What to look out for against the Saints.

[Art]

Honestly, one can't really look at this game objectively and think, weighing all factors, that the Saints shouldn't beat the Redskins this week. The Saints are a team that has great offensive talent and they are playing very well overall, winning games against some previously good teams.

The main factors against us remain those we had entering the Titan game and the Niner game and the Eagle game and the Cardinal game. We are still so new to the systems we're playing on both sides of the ball, that despite obvious progress in the execution of plays within the scheme, we aren't so solid within the scheme that we can't get pushed around a little and ultimately collapse while desperately trying to come back to make a play.

That said, if you put this game in Week 10 or so, when you'd imagine the Redskins would be comfortable with what they are supposed to be doing, I don't think there's any question we'd be favored to win this game. As a team, we have essentially spotted the league five games last year and again this year while we are figuring things out.

The disadvantages we have in this game, largely, are those that can be overcome or at least lessened, with time. The Saints are somewhat different. By all accounts, they are playing well. I don't think you'll find many of their fans worrying over how they are playing. They are playing very well and we are really not and here's where we get to their disadvantages.

The Saints, playing well, are only mildly better than we are playing poorly on offense. The Saints playing well are worse than we are playing poorly on defense. If you compare our talent on offense, it's hard to say we're right up there with the Saints. Sure, I'll take my chances with Davis and our tackles over theirs, and I like the way Gardener is developing and how Ramsey could develop. But that offense is just more talented and more proven than we are overall and they are playing really good football. That we are even close to them statistically is a tribute to the system Spurrier has.

Defensively we certainly have better talent and despite our disappointment as to how that talent has played, we're actually performing at a better level than the Saints somehow. That could change after this week should we revert to a struggle and they pour it on while we struggle.

There's no shame in dropping this game or not expecting a victory. I don't expect one. But, our biggest advantage in this game is the type of attitude the Saints took last year, in totally quitting, that has carried over some to this year, as they've lost focus and not finished games well.

We will beat the Saints if we can get them on their heels a little bit and get a turnover early. I don't know that the Saints have the mental fortitude to stick through a game where things start to snowball against them. Beating the Bears has to make them feel better. But, really, they've had questionable attitude games in seven of their last nine and that doesn't include Detroit.

The Saints are flying high right now. They are better as a team right now than we are. We can be better as a team than they can be if it starts to come together. But, I think our best hope in this game, really, is that they may start to question themselves if things don't go ok early.

The Saints don't have a good enough defense or a sure enough scheme right now where any real offensive adversity can be ignored. While I'd certainly like to see us at our cohesive best, I think I'll take a couple of early breaks and plays against a pretty bad defense, and see how they hold up.

[Canyonero!]

You don't expect a win?!!? You doubt the power this is Ramesy?

Seriously though, I was looking at some Saints boards, and they are really worried about their secondary matching up to us. If our OL plays a little better than they did vs Tenn, I think we can keep up with the Saints scoring. Hopefully our D and shut down Duece and keep Brooks in the pocket.

[Art]

They are right to worry about their secondary. I would love to see Ramsey cut them up a little. I just have a hard time lending full faith and credit to the rookie at this point. Ramsey is the X-factor though. If he plays like he did against Tennessee, we're going to win the game. If he plays more like a rookie, well, then we need that defense to know what is going on for four quarters.

Our offensive line held up nicely against the Titans and got better and better as the game went on. The Saints have only really generated much pressure against the Bucs in the opener and have since kind of evened off and actually have less of a pass rush than we do. But, it's all about matchups and how they can be exploited and how aggressive the Saints want to play us. They'd be smarter to play soft and make Ramsey throw against 8-man coverages than to blitz and fail, because if they blitz and fail, that could actually help us more than anything.

[Zen-like Todd]

We WILL win. Book it.

[Yomar]

By adding McAllister and Stallworth to the mix, the Saints look like the next great offensive team. Highly explosive. And as with all highly explosive teams, the way to beat the Saints is to dominate Time of Possession, limiting their chances and hopefully capitalizing on some mistakes. Stephen Davis is absolutely critical, if he gets 30 carries, the Skins should be in good shape. Stephen Davis off tackle all day with some Ramsey play-action I think is the way to approach the Saints. I know its a shaky secondary, but Sam Knight is a play maker back there and I would want to play high pecentage football with a rookie QB and emphasize keeping the turnovers down and the Saints O off the field. The D needs to step up big. This is a major challenge, the Saints are a far cry from the Titans stagnant offense. Playing on grass helps.

[EvilDONUT]

One thing to keep in mind and one reporters have repeatedly pointed out is that limiting our running game opens up the passing game. Defending us involves coming with a balanced approach or choosing your poison. Chicago found out well when they focused completely on stopping McAllister that Brooks can pass, and he's not going to force the ball like he did last year.

The second thing to point out about the Saints is that yes our passing defense is not stellar, but 28th in the league is a built up figure. We've had the fortune of leading our opponents the entire time in 3 of our games (even led chicago in the second half in our 4th)... this causes them to drop their running and go all pass. This also makes our defense go into prevent. While I can't say our pass defense is top 15... I *know* its not 28th.

I don't get Haslett. He seems like an old school guy who plays by the book. Once we take a 10+ point lead we always go into prevent, and late in the 4th quarter if we still have that huge lead we run McAllister up the middle in a 3 and out instead of passing. Haslett trusts our defense and refuses to get the offense into high gear to run up the score and ensure victory. We did this against GB, TB and Pitt, and against Chicago once we got that 9 point lead. It pisses me off, and it bit us in the *** in TB, but I assume the book tells him the percentages favour us.

This game is about matchups. I don't think we've played a team like you guys yet. Favre is the only thing close, but his line was horrid and we pressured or knocked him down 32 times (we only did the same to Tampa 25 or so times). It'll certainly be an entertaining game, I like shoot outs... they're fun as hell if we win them

[Dirk Diggler]

This past Sunday, I had one eye on the SKins and one eye on the Steelers/Saints game with this upcoming contest in mind.

The Steelers were gashing the Saints run defense by running off tackle plays, speed draws, and short pitch plays - designed to get the RB past the overpursuing end. I'm telling you, the Saints are only concerned about sacks and can be gutted if you are patient. They try to get out to big leads because they know how weak they are up front at stopping the run. Well, what team doesn't try to get out to big leads?

The point is that they are very suseptible on defense and if they can't just tee off on poor old Patrick - they are in trouble.

[NVskinsfan]

If able run Davis 25-30 times and use a lot of 3 WR sets.

Their pass rush defense is steller, but other areas are not so good!

They are beatable....look what happened at Detroit!

[Darth Tater]

When we're on defense: make the tackle when you lay hands on the guy. This'll shut down their running game and underneath passing (of course, the same is true the other way around). Mix in a few blitz packages. Put LA into the posistion to make plays (at least two of his ints and several of his pds last year came because he wasn't were the opposing qb thought he'd be).

On offense: SD (or whoever's at rb) must break tackles. Since they seem to get good penetration, we need to punish them for it. When they let up on the preasure, use Davis to force the LBs to stay near the LOS and maybe bring up the safety then take the passing game they give us. If we get a zone, can Ramesy hit Gardner on slants in the seams?

[shawn]

I think this is going to be a high scoring game and because of the saints weakness on defense the skins will come up on top, and talks of superbowl and making a run will re-surface mainly due to the mediocre NFC teams right now.

38-27 skins

[Riggo-toni]

Welcome, Evil Donut.

We always appreciate respectful posts from opposing fans.

[MRMADD]

<<That said, if you put this game in Week 10 or so, when you'd imagine the Redskins would be comfortable with what they are supposed to be doing, I don't think there's any question we'd be favored to win this game. As a team, we have essentially spotted the league five games last year and again this year while we are figuring things out. >> Art

The more we repeat this (and I've made this excuse too), the more it becomes "true". It isn't true. Yes, it's difficult to learn a new system every year -- but you don't have to learn how to tackle, and that seems to be one of our biggest problems, at least on defense.

Last year we spotted the league 5 games while learning Marty ball. This year the Chargers sprint out of the gate to 4-1 while learning Marty ball. It ain't a 'learning the system' problem. It might have to do with thick-headed big-ego veterans who think they can play their way regardless of what the coaches say.

Yes, I know the Chargers racked up most of those wins against the league's worst teams: the Bungles, the Texans, and the Cards. But they also beat the Patriots. I certainly don't think the Chargers are going to be able to keep that pace up, but it isn't because they're learning the system.

So the problem isn't just "figuring things out". On offense, we seem to lack talent at some positions -- although things are certainly looking up at QB. This offense has two great tackles and an All-Pro running back -- and that's it. Gardner is still a work in progress. If you threw our entire roster open to an expansion draft, those are the only ones who'd be taken. All our WRs, guards, TEs, FBs, and center are cast-offs or unproven. But this is just an excuse. Plenty of teams win without stars at every position (and the Rams manage to lose WITH stars at every position).

On defense, everyone makes the 'learning the system' argument, as if Marvin Lewis is teaching calculus to monkeys. What about the missed tackles on the Owens touchdown? What about your safety letting a wide-open Thrash sprint by him while Champ blitzes? These are fundamentals -- and this is a very talented veteran team.

They used to say about Joe Gibbs that he could take his guys and beat you, and he could take your guys and beat you. Coaching matters. So certainly Marv deserve some blame, but I think most of the problem falls on the shoulders of our superstars on defense. They were promising each other Rolexes and talking about eating pineapple at the Pro Bowl before the season started. They need to shut up and get serious about LEARNING the system. According to the Ravens, the system ain't that hard -- unless you're just trying to coast by on natural ability.

I think they've taken steps in the right direction. They need to act like Junior Seau in San Diego -- step and be a LEADER. You can't just expect the coaches to lead -- the players have responsibility for that too. Armstead, who many wrote off as over-the-hill before the season started, has been the only shining star of our much-ballyhooed triumvirate. Stephen Davis played through pain to help the rookie win his first game (are you listening Daryl Gardener?). Those are the kinds of efforts we need from our stars. Remember last year when Lavar interception against Carolina sparked our turnaround? It's time for Lavar to wake up.

So I think if nine months (Lewis got here in Feb) is long enough to make a baby, it's long enough to learn a defense. So against the Saints, no more excuses if the baby is ugly -- it's no longer Mama Lewis' fault. The players have to grow up and take responsibility. If you don't know where you're supposed to be by now, it's your fault.

So on balance, I'm not inclined to cut the offense a little slack because they aren't that talented. They still have an All-Pro RB and two great tackles, and lots of teams would love to be able to say that. Plenty of teams win without stars at every position. And the defense has absolutely no excuses.

This is the fifth game of the season. Let's just say we spotted the league FOUR games this year instead of five. The two teams we've lost to are both sitting atop their divisions. We're facing another team atop their division in the Saints. We need to win -- to beat a good team and reclaim FedEx field. NO MORE EXCUSES!

[bulldog]

the Redskins could lose this game and still play well.

the difference between this year's 2-2 start amid some confusion on D and at qb and last year's 0-5 start is that there is no animus toward the coaches.

some guys may bicker about Lewis' system and what they have to do in it, but nobody is bad-mouthing Spurrier or Lewis and making it personal.

that is the mistake Marty made, he went to war with individual players and never let up until it was apparent the team was about to go over the cliff.

IMHO Arrington, even if he disagrees with Lewis, is never going to be the team cancer that Bruce was last year, coming out and questioning the staff after each loss.

My guess is by midseason he and Lewis will find some accommodation.

As far as the Saints game goes, New Orleans is probably playing better than anyone else in the NFC right now.

Brooks is a mobile quarterback, which always seem to hurt the Redskins and McCallister is a double threat as a runner and receiver.

The defense is going to have its hands full containing these players.

I have more confidence that our corners will be able to matchup with and win their battles with the NO wideouts

It really comes down to how much pressure the Redskins can get on Brooks and on whether he makes mistakes with fumbles and interceptions.

Turnovers are the great equalizer. Right now, even up the Saints are 5-7 points better than the Redskins, but with a timely interception or fumble recovery, we can negate that advantage

BTW, it would be nice if the team could come out and really play a hard-nosed, full-effort, 60 minute game against a quality opponent in front of the home fans.............those who have purchased tickets would GREATLY appreciate it

[RiggoDrill]

Last year we spotted the league 5 games while learning Marty ball. This year the Chargers sprint out of the gate to 4-1 while learning Marty ball.

That's not quite true. The Chargers are running basically the same offense this year with Cam Cameron (Norv Turner's former QB coach) that they did last year with Norv. They also have player continuity with Brees and Tomlinson.

They are playing a Marty defense, but Defenses come together faster.

[Fred Smoot Fan]

Just keep Lavar in coverage underneath they love throwing those dumpoffs to Duc that end up going for long TDs. After he has a Lavar moment or two Duce might start getting a little hesitant thats when you throw the kitchen sink at Brooks. We need to blitz Trotter up the middle he DESTROYED McNair a few times last game on delay blitzes just like he did in Philly.

[RiggoDrill]

BTW, it would be nice if the team could come out and really play a hard-nosed, full-effort, 60 minute game against a quality opponent in front of the home fans.............those who have purchased tickets would GREATLY appreciate it [/Quote]

Amen.

Though I don't live in the area anymore, I'm tired of watching them choke at home in big games.

[MRMADD]

<<That's not quite true. The Chargers are running basically the same offense this year with Cam Cameron (Norv Turner's former QB coach) that they did last year with Norv. They also have player continuity with Brees and Tomlinson. >> RiggoDrill

Well, Brees is hardly continuity. Doug was their QB last year. Tomlinson -- well, he's a stud.

<<They are playing a Marty defense, but Defenses come together faster.>> Riggodrill

Funny how this applies to everyone but us.

[TheKurp]

While it's hard not to be excited about Ramsey's performance, I've got one nagging apprehension going into Sunday's game.

Turnovers.

I expect Ramsey is getting an earful of praise from the players, fans, coaches, and press concerning his ability to deliver the ball under pressure.

I'm worried that he'll want to live up to those accolades and then some. It's the "then some" that has me envisioning fumbles and interceptions.

A veteran QB knows when to tuck the ball and take the sack. He also knows when to throw the ball away.

Let's hope Ramsey knows this as well.

[redman]

Any team that's lost to the Lions can be beaten. The Saints twin Achilles heels are that they have a tendency to surrender points fast, and to get down early. If we get an early lead on them, anything can happen. Our defense is starting to stiffen, and we have the personnel to protect a lead on offense. But to me, an early lead is the key, preferably by two scores.

[Art]

Madd,

I think your's is a argument wanting definition because it lacks any real strength. We played well against the Titans this week. Did we "learn to tackle" over the bye, or, perhaps, were we slightly more comfortable and quicker to react within the scheme that helped us get into positions to better make tackles?

Comfort dictates a lot of things in this world. Marty came here and installed a very complex defensive system a year after Rhodes had installed a very simple one. The team had trouble with that early. In San Diego, the Chargers have run a scheme very similar to what Marty is employing so the curve was less.

As Seau said, "When you are playing in a system that allows you to simply react instead of think through everything, you are playing in a good scheme." John Fox went to Carolina and he simplified the scheme and the players have played better. Lewis came here and he made complex what the players had been doing.

When you are learning a system that doesn't rely upon you to adjust, but to simply play a specific assignment for every defensive call, the athletic ability can shine through more, just as ours will as the weeks go by and the more complex nature of the reads we must make as a defense become second nature.

When you are thinking, you aren't playing. And when you are a thinking you are step slow which puts you in spots where you can't quite make the play you may normally be able to make. Our biggest problem on defense hasn't been that we that we aren't tackling. Our problem is we are thinking so much, and the poor tackling is a byproduct of that.

That said, you can also see games where you will have breakdowns in the tackling even when a player is comfortable. I recall the Baltimore game a couple of years ago in D.C. Ray Lewis missed 10 tackles himself in that game. He said it was his worst game as a pro. He was completely comfortable in the system, but he just had a bad game.

We will have bad games too. And perhaps we just had a couple of bad games. But, in a game when you have players acknowledging they are asking each other what they are supposed to do on any given play, it tends to reinforce the thought that they are confused on the field, and they are, therefore, a step slow.

We were a good tackling team last year as the weeks wore on. We weren't a good tackling team early. You can't get good at something when your assignment hindering you. The defense here is more complex than it is in Carolina and than it is compared to what we ran successfully last year.

It's not an excuse being made to say the team hasn't taken the system in full yet. I don't disagree with you that it would be nice if they already had. But, it is more complex than we are accustomed to, and it is unquestioned the players have had difficulty picking up their responsibilities and always playing correctly within their assignments. I think you can't help but agree that such thinking through plays on the field tends to cause a player to hesitate and that can lead to some of the lethargic play we've seen.

But, I think it's pretty clear that poor tackling has been a byproduct of the problem and not the problem itself.

[MRMADD]

<<Madd,

I think your's is a argument wanting definition because it lacks any real strength...Comfort dictates a lot of things in this world. Marty came here and installed a very complex defensive system a year after Rhodes had installed a very simple one. The team had trouble with that early. In San Diego, the Chargers have run a scheme very similar to what Marty is employing so the curve was less. >> Art

I don't understand why it's so hard for you. You said that when installing a new scheme, you can expect to struggle while the team "figures things out." Funny -- you point out that the Chargers aren't struggling, but claim that their system was "similar" so they're doing OK. And John Fox's scheme was new, but "simplified", so they aren't struggling. So only the Skins have trouble adjusting to new schemes?

The funny part about your argument is that we have better players than either of those teams, but they're playing better defense. Can it really be the scheme? If it is, why in the heck wouldn't you install a "simple" scheme and let them win? The truth is that it isn't just the scheme. The players were overconfident and went out there and played as individuals. Not the scheme's fault -- these guys were so ****y they were buying their tickets to Hawaii in the preseason.

And that's totally different than what you said in your first post: "That said, if you put this game in Week 10 or so, when you'd imagine the Redskins would be comfortable with what they are supposed to be doing, I don't think there's any question we'd be favored to win this game. As a team, we have essentially spotted the league five games last year and again this year while we are figuring things out. " Art

Why is it that the Skins need 10 games to get comfortable? It can't just be the complexity: they struggled with this last year too. I think it's time to stop making excuses for these guys.

<<It's not an excuse being made to say the team hasn't taken the system in full yet. I don't disagree with you that it would be nice if they already had. But, it is more complex than we are accustomed to, and it is unquestioned the players have had difficulty picking up their responsibilities and always playing correctly within their assignments. I think you can't help but agree that such thinking through plays on the field tends to cause a player to hesitate and that can lead to some of the lethargic play we've seen. >> Art

I agreed that it is disruptive to learn a new system, but these guys have had nine months to do it. They're professionals. I just don't buy the argument that Lewis' scheme is so much more complex than Schotty's (which confused the hell out of us last year, but the Chargers aren't having any trouble with it) or Foxes. It's funny -- look at the Jets. Now people are saying that Herm SHOULD have installed a new defense (like his 3-4) because his players can't seem to play the defense they're accustomed to.

I think you're right that early on, when learning a new scheme, you might be a step slow because you're thinking too much. But, for example, once the RB has the ball you're supposed to run to him and tackle him. Not that much thinking involved, but our guys struggled with that too. (I know that's an oversimplification, but you get the picture).

I don't want to hear any more whining from the players about not knowing where they're supposed to be. After nine months, they should know. No excuses.

[Art]

Madd,

"I don't understand why it's so hard for you. You said that when installing a new scheme, you can expect to struggle while the team "figures things out." Funny -- you point out that the Chargers aren't struggling, but claim that their system was "similar" so they're doing OK. And John Fox's scheme was new, but "simplified", so they aren't struggling. So only the Skins have trouble adjusting to new schemes?"

First off, I don't claim that the Chargers scheme was similar. The Chargers have said it. The Panthers have said they have gone to a much more simple scheme that let's athletes be athletes and they've played better. Gardener, in today's paper, said the players on the defense all have come from much more simple schemes and they are getting a degree in defense with this one. I haven't had a hard time figuring anything out.

I'm not sure where you have missed me consistently asking why Lewis feels it is better to fail while working toward success than it is to succeed while achieving the same ultimate success. I've asked why he hasn't streamlined the system when everyone is obviously making mistakes with the full load. The Skins have gone to a more complex system that calls on players to make reads based on offensive formation. If one guy makes the wrong read and the play finds that guy, the chain is broken and our defense is less on that play.

I do not agree with the concept of simply doing things we haven't picked up until we do pick them up. I prefer to do things we have picked up and continue to add other things each week. But, that's a fight with Lewis. There's no question what is apparent is that the team has made mistakes within the scheme and are being forced to think through assignments on the field. Unlike more simple schemes where the play call defines your assignment and you don't have to think, we are playing one that does require recognition and unity in that recognition. That takes time. One reason I wanted Willie Shaw so badly is because his style of defense is much easier to pick up.

"The funny part about your argument is that we have better players than either of those teams, but they're playing better defense. Can it really be the scheme? If it is, why in the heck wouldn't you install a "simple" scheme and let them win? The truth is that it isn't just the scheme. The players were overconfident and went out there and played as individuals. Not the scheme's fault -- these guys were so ****y they were buying their tickets to Hawaii in the preseason."

Madd, why are you asking me why the heck you wouldn't install a "simple" scheme and let them win. I've asked the same question a half a dozen times. Blondie won't even speak to me because I kept talking about that very same point over and over with her. I have no idea why you would choose to watch your players struggle, and listen to your players talk about how they are unsure, rather than giving them the parts they do know, and feeding them the rest over time. Lewis has a plan and he's sticking to it. His plan is to install his defense. When players make mistakes in that defense he can point to the film and demonstrate that any given play could have been stopped had someone done his job.

Why we do what we do is beyond me. Why we decide to come in and overhaul a defensive system is crazy. Look at the season's since 1999. Mike Nolan's defense was awful, but, he simplefied it as the season wore on and we got pretty good. Rhodes came in and installed a very easy system where everyone had one job per play call. This can mean if the opposition has a better play on you will get whacked, but it also means we started the year out great.

Last year Marty came in and installed a complex defense. The players rebelled and were confused and then Marty relented and made the defense simple and basic and the players did well. But, even the players have said that defense was too basic and teams knew what we were doing. We were good enough to play through it. Marty also learned his lesson because in San Diego he has not adjusted what the Chargers players are accustomed to doing. He's kind of left it alone. Why we hired Lewis is clear. His system works when it's being run properly. But, why Lewis is installing his system in a manner that assures breakdowns by admittedly confused players is just bad coaching in my view. I'm glad it looked better against Tennessee. I have said it will look better and better each week. It probably will. But, you're asking the wrong guy as to why Marvin's doing it the way he is. I completely disagree with failure until we succeed and I do not have any clue why we don't simply play more streamlined plays until the team starts to better grasp the parts Lewis is working in. Ask them. I'm with you.

"Why is it that the Skins need 10 games to get comfortable? It can't just be the complexity: they struggled with this last year too. I think it's time to stop making excuses for these guys."

10 is kind of an arbitrary number. It could be four. It could be 16. It could be never. My assumption is that the manner Lewis has installed his scheme requires players to play their roles and when they fail, it's on film for them to look at and correct. The guess is that weekly drilling of this nature will eventually get the system installed and the team playing it. That we had to step back and become last year's early defense is just bothersome. That's a coaching method. If it works, Lewis will not have anyone remembering the first five, or 10 or 16 or whatever games. If it doesn't work, everyone will be asking why he failed when Kurt Schottenheimer figured out that with our talent, if they can't get an adjustable, more read based system, just play them man up and see what happens.

"I agreed that it is disruptive to learn a new system, but these guys have had nine months to do it. They're professionals. I just don't buy the argument that Lewis' scheme is so much more complex than Schotty's (which confused the hell out of us last year, but the Chargers aren't having any trouble with it) or Foxes. It's funny -- look at the Jets. Now people are saying that Herm SHOULD have installed a new defense (like his 3-4) because his players can't seem to play the defense they're accustomed to."

If you are watching what teams are doing to us, they are clearly testing our knowledge. They are lining up and doing different things to test our reads within the system. This scheme is more complex than the one Marty installed early last year. It's much more complex than the one he went to after five games and three quarters. It's much more complex than what Marty is doing in San Diego. He has let the players play in the system they've played well in. He didn't go there and teach Junior Seau how to drop into his coverage, as he did here with Darrell Green, Champ Bailey and Fred Smoot. Marty overreacted to the lack of discipline here by attempting to re-do everything. In San Diego he's been a bit more laid back and has not really changed much of what the team has done well in the past, while remaining dedicated to the details of what's happening. That's a good combination. That's what Marty was moving toward here. He'd probably still be here if Cam Cameron was his current offensive coordinator too.

John Fox is totally different than Marvin Lewis. The Carolina defense was a very complex scheme. Now it's easy. Now it's line up and play. The problem with simple schemes is that if a team is on to you, and you can't match their talent, they are going to shred you. With Lewis' scheme, since it's based on reads of the offense, we are less likely to get outsmarted before the snap. However, people have used formations to give looks to us they know a Lewis defense has to adjust to and then they've run a play completely different to get positive yards.

This is where Lewis talks about quickly recognizing after the snap what they are doing to you. In some ways Lewis' defense is similar to Spurrier's offense in that if the opposition is doing something, we're supposed to position and play ourselves in a manner to stop that. I don't like it, but, it can work pretty obviously. I like the defense just attacking. I like the defense dictating to the offense rather than basing itself on it. But, again, it will and can work. It's just a matter of time and learning and continued drilling with Lewis. Unlike Nolan or Marty, Lewis does have enough juice to pull off what he's doing. He can force it down the player's throats and win because unlike Nolan or Marty, there won't be mass exodus from him. Lewis will retain core players that will force the others to shut up and play. You've already seen a little of that since Arrington started yapping. The next day one of his teammates talked about Arrington missing two dozen assignments. That was a message to Lavar to shut up and play what he's told.

You didn't see that last year. Last year it was uniform anger at Marty and Marty caved. I am of the mind that what Lewis is doing will eventually work. But, given that his defense is based on the chain theory, even a small breakdown can look bad for us for many, many weeks to come.

"I think you're right that early on, when learning a new scheme, you might be a step slow because you're thinking too much. But, for example, once the RB has the ball you're supposed to run to him and tackle him. Not that much thinking involved, but our guys struggled with that too. (I know that's an oversimplification, but you get the picture).

I don't want to hear any more whining from the players about not knowing where they're supposed to be. After nine months, they should know. No excuses."

Madd, the problem with this is that Lewis isn't defining their assignments by play call. He's basically assigning them possible assignments by play call and they have to figure it out as 11 guys with a single mind on each play. Again, we're not talking about a defense that simply makes the call and the player plays a specific set and inflexible role. We're talking about a read and react system. The mistake can be simple. Trotter takes on the hole, but does he go inside or outside here? If it's the fullback through, it's outside. If it's the guard, it's inside. It's on the fly reading. Then, Jessie has to know that Trotter is making the right read. He then has to adjust his path to the ball so he isn't going to the ball carrier, but to the spot the ball carrier is being fed. You are having guys play against instinct. They are right there, go get them is what you teach.

Now, you are teaching, they'll get to you, just do your job. And, it works. It just won't work everywhere. And while you are making it work, it can be troublesome. Same as the offense and the talk Spurrier had about the route running being wrong. It's not as simple as calling a 9 route and then having the receiver run it. The receiver has pre-snap and post-snap options. His first couple of steps can be checking to see if he should do a hook instead of a corner and sometimes he knows he should do a hook, but while he's thinking about the corner, he's two yards off his mark.

When you install systems that allow the players to adapt to what the opposition is doing, it's going to be a process to pick it up. It's not a simple thing. It's not been nine months to know when Lewis calls dig, he means you take gap five. It's nine months to know when he calls dig, you take gap five, unless the tight end motions, then you take gap 7, and then, only if the fullback leads there, because if he doesn't, you flow to gap 3. That's not exactly right, of course, but, it's part of it.

Nothing is fixed. Until 11 guys are thinking as one on every play, we'll be slow to get it. Even last game the players talked about the mistakes they made. The Titans just couldn't make good on them. The Saints can.

[MRMADD]

Art:

We agree about Lewis and his defense. We disagree about the players' responsibility for our struggles.

But I still can't resist poking a few holes in your argument:

<<Gardener, in today's paper, said the players on the defense all have come from much more simple schemes and they are getting a degree in defense with this one. I haven't had a hard time figuring anything out. >> Art

Yeah, I read that: "We're all accepting this defense now. A lot of us came from just simple defenses. We're all going to get a degree in this one. We're all going to have to buy into the program and get it done."

However, you missed this part: Daryl Gardener didn't hesitate when he was asked what was different about the Washington Redskins' defense this past Sunday.

"A sense of urgency, a sense of want-to, a sense of going out there and really pulling together and saying to ourselves, 'We're tired of losing. We're better than that,' " the burly defensive tackle said.

So he's not using the "we just don't get it" excuse. And if it was just a matter of learning the scheme, why did Lewis focus on motivational tools like having the players read "Who Cut the Cheese?" and watch Apollo Ohno in the Ice Capades instead of drilling the playbook?

<<If you are watching what teams are doing to us, they are clearly testing our knowledge. They are lining up and doing different things to test our reads within the system. >> Art

Really? So the Eagles "tested our knowledge" by having McNabb sit in the pocket, eat a sandwich, and then find the open receiver? And the 49ers "tested our knowledge" by handing the ball off 50 times in a row? I agree that our defense, the secondary in particular, often looked confused before the snap, but I don't think our opponents are doing anything that spectacular.

I think change is always difficult -- even change for the good. Lewis will ultimately be successful here. But where we differ is that I believe that the players share responsibility -- saying "I was confused about what I was supposed to do" after 9 months of learning the system is just dumb. It's a cop-out.

[Art]

Madd,

You should resist poking holes when you didn't actually poke any .

What was pretty clear about the first few games is the players didn't like some parts of how they were being used. Some of them were pretty vocal and openly questioning. The turnaround, to me, was that when Lavar went public, another player undercut him in the press. Last year, you wouldn't have seen that. You'd have seen reinforcement.

That whole thing is why Lewis focused on the motivational tools he focused on. He wanted to, as Smoot said, show the players that even when it looks bad, it can be good and to keep fighting through to make it so. That's a good message for this team. Last year Marty found a message that resonated. Perhaps Lewis has and will too.

I've never said that the players level of motivation isn't going to be a part of our success. But, let's not kid ourselves here. We looked pretty good on Sunday, but we still gave up 200 or so yards in the first half. We didn't play better until Ramsey made some plays and the confidence started to feed off itself and plays started to get made within the scheme that had been missed even earlier in this game, and the players started to enjoy it.

They weren't more motivated in the second half than they were in the first half. They were just feeding off Ramsey and the offensive momentum and suddenly someone makes a play -- thank you Fred Smoot -- and they all start saying, "Hell, we can make plays too." I think we'll know how much of the Titans game was real improvement this week.

As for the statement that you've made that you don't think the opposition has done anything spectacular, I don't know that you are incorrect. But, the opposition has done things they don't tend to do to see how we react. Everyone knows that Lewis' has a defense that takes keys off the offense. They are presenting certain keys and then changing things up to see if the defense can adapt to the changes.

The first play of the Philly game was precisely a great example. They didn't do any crazy motion. They just knew that Lewis' defense keys to certain sub-defenses based on certain looks, so they motioned to a formation that the defense was supposed to switch to zone and half the defense did and the other half didn't and a guy was wide open in the middle of the field.

That's not a skill problem, though there have been those too. Hell, even Moose on the Fox broadcast commented about the Titans running basic plays from varying formations to test the Redskins knowledge of the system Lewis is running. It's clear teams are trying to coax the players into making the wrong decision and it has worked some. As it stops working, you'll see teams try something different I'd guess.

[MRMADD]

No holes? I wish our OL could make holes as big as the ones I've punched through your argument.

On that note, let's take a look at the offense's struggles to learn the scheme. The first two starting QBs knew the scheme backwards and forwards, but didn't have the skill to get it done. Plug in one player with the skill to pull it off and the guts to stand in there until it's done, and suddenly the scheme works?

Something tells me it's not the scheme. It's the players. On offense, we simply don't have the talent at many positions -- including the most important one: QB. That's why the scheme didn't work. The reason it worked against the Titans is because Ramsey and Davis picked up the team and carried them. Individual effort, not some "Aha! Now I get it" moment.

The same was true on defense. Yes, we gave up a lot of yards in the first half, but we made no changes to the 'scheme' in the second half. The difference? Big plays by Smoot and Champ and others, right? Individual effort again.

I'm not downplaying the importance of strategy. I'm just saying that individual players need to step up for the strategy to matter at all. Remember last year when Lavar picked off that pass against Carolina? That was the turning point -- individual effort, not a team collectively figuring out the scheme. That's what we need now. We've got plenty of stars, they've had more than enough time to digest the scheme, and now they need to go make plays.