The Sour Kool Aid Thread - How good is our Defense?

[jimster]

Man...how do some of you get up in the morning being so pessimistic? I mean, seriously? I'd have slit my wrists years ago if I was that negative. :laugh:

:laugh: I think that so often when I read this board. Some people get so upset when they hear good news or see something positive.

[barry wilburn]

LaVar is going to CRUSH Qb's this year!!! We're going to be the best defense in the NFL! Go LaVar, Go Redskins!

[Oldfan]

:laugh: I think that so often when I read this board. Some people get so upset when they hear good news or see something positive.

That's sometimes true, but I read the OP as trying to point out that some posters weren't being realistic in their expectations.

[Santana_Fan]

We also were missing out on two of our starters on defense (Springs and Washington)...and we still did alot better than people thought we would.

[skinsfanno9]

We also were missing out on two of our starters on defense (Springs and Washington)...and we still did alot better than people thought we would.

A lot better than people thought we would? Sure, I agree with that. This is different from saying "Top 5 Defense."

And BTW, Baltimore's offense was missing 6 time all-pro, 10 time pro-bowl LT Jonathan Ogden, not to mention Mark Clayton. I'm guessing these were bigger losses if we were adding them up.

[Mister Happy]

You're right you can judge a defense based on preseason, but you can judge on regular season.

We still have almost all of the guys from our 3rd ranked defense in 2004 and 9th ranked defense in 2005.

Now we have them back healthy, and they are not looking like they missed a beat.

What is different between those top 10 Ds and this one? Antonio Pierce, Ryan Clark and Lemar Marshall. That's it.

Instead we have London Fletcher. Pierce was great for 1 year in 2004, but Fletcher has been having Pierce-like years in this same system since 2002.

We also have Landry, who has looked great.

Marshall was flat out cut in favor of Rocky McIntosh, who also looks like a stud. If our D would have been better with Marshall could have kept him.

So what makes you think this is not still a top 10 D? Because of the injury-plagued 2006 season? In 2006, we didn't play a single game with all of our defensive starters.

If you want to ignore 2004 and 2005 and take 2006 with all the injuries as the defining year for the defense, then go ahead. To me, this defense looks more like 2004/2005 than 2006.

[skinsfanno9]

You're right you can judge a defense based on preseason, but you can judge on regular season.

We still have almost all of the guys from our 3rd ranked defense in 2004 and 9th ranked defense in 2005.

Now we have them back healthy, and they are not looking like they missed a beat.

What is different between those top 10 Ds and this one? Antonio Pierce, Ryan Clark and Lemar Marshall. That's it.

Instead we have London Fletcher. Pierce was great for 1 year in 2004, but Fletcher has been having Pierce-like years in this same system since 2002.

We also have Landry, who has looked great.

Marshall was flat out cut in favor of Rocky McIntosh, who also looks like a stud. If our D would have been better with Marshall could have kept him.

So what makes you think this is not still a top 10 D? Because of the injury-plagued 2006 season? In 2006, we didn't play a single game with all of our defensive starters.

If you want to ignore 2004 and 2005 and take 2006 with all the injuries as the defining year for the defense, then go ahead. To me, this defense looks more like 2004/2005 than 2006.

OK, this is an interesting argument. You're saying not to look at preseason as an indicator, but instead to just focus on the change in personnel. OK, fine - perhaps you can make the case that "on paper" we could, and perhaps should be a top 10 defense (interestingly, on paper, many thought we were a Superbowl contender last year, even though the preseason games showed differently). I have no disagreement with that (other than perhaps there might be other things involved simply than the personnel that was lined up). I'm not even saying we won't be a top defense.

What I AM saying is there is nothing in this preseason to indicate that we're looking like a top 5 defense (or perhaps even a top 10 D). I am not at all discounting that this is possible, and in fact I hope for it to be the case. But when I hear people looking at these games who then say, "Yep, I see Top 5 D" aren't doing so based on evidence - they are doing so based on hope. Yes, sure, perhaps Williams is holding all his truly juicy stuff back for the real games, which will automatically propel his D to the top of the heap - fine, this is a possibility, but again, the preseason games don't give us indications of this.

But as for not missing a beat - again, I'd buy that argument better if perhaps I saw turnovers. I'd buy that argument more if I didn't see a QB with all the time in the world to pick us apart in the red zone. At least in this preseason, we don't see that. The evidence just isn't there right now to call this a Top 5 D.

[LVskinsfan]

So what makes you think this is not still a top 10 D? Because of the injury-plagued 2006 season? In 2006, we didn't play a single game with all of our defensive starters.

If you want to ignore 2004 and 2005 and take 2006 with all the injuries as the defining year for the defense, then go ahead. To me, this defense looks more like 2004/2005 than 2006.

We did play with our starters against the Saints. Oh Yea, They kicked the Saints butt. Worst outing for the Saints offense all year

[Peregrine]

I will agree that while im pleased with seeing the defense play well, the lack of turnovers and sacks is disconcerting again. Its pretty much the same as it was last year, little to no pressure, and little to no turnovers. Just one pick, or forced fumble by our starting D would have been nice.

[Oldfan]

But as for not missing a beat - again, I'd buy that argument better if perhaps I saw turnovers. I'd buy that argument more if I didn't see a QB with all the time in the world to pick us apart in the red zone. At least in this preseason, we don't see that. The evidence just isn't there right now to call this a Top 5 D.

We are essentially in agreement here, but Gregg Williams keeps telling us that pressuring the QB doesn't necessarily have to result in sacks and turnovers. I buy that argument. If we can get consistent pressure on the QB, one way or another, we can live without a high turnover ratio. Three and out is a turnover in my book.

I'm high on Williams' ability to coach a defense even though last season didn't look good on his resume.'

[skinsfanno9]

We are essentially in agreement here, but Gregg Williams keeps telling us that pressuring the QB doesn't necessarily have to result in sacks and turnovers. I buy that argument. If we can get consistent pressure on the QB, one way or another, we can live without a high turnover ratio. Three and out is a turnover in my book.

I'm high on Williams' ability to coach a defense even though last season didn't look good on his resume.'

"If we can get consistent pressure on the QB" is an important caveot. Our front four doesn't really do that. We only saw that a few times last night - primarily when Carter schooled the rook. And yeah, more blitzes will definitely help. But I differ with you on what I've heard from Greg Williams. Everything I've heard indicates he is very unhappy if his defense doesn't generate turnovers. 3 and out is a good thing, but far better is having the ball given to us prior to the punt. This is how Chicago made it to the Superbowl.

Incidentally, perhaps there is some truth to that old wives tale that other NFL teams ascribe to: "dominating defensive linemen make everyone else look better." I'm not saying we can't be a dominating D with our current corps, but perhaps things would go better for us if we had a Warren Sapp-like talent or two.

EDIT: and yes, I too am high on Williams' ability to coach the defense. We are in agreement in this thread. My only point continues to be that these games don't give us evidence to support the belief in a top 5 D (this is different from saying we will be horrid like last year).

[Mister Happy]

OK, this is an interesting argument. You're saying not to look at preseason as an indicator, but instead to just focus on the change in personnel. OK, fine - perhaps you can make the case that "on paper" we could be a top 10 defense (interestingly, on paper, many thought we were a Superbowl contender last year, even though the preseason games showed differently). I have no disagreement with that (other than perhaps there might be other things involved simply than the personnel that was lined up). I'm not even saying we won't be a top defense.

What I AM saying is there is nothing in this preseason to indicate that we're looking like a top 5 defense (or perhaps even a top 10 D). I am not at all discounting that this is possible, and in fact I hope for it to be the case. But when I hear people looking at these games who then say, "Yep, I see Top 5 D" aren't doing so based on evidence - they are doing so based on hope. Yes, sure, perhaps Williams is holding all his truly juicy stuff back for the real games, which will automatically propel his D to the top of the heap - fine this is a possibility, but again, the preseason games don't give us indications of this.

But as for not missing a beat - again, I'd buy that argument better if perhaps I saw turnovers. I'd buy that argument more if I didn't see a QB with all the time in the world to pick us apart in the red zone. At least in this preseason, we don't see that.

Nothing in preseason to indicate we're looking like a top 5 defense, except that we are ranked #1 in points and #2 in yards. Is that good enough for you?

I'll take those stats and no turnovers over lesser stats and more turnovers.

You can't expect your opponent to never move the ball or score. Teams aren't going to beat us very often if they move the ball against us like they did against our starters in the last 3 games.

[[[ghost]]]

considering the fact that we arent showing our best blitzes and we still have only allowed 1 TD in 3 games, i see a top 10 DEF

I believe so. I don't think they'll dominate, but that attitude that Fletcher and Landry bring will only motivate high-energy guys like Rogers, Washington, Smoot, and Taylor.

[Increase Mather]

Increase is in substantial agreement with Skinsfan09.

There is much in the defensive performance thus far in the pre-season to please us. Landry and McIntosish appear to be notable improvements over their predecessors. The run defense has been excellent. All three opponents have struggled to run the ball laterally, which reflects an improvement in team speed (last year we gave up substantial yardage on runs to the outside of the tackles).

Two things still concern Increase. First, the pass rush with the front four is virtually non-existent. The secondary appears much improved, but a veteran qb with time will inevitably find seams in the defense. Second, it seems there is a strange passivity with respect to pass-defense. Our corners often play ten yards off of opposing recievers, and do not swarm to the ball until the reception is made. The defense has not given up big plays in the preseason thus far, and has forced opponents to put together lengthy, systematic drives to score. This is good. However, the "bend but don't break" philosophy is vulnerable to veteran teams that can put together such drives, and does little to force mistakes (beyond hope for them).

What does all of this mean? Generally, Increase is pleased with the defense thus far, but there are still potential trouble spots on the horizon. Predictions of a top 5 D seem GROSSLY premature-

[skinsfanno9]

]']I believe so. I don't think they'll dominate' date=' but that attitude that Fletcher and Landry bring will only motivate high-energy guys like Rogers, Washington, Smoot, and Taylor.[/quote']

Keep in mind there are 19 spots between the #10 and #30 defense. If they aren't dominating, it's a good bet that they won't be in the top 10. But also keep in mind, most offenses aren't doing anything but vanilla stuff. So us not blitzing may not be really the huge difference that some are indicating.

Again, I absolutely agree they look lots better this year. Someone apparently has taught Rogers how to tackle, for instance. The new players seem to swarm to the ball, etc. But again, there are a lot of spots between #30 and #5 Ds - perhaps we end up in one of these...

[Oldfan]

"If we can get consistent pressure on the QB" is an important caveot. Our front four doesn't really do that. We only saw that a few times last night - primarily when Carter schooled the rook. And yeah, more blitzes will definitely help. But I differ with you on what I've heard from Greg Williams. Everything I've heard indicates he is very unhappy if his defense doesn't generate turnovers. 3 and out is a good thing, but far better is having the ball given to us prior to the punt. This is how Chicago made it to the Superbowl.

Incidentally, perhaps there is some truth to that old wives tale that other NFL teams ascribe to: "dominating defensive linemen make everyone else look better." I'm not saying we can't be a dominating D with our current corps, but perhaps things would go better for us if we had a Warren Sapp-like talent or two.

EDIT: and yes, I too am high on Williams' ability to coach the defense. We are in agreement in this thread. My only point continues to be that these games don't give us evidence to support the belief in a top 5 D (this is different from saying we will be horrid like last year).

I don't remember the exact numbers, but Gregg's defenses haven't been turnover machines. It's hard to compare coaches because you can't subtract the talent factor. With Chicago's talent, my guess is that he'd make turnovers a priority.

I agree, though, as much fun as it is to see the defense playing so well, there's not enough evidence yet that they're an elite group that will dominate opponents during the regular season.

[No_Pressure]

If you want to judge the regular season based on the pre-season, I would have thought most teams would be happy to give up one touchdown in 3 games despite how many turnovers they are getting. If the defense is playing a different scheme or the offenses are holding back, then I guess you can't judge how we will be in the regular season from pre-season. This isn't very difficult folks. Either they have done well, or we shall wait and see.

[skinsfanno9]

If you want to judge the regular season based on the pre-season, I would have thought most teams would be happy to give up one touchdown in 3 games despite how many turnovers they are getting. If the defense is playing a different scheme or the offenses are holding back, then I guess you can't judge how we will be in the regular season from pre-season. This isn't very difficult folks. Either they have done well, or we shall wait and see.

No disagreement here. But then again, you aren't saying "Woohoo!!! Did you see that game??? We're back to bein a Top 5 Defense, Baby!!!"

You're pretty much saying the same thing I've said - we don't have evidence to say how good they are. But yeah, I'd say most Redskins fans are very pleased with what we've seen on defense so far, especially when compared to last year's fiasco. They've definitely done well - this is different however, from saying they look like a Top 5 Defense.

EDIT: and just to re-iterate, if we end up as the #15 defense this year, this means that we would have improved 100% in the rankings, which most would agree is a great improvement.

[bulldog]

I think an excellent argument can be made that the defense is improved at each position over 2006.

Health across the DL makes that unit better. Daniels, Griffin and Salavea are at 100% while Carter and Golston are more experienced in this system with an offseason of work.

Which linebacker spot is not improved? McIntosh is faster and a better tackler than Holdman. Fletcher is bigger and more powerful than Marshall. Washington has an elbow but is once again able to run and use his quickness. Godfrey and Blades give the team some capable depth. Who is going to say that Godfrey is not proven?

In the backfield Springs is healthy and Smoot takes over for Wright while Macklin takes over for Rumph at the corners. All of those moves are upgrades. Rogers is the question mark in the group but has looked solid in preseason and will be pushed by Smoot.

At safety, outside of Taylor there was a housecleaning with Landry and Stoutmire coming in and Prioleau coming back from season-ending surgery.

Hard to believe Prioleau and Landry won't be upgrades over the likes of Fox, Vincent and Archuleta.

[skinsfanno9]

Nothing in preseason to indicate we're looking like a top 5 defense, except that we are ranked #1 in points and #2 in yards. Is that good enough for you?

I'll take those stats and no turnovers over lesser stats and more turnovers.

You can't expect your opponent to never move the ball or score. Teams aren't going to beat us very often if they move the ball against us like they did against our starters in the last 3 games.

Are we including the missing half of play in those stats? And no, this isn't good enough for me. To say that we look lots lots better than last year? Sure, absolutely. Top 5? No, I'd like turnovers and pressure on the QB for that to happen.

[skinsfanno9]

I think an excellent argument can be made that the defense is improved at each position over 2006.

Health across the DL makes that unit better. Daniels, Griffin and Salavea are at 100% while Carter and Golston are more experienced in this system with an offseason of work.

Which linebacker spot is not improved? McIntosh is faster and a better tackler than Holdman. Fletcher is bigger and more powerful than Marshall. Washington has an elbow but is once again able to run and use his quickness. Godfrey and Blades give the team some capable depth. Who is going to say that Godfrey is not proven?

In the backfield Springs is healthy and Smoot takes over for Wright while Macklin takes over for Rumph at the corners. All of those moves are upgrades. Rogers is the question mark in the group but has looked solid in preseason and will be pushed by Smoot.

At safety, outside of Taylor there was a housecleaning with Landry and Stoutmire coming in and Prioleau coming back from season-ending surgery.

Hard to believe Prioleau and Landry won't be upgrades over the likes of Fox, Vincent and Archuleta.

:applause:

Great post. Agree with everything you've said. Very realistic and optimistic at the same time, while not dropping into "top 5" hype mode. Again, there is LOTS of room for improvement when the mark is #30 with 12 turnovers for the year. We clearly look better than last year, perhaps lots better.

[Mister Happy]

OK, this is an interesting argument. You're saying not to look at preseason as an indicator, but instead to just focus on the change in personnel. OK, fine - perhaps you can make the case that "on paper" we could, and perhaps should be a top 10 defense (interestingly, on paper, many thought we were a Superbowl contender last year, even though the preseason games showed differently). I have no disagreement with that (other than perhaps there might be other things involved simply than the personnel that was lined up). I'm not even saying we won't be a top defense.

Well, Baltimore lost Adalius Thomas. Does that mean they are only a good defense "on paper"? We haven't seen their D without him.

Almost our entire defense is the same as 2004 and 2005, so it's more than just on paper. They have proved themselves already.

[skinsfanno9]

Well, Baltimore lost Adalius Thomas. Does that mean they are only a good defense "on paper"? We haven't seen their D without him.

Almost our entire defense is the same as 2004 and 2005, so it's more than just on paper. They have proved themselves already.

Lets see, we changed out a ton of players over the course of two years, finished in last place last year, and its just the same as 2004/2005? They were last in the league last year but they've proved themselves already? Hmm...no, I don't think so. You can ONLY say that on paper. As for Baltimore, unlike the Skins, they finished #1 last year and their first unit has already forced fumbles and put pressure on the QB to show they are the same unit. Its fair to give them the benefit of doubt based on what's been seen, and with a decently informed opinion and say, yeah, they probably will finish in the top 5.

[Mister Happy]

Are we including the missing half of play in those stats? And no, this isn't good enough for me. To say that we look lots lots better than last year? Sure, absolutely. Top 5? No, I'd like turnovers and pressure on the QB for that to happen.

Top 5 is a number you made up. Nobody is saying that, unless they are quoting you.

Our full set of starters have played roughly 4 quarters together. That's if you include the Baltimore game without Marcus Washington.

In that time, we have given up 143 yards and 3 points. Those 3 points came because the Titans started their drive on our 28 yard line and kicked a field goal from the 23.

That is lights out defense no matter how you slice it. Turnovers or not.

[skinsn24]

.

Almost our entire defense is the same as 2004 and 2005, so it's more than just on paper. They have proved themselves already.

Honest question: Do you know who plays on our defense. The defense is changed from 05 and even more changed from 04.

So many players, have come and gone. Some even have come back. Some players were added in 04, some of those are gone. Some players are playing totally different positions now.