Defense Hindering Offense?

[taylorcoreskin]

the defense and special teams have been our best "offensive weapons" this year.

:puke:

So true.

[Englands Team]

The offense is pants. Pure and simple. The line is injured and full of holes. Portis is just not right. The recievers when they do get open are dropping way to much ball. 2nd half offence is even worse.

Defence means we have won a game, in fact due to the defence with one more drive per game we could be 6-1. We have been that close.

[StillUnknown]

i can't even believe this question is being asked.

[DGreenistheBest]

i can't even believe this question is being asked.

My sentiments exactly.

[RenegadeTK]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

This is a joke right?

haha....

i understand the OP train of thought. however, the defenses primary job is to stop the opposing team from scoring. the offenses job is to score. in the end thats all that matter, and the defense is doing their job

the whole field position thing, you can look at it both ways. our offense has put our defense in some garbage situations as well

[youngestson]

Our disturbing lack of snaps has much more to do with the frequent use of a punter, then anything being done by our defense. Jason, and the rest of the offense has just had a hard time moving the ball; and dropped passes, missed blocks, blown assignments, and runners hiting the holes with the power of 7 year olds have put the defense back on the field in under two minutes too many times.

Lets hope this weekend will change that.

[Wyvern]

I feel the OP, Art Monk Fan, has made an interesting observation. The Redskins' defensive strategy might be reducing their own offense's number of opportunities to mount drives and develop a offensive rhythm and team chemistry under game conditions. That said, I feel the offense has bigger problems than just needing more time to build some offensive coordination.

Over the first seven games, it seems like Williams' defensive philosophy has been a bit like a "Contain first, and then consider attacking under opportune conditions" type of strategy. That works against teams with weak QBs, one-dimensional offenses, or weak offensive lines. However, against a hot QB, who is patient enough to take what the Williams defense offers -- this strategy means the defense is going to be on the field a long time.

This current strategy relies on the Redskins' offense to mount drives and give a needed rest to the defense, that just spent a long time on the field. So, come the 2nd and 4th quarter, if the our offense hasn't been moving the chains -- our D-line starts to tire and not get as much QB-pressure, which in turn creates even fewer opportunities to attack the QB, and in turn the Redskin D stays on the field even longer. And that limits our offense's number of chances to exploit the opponents defense. What's worse the longer our defense is on the field, the more the opponents defense gets to rest, so it can get ready to effecively attack and disrupt our offense plays.

As I said at the beginning, Art Monk Fan suggested an interesting point, and it might possibly be a factor. However, considering our D-line personnel -- I don't think we have dominant defensive ends to change to a "Steel Curtain" type of attacking defense. So we stop the opponents from too many big plays, keep it close, and hope the offense can start clicking. Also while more gambles, and attacking defensive schems might help, our offense doesn't appear to be explosive enough to overcome a defensive lapse that resulted in a touchdown.

And let's face it, the offense hasn't been clicking. Our line is decimated --the pass-protection is not adequate and it can't support the running game we normally rely on. For some reason, Campbell isn't making enough completions to his WRs to open up the running game, and our RBs aren't able to make the yardage on their own. We go 3-&-out or 5-&-out, and then turn it over to our defense who tend to take a long time to get the ball back to our offense.

Before looking at our defensive schems, I feel the its offensive deficiencies that need to be fixed. While more reps in game-time will help, I think the way out of this mess is when (or if) our available talent finally blossoms into point-making unit. In short, we're going to sink or swim with Campbell at QB -- and we'll take our lumps while he's getting used to sophisticated and aggressive defenses like the Patriots have.

[Art Monk Fan]

Thanks, Wyvern, it's nice to finally have somebody get what I'm saying.

I'd never assert that the defense is "at fault" for the offense's poor production, but that doesn't mean that the new defensive scheme isn't contributing to the offense's problems. For that matter, the new defensive scheme is contributing to it's own late-game collapse problems.

I thought I was pretty clear here:

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 the main fault lie with the offense itself. Is there no room on this board for a nuanced discussion of contributing factors to our offensive woes?

[tryfuhl]

In a way.. the offense isn't doing enough to keep the D off, but the D is doing so much, the coaches are keeping the O off

[Wyvern]

I just noticed something strange happened with my post (#32). I never put "Patriots' in bold red font. I'm kind of curious how that might have happened.

[Wyvern]

Oops! I just figured it out.

I was looking at this post using my search feature -- which highlighted my search term "Patriots" in my own post.

This really is a neat website, with some great features. The search feature is a great way to quickly find what people have already been saying about a topic that you are interested in. Also, the search feature is a great way to avoid duplicating earlier postings' themes.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

This is a very interesting concept. I was thinking this morning, about the control of playcalling. After "The Meeting" last year, and we returned to 'Redskins football', the resurgence of the running game occurred and Ladell Betts racked up some nice yardage. At the end of the year, I read somewhere that Gibbs controlled the running plays, Saunders the passing. Which led me to some confusion about this season.

Is it currently a hybrid thing, or does Al have complete control (i'm not referring to cases of communication problems)? I remember too, that when Al was 'in control' that the defense was tiring out due to the T.O.P. issue. This was a direct resultant from the difference in philosophy between Gibbs and Saunders. I can see where this is a big issue, but I'm more concerned about our offense getting in rhythm and capitalizing on weaknesses in the opposing defense.

I don't think there should be a hybrid setup, if there is one. 100% Saunders, or 100% Gibbs. GW needs to be worried about keeping the opposing offense from scoring fewer points than us, not so much about T.O.P.

[indyskins]

So would you rather blitz and give up points in a hurry? I guess I kind of see your point, but really I think the D schemes have been good for the most part. Even against the Pats, if JC doesn't fumble those 2 that game is alot different. We still would not have won but it would have been different. Our offense has just been bad. Period. Injuries have not helped, but either Al Saunders' system just doesn't work or the players just don't execute it properly. How can Moss and Randle El combined have less TD catches than a Patriots linebacker? The offensive playcalling/execution is just bad and there has just been no big plays made by the offense this year. The D has been a beast this year, Moss and CP, how about you step it up please????

[Mister Happy]

Their average starting field position is the 32 yard line (5th in the NFL). The defense is 12th in yards per game, and it was previously top 10 and even top 5.

That means that the opponent's offense is not moving the ball a lot, and they are not moving the ball far enough to pin us inside the 30. That means they are not having long time consuming drives.

The offense is 28th in 1st downs per game. They are 31st in yards per drive, and 6th in most punts per drive.

That explains why the offense does not have a lot of plays. You get more plays by having longer drives. Having a couple of extra drives will only get you a handful of extra plays, unless you find a way to sustain your drives.

Besides, the Skins are 8th in the NFL in most offensive drives per game. Yet they are near the bottom in most first downs.

[NomadicSkinFan]

Definately not. If the defense was constantly giving up long time consuming drives, then I'd see your point. But for a while there we were the #3 defense and had the best Opp. 3rd Down Percentage in the league. Simply put, our defense was getting us the ball back very quickly. This should give us many more opportunities to score. Unfortunately, our offense has been even quicker to give the ball back.

Our defense plays a very tenacious style that has people flying to the ball on every snap. They cannot keep that up for 35+ minutes a game. The offense is once again letting the defense down.

[Wyvern]

Great post from Tastes Like Chicken!

Often retaining "Time of Possession" can depend a bit on the kind of chances you are willing to take. Slowly grinding it out keeps the TOP, but seems to generate fewer points. Going for more points (successfully or not) seems to involve quick scoring and then hanging on with the defensive side for another chances to score. So which type of team is the Redskins?

Maybe the Saunders offense which relies on quick precision passing does create more of those quick 3 and outs -- and maybe the Gibbs grind it out running game style would keep the defense more rested. But which would generate more points?

If we want to consider ourselves a defense first team (like the some of Ravens, Panthers, and Jaguar teams of old) then probably we need to consider the ball-control type of Gibbs ground game to complement that. But is our defense that good, and our ground game that reliable for such a strategy?

Thanks Art Monk Fan and Tastes Like Chicken -- you gave me a lot to think about here, while I'm watching the next Skins game.

[cozmikbuffalo]

Hey maybe the defense is so sick and tired of being put in the position of carrying each and every game(but one) that they decided to show the offense what it's like to constantly be behind the eight ball.

Your premise is rediculous anyway, this offense can't sustain drives after the first quarter with the exception of the Lions game.

This conservative offense even when it isn't shooting itself in the foot when it could lock up games at the end they consistenly give the opposite team the very real opportunity to beat us (Miami, Arizona,Eagles) and of course when they have 4 chances to win from the 1 yard line they can't( Giants). And that was just to tie the game. This team is a lot worse than it's record indicates and as the season goes on it will become painfully obvious to eveyone just how bad we are should we stay the course we're on.

And make sure you get the whole quote when villifying me OK.

[cozmikbuffalo]

Great post from Tastes Like Chicken!

Often retaining "Time of Possession" can depend a bit on the kind of chances you are willing to take. Slowly grinding it out keeps the TOP, but seems to generate fewer points. Going for more points (successfully or not) seems to involve quick scoring and then hanging on with the defensive side for another chances to score. So which type of team is the Redskins?

Maybe the Saunders offense which relies on quick precision passing does create more of those quick 3 and outs -- and maybe the Gibbs grind it out running game style would keep the defense more rested. But which would generate more points?

If we want to consider ourselves a defense first team (like the some of Ravens, Panthers, and Jaguar teams of old) then probably we need to consider the ball-control type of Gibbs ground game to complement that. But is our defense that good, and our ground game that reliable for such a strategy?

Thanks Art Monk Fan and Tastes Like Chicken -- you gave me a lot to think about here, while I'm watching the next Skins game.

Hate to break it to ya' bro', but that quick out and screen stuff was happening all the time before Saunders ever got here. The one time he had his chance was with Detriot and look what happened there.

Sure the running game is important and Saunders employs it as well. But not as often and duplicitously as Gibbs.

With the defense we have I don't think going for quick scores could hurt us really. In any case I would like to see us try it just once this year again.

This inept offense has Gibbs all over it. And it is Gibbs that steps on Williams neck to play not to lose.

Gibbs is at the center of the problem people, face the facts.

[PCS]

Of course, Al was a fan of the screens, (especially the wide receiver screens), before coming to the Redskins, so they do have that in common.