Art Monk Fan Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 There was criticism during the first half of last season that the Al Saunders offense didn't put our defense in a very good position. It was an injured unit that was performing badly and one T.V. analyst asserted that our offense's style of play kept putting an already overwhelmed unit back on the field with too little rest. Is it possible that the reverse is true this year? Facing the league's top passing offense in three of the last four weeks, Gregg Williams has employed an atypical (for him) style that allows short underneath passes followed by immediate tackles. This requires the opposing offense to remain patient, taking what we give them and hoping to convert on third down. The Redskins destroyed the Lions with this offense, and kept both Green Bay and Arizona largely in check as well. New England had an answer, but that's not relevant to this discussion. My question is this: is it possible (likely?) that this style of defense has inadvertently limited the number of snaps our offense has gotten and therefore curtailed it's development? The Redskins have had an alarmingly small number of offensive snaps in the last few games (53 plays in New England and 47 plays against Arizona). That is partly attributable to the offense's inability to make first downs. But is it not also true that the defense's style is conducive to longer drives by our opponents. Even when no points are allowed, any possession with two or three first downs is likely to take a considerable amount of time off the clock. I suspect that the offense's inability to find any rhythm is being exacerbated by the style of defense we're currently playing. New England's dismantling of the scheme may mean a new approach moving forward, but it is also likely that Williams will decide that the Patriots are an anomaly and dare the rest of the league to reproduce their results. If so, will the offense continue to founder as it sees limited opportunity to gel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinklein Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Nope, I'd still say our offense is hindering our defense. I see where you're coming from, but it's ludicrous to really imagine that our defense could be doing harm to our offense, when its our defense thats constantly put in short field positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 the defense and special teams have been our best "offensive weapons" this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I think the offense just sucks on multiple levels. Defense got nothing to do with it. To many short passes to the sideline and short of the First Down marker. To many players have no confidence or fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OVCChairman Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 i understand what you are saying... but honestly, it's probably better that they arent on the field more, but then again that can be a double edged sword because it can mean both our offense is rested, and the opposing defense is rested as well. Do i believe it is actually hindering us? not really, it sounds a little like you are reaching for a reason this offense is struggling. there are a million different reasons why we are struggling and there is no single factor. You could also look at it like, The offense is hindering the Defense because if the offense could sustain the ball, and get some drives going, then the Defense wouldnt have to be on the field as much, and they would be able to be a little more aggressive when it comes to defending plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxpck Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Our offense cant stay on the field for 6 plays That hinders our D come the end of the 2nd and 4th Quarters. Its why the Pats have the Oldest LB core in the league yet they still dominate. Brady holds the ball for 40 minutes a game, meaning those old men can go ALL OUT for the 20 they are on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 Nope, I'd still say our offense is hindering our defense. I see where you're coming from, but it's ludicrous to really imagine that our defense could be doing harm to our offense, when its our defense thats constantly put in short field positions. No doubt our late-game collapses are due almost entirely to our defnse having been on the field far too long. But isn't that also (at least partly) attributable to this new scheme? The defense is designed to force the opposition to grind out the yardage slowely. I just can't help but wonder about a young QB and a make-shift OL trying to get in synch and how our current defensive scheme may be limiting the number of snaps they have to gel. More importantly, if true, does it continue? Will Williams adjust the scheme post-Patriots or continue until someone else proves capable of reproducing their success? Was it always the plan only to use this scheme against top passing offenses and it was merely a scheduling fluke that has kept us in it for four weeks running? Do we go back to a more typical Willimas defense now that we face the lowely Jets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tone_dubbz Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Pretty interesting point, but I think it maybe the offenses inability to take advantage of the opportunities their given reguardless. Remember, if Fletcher didn't score that TD on that interception we probably would have lost the 'Zona game (even though we should have lost anyways). I think its up to the coaches to get these guys prepared before they even step foot on the field. If they need real game conditions to get in sync, then they really have issues. They should be playing their butts off in practice and let that spill on to the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 How is the Defense causing the Offense's numerous three-and-outs, dropped passes and fumbles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Taylor Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 My question is this: is it possible (likely?) that this style of defense has inadvertently limited the number of snaps our offense has gotten and therefore curtailed it's development? I think the offense has inadvertently limitied its number of snaps by failing to consistently move the chains and therefore has curtailed its development. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aghar Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Interesting way of putting it. I agree that the defensive scheme is not a good one. At least not one you can hold onto the entire game. I don't like the idea of not putting pressure on the QB, at all. While I am not one to agree with the "all or nothing" philosophy GW has employed in the past either. Somewhere in the middle would be nice. mix things up a little to keep everyone guessing, including the fans! All in all, even if the scheme on defense kept the offense off the field a little more than usual, what would the net gain be at this point? 1 or 2 more "3 and out" posessions? Although now that I am writing this maybe this defensive scheme is there on purpose. Gibbs told GW to keep our offense off the field as much as possible?! :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedlightG20 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 The offense needs to be able to move the ball consistently and at their own pace. The offense dictates the speed of the game. So in that sense, our defense is reacting to what the opposing offense is throwing at them, but giving them different looks in the process. It's all action/reaction. Strictly put, our offense needs to make the most of its opportunities on the field, and its the defense's job to give them the ball as many times as possible with a shorter field. The offense isn't producing first downs to give our defense ample time to rest and prepare for the next series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana_Fan Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Randle El and Cooley are the only two standouts on the Offense, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 How is the Defense causing the Offense's numerous three-and-outs, dropped passes and fumbles? Yup. The offense is normally the one taking itself off the field, regardless of the opponent's defense. It's the offense's job to be able to get into a rythym within the first few plays of a drive, not the first few drives of a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Their inability to convert on third downs has hindered the offense's number of snaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RalphZero Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 There was criticism during the first half of last season that the Al Saunders offense didn't put our defense in a very good position. It was an injured unit that was performing badly and one T.V. analyst asserted that our offense's style of play kept putting an already overwhelmed unit back on the field with too little rest.Is it possible that the reverse is true this year? The only thing about the Redskins that does not suck is their special teams. The Defense had decent stats and appeared to be the teams's strong point up until they played a team with a powerful offense (The Pats). Their offense is teriible and simply makes things tough on a defense that is mediocre at best. Offense F Defense C Special Teams B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 Just to be clear, I think the offense has plenty of issues on it's own and agree that the primary fault for the lack of offensive production lies with the guys on that side of the ball. That said, the current defensive scheme is accentuating the offense's deficiencies in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbondman Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Both offense and defense have problems right now. If the defense lets teams get a few first downs, then YES the punt will force us to start from the 11 yard line or 21 yard line every time we get the ball. Check the starting position for our offense. THAT is the key to let you know how our defense is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesbondman Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 In the Arizona game 8 drives started from an average field position of the 22 yard line. ONLY 2 drives started from the 40 yard line or better and the Skins a TD score on one. In the New England game...the FIRST 5 drives started from an average spot: 19 yd line Clearly our defense and special teams are additional problems and could do much more to help the offense. This bend but don't break defense is pure $h*t. And Danny Smith needs to go...we need to rethink who is returning kickoffs because starting from the 20 yard line every time is going to lose you games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfor4 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Our offense are not letting oud D get any rest after other teams drives.Our D gets worn down because we cant sustain drives! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sempre_victrix Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Their inability to convert on third downs has hindered the offense's number of snaps. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriangleSkinsFan Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 That is partly attributable to the offense's inability to make first downs. It is not partly attributable. This is exactly the reason. You are suggesting the the Skins D players, standing on the sideline, are somehow preventing the O players, on the field, from executing their plays. This has everything to do with it. Nothing the D does has any effect on the O's inability to move the ball once they are on the field. If anything it is all about opportunities (possessions) that the O gets... and they get more this year than ever before with the D forcing turnovers and 3 and outs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: This is a joke right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Bad starting field position would negatively affect scoring, but it should increase the average number of plays per game. The offense simply is not making first downs. Running plays and passing plays are equally ineffective. The offense should be taking the defense out to dinner every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherz Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 No chance. The defense has been great sans the Pats game. The reason we have so few offensive plays is because we constantly go three and out in the run, run, pass, punt format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.