'Skins "D" the exception to the rule?

[Sonny9TD]

Dropped passes accounted for 4 wins this year? Come on man...

If you say so. It seems a few teams dropped some crucial 1st downs as we squeaked out victory.

[LaxBuddy21]

we cant stop the run outside of the tackles. that is the only thing that worries me about this D. this is 2 weeks in a row where we have been ran all over because our DE's cant contain.

We are containing fine. They are not getting outside. They are finding creases inside and cutting up the field so I wouldnt say containment is the problem. getting off blocks to make plays is the bigger issue.

[#98QBKiller]

We're a coverage defense that can stop the run (although we've had trouble with it against Dallas and Seattle).

It works just as well as a team with a great pass-rush but weaker secondary. Of course, ideally we would want to add a stronger pass-rush to make our defense complete and hopefully we'll see that in the draft.

But honestly I'm very happy with our defense right now, especially if we can stop the Giants run game.

[laurent]

It just goes to show that coaching, sound fundamentals, good execution and cohesion go a long way in this league. Washington's defense may not have the outstanding pass rush some of the top units are featuring, but they tackle very well, and execute their schemes.

It also helps that there aren't many egos on that side of the ball. They just go out and ball and don't care about individual accolades.

[Taylor4Life]

We wouldn't be anywhere near 7-4 without the D that we have. They give our Offense more than enough chances to score. If they only gave them "enough", it wouldn't be enough, if you know what I mean.

Here, we definitely agree. As much as I'll usually defend the defense, I wouldn't be so quick to defend the offense.

It's putrid and it has been for a long time. If our offense had mustered a measely 20 points in our four losses, we'd be 10-1. As we saw yesterday, 20 is usually good enough to win. That's a credit to a good defense.

[JdoubleU]

I you look at TOP, the Skins traditionally (the Ol' Ball Coach notwithstanding) control the clock. So the Skins D gives up less yds. I know this much, that D can't stop stud QB's if they can't touch him. The Seattle Game is the SKins D in a nutshell. They bent but did not break in the 1st 3 Quarters. In the 4th Qtr, they got gashed. The Skins O put together a long Scoring drive, & could have run out the clock. This time, the secondary got a timely pick to save the day. Can you imagine what this D (and that secondary) would be capable of if they had a pocket collapsing-run Stuffing DT (Cody at BAMA) or a rush end like PITT's Harrison (FSU talent)?

[TerpSkin]

If our offense had mustered a measely 20 points in our four losses, we'd be 10-1.

But that is exactly the point I was trying to make in my earlier post... wanting a better pass rush is not so that our defense will look better in YPG or PPG, but so that our offense will look better in PPG. Our offense is not bad... we do pretty well in YPG -- but we are awful in PPG. This is not just because of red zone struggles -- a very big part of this is because we get so few short fields from our defense (compared to most other teams). The longer the offense has to go to score, the more likely the drive will end without a TD regardless of how good you are in the red zone.

[TerpSkin]

They give our Offense more than enough chances to score. If they only gave them "enough", it wouldn't be enough, if you know what I mean.

Again, see my previous two points. Chances should not just be counted as number of offensive possessions. Somehow, they must be inversely weighted by length of the drives. Our offense moves the ball pretty well, and has done so for years. The struggles in scoring are in a large part due to the fact that we are consistently one of the worst teams in the leagues at creating short fields due to turnovers. It is easy to say, "oh our offense doesn't score a lot, and opponents don't score a lot so the problem is our offense." But if you look a little deeper, there is some rationale behind thinking the defense's mediocrity in creating SHORT drives for the offense is part of the problem.

[terpfan]

The only problem with our defense is the lack of big plays (sacks/turnovers). That could be accomplished by a better pass rush.

The reason this is a big deal despite being ranked to highly in terms of yards, is we dont generate scoring chances for our offense. We almost always give the opposing team the chance to punt the ball and pin us back. This is the one of the main reasons why our offense can pile up the yards but not put any points on the board. (The other being our offense's tendency to freeze up between the 30 and 10 yard line.)

[BALLz]

I guess the good news is that our secondary, which is widely known as our strength, is very young. So the building process there is basically done allowing us to concetrate on the front 7. Thing is, our ability to play well with out the pass rush means finding replacements for Washington and eventually Fletcher is more important. I'd bet that the DLine will go another off-season with out being addressed. And though many will blame it on Vinny it will probably be exactly whay Blache wants.

[Taylor4Life]

This is not just because of red zone struggles -- a very big part of this is because we get so few short fields from our defense (compared to most other teams). The longer the offense has to go to score, the more likely the drive will end without a TD regardless of how good you are in the red zone.

Our average starting field position is 30.18, which means we're in the middle of the pack at 17th in the league. So then, "compared to most teams" we're average, not as bad as you suggest. Average starting field position is mostly determined by special teams play, NOT BY TURNOVERS.

The Cowboys are ranked BELOW US at 20th in average starting field position, yet they are ranked 12th in points per game compared to our 27th ranked scoring offense.

Sorry, but the blame lies primarily on the O for their lack of points.

[Darth Tater]

No, I just think its cus we've played the Lions and Browns.

Honestly, our defense is not as good as it looks. We have great corners. Thats about it. Clearly we have trouble pressuring the QB. We also seem to struggle against the run

Only twice has our defense allowed more than 20 points. Several other scores against them came based off sfos or defenses designed just to prevent the quick score. We have done this against the top scoring offenses in the league like Arizona which the Giants almost allowed to come back, the G-men, the Eagles, the Cowboys twice and NO and only the 'boys scored more than 20 against the defense. Besides that first score, the defense held Philly scoreless playing w/out several starters. We are 7-4 with one of the worst scoring offenses out there. We are also among the top team at getting off the field.

[TerpSkin]

Our average starting field position is 30.18, which means we're in the middle of the pack at 17th in the league.

Again... this is not exactly the right statistic to look for. And I am not sure where we rank in the appropriate statistic. The proper statistic takes more into account than just the "average" starting position (and I also would have to be sure you are looking at the correct population of drives in computing your average starting field position). But if you have 9 drives start at the 20 yard line and one start at the opponent's 20, then you average the 26 yard line while generating one GREAT scoring opportunity. If you have 10 drives start at the 30, your average is better (30 is better than 26) but you have not generated a single GREAT scoring opportunity for the offense.

I have not found a good source for finding the proper statistic to look at without more labor than I am willing to offer, but a good signal that we are probably not too highly ranked in the appopriate statistic is that we are usually pretty poor in generating turnovers. The other good measure that we have not been too good in this regard is simply watching the games.

And I agree that special teams could help in this area as well. Despite a good consistent KR in Rock, we have rarely had really dangerous return men over the last few years.

[Darth Tater]

If you say so. It seems a few teams dropped some crucial 1st downs as we squeaked out victory.

Um, well if you give them the dropped passes you also have to consider that FACT that we'd be at least 9-2 if not for a couple of critical drops and quite possibly 10-1. Do you realize that just about every team has critical drops for them and against them? Do you not realize that on average in a blowout, 5-6 critical plays are often the difference, often just unforced errors made by the losing team?

[Darth Tater]

We are containing fine. They are not getting outside. They are finding creases inside and cutting up the field so I wouldnt say containment is the problem. getting off blocks to make plays is the bigger issue.

I'd add that in the Dallas game and the last one that much has also been due to our inability to tackle.

[TerpSkin]

Also, there is no denying the Cowboys have an extremely good offense, so saying "our offense is not as good as the Cowboys" is very different than saying "there is no sense in blaming the defense's inability to create a lot of short fields for the offense." We are not a great offense. But as our offensive YPG ranking indicates, we would be much better in the offensive PPG rankings if we had a defense that ranked better in getting INTs, forcing fumbles, and sacking QBs so deep in enemy territory that they have to punt from in or near their own endzone more often.

[TSO]

Because we give up big plays downfield without one. Imagine the amount of turnovers we could create with a decent pass rush, doesn't have to be elite. We don't have any inside pressure. We allow QB's plenty of time to go deep. The longer a CB has to cover a WR, the more likely the WR will get open.

We give up big plays downfield? Really?

That's news to me.

Guys and gals, all you gotta do is watch Blache's interviews when he's asked about our pass rush or our stats in the sack department. The last interview he did on Thursday that was posted on Redskins.com explains it all. Why is this so difficult? Could we be better at rushing the passer? Sure. Are we as bad as it seems because of the sack stats? Far from it.

[Ynot]

Yes we could be 9-2 and we could also be 4-7 just as easy also. The point is until we can put teams away we will not be an elite team. We had the chance yesterday when we got 10 unanswered points in the 3rd but then allowed Seattle to go down field and get a touchdown, That goes to a defense that plays the bend don't break but leavs sthe option for teams to move the ball and get momentum and the chance to make a play. Our run game helps us tremendously but against the Steelers we had no offense and the defense tired and we got pushed up and down the field and had a hot quaterback. This will happen again if we do not get a dominate front 4 or 7, or have the ability to change the scheme. I Think our scheme is lacking that it seems to be when we get a lead we stop blitzing and play a soft zone. SO we do not go for the kill....

[Taylor4Life]

Again... this is not exactly the right statistic to look for. And I am not sure where we rank in the appropriate statistic.

I definitely see where you're coming from. If there were a stat that showed the number of drives started in the opponent's territory due to a turnover, we would probably be towards the bottom of that list. However, I thought that the Cowboys example, another team that struggles in the takeaway department, shows that starting field position doesn't necessarily correlate with points scored by an offense.

I'll give an example on the opposite end. Tampa ranks 4th in starting field position and is tied for 5th in takeaways, yet is tied for only 15th in points per game.

Recall the Pittsburgh game where our first two drives started in their territory. Granted, that was a very good defensive unit. But there is no excuse not to have been up at least 10-0 in the first quarter of that game, other than that our offense was and still is a work in progress.

[TerpSkin]

Guys and gals, all you gotta do is watch Blache's interviews when he's asked about our pass rush or our stats in the sack department.

I agree with a lot of what Blache said... but a part of that is him sticking up for his players. He knows there is little than can be done about this in the middle of the season, so do your best with what you have and be happy with how successful it really has been. There is no denying our defense has been great. But while our defense may receive too much blame for lack of pressure, far more grievous IMO is that our offense receives far too much criticism for red zone inefficiency. Many of the teams that average more points per game than us also get more really short fields than us (that does not necessarily mean their average starting position is better -- see my earlier post). And if we keep on simply saying "our defense is fine and our offense needs to score more points so the problem is our offense," then we will keep on doing the wrong thing in the offseason.

[TSO]

I agree with a lot of what Blache said... but a part of that is him sticking up for his players. He knows there is little than can be done about this in the middle of the season, so do your best with what you have and be happy with how successful it really has been. There is no denying our defense has been great. But while our defense may receive too much blame for lack of pressure, far more grievous IMO is that our offense receives far too much criticism for red zone inefficiency. Many of the teams that average more points per game than us also get more really short fields than us (that does not necessarily mean their average starting position is better -- see my earlier post). And if we keep on simply saying "our defense is fine and our offense needs to score more points so the problem is our offense," then we will keep on doing the wrong thing in the offseason.

Oh, absolutely. He even says it all the time, that we "need to do better when it comes to rushing the passer". It's just that the number of sacks we get our not as important to him as the number of pressures we get. I agree with that because pressuring means errant throws and more turnovers. Sacks mean "ok, move on to the next play now" more than anything.

[TerpSkin]

I'll give an example on the opposite end. Tampa ranks 4th in starting field position, but is tied for 15th in points per game.

This kinda proves my point. Tampa is not as good an offense as us IMO (although they do edge us out in YPG). But even if you think they are slightly better on offense than us, they are not as much better as their PPG ranking suggests in comparison to us. The Ravens are more of an extreme example... they are not nearly as good on offense as us, but they get more points because of that defense of theirs depite it being similarly ranked to our defense in YPG.

[Taylor4Life]

...far more grievous IMO is that our offense receives far too much criticism for red zone inefficiency.

I'll just have to agree to disagree here. Maybe you mispoke and meant to say points/game. Blaming the defense for the O's redzone inefficiency is like blaming a baseball team's pitcher when the offense fails to score with the bases loaded. He ain't even on the field.

[JerseySkinsFan1]

I just have one question, "Where the hell is Erasmus James"? I think this guy deserves a shot to redeem himself after being injured the past 2 seasons. What could it hurt? We have a tough task ahead of us in playing the Giants.

:helmet:

[TerpSkin]

I'll just have to agree to disagree here. Maybe you mispoke and meant to say points/game. Blaming the defense for the O's redzone inefficiency is like blaming a baseball team's pitcher when the offense fails to score with the bases loaded. He ain't even on the field.

Well, it is fair to disagree with my point... but this analogy is not even close. If a football defense gets a turnover deep in the opponent's territory, that is similar to the impossible baseball situation of a pitcher somehow doing something that suddenly ends that half of an inning and magically makes the bases loaded for the offense. In other words, in football, the defense can create situations for the offense (unlike in baseball). In recent years, we have had an excellent defense at preventing points, but maybe not even mediocre defense at creating golden opportunities for the offense.

It's not that our offense is failing more than other offenses... it is that every offense will eventually fail to convert 1st downs, and consistently longer drives means more often that failure to convert 1st downs will happen before a TD. That will create the illusion that our offense is worse in the red zone than other offenses that are not as good as ours.

Again, I am by no means saying our defense is lousy and our offense is aces... but I strongly believe that with the team we have now, the most effective offseason approach to making this team higher scoring is by staying put on offense (at least at the skill positions), letting it improve with essentially the personnel on hand (again, at least at the skill positions), and really focusing on building a fearsome front 7 on defense. I like all of our DL and LB so it would be sad to see some go... but we just do not have enough really outstanding players in that front 7 despite almost all of them being pretty good. It's too bad we haven't done more of this in recent years as we will almost surely have to once again suffer through the ridiculous arguments that a draft pick DL won't contribute right away -- even though that never seems to keep us from drafting WRs. If we hadn't fallen prey to that in the past, maybe we would now have some young DL who are just coming into probowl form now. Oh well... live and learn (hopefully).