn't seem like decisive factor here.

 

If we played a bend but don't break defense - we shouldn't be surprised that they wound up 28th in yards, especially since we're majorly lacking in talent in several areas.

Considering this lack of talent, I'd say the D did a (halfway?) decent job in ranking just under the middle of the pack in points allowed.

Factor in the fact that the coaching was "horrible", and it makes me question how the heck they achieved that 19th rank.

 

 

Regarding the NT thing... how do other teams do it?  Why does anyone run a 34 if an offense can pretty easily render their crucial player neutral?

 

[RandyHolt]

Thoughts on Baker... I would venture a guess and say us fans have no idea how Baker was used in even a majority of his snaps last year, let alone how he'd fit in our presumed new scheme.  Was he usually 1 or 2 gap, which is his strength anyways; is he a better 3 tech than 4 or 5. What did he do most of last year? If he was consensus one of our 'better' players, I think Scot will not be able to rebuild the entire defense so expect him back.

[RandyHolt]

4 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Pretty sure our TOP was right around 30min.  Maybe a case can be made in a different way, but TOP doesn't seem like decisive factor here.....

 

 

All great points, and not much to dispute there. I think the stats will show that Barry did very good in the 2nd halves of games (going largely from memory). Our defense got crushed on 1st and 3rd downs, and tightened up near the goal line. Smaller field, more blitzing, presumably.

 

Also, I think OCs/QBs get frustrated taking 9 yard gains all the time, and grow impatient vs the BDB.

 

Teams that deploy a nose, I think its required that they are in great shape.

[skins island connection]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That's actually not entirely true.  They acquire players to play both their base and nickle defenses.

 

I used to be a real huge fan of the 3-4.  But with the fact that teams are in Nickle so much, which has 4 down linemen, I actually think it makes more sense today to run a 4-3, though be able to slip into some 3-4 on occasion as a wrinkle.

The reason is that you have essentially the same DL requirements for base and nickle. 

 

If you're running a 3-4, you need a NT that you play in base who generally leaves the field when you go nickle.  Also, the typical nickle is 4-2-5, so of your 4 base LBs, only 2 are generally on the field.  And your typical 3-4 OLBs are pass-rushers.

 

There are obviously 1000 different variants to get different players on the field, but organizations definitely acquire players for different packages. 

 

 

 

 

 

 When Buddy Ryan had that monstrous 4-6 in Chicago back in the 80's, I thought that was one of the most revolutionized formations i'd seen my entire life.

 4 beasts up front, 1 LB, and the rest a combo of safeties and DBs.  Today I don't think anyone comes close to it except in nickle or dime formations, but what a sight it would be to see us with 4 mean muthas up front with ball hog safeties who can run and hit?!  If any DC could pull that off they could name their salary.

 

 Only thing that Buddy failed at was adjusting in situations, but man that was impressive to watch, even if Gibbs did beat them twice.

[carex]

14 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

 

 When Buddy Ryan had that monstrous 4-6 in Chicago back in the 80's, I thought that was one of the most revolutionized formations i'd seen my entire life.

 4 beasts up front, 1 LB, and the rest a combo of safeties and DBs.  Today I don't think anyone comes close to it except in nickle or dime formations, but what a sight it would be to see us with 4 mean muthas up front with ball hog safeties who can run and hit?!  If any DC could pull that off they could name their salary.

 

 Only thing that Buddy failed at was adjusting in situations, but man that was impressive to watch, even if Gibbs did beat them twice.

 

pretty sure that's not the 46 considering two of Chicgo's most well known defenders in that D were LBs Mike Singletary and Wilbur Marshall

[London Kev]

32 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

 

 When Buddy Ryan had that monstrous 4-6 in Chicago back in the 80's, I thought that was one of the most revolutionized formations i'd seen my entire life.

 4 beasts up front, 1 LB, and the rest a combo of safeties and DBs.  Today I don't think anyone comes close to it except in nickle or dime formations, but what a sight it would be to see us with 4 mean muthas up front with ball hog safeties who can run and hit?!  If any DC could pull that off they could name their salary.

 

 Only thing that Buddy failed at was adjusting in situations, but man that was impressive to watch, even if Gibbs did beat them twice.

The 46 definitely had more than one LB. The thing that stood out about it was two LBs positioned over the TE. I'm sure Singletary played MLB as well.

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 hours ago, skinny21 said:

 

I think the question (or maybe disconnect?) is essentially - how did a defense devoid of talent with horrific coaching manage to rank 19th in points allowed?  Or, how were they not last in yardage?  

 

 

Edit:  sorry, I should have used "suck" instead of "devoid of"

Becuase the offense kept the ball and didn't punt.

 

Go and look up yards per defensive drive and points per defensive drive, 3rd down conversion, 3rd and long conversion. 

 

The defense was historically bad.  It's foolish to not admit it.

37 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

 

 When Buddy Ryan had that monstrous 4-6 in Chicago back in the 80's, I thought that was one of the most revolutionized formations i'd seen my entire life.

 4 beasts up front, 1 LB, and the rest a combo of safeties and DBs.  Today I don't think anyone comes close to it except in nickle or dime formations, but what a sight it would be to see us with 4 mean muthas up front with ball hog safeties who can run and hit?!  If any DC could pull that off they could name their salary.

 

 Only thing that Buddy failed at was adjusting in situations, but man that was impressive to watch, even if Gibbs did beat them twice.

Do you know where the name 46 defense came from?

[Bishop Hammer]

On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, S.T.real,lights,out said:

We have never had the personnel to run a 3-4.

 

No dominant NT or pass rusher. ILBs that can't cover. We should have switched back to a 4-3 once Shanny left.

For whatever reason we haven't and we have been struggling on D ever since.  

 

 

 

The reason Washington has struggled in the 3-4 is because two intrepid coaches have been running it here.  Both Haslett and Barry had shoddy histories before becoming to The Redskins DC  so it shouldn't come as a surprise they continued their ineptitude with The B&G.

 

If Romeo Cromell or Dick Labeau was running the show on defense I don't think the 3-4 would be as bad as it was the past couple seasons.   

 

It also boggles my bloody mind how The Redskins have been running the 3-4 for seven years but still don't have the personnel to operate it accordingly.  That's shows the problem goes beyond coaching too.  Whether it's the 4-3, 3-4, or even 5-1-48 the D is going to falter until the players, coaches, and front office get a handle on how to work together. 

[illone]

I think we have a piece or two at every level that is serviceable, and we dont need to blow the defense up as some have suggested here, but we do need an infusion of talent at all levels.  Both CBs are above avg, and I am willing to give Breeland a one time pass for last year considering what Cooley said about him on the radio last week: Breeland wanted to be the #1 guy and was expecting to be, and his confidence was rattled when they brought in Norman.  That said, time for him to put on his big boy pants and go out there and cover the water boy if the team needs him to. 

 

Baker is good on the Dline, and I also believe Compton would be much better served if he had someone else on the inside that can play sideline to sideline.  Compton is a good play caller, and knows how to get guys lined up and I think he will be retained.

 

The big gaping hole to me is at safety.  It goes back to Sean Taylor getting murdered and the team hasn't recovered from that and has suffered some bad luck along the way too with Kyshoen Jarrett being a stud and having his career cut short due to life altering injury. 

 

I dont think the team can go wrong by investing almost the entire draft on defense.  Same with free agency.  This is a big free agent year for Scott McGlooey.

[London Kev]

5 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

...

Do you know where the name 46 defense came from?

 

I always thought that it was the number of one of the players, although I don't think that I ever knew who or why.

Thinking about it, it was probably one of the safeties. I was going to Google it, but that kinda felt like cheating.

[Voice_of_Reason]

19 minutes ago, London Kev said:

 

I always thought that it was the number of one of the players, although I don't think that I ever knew who or why.

Thinking about it, it was probably one of the safeties. I was going to Google it, but that kinda felt like cheating.

Right.  Doug Plank, SS.

[skins island connection]

5 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Becuase the offense kept the ball and didn't punt.

 

Go and look up yards per defensive drive and points per defensive drive, 3rd down conversion, 3rd and long conversion. 

 

The defense was historically bad.  It's foolish to not admit it.

Do you know where the name 46 defense came from?

 

 I think I heard about it years ago, back when I drank a lot [ more ].

 I have this bad thing about calling it the 4-6 because of the speed and agility those guys had. It sure seemed like there were 6 safeties and DBs out there. I think about what it would be like to have a team with pretty much 1 LB and the rest of the back being safeties and DBs, but safeties that brought it every play.

 

 I have a feeling that in 20-30 years from now, the LB position will be disappearing. With the speed of TEs today, and how the running game has fallen off in recent years, teams will begin opting for multiple safeties and DBs to counter them. It may be just me, but think about it for a minute; would a team with 4 linemen and a secondary with 3-4 safeties floating around seem too ridiculous?