I need to know something in a poll form.

[Art]

Smoot and Macklin aren't overwhelming free agent corners. Stoutmire isn't an overwhelming free agent safety. Fletcher is a very good pro, but not an overwhelming free agent linebacker. If the team had prioritized line improvement, it could have easily gotten second and third tier pros to fill roles, as we did, with one shining pretty Fletcher to round it out.

We went to Detroit and sought out another corner. We went to the Bears and sought out a linebacker. If we wanted a defensive lineman, do you not think, at some point, our names and theirs would have crossed in some realistic way? We did EXACTLY as we planned to do in the offseason. It wasn't a case of simply not having an opportunity to grab a line improvement. It was the determination we already have the kind of guys we added elsewhere on the line. So, there's not much purpose to going that route this year.

Maybe next.

[Skinsfor4]

The other part of the poll should have been The Trainers.They must feel that our guys are gonna be healthy enough up front this year that we didnt pick any DL.I think our D this year will be more like the one from the playoff team of 2 years ago if healthy.

[onnie007]

Smoot and Macklin aren't overwhelming free agent corners. Stoutmire isn't an overwhelming free agent safety. Fletcher is a very good pro, but not an overwhelming free agent linebacker. If the team had prioritized line improvement, it could have easily gotten second and third tier pros to fill roles, as we did, with one shining pretty Fletcher to round it out.

We went to Detroit and sought out another corner. We went to the Bears and sought out a linebacker. If we wanted a defensive lineman, do you not think, at some point, our names and theirs would have crossed in some realistic way? We did EXACTLY as we planned to do in the offseason. It wasn't a case of simply not having an opportunity to grab a line improvement. It was the determination we already have the kind of guys we added elsewhere on the line. So, there's not much purpose to going that route this year.

Maybe next.

Exactly Art! JG pretty much spelled it out for everyone in this weekend's press conferences. He said after looking at last year's D it was "injuries and poor corner play" that resulted in the D to having a bad year. Daniels (wrists and ankle), Griffin (shoulders), Springs (Hernia & Broken Shoulder Blade), Rogers (Wrist), Wasington (Hip), Rocky (knee)..... Many were playing hurt and the remaining corners we fielded (Wright, Rumph, Jimoh) were awful, not to mention the other safety position opposite of ST was played by committee (AA, Vincent, Fox).....Holdman was nonexistent and Marshall showed that he is best suited on the outside.

I just think that people aren't taking the magnifying glass to last year's performance on D and asking themselves the REAL reason we were dead last in almost every meaningful category on defense. Gibbs tried to help you out this weekend with his limited understanding of GW's D in layman terms and people still don't get it. Any boob (including the media which isn't particularly playing close attention to what is going on with us because they keep harping on the DL as well) can look at the stat column, see that we were last in total sacks and be like :idea: "Uhhhhh you guys need more sacks.....definitely.....definitely more sacks.....yeah, more sacks" If you want sacks from the DL, poor LB play and terrible corner play then go cheer for the Giants cause thats what they love to do. I would take GW and our defense strategy over the Giants' strategy any day. Here's to being the underdog again in '07! HTTR! :logo:

[JohnnyUtah]

Exactly Art! JG pretty much spelled it out for everyone in this weekend's press conferences. He said after looking at last year's D it was "injuries and poor corner play" that cause the D to have a bad year. Daniels (wrists and ankle), Griffin (shoulders), Springs (Hernia & Broken Shoulder Blade), Rogers (Wrist), Wasington (Hip), Rocky (knee)..... Many were playing hurt and the remaining corners we fielded (Wright, Rumph, Jimoh) were awful, not to mention the other safety position opposite of ST was played by committee (AA, Vincent, Fox).....Holdman was nonexistent and Marshall showed that he is best suited on the outside.

I just think that people aren't taking the magnifying glass to last year's performance on D and asking themselves the REAL reason we were dead last in every category. Gibbs tried to help you out this weekend with his limited understanding of GW's D in layman terms and people still don't get it. Any boob (including the media which isn't particularly playing close attention to what is going on with us because they keep harping on the DL as well) can look at the stat column, see that we were last in total sacks and be like :ciao: "Uhhhhh you guys need more sacks.....definitely.....definitely more sacks.....yeah, more sacks" If you want sacks from the DL, poor LB play and terrible corner play then go cheer for the Giants cause thats what they love to do. I would take GW and our defense strategy over the Giants' strategy any day.

:applause:

Cheers to this post!

[thelarkascend1ng]

indeed. it is unquestionably clear coming out of the draft going further towards seeing football again being played by our team that we are trusting that our starting d line can come back for a healthy season (maybe they trust that the easier offseason work-out could help this) and they (the coaches) are having faith in the development of golston and montgomery.

more and more, the justification of a bad secondary makes sense to me, so here's to another fun defense to watch this season.

[Die Hard]

I do find it kind of ironic that Die Hard - at the beginning of this tread was basically yell "Dumb!" though.

I'd address your posts.... but I don't speak Engrish.

[Teller]

Any NFL QB will pick you apart with time to throw; regardless of who's in your secondary. If we end up getting pressure and forcing turnovers without blitzing all the time next season, I'll be thrilled to come back and say I was wrong.

[Burgold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burgold

There is a phenomenon in sound editting when you are going over the tape so many times you start hallucinating and mis-hearing things or start to perceive things in a certain way because you've just been at it for so long. Every so often, smart, experienced men can be studying the trees, the branches, the roots, the bark and the leaves so hard and with such detailed scrutiny that they can become oblivious to the fact that they're actually studying an ecosystem and not a single tree.

Was this the case? I hope not. Can it happen? Assuredly. They could get so immersed in the minutia that the bigger problem happened to disappear or they convinced themselves that it was correctable or due to some secondary factor.

Quote: originally posted by Art

This is an interesting point and clearly valid counter. Thank you.

Why is this thread still going. Art admitted his point of view was entirely flawed

__________________

Doom is in the box

[Sebowski]

Again, Art's premise is still valid: do you know more than Gregg Williams on what is needed for a better defense? (At least, how it is currently configured.) Because it sure seems like you think so.

Jason

I think it is possible that I might be right once in awhile in areas he gets wrong (I'm assuming you don't believe he gets it all right 100% of the time).

If Gregg Williams defense and philosophy is the best way to play D than the whole league would be copying it. They aren't. I don't have to watch film to side with better D-Coordinators around the league that place a bigger emphasis on D-Line than we do apparently.

For the record, I love the Landry pick. Once Adams was off the board and we couldn't trade down I wanted the best defensive player available, and it was clearly Landry. I am also ok with our starters at d-line as long as they stay healthy. But looking at the injury history, age, and depth, I don't see how you can't see a need there.

Look at Houston last year. They passed on Bush and Young because they didn't see a need at either position. These are professional coaches who look at film all day just like Gregg Williams does. Fast forward a year later and they cut both their starting QB and their starting RB. They clearly evaluated their needs badly while a lot of their fans saw it all along. What is the difference here?

[Sebowski]

Gibbs wisely evaluated his entire system after 2004 and concluded to make it go he needed very specific additions and he went out to address that. He knows that answer, whether he ever selects the right player or not.

It sounds like you think every professional system would work if they only selected the proper players. Is that what you're saying?

Maybe Spurrier just needed better scouts..........

[ChocolateCitySkin]

of course you would come in and lead us to a perfect 16-0 season... so obviously this poll isn't directed towards you

I would do this. But, thats because I'm amazing to the max. Yay CCS!!! :notworthy :notworthy

[onnie007]

Any NFL QB will pick you apart with time to throw; regardless of who's in your secondary. If we end up getting pressure and forcing turnovers without blitzing all the time next season, I'll be thrilled to come back and say I was wrong.

Of course we would blitz! :doh: Thats the point! Obviously the pressure has to come from somewhere. We (as in GW and the Washington Redskins defense) like to blitz (via LBs and DBs) leaving our corners on islands (man-to-man). Get it? Bad corner play means you can't blitz anymore because you need to give them support. This in turn puts the responsibility of pressuring the QB completely on our DL. This is and never was how our D was intended to operate. If it were then we would make our DL our No. 1 priority.

[artmonkforHOF]

Thats kind of a big stretch to go from admitting you know less than the coaches to justifiying not takinga D lineman at #6. Too many other factors, what if Adams was there at #6? Maybe when it came time to make the pick, Landry was the only guy they could justify paying #6 money to and actually have play this year. After CJ , Russell, Adams and Thomas, the only real blue chippers in this draft where Landry, and a bunch of guys at positions we dont need (Quinn, Petersen maybe Anderson but thats a stretch) and Leon Hall, so maybe it came down to, do we want a safety or a corner?

[Teller]

Of course we would blitz! :doh: Thats the point! Obviously the pressure has to come from somewhere. We (as in GW and the Washington Redskins defense) like to blitz (via LBs and DBs) leaving our corners on islands (man-to-man). Get it? Bad corner play means you can't blitz anymore because you need to give them support. This in turn puts the responsibility of pressuring the QB completely on our DL. This is and never was how our D was intended to operate. If it were then we would make our DL our No. 1 priority.

I'm saying we should have taken a DE, but IF we get pressure without blitzing all the time next season, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong.

Bad corner play = no more blitzing. However, the opposite is ALSO true. Bad D-line play means your corners have to cover longer. It's a catch-22, and I don't know which is the bigger problem right now.

But I CAN tell you this. We could have Taylor, Landry, Springs, Rogers and Smoot on the field at the same time in a nickel next year. (Or maybe Prioleau in place of either Landry or Taylor.) If we're still getting lit up with all that talent in the backfield, the simple fact is that it will be due to a lack of pressure.

[Sebowski]

OK do you define need as to what players we need to fill the positions or do you define it by what positions need to be filled? or Both?

Reading your post, correct me If I am wrong your point is that since Williams had one bad season now in his long SUCCESSFUL career as a defensive coordinator everything is on the table about his competency including knowing what the Redskins need?

Actually it seems like you suggest his track record in general is sketchy -- but he had high rated defenses in Tennessee, Buffalo, and here -- so unless you mean one bad season should define his career then am missing your point. His track record is what should give him credibility to turn this thing around. Many in the media including yesterday on the draft programs complemented Gregg's ability as a coordinator.

So the media and us for that matter that watch the games but didn't create the X and O's of the defense or deal with the players on an every day basis -- might start to get it more now than Gregg as to what makes his defenses really tick or as you say at least on some things.

Put it to you this way, if you ran into Gregg Williams and you started to explain to him the importance of a D line for example, do you think he would stare in front of you dumb founded furiously writing notes to understand the basics of defenses and in particular his own? His reaction would be really the D line is what we need to put pressure, gosh, who else said that Peter King, let me give him a call ASAP, you guys can help turn this thing around for me? I got this weird defense with exotic blitzes and it never occured to me that I can get the pressure from my D line up front.

The sarcasm isn't directed at you. Am just using it to make a point. What I think of when I read some of these posts is that we including myself are talking pretty basic stuff. Yeah I can talk defense too if its just the basics and basically describe all defenses as if they are identiical. The Giants turn Strahan loose on every play so we must do the same with Daniels for example and he just isn't getting to the quarterback. Its easier to look at D this way. But I am guessing the world of running defenses is a lot more complex than that.

And if we can basically impugn someone's credibility for one bad season then basically we can impugn anybody -- why not question Bill Belichick when he was in Cleveland and define him by those years? If someone had a long career with massive success running a system and had a bad year should that bad year offset their whole career and its conceiveable for people that now even though we don't do this as a profession we can understand at least part of their profession more so than the professional?

It would be like I don't know lets say Tom Hanks bombing with a movie and saying look Tom that's it, I can care less about your Oscars that was then let me explain acting to you. People at the top of their profession do fail once in awhile it simply comes with the turf. When they do if they are good at what they do they learn from it.

Going off subject here a little but the general point is do we understand how to make Gregg's schemes work better than Greg. Unless am misreading your post, you are saying not the whole drill but in part we will get something about fixing his scheme that Gregg perhaps won't. If so, cool, to each their own! :cool:

He had one above average defensive season in Buffalo (2003), and exactly one in Tennessee (2000) as well. I stand by my track record statement.

I know Gregg wouldn't take notes on my thoughts of our D (though that was a funny way to make your make your point, and I get it), nor would I try to tell him anything more than I think we could use some depth and youth on the D-line. The rest is up to him. Time will prove one of us right, and I hope its him.

[skinsn24]

So, let me see if I understand it, Skinsn. You're not actually debating the point, but a sub point that has nothing to do with the primary question. Why, exactly? Art, i am cleary stating that what you have said is incorrect. You can continue to pretend that there is a 0% of error when Gregg Williams evaluates his system. You can continue ignore what all poor managers in the business world, ignore. That many errors are made when evaluating ones own system. Whether the system be distrubition, implementation, lowest of market cost, or defensive football strategies.

The errors are there to be made. Self Serving bias, fundamental attribution error, selection perception, halo effect ect ect. Keep ignoring these as you obviously you are unable to process what they mean or you chose to pretend they are things of fiction? Ever here of John Chambers? He can tell you all about how poorely people have diagnosed problems in there own system.

Hell, if these guys could evualuate their system and all it problems with 100% certainty, they wouldnt be in football. They would be running infustructure seminars and owning businesses, they wouldnt be clocking 5 mill a year, they would be clocking 250 mill a year. What you say is silly, you prob came to this belief of 100% because of your very selective perceptual selection processs.

I know with fixed certainty that our problems were exactly those the staff identified though, and not something else entirely. Again, if this were a real debate or a real analysis of what is going on, people would look at your statement that because Landry was drafted, Saftey was our biggest need, as compeltely false. I have many times shown you examples where a lurking variable (i know this is advanved stuff, try to follow) could be at work, such as Landry being the top player on the board.

For example, if J. Peppers was avialable at number 6, i think everyone in the world would have taken him. Does this prove DE was the biggest need? Or if Calvin Johnson had fallen to 6, i think everyone believes that he would have been taken? Does this prove WR was our biggest need?

NO. It is a combination of things, including the players available and the positions they played, the trade offers invovled ect. That is why your pole is horribley wrong. If it was a scientific pole, (one with some legit accurracy or meaning) it would be thrown into the toilet. The choices outlined are not final yet and their is no evidence to prove either way. Again, if Landry and Fletcher play great, but the run defense is no better, the problem cleary was not at S or LB, but rather somewhere else. You know this, quit pretending, then again you can continue to pretend that the draft Proves DL was the position of least need on this team.:doh:

I will merely admit I was incorrect as I thought DT was going to be our primary need. You have not yet been proven to be incorrect, even though you love saying so. Only if the Run D is much improved and the Pass rush is much improved will you have been proved incorrect. So far there is no imperical evidence to comment on. Keep believing though Art. Hey Bush says the war was won like 3 years ago, he must be right!!!!

You, though, will question whether they even know what they are doing well enough to identify their needs as well as you. Art, obviously you choose to post without reading what other have said. For the 100th time i have said GW and GJ know more than i do, i have said i agree with the Landry pick. What i have also said it is impossible to have 0% chance of error when evaluating your own system. Go to school, you might learn that too.

Keep ignoring the doctor example, as they mis diagnose diseases all the time, and keep ignoring all the managment errors that are natural to human beings, but hey at least you know for sure that there is a 0% chance GW can ever overlook someting or ever be wrong, because it is his defense.:doh:

[onnie007]

I'm saying we should have taken a DE, but IF we get pressure without blitzing all the time next season, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong.

Bad corner play = no more blitzing. However, the opposite is ALSO true. Bad D-line play means your corners have to cover longer. It's a catch-22, and I don't know which is the bigger problem right now.

But I CAN tell you this. We could have Taylor, Landry, Springs, Rogers and Smoot on the field at the same time in a nickel next year. (Or maybe Prioleau in place of either Landry or Taylor.) If we're still getting lit up with all that talent in the backfield, the simple fact is that it will be due to a lack of pressure.

Yeah but if you look at when we were most successful (2004 and parts of 2005) we stopped the run first which in turn forced 3rd and long situations (obvious passing down). DL asked to rush the passer with the addition of a LB and/or a DB also coming on a blitz. IMO, if they really wanted to the DL to get the sacks themselves then they would necessarily bring an extra guy like he always did. Our blitzing scheme was effective because Springs and Smoot could do an a good job covering their men for a few seconds and ST was free to get INTs which he did (4 of them actually).

And no, if all those guys were no the field and we were still getting lit up then that means someone has poor coverage skills. But we won't have to worry about that because thats exactly why we brought Smoot back and drafted Landry.

[Cringer Eats You]

Believing that NFL coaches are always right is laughable.

They may not always be right but they still now more about coaching pro football more then you or i.

HTTR

[whatmeworry]

Doesnt surprise me 30% say they know more. Surprised it's not higher.

[Petey_Crack]

I put my faith in the coaches, i second guess them at times but trust them to do whats needed eventually

[TheLongshot]

I think it is possible that I might be right once in awhile in areas he gets wrong (I'm assuming you don't believe he gets it all right 100% of the time).

Well, when taking shots in the dark, anyone can be "right", but it is hard to make an informed suggestion without really knowing the scheme.

For the record, I love the Landry pick. Once Adams was off the board and we couldn't trade down I wanted the best defensive player available, and it was clearly Landry. I am also ok with our starters at d-line as long as they stay healthy. But looking at the injury history, age, and depth, I don't see how you can't see a need there.

I'm sure they can see a need there as well, but it is all about finding the best player to fill a need. Landry was the best player and safety is a need.

Look at Houston last year. They passed on Bush and Young because they didn't see a need at either position. These are professional coaches who look at film all day just like Gregg Williams does. Fast forward a year later and they cut both their starting QB and their starting RB. They clearly evaluated their needs badly while a lot of their fans saw it all along. What is the difference here?

Well, in that case, either they didn't rate Bush as highly, or they went for what they felt was a need over the best player available. Certainly, Casserly spinned it that they needed to improve their defense, so maybe they reached for a need.

Jason

[UK Skins]

After 470 odd posts you still don't realise that Art's original poll should have said "do we know more about Gregg William's play-book and play-calling than him". The obvious and only answer is no. Every other answer has been refuted by Art as not answering the question, which it doesn't and can't!

I still can't see where it says that in the poll, but continually bringing up logical reasons why the coaches do not seem to know what they are doing will always be met by the response "how can you know what GW is trying to do when he calls a play". I do believe that the rest of the posters have reached agreement that it is possible that the coaches mis-identified a need, settled on the wrong players, even called the wrong plays, and a number of other examples of where the coaches clearly do not seem to know what they are doing. But these are off-topic as far as Art is concerned.

[Art]

After 470 odd posts you still don't realise that Art's original poll should have said "do we know more about Gregg William's play-book and play-calling than him". The obvious and only answer is no. Every other answer has been refuted by Art as not answering the question, which it doesn't and can't!

I still can't see where it says that in the poll, but continually bringing up logical reasons why the coaches do not seem to know what they are doing will always be met by the response "how can you know what GW is trying to do when he calls a play". I do believe that the rest of the posters have reached agreement that it is possible that the coaches mis-identified a need, settled on the wrong players, even called the wrong plays, and a number of other examples of where the coaches clearly do not seem to know what they are doing. But these are off-topic as far as Art is concerned.

No, a clear minority, boosted by at least 80 Cowboy fans posting from guest, think it's plausible the people who install, run and design a system are not capable of grasping the areas that make the system go. That's pretty much it.

Most people understand this simple premise and have the willingness to simply GET that no matter what they thought, the reasons they came up with their thoughts are trumped by people who know more because they can't help but know more. You have seen rather desperate, often pathetic refusal to address the simple premise.

Conversely, I've been kind enough to repetitively admit we may not always get the right player after making the assessment, and it is certainly a reasonable position to take that the system itself, no matter how in touch with it the staff is, may be the flawed element incapable of functioning at a winning level in the NFL.

But, your viewpoint the consensus is that the coaches don't know their systems well enough to know what it takes to make them go is a symptom of the larger problem that a very large percentage of people here are too lost in themselves to know how silly it sounds.

The original question and poll remains in tact for how simple it is. Does any staff in the league not know its system better than any fan anywhere. Here, there's a sickening undercurrent that we do, and only a hint of thought that the systems themselves are flawed.

[Guest Knightwchmn]

You do have to wonder?!?!? I mean, NO DEFENSIVE LINEMEN, as that was such a gaping weakness in 2006 - so much so that they broke team and NFL Historical records in lowest sacks and turnover totals - yet they ignore it? Hoping it will go away? Maybe no one will notice?!?!

Please!!!

:mad::mad::mad:

[Art]

You do have to wonder?!?!? I mean, NO DEFENSIVE LINEMEN, as that was such a gaping weakness in 2006 - so much so that they broke team and NFL Historical records in lowest sacks and turnover totals - yet they ignore it? Hoping it will go away? Maybe no one will notice?!?!

Please!!!

:mad::mad::mad:

Or, maybe, there were other weaknesses that were a greater concern. You do have to wonder, how that is the only premise you couldn't come up with on your own, don't you? You obviously didn't notice our real problems. Why is that?