Gibbs does not believe the Dline is a problem (theory)

[Chump Bailey]

The fact that Gibbs/Williams won't use rookies to upgrade either of the units isn't an indictment of the players... it's an indictment of the coaches.

:applause:

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

theres no way the skins draft a D player with their first pick to the 31st ranked unit in football and have him sit. the reason holdman started over rocky was lindsay was an idiot (and he got fired for it) and no one thought our unit would go from top 10 to bottom of the barrell. we need immediate help on D, a stud rookie would immediately help. the scheme for a Dlineman cannot be that complicated, especially in willams system.

[Bossman_SKins]

i know gibbs is saying we dont really need to address the dline. we do have depth at dt. but we dont really have any depth at all for de. if philips or carter goes down then who do we really have who can come in and perform adequately? nobody. i really still would like to see us draft a de if not with our 1st pick then with a second day pick just for some depth.

[willmb5]

one of the best posts ive seen in a while. im starting to move to the idea that drafting landry might be the right thing to do, although i would love to see calvin johnson in b+g if it doesnt cost too much

[NewCliche21]

Remember: Best does not mean good.

Think of it in terms of money: The richest person of a group of people has more money than anyone else in that group of people. But what if that group just doesn't have a lot of money? The richest person could only have a $10,000 a year job. Is he by any means rich?

The linemen in this draft may be the best in their class, but it doesn't mean that they are future Reggie Whites. That's why I'm for whoever's WORTH the spot, not someone who fills a "spot." If there were a lineman the same quality of Landry (Remember that I have a bias because I'm advocating for him at 6), then certainly take him, but there's not, so take Landry who would be worth the spot.

[TotalRecall]

"I don't believe the coaches think that the DL was the problem last year."

They were 31st against the run!!! There's definitely a problem with the d-line. And they DID do a lot of 4-man rushes, just not hardly any blitzes. The DTs didn't get any push on the interior of the line and the DEs were just pushed outside the box by the OTs. Rarely did we get sacks without rushing a linebacker or safety.

[TotalRecall]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Die Hard

The fact that Gibbs/Williams won't use rookies to upgrade either of the units isn't an indictment of the players... it's an indictment of the coaches.

Apparently, Gibbs would rather lose with Mark Brunell than go with a young guy and take his chances.

What happens to the Titans last year if Jeff Fischer would have stayed with Collins?

Been saying this since 2004.

Remember the 1981 Redskins?

They went with a boatload of young guys, then did it again in 1982-1983 and won a few more games than this team and did it for an entire decade.

I agree. Playing rookies wasn't a problem in the 80s, but it's been wrong in Gibbs' mind, for some reason, since 1991.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

"I don't believe the coaches think that the DL was the problem last year."

They were 31st against the run!!! There's definitely a problem with the d-line. And they DID do a lot of 4-man rushes, just not hardly any blitzes. The DTs didn't get any push on the interior of the line and the DEs were just pushed outside the box by the OTs. Rarely did we get sacks without rushing a linebacker or safety.

they had so many failed blitzes it was pathetic. even if williams wants to run all these exotic LB/CB blitzes, the line has to be able to move people away so the blitzes will work. it was pathetic what our dline looked like last year, i really hope its fixed.

[Dick Edds]

I posted this in another thread but I think it really belongs here, in the thread I thought I was posting this in

So far as I can tell, the general consensus is that either Landry or Adams is the best defensive player in this draft. Here's the scouting report on Landry

I highlighted the points I felt were most relevant. The most important aspect to me is, I keep reading stuff such as "he's the smartest player I've ever coached", "he picks things up quicker than any kid I've coached" and just people generally raving about his understanding of the game, willingness and ability to learn and leadership. Considering the enigma that is Sean Taylor, I think that's exactly the qualities we need in the guy who plays next to him. The 4.4 speed doesn't hurt, either.

Aside from thinking that none of the DL prospects are really top 10 worthy (aside from Adams, who's in the mold of Carter. I don't think we need two smallish, pass rush DEs starting.) I also believe that our D line is actually very solid. I'm confident in Golston, Montgomery and Salave'a rotating next to Griffin. I'm confident Carter's back into DE form and has gained chemistry with this group. I'm confident that, of the 3, Daniels, Wynn and Evans, someone will be able to hold down the DE spot opposite Carter. I think GW likes a bigger, run stopping DE on the strong side of the line, anyways. I think last year's troubles had a lot more to do with VERY weak LB play and that GW was unwilling to blitz or bring his pressure packages because he absolutely didn't trust his secondary.

Besides, who exactly do we have starting at SS again? Anyone that inspires confidence in any way? Yeah, I don't think so either. We're down to what, a career special teamer in Fox and a 30 year old coming off an ACL tear in Priouleau. We have depth and starter problems at the safety position and this player would give GW the kind of versatility most DCs can only dream of and considering his tendency towards aggressive defense, that's a good thing. I think he's a perfect fit for our defense, the most likely to contribute in a significant way this upcoming season and his presence would help free ST up to be a playmaker and ST would do the same for him. Unless we decide to trade back and acquire a good deal more players, I think we addressed DL in last year's draft and Landry is the way to go this year.

Safeties are more important than ever before in today's NFL and we have NOTHING next to Taylor. Nothing. I think that it's at least debateable that a starting safety is as big a need as we have on the roster. Having two safeties of this caliber creates SO much opportunity for all the rest of the defensive players because of the range they can cover, their hitting and the intimidation factor. :2cents:

You may have officially won me over from the Gaines Adams bandwagon on this one. Even though I went to Clemson and am somewhat of a homer for my Tiger's playing in the B&G ... I get giddy thinking about how Landry could help Taylor be the force we all know he is. Taylor is a freak of nature, he needs to be free to roam and make plays. When he is allowed open space to roam and does not have to lock down or make up for other weakneses on our defense is when he is at his best ... the INT's, blocked pases, hard hits and big plays can be made whe he is able to raect based on instinct. When Taylor is covering for someone elses' mistake, he cannot react on pure athletic instinct and use his athleticsm as much. In other words, less thinking on his part, more reacting.

We need help in more than one position on defense, right now it is a matter of getting the most bang for our buck if we stay at #6.

[ciacbw]

The fact that Gibbs/Williams won't use rookies to upgrade either of the units isn't an indictment of the players... it's an indictment of the coaches.

Apparently, Gibbs would rather lose with Mark Brunell than go with a young guy and take his chances.

What happens to the Titans last year if Jeff Fischer would have stayed with Collins?

I think they are slower to use rookies early on but eventually come around.

[dfbovey]

theres no way the skins draft a D player with their first pick to the 31st ranked unit in football and have him sit. the reason holdman started over rocky was lindsay was an idiot (and he got fired for it) and no one thought our unit would go from top 10 to bottom of the barrell. we need immediate help on D, a stud rookie would immediately help. the scheme for a Dlineman cannot be that complicated, especially in willams system.

I didn't like Lindsay at all... but since when does a position coach choose who starts on a defense? That falls on Gregg Williams.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

I didn't like Lindsay at all... but since when does a position coach choose who starts on a defense? That falls on Gregg Williams.

im sure lindsay was behind holdman starting. williams probably trusts his coaches and hopes they can make smart decisions. we dont know though for sure. maybe holdman was a monster in practice and was just a choke artist. who knows, who cares, but lindsay is gone and so is holdman.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Yes sir, but as you stated yourself,

Rocky came and we resigned holdman until rocky "learned the system":rolleyes:

Carlos was drafted but Harris was here until he "learned the system":rolleyes:

Taylor was drafted but a vet was still here until he "learned the system":rolleyes:

Gholston (SP) was not suppose to start as Salavea was until he got injured.

I am seeing an ugly little pattern developing.

But that doesn't change what he posted, which was a good point. Whether those players started from day or not (and Taylor and Rogers were both starting very early), the fact is, those were clearly weaknesses identified by the organization that they ignored until draft day, but were clearly focused on addressing there. Golston, for the record, doesn't really belong in that discussion.

That said, I basically agree with your OP. The reading of the tea leaves seems to indicate that DL isn't something the FO considers a major need. But, it needs to be pointed out that they have a habit of leaving one major need open to be addressed in the draft (which I consider bad policy, btw).

[D-Day]

But that doesn't change what he posted, which was a good point. Whether those players started from day or not (and Taylor and Rogers were both starting very early), the fact is, those were clearly weaknesses identified by the organization that they ignored until draft day, but were clearly focused on addressing there. Golston, for the record, doesn't really belong in that discussion.

That said, I basically agree with your OP. The reading of the tea leaves seems to indicate that DL isn't something the FO considers a major need. But, it needs to be pointed out that they have a habit of leaving one major need open to be addressed in the draft (which I consider bad policy, btw).

Yes they do, but it was also just my point that they don't just rely on that rookie, they always try to bring in a vet to hold the fort until they rook has done whatever it takes to appease the coaches.

Now that said we have capable vets at both the DE and SS who can do that so it just heightens the mystery.

[illone]

I've been saying for awhile now that there is a strong possibility the team is content with the current dlinemen on the roster heading into 2007.

That said, nice post.

[Hamilbone13]

I don't care. You can't tell me that a successful defense doesn't need to get after the QB. Granted, I think our offseason moves thus far have been good. However, putting constant pressure on the QB will created many turnover opportunities.

This team was ranked at or near last in many defensive categories. So to give any type of merit to what PD is saying just doesn't sit with me.

[wit 33]

Trade for Kris Jenkins and then trade down to aquire additional picks. With our later first round pick select Carricker. With these moves the Redskin D os ready to do some nice things. Philip Daniels needs to be relegated to a reserve role.

[bulldog]

the Redskins finished last in sacks and gave up yards by the dozen on the ground when playing against decent backs.

if DL is not the problem on the defense, then they have everything else fixed with the addition of Fletcher at MLB, the return of Washington healthy at SAM and the acquisition of Smoot and Macklin at CB.

but we know deep down that this defense won't be truly fixed until we again are able to dictate tempo by taking over the line of scrimmage and knocking people off the ball.

[21Knock_U_Out]

It seems Daniels was refering to the PASS RUSH, and thats why we didnt have too many sacks.He said nothing of the run.So why was the run D so bad?Was it the LBs or DL?

[Veretax]

The sacks don't concern me as much as our inability to stop the run last year.

[PorkSkins]

We are not going to show our cards before the game starts. All of this is a bluff before we get serious. I still believe we are drafting a defensive lineman.

[Lil Kenzo]

I'm all for drafting Laron Landry.

[SASKINTOTHEEND]

[QUOTE=Chump Bailey]Good stuff D-Day and I think you're right. It just makes for a even more exciting draft I think in that regard, though I for one hope we do get a DL.

I totally agree. Branch is the man, in my opinion. :dallasuck :dallasuck :dallasuck

[ceviker]

Great post friend.

I think we're trying to trade up and get CJ. If it turns out we don't have the ammunition, then our backup plan is to draft Landry.

I've been the biggest advocate of trading up to get CJ on this board - and I still want him more than a crack whore needs crack. But if we can't do it, I'd like to see LaRon in the B&G.

[jaydogg3eb]

Great post friend.

I think we're trying to trade up and get CJ. If it turns out we don't have the ammunition, then our backup plan is to draft Landry.

I've been the biggest advocate of trading up to get CJ on this board - and I still want him more than a crack whore needs crack. But if we can't do it, I'd like to see LaRon in the B&G.

Im with you ALL THE WAY!

If we draft CJ, I might be in tears (joyfully). If we dont get him, Landry it is! I strongly believe we can get a great DL in the 5th round, or even via FA. Please God! Bring us CJ!