Voice_of_Reason

More important to improve: Offense or Defense

110 posts in this topic

48 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don't understand WHY everybody is out for Lauvao's head.  He's not great, not terrible, and the offense functioned fine with him.  Maybe he's a bit of a liability in the run game, but again, I keep coming back to the point, does replacing your LG with somebody somewhat better actually result in enough of a difference in point differential to actually make a difference to wins?  I personally don't think so.    

Luavao got blown up consistently. My belief is that a top tier LG also helps Long, which in a way, improves 1 1/2 positions on our line (Long is fine, but would look much better in between two strong guards). So many want a RB at #17, but it doesn't matter who's back there if there aren't holes to hit. None of these RBs are Barry Sanders.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want defense. I want a lot of defense. 

Edited by CTskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Didn't you used to have the Vinny Avatar?  I like this one better.  

 

Yeah. I had to change it. I just got tired of looking at Vinny ALL THE DAMN TIME!!!! ;) I might get back to my original one at some point, which was actually me. LOL

2 minutes ago, CTskin said:

Luavao got blown up consistently. My belief is that a top tier LG also helps Long, which in a way, improves 1 1/2 positions on our line (Long is fine, but would look much better in between two strong guards). So many want a RB at #17, but it doesn't matter who's back there if there aren't holes to hit. None of these RBs are Barry Sanders.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want defense. I want a lot of defense. 

 

I'll see if I can find it, but Lauvao was really badly ranked by PFF, like really bad. I agree another really good G would help out the run and pass game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CTskin said:

Luavao got blown up consistently. My belief is that a top tier LG also helps Long, which in a way, improves 1 1/2 positions on our line (Long is fine, but would look much better in between two strong guards). So many want a RB at #17, but it doesn't matter who's back there if there aren't holes to hit. None of these RBs are Barry Sanders.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want defense. I want a lot of defense. 

And I would counter with "so what?"  It was an offense that moved the ball almost at will.  Sure, there were some red zone issues, but will a new LG really change that significantly?  I don't think so.  

 

He's not great, but he's a legitimate starter in the NFL.  

 

I personally don't think either RB or LG is ideal at #17.  If that's the clear BPA, so be it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

And I would counter with "so what?"  It was an offense that moved the ball almost at will.  Sure, there were some red zone issues, but will a new LG really change that significantly?  I don't think so.  

 

He's not great, but he's a legitimate starter in the NFL.  

 

I personally don't think either RB or LG is ideal at #17.  If that's the clear BPA, so be it. 

 

 

Oh, I think it makes a big difference. We had big issues on short yardage, goal line (remember the RZ woes) and he was really bad in pass pro too. Here are PFF's OL rankings, as well as a couple other guys that did "some" blocking. Complements of @Skinsinparadise

 

Run blocking

Trent Williams 89

Brandon Scherff: 82.6

Morgan Moses: 82

Shawn Lauvao:  68.7

Spencer Long 61.7

Niles Paul: 70.6

Jordan Reed: 48.9

Vernon Davis 40.3

 

I'm surprised he's not last of the actual OL, to be honest but there is a huge drop off from our top 3 guys

 

Pass blocking

Trent Williams 90.6

Morgan Moses 84.3

Spencer Long 85.4

Brandon Scherff 82.1

Niles Paul 65.4

Vernon Davis 60.4

Matt Jones 58.5

Jordan Reed 54.3

Chris Thompson 48.7

Rob Kelly 47.9

Shawn Lauvao 47.3

 

Getting beat out by Rob Kelley is not good.

My point being is that a good OL makes the entire offense better. As does the DL for the defense.

 

Right now, I'm much more about helping the defense. But I also think we can help the running game without dropping a 1st round pick on a RB (and shore up pass pro) by taking a G sometime.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

Yeah. I had to change it. I just got tired of looking at Vinny ALL THE DAMN TIME!!!! ;) I might get back to my original one at some point, which was actually me. LOL

I cringed every time that I saw it.  

 

2 hours ago, Morneblade said:

I'll see if I can find it, but Lauvao was really badly ranked by PFF, like really bad. I agree another really good G would help out the run and pass game.

1. The PFF ratings are questionable at best.  2.  I agree, a better LG might help with run game a little bit.  

 

But I keep coming back to, does it really matter?  Unless somebody can draw a specific relationship between guard play and red zone issues, I'm not sure that it really matters all that much.  The offense moved the ball so easily most of the season, what is the incremental benefit in terms of points?  Becuase they don't need help with yards, TOP, "productive drives", 3-out percentage, etc.  They're already good there.

 

I will say, if they can find a new guard in the 3rd/4th round that can replace Lauvao, or if one of the guys they have on the team can take over, then I'm all for it.  I just wouldn't spend a ton of resources on a position that doesn't seem to be really effecting the ability of the offense to move the ball.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

1. The PFF ratings are questionable at best.  2.  I agree, a better LG might help with run game a little bit.  

 

But I keep coming back to, does it really matter?  Unless somebody can draw a specific relationship between guard play and red zone issues, I'm not sure that it really matters all that much.  The offense moved the ball so easily most of the season, what is the incremental benefit in terms of points?  Becuase they don't need help with yards, TOP, "productive drives", 3-out percentage, etc.  They're already good there.

 

I will say, if they can find a new guard in the 3rd/4th round that can replace Lauvao, or if one of the guys they have on the team can take over, then I'm all for it.  I just wouldn't spend a ton of resources on a position that doesn't seem to be really effecting the ability of the offense to move the ball.

 

 

I think the big help is RZ. When the field got short, and we got conservative (and predictable) in playcalling, being able to just man up and get a TD from 2-3 yards out (instead of kicking FG's all day) is a big deal. Our short yardage was not so great either, LoS was consistently getting moved back.

 

And I feel you about devoting a ton of resouces to the offense. I don't want to do that either. D has so many areas of need, especially DL. OLB is a big issue too. We're real iffy at CB, not sure about the #2 or #3 corners. could use a ILB. SS is a question mark, and so is FS.

 

So, I'm with ya :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a top 5 OL. People here are still spoiled by the Hogs. The OL is more than good enough to win with. I don't mind taking a LG in the middle rounds but there is no way you can take one in the 1st just two years after taking Scherff at 5(and Scherff was a slam dunk sure fire stud G).

 

We need an impact from our 1st round pick. Gs don't make enough of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

We have a top 5 OL. People here are still spoiled by the Hogs. The OL is more than good enough to win with. I don't mind taking a LG in the middle rounds but there is no way you can take one in the 1st just two years after taking Scherff at 5(and Scherff was a slam dunk sure fire stud G).

 

We need an impact from our 1st round pick. Gs don't make enough of one.

 

Actually, when I look at OL grades, we're top ten, but not top 5. But I agree about G, really not the time to go there in the 1st couple days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

And I would counter with "so what?"  It was an offense that moved the ball almost at will.  Sure, there were some red zone issues, but will a new LG really change that significantly?  I don't think so.  

 

He's not great, but he's a legitimate starter in the NFL.  

 

I personally don't think either RB or LG is ideal at #17.  If that's the clear BPA, so be it. 

 

I'm with you. I thought I made it pretty clear, but my view is defense >>> offense at #17. We don't NEED a single player on offense, but we absolutely need defense. I'd be content with offense if none of the stud defensive players drop and we can't find a trade partner. I don't want to reach on defense, so in the aforementioned worst case scenario, one of the offensive positions I'd target would be LG. We're a pass-first team and Luavao was one of the worst pass-protectors in the league. I'm like you, not in love with PFF rankings, but my eyes agreed with their assessment. And really, they can't be that far off.

Edited by CTskin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defense and its not even close.  And not just defense but in particular 3rd down defense.  We were last in the league in giving a 1st on 3rd down plays.  That just can't happen IMO.  you jump to mid pack on this stat along and we probably win more than 3 additional games last year.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

We have a top 5 OL. People here are still spoiled by the Hogs. The OL is more than good enough to win with. I don't mind taking a LG in the middle rounds but there is no way you can take one in the 1st just two years after taking Scherff at 5(and Scherff was a slam dunk sure fire stud G).

 

We need an impact from our 1st round pick. Gs don't make enough of one.

 

I think we need D at 17, but I disagree about the impact a G can make--they don't make splashy big-play impacts, but a dominant guard can make a huge impact in terms of functionality and success in doing what you want to do, which in turn keeps your D fresh, etc.  It sickens me the one team I hate understands this kind of thing better than just about any other team, and they're likely going to be winning the East for a while.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Detroit and Cincy would have been wins if the defense could have held on their final drives of regulation.  It's true.  Though I think they also would have had a shot in a number of other games as well.  

 

 

I think Arizona was the other game we would have had a better chance in with better d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheGreek1973 said:

Defense and its not even close.  And not just defense but in particular 3rd down defense.  We were last in the league in giving a 1st on 3rd down plays.  That just can't happen IMO.  you jump to mid pack on this stat along and we probably win more than 3 additional games last year.

 

Rush D in general was terrible

24th in rushing yards

28th in rushing tds

27th in yards per rush attempt

2 minutes ago, carex said:

 

I think Arizona was the other game we would have had a better chance in with better d

 

You can add Dallas both times. Lost by 3 and 5 points. I think that puts us up to 5 more wins.

 

That would have been nice.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RedskinsInFebruary said:

 

I think we need D at 17, but I disagree about the impact a G can make--they don't make splashy big-play impacts, but a dominant guard can make a huge impact in terms of functionality and success in doing what you want to do, which in turn keeps your D fresh, etc.  It sickens me the one team I hate understands this kind of thing better than just about any other team, and they're likely going to be winning the East for a while.

I don't disagree, except for the fact that the 'skins were top 5 in plays per drive, yards per drive, points per drive, and TOP.  So while it might be nice to have an upgrade at LG, the player that we had there was not exactly KILLING the offense.  

 

I actually think a RB who didn't run 5 steps and then fall down in fear (Jones), or run the opposite direction of the hole (Kelley) would be more of a help on offense.  That said, I still think that even without an upgrade at RB, the offense is good enough to win 10-13 games RIGHT NOW if the defense isn't crapola.  

 

8 minutes ago, carex said:

 

I think Arizona was the other game we would have had a better chance in with better d

I'd put every game, including the Steelers game.  We were out of that game so fast, the offense didn't even have time to respond.  

 

The obvious games are both Dallas games, Detroit and Cincy.  Just those, you can get to 10-12 wins. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

Rush D in general was terrible

24th in rushing yards

28th in rushing tds

27th in yards per rush attempt

 

You can add Dallas both times. Lost by 3 and 5 points. I think that puts us up to 5 more wins.

 

That would have been nice.

And those defensive total numbers are even over-stated. Take that yards per rush attempt number and add 5 rushes per game if the offense isn't controlling TOP.  Yikes.

 

The reason they are not last in the league by miles is that they had fewer drives on defense because the offense was top 5 in TOP.  

 

The one thing about all team-stats in the NFL is that everything is related in some way.  Can you imagine if the 'Skins punted more often?  They were either 1st or second in the league with fewest 3-outs.  What if they were average, middle of the pack?  These defensive numbers would be staggeringly bad.  

 

There are no words to describe how pathetic the defense was.  And that idiot Barry got an associate HC job in LA.  Boy Wonder made a goof there. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RedskinsInFebruary said:

 

I think we need D at 17, but I disagree about the impact a G can make--they don't make splashy big-play impacts, but a dominant guard can make a huge impact in terms of functionality and success in doing what you want to do, which in turn keeps your D fresh, etc.  It sickens me the one team I hate understands this kind of thing better than just about any other team, and they're likely going to be winning the East for a while.

I don't want to take the thread too off-topic, but not so fast on that Cowboys prediction. Yes, their offense should be pretty nice, but this off-season they lost 5 or 6 defensive starters and 2 starting OL. Marinelli's a stud and all, but their D will inevitably take a step back next year. If they get behind on the scoreboard more, they won't be able to run the ball and control the ToP like they need to...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CTskin said:

I don't want to take the thread too off-topic, but not so fast on that Cowboys prediction. Yes, their offense should be pretty nice, but this off-season they lost 5 or 6 defensive starters and 2 starting OL. Marinelli's a stud and all, but their D will inevitably take a step back next year. If they get behind on the scoreboard more, they won't be able to run the ball and control the ToP like they need to...

And there's a very good chance that Dak takes a step back after teams have a chance to take a look at him over the off-season.  Only because, aside from Dan Freaking Marino in 1984, just about every good rookie QB takes a slight step back in year 2.  Marino, of course, went on to set just about every single season passing record in 1984, which stood for 20+ years.  Dude was amazing. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

And those defensive total numbers are even over-stated. Take that yards per rush attempt number and add 5 rushes per game if the offense isn't controlling TOP.  Yikes.

 

The reason they are not last in the league by miles is that they had fewer drives on defense because the offense was top 5 in TOP.  

 

The one thing about all team-stats in the NFL is that everything is related in some way.  Can you imagine if the 'Skins punted more often?  They were either 1st or second in the league with fewest 3-outs.  What if they were average, middle of the pack?  These defensive numbers would be staggeringly bad. 

 

True. To put things into perspective, the best defensive rush stat we had was attempts, which was 19th. Otherwise we would have given up more than 2000 yards rushing. As it was, we almost did.

 

We gave up 17 more rushing TDs that passing TDs.

Dead last in 1st downs given up

 

And people don't want a NT. Or think we can "just get by without one."

 

My current avatar is exactly how I feel about that. Seeing red, and guns drawn.

7 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

And there's a very good chance that Dak takes a step back after teams have a chance to take a look at him over the off-season.  Only because, aside from Dan Freaking Marino in 1984, just about every good rookie QB takes a slight step back in year 2.  Marino, of course, went on to set just about every single season passing record in 1984, which stood for 20+ years.  Dude was amazing. 

 

I think Dak will fall from grace when he has to do more than had off to Zeke and hit a checkdown. But that won't matter if we can't stop Zeke.

 

And I don't care if he never won a championship. Marino was the best QB I've ever seen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

And I would counter with "so what?"  It was an offense that moved the ball almost at will.  Sure, there were some red zone issues, but will a new LG really change that significantly?  I don't think so.  

 

I think the red zone issues are in large part due to our weak run blocking. To run well in the red zone you have to move bodies off the LOS, and we didn't do that too well. If we acquire a LG who is a good run blocker we're likely addressing red zone. Also, an improved LG will automatically improve Long.

 

That said, I think we're good enough on offense as-is and hope we go BPA all the way. Hopefully we improve our D significantly. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

True. To put things into perspective, the best defensive rush stat we had was attempts, which was 19th. Otherwise we would have given up more than 2000 yards rushing. As it was, we almost did.

 

We gave up 17 more rushing TDs that passing TDs.

Dead last in 1st downs given up

 

And people don't want a NT. Or think we can "just get by without one."

 

My current avatar is exactly how I feel about that. Seeing red, and guns drawn.

I'm not sure it's only a NT.  They need a NT, and 2 DTs, and better DEs.  I mean, it's the entire line.  I'm not going to get into the discussion of who we have vs. who we lost, (because honestly I don't see much of a difference, and we don't KNOW if they'll be better/worse/the same) but I can say that I just don't think we've done ENOUGH, because we needed 5 new starter/rotational guys, and we've gotten 2.  

 

Quote

I think Dak will fall from grace when he has to do more than had off to Zeke and hit a checkdown. But that won't matter if we can't stop Zeke.

Agreed, but I think that teams (maybe not us) will figure out ways to slow down Zeke and MAKE Dak beat them deep.  They'll flood the underneath and see if he can make them pay over the top.  They have the weapons where he should be able to.  But we haven't seen him HAVE to do that yet.  We'll see.

 

I do think he's a pretty good QB, though.  And even if defenses adjust, he'll adjust, it just going to take a normal path...

 

Quote

And I don't care if he never won a championship. Marino was the best QB I've ever seen.

One of the coolest things I've seen (on TV) was the QB Skills competition in like 1992.  There were 4 QBs competing: Marino, Elway, Kelly, (somebody who I can't remember.)

 

One of the competitions was that they had to hit bulls-eyes on targets mounted on  moving golf carts. I think that you had 5 or 6 balls to throw, and the further the target you hit, the more points that you got.  The trick was that each cart was only active some of the time, so the QB would have to wait for the flag to pop up, and then hit the target.   There was one 50 yards down field, and there was a big mannequin in the middle of the field, so you had to throw over it to hit the deep target.

 

Marino got really ticked because there was a malfunction on the flag for the deep cart on his second or third attempt, and the flag didn't come up in time, so he took the check down.  So, on the last ball, Marino knew that the deep ball would be available, again, 50-ish yards down field, and he had to hit the middle of the bulls-eye to win.  The flag came up, he threw the ball, hit the target dead freaking center.  Like it was absolutely nothing.  

 

Pretty damn impressive to hit a moving target with an obstical 50 yards down field.  I'm pretty sure he could have hit the bulls eye 8 times out of 10.  Wouldn't ever miss the target.  

 

He was amazingly accurate.  

12 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

I think the red zone issues are in large part due to our weak run blocking. To run well in the red zone you have to move bodies off the LOS, and we didn't do that too well. If we acquire a LG who is a good run blocker we're likely addressing red zone. Also, an improved LG will automatically improve Long.

 

That said, I think we're good enough on offense as-is and hope we go BPA all the way. Hopefully we improve our D significantly. 

I think that our week run blocking was exacerbated by RBs who either didn't see or hit the holes that were there.  Which makes the blocking look worse.  There were holes, at times, and our RBs didn't hit them.

 

It's like the OL was blasted like crazy in 2014 when Griffin was playing QB because he was sacked something like one out of ever 9 drop backs.   Cousins comes in, same line, and magically, that problem disappears.  

 

The OL can look a lot better or worse depending on who's playing behind it.

 

To EVERYBODY, THIS IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO TURN THIS THREAD INTO AN RG3 VS COUSINS THREAD.  

Edited by Voice_of_Reason
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think that our week run blocking was exacerbated by RBs who either didn't see or hit the holes that were there.  Which makes the blocking look worse.  There were holes, at times, and our RBs didn't hit them.

 

 

 

I actually did not see that much of this. Most of the time, I saw no holes

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

I actually did not see that much of this. Most of the time, I saw no holes

There were holes.  In listening to Cooley's film breakdown weekly, he would routinely point out holes where the back ran the wrong way, missed the hole, didn't hit the hole, etc.  Jones, if I recall, did it so often that he actually would go in the wrong direction that the play was designed for. Kelley was late to the hole a lot.  (Which I understand, lack of practice reps, you don't instinctively KNOW where the hole will be without a lot of repetition.)

 

There were times when there are no holes, but there are times when there were holes and the back was running straight to the sideline. Just like every team.  

 

The other issue with our running game is that with anything outside, the WR/TEs  NEVER EVER EVER set the goddamn edge.  So, the OL would be ok, stretchin to the sideline, providing cut-back opportunities, but if you don't set the edge, you're totally ****ed. The thing just keeps going sideways until you hit the sideline.  When Niles went down, we lost the best blocking TE we had, and even he wasn't great.  Reed is "eh" at best at run-blocking, and the other jabroni's are actually worse.

 

As for WRs, Garcon would block his ass off, Crowder gave great effort, but he's small, and DJax didn't get paid to block, so he didn't.  Which is why Grant played so much on running plays. But, that became as obvious a tell as a poker player who giggles every time he gets an ace.  

 

I think our running game improves with the bigger WRs that we have on the roster now by default.  If they can find a blocking TE, that will help tremendously, regardless of what happens at LG.  

Edited by Voice_of_Reason
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Voice_of_Reason

Mentioned this in another thread, but given the talk of the defensive run game, I thought I'd add it here too.

 

We did poorly vs the run last year, but a marginal improvement of .3 or so yards per carry would put us around middle of the pack.  

 

Would adding a guard, a blocking Te or a better back possibly correlate to a similar improvement on offense?  Is it therefore perhaps worth it to look into improvement there because (although it's marginal) it can wind up with a bigger net effect?  Just wondered where 'those marginal' differences stacked up in terms of your scoring research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first round I hope we draft the best defensive player money can buy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2017 at 2:14 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

There were holes.  In listening to Cooley's film breakdown weekly, he would routinely point out holes where the back ran the wrong way, missed the hole, didn't hit the hole, etc.  Jones, if I recall, did it so often that he actually would go in the wrong direction that the play was designed for. Kelley was late to the hole a lot.  (Which I understand, lack of practice reps, you don't instinctively KNOW where the hole will be without a lot of repetition.)

 

There were times when there are no holes, but there are times when there were holes and the back was running straight to the sideline. Just like every team.  

 

The other issue with our running game is that with anything outside, the WR/TEs  NEVER EVER EVER set the goddamn edge.  So, the OL would be ok, stretchin to the sideline, providing cut-back opportunities, but if you don't set the edge, you're totally ****ed. The thing just keeps going sideways until you hit the sideline.  When Niles went down, we lost the best blocking TE we had, and even he wasn't great.  Reed is "eh" at best at run-blocking, and the other jabroni's are actually worse.

 

As for WRs, Garcon would block his ass off, Crowder gave great effort, but he's small, and DJax didn't get paid to block, so he didn't.  Which is why Grant played so much on running plays. But, that became as obvious a tell as a poker player who giggles every time he gets an ace.  

 

I think our running game improves with the bigger WRs that we have on the roster now by default.  If they can find a blocking TE, that will help tremendously, regardless of what happens at LG.  

This is one point that goes unnoted. Our run game will improve with two bigger WRs. Last year our only WR that could block was Garcon but even he isn't a BIG guy, he just gave a legit great effort. Crowder is too small and Jackson and Reed were non factors blocking.

 

I do agree that Jones missed holes a lot. Kelley I don't think had the same problem, he just isn't as physically talented so he wouldn't get as many yards as someone like McCaffery or Cook could potentially get with the same blocking.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.