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

[jimster]

Oh and BTW, Griffin, NOT Montgomery started the game last night.

[skinsn24]

Oh and BTW, Griffin, NOT Montgomery started the game last night.

No, Griffin was announced the starter but due to the rain delay they held griffin out of the game and inserted montgomery.

[skinsn24]

are you serious? I gave you a link and everything. Because he started a pre-season game, he's now a starter? So is Heyer and Pucillo starters too?

http://www.redskins.com/team/depthchart.jsp

Position 1st String 2nd String 3rd String

LDE 93 - Phillip Daniels 97 - Renaldo Wynn 90 - Alex Buzbee

LDT 96 - Cornelius Griffin 94 - Anthony Montgomery 71 - Bryant Shaw

RDT 64 - Kedric Golston 95 - Joe Salave'a 79 - Lorenzo Alexander

RDE 99 - Andre Carter 92 - Demetric Evans 77 - Chris Wilson

SLB 53 - Marcus Washington 50 - Khary Campbell 55 - Dallas Sartz

MLB 59 - London Fletcher 54 - H.B. Blades 56 - Kevin Jones

WLB 52 - Rocky McIntosh 59 - Anthony Trucks

LCB 24 - Shawn Springs 27 - Fred Smoot 35 - Jerametrius Butler

RCB 22 - Carlos Rogers 38 - David Macklin 32 - Ade Jimoh

SS 30 - LaRon Landry 20 - Pierson Prioleau 39 - Vernon Fox

FS 21 - Sean Taylor 37 - Reed Doughty

You might want to go back and read this thread. This all started from some one saying our first team D has not given up a TD in the preseason. When the first team D that was put on the field has in fact given up a TD regarldess of who may start in the regular season.

[#98QBKiller]

__________________________________________

[jimster]

You might want to go back and read this thread. This all started from some one saying our first team D has not given up a TD in the preseason. When the first team D that was put on the field has in fact given up a TD regarldess of who may start in the regular season.

you might want to go back and read the post you attempted to correct me on. I replied to Ghost about what D-linemen were in the game at the time of the Ravens TD. You proceeded to tell me I was making excuses (which I never did) about the team and I was wrong about the starters not being in the game. - I just re-watched the opening drive of the game. Understand? OPENING drive - meaning the players who started the game were on the field and Griffin, not Montgomery was on the field. I re-watched the Ravens TD. Daniels, Golston Montgomery and Jamal Green were the D-linemen on the field. - Not the same people is it.

You've seem to have invented some argument with me and feel a need to be right even though I wasn't arguing whatever it is you think I'm arguing in the first place.

...darn it Ghost - I hope you appreciate all the trouble I went through just to respond to your post. :laugh:

[skinsn24]

you might want to go back and read the post you attempted to correct me on. I replied to Ghost about what D-linemen were in the game at the time of the Ravens TD. You proceeded to tell me I was making excuses (which I never did) about the team and I was wrong about the starters not being in the game. - I just re-watched the opening drive of the game. Understand? OPENING drive - meaning the players who started the game were on the field and Griffin, not Montgomery was on the field. I re-watched the Ravens TD. Daniels, Golston Montgomery and Jamal Green were the D-linemen on the field. - Not the same people is it.

You've seem to have invented some argument with me and feel a need to be right even though I wasn't arguing whatever it is you think I'm arguing in the first place.

...darn it Ghost - I hope you appreciate all the trouble I went through just to respond to your post. :laugh:

1. I am wrong about Griffin he did start. But was shortly removed. I was wrong. But Montgomery was starting right next to him, so you wanna go back and watch the game again, because If you actually watched it, like u claim you did, you will see Montgomery starting. Damn, funny how that is.

2. Daniels seems like a starter and he was on the field for that td.

3. Ghost was responding to a post I made about the first team D getting scored on.

4. You interjected in the middle of a thread that had a discussion going on about the amount of points the first team D let up. If lets say 8/11 of the starters were still on the field, i would consider that the first team, because its football and players rotate. You know this.

But hey you watched the game and then you rewatched the game and you know that Mongomery was not on the field for the opening drive :shhh:

[jimster]

1. I am wrong about Griffin he did start. But was shortly removed. I was wrong. But Montgomery was starting right next to him, so you wanna go back and watch the game again, because If you actually watched it, like u claim you did, you will see Montgomery starting. Damn, funny how that is.

2. Daniels seems like a starter and he was on the field for that td.

3. Ghost was responding to a post I made about the first team D getting scored on.

4. You interjected in the middle of a thread that had a discussion going on about the amount of points the first team D let up. If lets say 8/11 of the starters were still on the field, i would consider that the first team, because its football and players rotate. You know this.

But hey you watched the game and then you rewatched the game and you know that Mongomery was not on the field for the opening drive :shhh:

Ok, Let's review.

Post #53

]']Was McNair's TD against the first team. I think it was a combination between 1st and 2nd' date=' because I know McIntosh missed on that play, and Taylor was right behind him. I think our Dline was done by that time though.[/quote']

Post #54

Lol, i couldnt tell you who our "starting Dline" is as we are going to rotate so many guys.

But lets be real the play was on Rocky and ST, if those are not starters, then i dont know who is.

I mean if ST gets beat i think we can put it agaisnt the first team. He is an "all pro"

EDIT: Just check the game book to see who else was playing that drive. Let it be known the TD was scoed with 9:40 to play in the second quater, so that alone should tell you it was the first team.

Here are other players on the field: Golston, Fletcher, Mongomery, Daniels, Landry, Mcintosh, Taylor, smoot, rogers...

I think you get the picture.

Post #62

I think our projected starting DL were done after the first defensive series it seemed. After that, it looked to be a mixture - Carter stayed on, but Montgomery Evans and Golston came in, then Carter out, Wilson, in,etc.

I responded to Ghost, not you (this has always been a message board that allows multiple conversations at a time, so "interjecting" in thread in our world of polite conversations used happen all the time - back in the day we called them discussions) regarding who was in the game at the time of the TD. You and I basically said the same thing in regards to there being many different DL on the field at various times. I even agreed that the play was on Rocky, never made excuses for or about the D-line, but for some reason you just need to keep telling me I'm wrong about something. - wrong about the starters being in the game, wrong about who the "starters" are, then wrong about who is considered a starter.

Montgomery may have been on the field on the opening drive at some point, but Griffin started. - FACT

Right now, Griffin, not Montgomery is considered a starter - FACT

2 of our starting D-linemen were not on the field at the time of the Ravens TD - FACT.

You can holler all you want about the entire universe are starters, but whatever argument you think you have with me regarding that is in your own mind.

[skinsfanno9]

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

Actually, no. Quite a few have said that, including some in this thread. In fact I'd go so far as to say that this is a common sentiment expressed on quite a few threads. So no, I did not make that up - the thread is in response to that sentiment. I have happily agreed that our defense looks LOTS better than last year's last place finish. What I disagree with is the idea that we look like a lock for a top 5 defense, or even that one can realistically predict a top 5 defense based on what we've seen so far. I can go through the arguments again, but the point is, if we're getting no turnovers, we're not going to be a top 5 defense; and if we aren't generating pressure on the QB, we aren't going to be a top 5 defense.

Will our defense be dramatically different come real game time with massive blitzes every other play? Sure, this is a possibility - but we aren't gathering evidence of this from the preseason games.

[Mister Happy]

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.

Well, if changing players can change how a defense performs, then why are you acting like our injury-riddled team from 2006 is the same one we have now?

We didn't change a ton of players. The only starters we don't still have from our 3rd ranked D in 2004 are Pierce and Clark. I suppose you can count Marshall, but we just barely cut him.

We took our our top 3 D from 2004 and upgraded Pierce with Fletcher and Clark with Landry, but according to you, we are only good on paper, even though that unit was 3rd in yards and 5th in points, and it did nothing but get better.

You have this obsession with creating turnovers and pressuring the QB. Defenses are not ranked on that. A defense could hold a team to 0 yards and 0 points, but you would still say it sucks if it had no sacks or turnovers.

QB pressure and turnovers are great, but they are mostly good for stopping teams from moving the ball and scoring. That's what really matters, and our starting D is doing exactly that this preseason.

[Mister Happy]

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.

The only starters from 2004 that we didn't have in 2007 are Pierce and Clark.

We still have Daniels, Wynn, Salavea, Griffin, Washington, Smoot, Taylor and Springs, but we cut Marshall.

[skinsfanno9]

Well, if changing players can change how a defense performs, then why are you acting like our injury-riddled team from 2006 is the same one we have now?

Truly, this response is getting old. Please tell me - ANYWHERE - where I've said that this team is going to be the same as the 2006 team. At the same time, changing out a bevy of personnel both in starter and in backup roles (far more than two people there if you include key players) does NOT mean we automatically revert to a team of two years previous. That's just silly.

We took our our top 3 D from 2004 and upgraded Pierce with Fletcher and Clark with Landry, but according to you, we are only good on paper, even though that unit was 3rd in yards and 5th in points, and it did nothing but get better.

No, according to me the evidence is not there in looking at these preseason games to realistically predict that we'll be a top 5 defense. This is what I've said continually - NOT that we'll be just as sucky as last year. Interestingly, nobody but redskins fans on discussion forums are predicting a top 5 finish from our defense right now...I wonder why.

You have this obsession with creating turnovers and pressuring the QB. Defenses are not ranked on that. A defense could hold a team to 0 yards and 0 points, but you would still say it sucks if it had no sacks or turnovers.

QB pressure and turnovers are great, but they are mostly good for stopping teams from moving the ball and scoring. That's what really matters, and our starting D is doing exactly that this preseason.

Please read that statement (in bold) again and tell me that there's no correlation. Again, I'd bet money that Greg Williams wants to see lots of QB pressures and turnovers - if we don't get them I'm just as sure he's not gonna be pleased, but apparently, at least you will be.

[Mister Happy]

Umm Isnt a touchdown worth 7?

We were talking about our starting lineup.

At the very least, we had Blades in for Fletcher, Montgomery in for Golston and no Marcus Washington or Shawn Springs.

I let some of it slide, so I didn't have to completely ignore the Ravens game.

But that was not our starting D that the Ravens scored on. If you want to count it, be my guest.

[Mister Happy]

Please read that statement (in bold) again and tell me that there's no correlation. Again, I'd bet money that Greg Williams wants to see lots of QB pressures and turnovers - if we don't get them I'm just as sure he's not gonna be pleased, but apparently, at least you will be.

I'll be pleased if we stop teams from moving the ball and scoring. Sacks and turnovers are just one of the many factors that contribute to that, not the end all be all.

We had mediocre turnover and sack numbers in 2004 and still put together a top 3 D. I'll take that any day of the week.

[skinsfanno9]

I'll be pleased if we stop teams from moving the ball and scoring. Sacks and turnovers are just one of the many factors that contribute to that, not the end all be all.

We had mediocre turnover and sack numbers in 2004 and still put together a top 3 D. I'll take that any day of the week.

I truly "hope" we get a top 3 D this year. Whether or not the evidence is there yet to realistically predict this is another matter entirely. Clearly we disagree on this.

[skinsn24]

Lets review what a starter is. A starter is a player who starts the game. In the opening lineup, on the field at the start of play. A "projected starter" may be someone people think will start, but is not a starter untill the game is acutally played.

Now lets review what you claim you have watched.

I just re-watched the opening drive of the game. Understand? OPENING drive - meaning the players who started the game were on the field and Griffin, not Montgomery was on the field. I re-watched the Ravens TD.

Montgomery was entered into the game book as the starter-Fact

Montgomery was on the field for the first play of the game-Fact

Montgomery was not inserted into the first drive, he started the first drive-Fact

You claim to have just rewatched the opening drive-Fact

You have stated when you watched montgomery was not start-Fact

You must not have been watching the same game-Fact

You refuse to admit you made a mistake in viewin-Fact

Ok, Let's review.

Montgomery may have been on the field on the opening drive at some point, but Griffin started. - FACT

Right now, Griffin, not Montgomery is considered a starter - FACT

There are 2, yes 2, not 1, starting defensive tackles in a 4-3 defense-FACT

Griffin was one of them-FACT

Montgomery was one of them-FACT

Just the fact that you say "...but griffin started" shows you lack of knowledge of a 4-3 defense and that Montgomery was in fact on the field at the start of the game and was entered into the game book as an offical starter.

Montgomery, by definition, must be considered a starter for that game-FACT

Lastly, in all your rambling you forgot that the whole thing started, not when u posted but when someone said our starters (including the bmore game) have not given up a td.

Swallow your pride, admit you were wrong about Monty, or watching the wrong game and get over.

I admitted i was incorrect about Griffin 100%. Get over yourself

[skinsn24]

We were talking about our starting lineup.

At the very least, we had Blades in for Fletcher, Montgomery in for Golston and no Marcus Washington or Shawn Springs.

I let some of it slide, so I didn't have to completely ignore the Ravens game.

But that was not our starting D that the Ravens scored on. If you want to count it, be my guest.

Fletcher was in the game for the drive, as was smoot, taylor, rogers, mcintosh, landry, daniels, and Montgomery (who started the game). Washington was hurt so Blades was playing but you said you would count the Washington injury.

Springs did not play, he did not start. But if you want to say because he was held out, it doesnt count, then we cant say the redskins have scored 1 touchdown with their starting offense.

The team on the field for the ravens TD was almost the exact same lineup that started that game.

[skinsn24]

The only starters from 2004 that we didn't have in 2007 are Pierce and Clark.

We still have Daniels, Wynn, Salavea, Griffin, Washington, Smoot, Taylor and Springs, but we cut Marshall.

Carter? Golston? Fletcher? Rocky? Landry?

Wynn no longer starts. Thats already 6 different starters

[LoudMouth12thMan]

Split hairs all you want. Fact is the Redskins D is rated top 5 in every category for the preaseason. You could add a touchdown and and handful of yards for the Ravens to make up for the lost stats in Saturday's game and we'd still be ranked in the top 5 in most of those categories.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=0015&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=SCORING&seasonString=2007-PRE&tabSeq=2&Submit=Find

I don't care if the 1st, 2nd, or practice squad team makes the plays. They're on this team as of today.

Drink piss if you want to pal, I'll keep drinkin' Kool-aid :koolaid:

[Siven]

Split hairs all you want. Fact is the Redskins D is rated top 5 in every category for the preaseason. You could add a touchdown and and handful of yards for the Ravens to make up for the lost stats in Saturday's game and we'd still be ranked in the top 5 in most of those categories.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=0015&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=SCORING&seasonString=2007-PRE&tabSeq=2&Submit=Find

I don't care if the 1st, 2nd, or practice squad team makes the plays. They're on this team as of today.

Drink piss if you want to pal, I'll keep drinkin' Kool-aid :koolaid:

one sack in 3 games isn't too hot. Regardless of how vanilla we are playing, we should be putting the QB into the ground.

[tr1]

There's one constant on ES:

Whether the Skins look good or the Skins look bad, there's always a Negative Nancy to try and crush our hope.

I suppose there's some perverse pleasure in ruining hope in a place meant to foster good feelings about the Skins.

Frankly, I'd be embarrassed if folks reading my posts couldn't tell if I was a Skins fan or a Pukes fan.

[skinsfanno9]

There's one constant on ES:

Whether the Skins look good or the Skins look bad, there's always a Negative Nancy to try and crush our hope.

I suppose there's some perverse pleasure in ruining hope in a place meant to foster good feelings about the Skins.

Frankly, I'd be embarrassed if folks reading my posts couldn't tell if I was a Skins fan or a Pukes fan.

Amazing. I happily admit the defense looks lots better than last year (many many times in fact and many ways), but because I say there isn't yet the evidence there to justify a realistic prediction of a top 5 finish on defense from a team that finished below #30 last year and I'm labeled a pukes fan???

Tell me, what's the label you give for people who make snap judgments about others that have no basis in anything other their own bizarre sense of fan righteousness?

Woohoo!!! We're definitely Top 5 Defense Baby!!! Mark it Down!!! Get away all you negative nancys!!! Who needs sacks, pressures or turnovers, we're top 5 Baby!!!

There, is that better?

[cuchip703]

After the first pre-season game, I was wary. After the second I felt better. After the third even better. After watching Pittsburgh's first team run over Philly's defense last night I feel even better. This looks like a d that is going to keep us in games all year. If the o can put up 20-25 points a game, this is a significantly better team than last year. Forcing turnovers is a key, and hopefully that will come.

[Killerbo]

YOu know what's really scary.....we have fallen so far in accepting mediocre play, that have a defense that creates no constant pressure on a QB and generates little turnover is considered ok, bcos that is the master plan. Miss the good days of our defense just sacking the crap out of QB's and making interceptions left and right.....sigh.

[skinsn24]

YOu know what's really scary.....we have fallen so far in accepting mediocre play, that have a defense that creates no constant pressure on a QB and generates little turnover is considered ok, bcos that is the master plan. Miss the good days of our defense just sacking the crap out of QB's and making interceptions left and right.....sigh.

Ding Ding Ding

[skinsn24]

There's one constant on ES:

Whether the Skins look good or the Skins look bad, there's always a Negative Nancy to try and crush our hope.

I suppose there's some perverse pleasure in ruining hope in a place meant to foster good feelings about the Skins.

Frankly, I'd be embarrassed if folks reading my posts couldn't tell if I was a Skins fan or a Pukes fan.

Question: In the last oh 15 years or so, when have the skins looked good? Hell when in the last 5 years have they played at a level that is consistantly above average.