TheLongshot Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 We've been top 10 in rushing the whole season. Even if you want to argue with that, the fact remains that we have been one of the better teams in the league running the football, even before the re-dedication to the run that took place in November. I pointed out in the thread on the first part that the rushing stats were a misnomer for the most part. A lot of those yards were on endarounds to WRs. Also, I think you forgot about all the complaints about not running the ball enough by people here. We've had tons of long, sustained drives this year. This "offense made the defense bad" excuse is pitiful. Not in the first part of the season. The offense this year was lightyears better than 2004's offense in every facet, including sustaining drives. That's not saying much. 2005 was probably light years ahead of this year as far as sustaining drives. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseGoForTheWin Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I am a little sick of the excuses though. This whole Saunders offense hurt the d thing only goes so far -- there were plenty of sustained drives the second half of the season. Even with plenty of rest, the d could rarely stop anybody. I don't think Greg made any excuses. Sure, he admitted that he was concerned about the offensive change, but he also said that ultimately the D needed to execute and it didn't. I think he'll get this thing figured out, but it seems inevitable that we're going to pick up another corner and linebacker, which stinks because we essentially had those guys in Pierce, Smoot/Clark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkforhall Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The article certainly thawed me towards Williams. I also learned how the power of the press can make you love or hate anyone depending on what quotes they feel like printing. What is Greg Williams Al Capone, No one in the league will come out and say anything even remotely bad about him, without doing it anonymously. Good thing this is an anonymous board. We all could be in serious trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Actually, I think it does. The big problem is that the offense didn't run the ball all that well in the first half of the season, which means the Redskins defense was spending even more time on the field, since passes don't use much game time.Jason i couldve sworn that i looked this up about a third of the way thru the season- i recall being surprised that the skins had a slight advantage in TOP. could be wrong, but i dont think so, so that excuse about the O to me is lame. actually, its lame anyway since the O in season 1 sucked. the D has carried this team for 2 years- obviously, they dropped off this year. i didnt do the math officially, but most of the games, the opponents had the ball longer. a few games the skins had a decided advantage (j ville) so overall, TOP is pretty even. except for tenn and the first NY game, the TOP for the skins in their losses is very close, so i'm not buying that 'excuse' or whatever anyone wants to call it. (the skins dominated TOP by 10 minutes vs both indy and j ville, but they both scored over 30.......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Full Monty Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Am I the only one who thinks this reads like a BS bedtime story about the misunderstood grizzly bear who terrorized the town and wrecked everything and told everyone he did it all out of fear for his fur and his safety....:doh:This entire series was a blame the new guy Hack Job.... If you people feed into this then i need to hurry and finsih up with my real estate certification because i have some hell front property i want to sell you....:laugh::laugh: He spoke about the Tom Friend article having an agenda.... this article was a complete love fest.... Can someone please tell me how an offensive Coordinator would be doing a bad job if he gets his team to score too quickly?... That has to be the most idiotic piece of **** i have ever heard in my entire life....:laugh::laugh::laugh: We were horrible in 2004 on offense and our D was still top ten.... There is no big drop off in the number of plays we ran.... If anything it shows that the offense held ther own since the average time of possesion is only 1 minute less than the previous two years.... in 2004 985 total plays with 26 takeaways and 27 giveaways in 2005 1006 plays with 22 Takeaways and 26 Giveaways In 2006 960.total plays with only 12 Takeaways and 15 giveaways Can anyone look at those numbers and tell me how in the **** hasthe offense left the defense in such a bad position if the amount of plays are still relatively close..... but the turnovers on both sides are waaaay down?.... Wouldnt that mean the offense kept the ball themselves because the defense that was last in the league in yards allowed and takeaways damn sure didnt help them get it back...? According to this article an offense should not play to score... they should play to get enough first downs to give the defense a rest?.... That sounds like a Gibbs and williamns match made in heaven.... WOW.... The blame the new guy spin machine is in full effect .... So it took 3 days , 3 articles, and 15 pages to tell us all that this season sucked because... 1.We went and got AA 2. Al saunders offense doesnt work in the NFC even though it is 13th overall #1 inthe NFC in rushing and 9th in total yards... 3. Gregg Williams got rid of our best players but yhe D only sucks because we score too quickly or every other drive is 3 and out Thats amazing info right there..... I guess its true when they say... " The most important things in life... are the things you learn after you thought you knew everything " I feel so much smarter... Uno Boss just owned the washpost piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 This was a puff piece compared to the other two articles. Very disappointing. Williams was never asked about his two secondary coaches not speaking to one another. The philosophy behind safeties and corners having seperate meetings. Why a player as talented as Sean Taylor and who has been in his system for 3 years has regressed so badly. Why Rocky McIntosh was not played. Why a better replacement for LaVar was not found. Why did he feel that the ESPN article had no "credence" when one of his leaders on D (Shawn Springs) did in fact say in an interview after the article appeared that much of what was in there was in fact true. Sorry, after the insight provided with the first two articles this one is a major letdown and frankly kind of worthless in terms of gaining insight into the defensive collapse. Oh yeah nevermind, it's all Al Saunders' fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Why did he feel that the ESPN article had no "credence" when one of his leaders on D (Shawn Springs) did in fact say in an interview after the article appeared that much of what was in there was in fact true. Sorry, after the insight provided with the first two articles this one is a major letdown and frankly kind of worthless in terms of gaining insight into the defensive collapse. Oh yeah nevermind, it's all Al Saunders' fault. :rolleyes : Agreed. Disappointed in this article. It simply failed to address the major questions we all had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Williams was never asked about his two secondary coaches not speaking to one another.The philosophy behind safeties and corners having seperate meetings. He was actually asked that after the Friend article, that he's had seperate safeties and corners coaches before, and that they are very different positions with different responsibilities. Why a player as talented as Sean Taylor and who has been in his system for 3 years has regressed so badly. Well, as for the defense in general, he has commented that consistancy has been a big problem across the board. He has also said that Taylor is a very aggressive player, which he thinks is an asset. My personal read is that Taylor has been trying a bit too hard to make plays, which causes him to be more aggressive, which is why he sometimes takes bad angles, or is out of position. Also, since the LB play hasn't been that great, he has been forced to play closer to the line, which leaves him suseptible to the pass. Why Rocky McIntosh was not played. Probably because he wasn't ready. In the little time that I've seen him play, he's been a mixed bag so far. That shouldn't be a surprise. Bobby Carpenter has been pressed into service in Dallas with the injury to Greg Ellis, and he isn't looking any better. Why a better replacement for LaVar was not found. Because Rocky is the guy who is going to be in that position, and someone needed to fill the position for the short term. In the end, it was Holdman who won that job. Why did he feel that the ESPN article had no "credence" when one of his leaders on D (Shawn Springs) did in fact say in an interview after the article appeared that much of what was in there was in fact true. He isn't giving it credence because it is an unnamed player who talked to a reporter. If the player has a problem with the coaching staff, he should have come to him. Going to a reporter smacks of an ulterior motive. Springs pretty much said the same thing in that same interview. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Am I the only one who thinks this reads like a BS bedtime story about the misunderstood grizzly bear who terrorized the town and wrecked everything and told everyone he did it all out of fear for his fur and his safety....:doh:This entire series was a blame the new guy Hack Job.... If you people feed into this then i need to hurry and finsih up with my real estate certification because i have some hell front property i want to sell you....:laugh::laugh: He spoke about the Tom Friend article having an agenda.... this article was a complete love fest.... Can someone please tell me how an offensive Coordinator would be doing a bad job if he gets his team to score too quickly?... That has to be the most idiotic piece of **** i have ever heard in my entire life....:laugh::laugh::laugh: We were horrible in 2004 on offense and our D was still top ten.... There is no big drop off in the number of plays we ran.... If anything it shows that the offense held ther own since the average time of possesion is only 1 minute less than the previous two years.... in 2004 985 total plays with 26 takeaways and 27 giveaways in 2005 1006 plays with 22 Takeaways and 26 Giveaways In 2006 960.total plays with only 12 Takeaways and 15 giveaways Can anyone look at those numbers and tell me how in the **** hasthe offense left the defense in such a bad position if the amount of plays are still relatively close..... but the turnovers on both sides are waaaay down?.... Wouldnt that mean the offense kept the ball themselves because the defense that was last in the league in yards allowed and takeaways damn sure didnt help them get it back...? According to this article an offense should not play to score... they should play to get enough first downs to give the defense a rest?.... That sounds like a Gibbs and williamns match made in heaven.... WOW.... The blame the new guy spin machine is in full effect .... So it took 3 days , 3 articles, and 15 pages to tell us all that this season sucked because... 1.We went and got AA 2. Al saunders offense doesnt work in the NFC even though it is 13th overall #1 inthe NFC in rushing and 9th in total yards... 3. Gregg Williams got rid of our best players but yhe D only sucks because we score too quickly or every other drive is 3 and out Thats amazing info right there..... I guess its true when they say... " The most important things in life... are the things you learn after you thought you knew everything " I feel so much smarter... I believe the idea being communicated was that with KNOWN deficiencies on defense...the offensive playcalling/strategy/execution in the early part of the season did not cover for these weaknesses or at least help to reduce the exposure. your counter-argument doesn't hold water since 2004/2005 defenses didn't have to be covered for - they had the talent and execution which did not require the offense to cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The offense has had several game this year where they have flat out dominated the time of possession. And the defense still couldn't stop anybody. Saunders is not the problem. He's one of the best things this team has going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Thanks for the reply Jason. Don't you feel that the tone of this article is in starke contrast to the other two? I'm not blaming Williams for the content of this article. But LaCanfora treated him with kid gloves. Talking about his history? How poor GW is still hurt by media reports in Buffalo? Who cares? I wish I had the Shawn Springs clip to be sure on this but my memory is that when he was asked whether or not he was "the source" he denied it strongly and was critical of the person for leaking like that. He then went on to say that "much of what's in there is true" but that he didn't think it should have been made public. So yeah Springs is agreeing with Williams that it should not have been made public and by going public there certainly is a motive behind it, but Springs confirmed that some of the "facts" in the article were true. I think Williams should not be allowed to dismiss it with a "it has no credence" so quickly. Again, I'm not blaming Williams so much as I think LaCanfora did a poor job with this article in comparison to the other ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Pease Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 After reading the first two articles I was looking forward to the article on the defense because they had a total collapse this last season. I was disappointed that the article gave no insight into what caused the collapse or what was needed to fix it. One thing I did get from the article is that Greg thinks he can effectively move players to whatever new position and that will work; instead of changing his scheme to take advantage of what a player is best at. The only real hopeful part is others saying that Greg is good at analyzing what is not working and will change his scheme as necessary. Certainly his 2006 scheme needs changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The idea that McIntosh wasn't ready is absurd. Warrick Holdman is the worst starting LB in the league, by a longshot (pun?). I saw McIntosh actually stop people behind the line of scrimmage, Holdman hasn't done that once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwitt Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I think this article was much different than the others. It read more like a human interest story in a local coach than an actual analysis of what went wrong. It was mostly him giving his side to things and them not really giving many contrary possibilities. The article was a bit disappointing; not because I want to hate GW, but because it really didn't clear anything up at all other than repeating things we heard about long ago such as ST being so impacted by Clark's leaving. It is a bit damning on his personnel descisions though. I agree with your assessment. I was expecting something totally different, like an extension of the Tom Friend piece. Really, the only article that makes me angry was Monday's about the front office structure, which is what I believe is the number one problem with the franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alaadin123 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I think above all else, we just simply lack quality talent on the defense. We need guys who are : 1. Smart - you have to know how to compensate for what you know your shortcomings are 2. Fast - you have to be more than just "straight line" fast, we need forward, backwards and side to side fast. Our defense has to be tailored to compete with the offenses of the NFC East. Make our moves based on what new types of talent they add to their offenses( in our case we would have to adjust to the new additions as well as the old stuff that befuddled us this year). I think this was the approach GW had in mind but two things went wrong: 1. We had key players on the Defense sustain injuries 2.Some of the "talent" bought in the organization was misjudged. I think youth should be the theme for next year. Intelligent guys age of 29 or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 After reading the first two articles I was looking forward to the article on the defense because they had a total collapse this last season. I was disappointed that the article gave no insight into what caused the collapse or what was needed to fix it.One thing I did get from the article is that Greg thinks he can effectively move players to whatever new position and that will work; instead of changing his scheme to take advantage of what a player is best at. The only real hopeful part is others saying that Greg is good at analyzing what is not working and will change his scheme as necessary. Certainly his 2006 scheme needs changing. dude..it's right there...Springs said it: lack of talent. we don't have enough athletes on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 tell me what's wrong with that quoteand you can understand why you can take these articles with a grain of salt :laugh:...It's like a double negative..."Someone told me that Williams did not say to not let Pierce go"...It's like the absence of something proves its existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 :laugh:...It's like a double negative..."Someone told me that Williams did not say to not let Pierce go"...It's like the absence of something proves its existence. Ding Ding Ding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 next year will be the biggest year in his career.. if he can get back on track and have a top 10 defense, his name will be again for HC opportunities or else he will remain a coordinator for the rest of his career Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The idea that McIntosh wasn't ready is absurd. Warrick Holdman is the worst starting LB in the league, by a longshot (pun?). I saw McIntosh actually stop people behind the line of scrimmage, Holdman hasn't done that once. you know...Rocky continues to be a big ???? for me. you're right...he has meade some nice plays. but when I took time to watch him...he always seemed a second or two behind the flow...trying to digest what was going on before acting. L can't be that difficult to achieve basic progress in the first season (i.e., it aint like the QB position even if in a GW scheme). also, I'm not sure he is physical enough for this level....don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 next year will be the biggest year in his career.. if he can get back on track and have a top 10 defense, his name will be again for HC opportunities or else he will remain a coordinator for the rest of his career I agree. I rather liked the article. GW is obviously a bright, ambitious guy who does his homework. let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume one of the article's themes is accurate - that he has learned from prior mistakes and adjusted his approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I'm not blaming Williams for the content of this article. But LaCanfora treated him with kid gloves. Talking about his history? How poor GW is still hurt by media reports in Buffalo? Who cares? After thinking about it, I think he went with what he had. I get a big impression that no one on the defensive side of the ball was talking. After the Friend article, I'm not surprised. I wish I had the Shawn Springs clip to be sure on this but my memory is that when he was asked whether or not he was "the source" he denied it strongly and was critical of the person for leaking like that. He then went on to say that "much of what's in there is true" but that he didn't think it should have been made public. So yeah Springs is agreeing with Williams that it should not have been made public and by going public there certainly is a motive behind it, but Springs confirmed that some of the "facts" in the article were true. The quote itself: Yeah, Gregg is arrogant, but so am I. I like the confidence he brings to the team, and I personally felt that whoever said it [anonymously], should've came out and said [who he was]. Now one thing you know about me, if I feel that way, I will go and tell the coach that, because I've developed that type of relationship with Gregg and Coach Gibbs and Steve Jackson ... And some things in there are probably very true. They are true. Some things are true in there. But the thing is, we are still a family. I think Williams should not be allowed to dismiss it with a "it has no credence" so quickly. Well, unless he has a name attached to it, how is he supposed to respond? It is very similar to Gibbs' response. They didn't know who the person was, or what kind of problem they had. Again, I'm not blaming Williams so much as I think LaCanfora did a poor job with this article in comparison to the other ones. Again, I think he had less to work with. Notice that most of the quotes in the article are from people outside the organization. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 dude..it's right there...Springs said it: lack of talent. we don't have enough athletes on defense. I agree, but I also think some of the players did not play as well as they could this season. Carter didn't show up until the second half of the season. Rogers, hopefully, had an off year. Taylor struggled at times and is better than he displayed this season. Even Springs didn't play as well as he has in the past. Griff really didn't get it done, and Marshall struggled as well. Even Washington had an off year. Obviously, we need more talent, but the current roster needs to play better as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I believe the idea being communicated was that with KNOWN deficiencies on defense...the offensive playcalling/strategy/execution in the early part of the season did not cover for these weaknesses or at least help to reduce the exposure. your counter-argument doesn't hold water since 2004/2005 defenses didn't have to be covered for - they had the talent and execution which did not require the offense to cover. the defense SHOULD have been better than the O this year and covering for them. the loss of springs, i think, was very big. but i dont think it excuses the D from being at least respectable. nfl insiders said the the 'faster pace' of the O affected the D- "a lot". i think thats baloney. looking at the TOP throughout the season proves it- esp in games vs jax and indy where the skins had a huge advantage in TOP. gibbs first 2 years, the skins had the ball just over 31 minutes each game. now they fall to 29:59 and that means the D falls from top ten status to setting records for futility? no way. i'll buy that they were banged up more than we knew (i hope so, cuz its about the only way to explain this season). but i dont buy that the O was the 'biggest reason' for the D's collapse. its not even on the radar screen. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uno Boss Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I believe the idea being communicated was that with KNOWN deficiencies on defense...the offensive playcalling/strategy/execution in the early part of the season did not cover for these weaknesses or at least help to reduce the exposure. your counter-argument doesn't hold water since 2004/2005 defenses didn't have to be covered for - they had the talent and execution which did not require the offense to cover. How do you expect a new offensive coordinator coming into a team who had a top defense to think about KNOWN defenciency?... They were supposwd to hold it down until the offense caught up to speed. That is BS and the fairytale clean up job article is BS... Here are the parts left out from that Disney story book of an article.... The washing post brings to you Greg Wiliams in KNOWN DEFICIENCIES " The little Defense that could'nt " Once upon a time there was a historic football town called washington. In washington the fans lived and dreamed for their team to make the paloffs. Even when things were tuff every year the fans still talked paloffs. In 2006 in washingtont there was an evil offensive coordinator who foolishy thought his offenses job is to score points as easy as possible. In washington there was also this misunderstood ego maniac coordinator Who forgot that the defenses job is to stop the other team.... Now the evil offense was new and had 2 seperate leaders so in the beginning they never took alot of chances and almost never went for it on fourth down leaving the defense in bad field position. In washington there was also an evil special teams unit who were so mean and nasty that they were 10th in the league with punts inside the 20...and 8th in the league in fewest yards allowed against a punt... The evil offense and the ST's combined to conspire against the poor defensive coordinator who let all of his best helpers go because he thought he could find and manipulate new ones who had less talent and the city of washington would again be at his feet.. But one day in skins village all hell broke loose... Long TD drives started to pop up every where and the city began to blame every new guy in town because the stubborn old wizards who brought them here had just taken them to the paloffs....( and you knooooow how the skins vilagers love the paloffs) The little defense who was the pride of washington became very generous and started to hand out yardage and TD drives like never before.... They gave.... Minn 80 yds TD Dal 94 yds TD Houston 71 yds Td and 66 yards TD Jax 69 yds TD and 82 yds TD NY 84 yds FG and 69 yds FG TENN 62 yds FG and 69 yd sTD and 89 ydsTD(1st drive after half time...:doh: INDY 92 yds TD (1st drive of the game..:doh:) , In one Indy series the evil offense went on a 15 play drive and the poor defense still came right back on the field and gave up a 7 play 67 yd drive for a TD...:doh: DAL no long drives but they let the cowboys score on 1st drive after the half time...:doh: TAM The evil offense comes out 1st drive of the 2nd half and goes 12 plays 74 yds for a TD to take the lead on the road and then our "well rested poor defense comes onto the field and gives up a 14 play 85 yrd drive for a TD to tie the game..:doh::doh::doh: CAR - this was the D's 2nd best game even though in the 3rd Qtr we go down and score to take the lead an end the 3rd qtr and the poor little D comes back on the field and gives up a 15 play 74 yd TD drive adn gives the lead right back.... And the ego maniac says...." Shame on you evil offense why must you score so fast...)" ATL 98 yd game sealing drive.....(breakaway run at the end).... Philly 95 yard drive New Orleans This was the D's best game of the year although after the evil O scores to go up 10-0 on the road our innocent and tired D comes back on the field and gives up a 80 TD drive...( yes....the evil O scored too quickly once again...) STL 85 yd drive TD our evil offense goes three and out and our evil special teams pin the rams back but the innocent defense allows them to go 98 yards in four plays for a TD....:doh:....aaaaw those poor tired babies.... our evil offens then scores the next 21 points to take a 28-14 lead...including an 11 play TD drive on the first possesion after "halftime". halftime is the point whe all the poor little defensive helpers get to rest and gain their strength.... But i guess the bad guys scored too quickly because our poor tired defense allowed the rams to then go 82 yds TD in 5 plays 69 yds Td 7 plays 87 yd FG in 14 plays In there defense The evil O only held the ball for 4 minutes in that stretch... so i guess we should fire the young QB and evil offensive coordinator who got us the lead for not being perfect because of our defenses KNOWN definciencies.... NY Giants Despite our evil offense having 4 TD drives of 67 yards or more including one 80 yard drive...Our poor defense with all of its KNOWN definciencies just could not help but give up 234 yards to tiki barber... After that performance the city of washington began to side with the evil offense and was looking to burn the poor little defense and its ego maniac at the stakes and the village loyals went wild.... Screaming OFF WITH HIS HEAD The players began to revolt against the systems and the team was a mess and it got so bad that every player and coach changed their name to "a source who would not like to be identified due to their friendship with the ego maniac and the grand wizard of skins village".... from there The plot thickens To Be continued..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.