'Skins "D" the exception to the rule?

[jrfriedm]

We do have some very good DB's (especially with Springs back), and the middle of our D is good at stopping the run (however, now we have some injuries there so who know what we will be getting from this area in the future), however our DE have not been able to stop the off tackle and the sweep runs, nor have they been able to get to the QB. This is a major problem that sooner or later will be exploited by a good team.

[TerpSkin]

however our DE have not been able to stop the off tackle and the sweep runs

I think this might have been overblown by the announcers a bit... we have not been consistently hurt by this most of the season. A very good Dallas team managed it at the very end of the pervious game, and Seattle managed it a few times against us. But at least in the Seattle game, we seemed to be in good position and just failed to make the tackle (which is unusual for us). I think this may have something to do with some of the injuries we sustained (eg Fletcher and Carter... Fletcher was clearly not playing at the level he usually plays at).

[maskedsuperstar]

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)?

Gashed huh? Hasselbeck threw for 89 yds., total!!!!

The problem with speedy rush ends is that they are not good against the run. Dwight Freeney is the perfect example. After the snap, he charges up the field, the running back blows right past him. Thats why the Colts are terrible against the run year after year.

Pressure and sacks are different. Pressure makes QB's move their feet, throwing the football before the QB wants to.That can lead to turnovers, as it did Sunday, against the Seahawks.

Its all about scheme. In the Skins scheme. Not every DL can go after the QB. The DT's must play gap control. Now, if sacks meant so much, why is it that the Eagles are 5-5-1 with the most sacks in the league? Look at the Eagles DE's. Cole is great, as well as Parker. But what happened when they played the Skins and Giants? The Eagles were ran over. Now how did sacks help them?

[maskedsuperstar]

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).

Live and learn? How many times has the Skins defense been in top 10, the last 5 years? Case closed!!!

[elkabong82]

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

Yet you'll never consider the dropped passes by us in close losses. Only the opponents get your consideration. Great.

[Thiebear]

The CB's knock the ball down way more often than i see in other games.

You know its frustrating ...

and the only stat that matters on defense is points per game allowed.

[Taylor4Life]

Well, it is fair to disagree with my point... but this analogy is not even close.

It's obvious that we're not on the same page. So for the sake of boredom and having nothing to do at work, I'll try to explain again.

If a team is "inefficient" in the red zone, that means that ONCE IN the redzone, they have a low percentage of scoring compared to most other teams. This is certainly a fact when it comes to the Redskins. The sequence of events prior to the offense having a redzone opportunity HAS NO BEARING on the measure of an offense's efficiency WHILE THEY ARE IN the red zone. I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSING LACK OF RED ZONE OPPORTUNITIES WITH INEFFICIENCY IN THE RED ZONE. Those are two entirely different matters.

To sum it up: regardless of how the offense GETS to the redzone, once there, they screw up more than most other teams. That CAN'T be blamed on the defense.

I brought up the Pittsburgh example in order to illustrate that there HAVE been times where our offense has been given opportunities by the defense, but they screwed the pooch. The defense can give you the ball ALL DAY LONG in enemy territory but if you end up with field goals because of an INEFFICIENT RED ZONE OFFENSE, then it's all for naught.

[TerpSkin]

Live and learn? How many times has the Skins defense been in top 10, the last 5 years? Case closed!!!

Someone has not paid attention to what I was saying at all. Oh well.

[TerpSkin]

To sum it up: regardless of how the offense GETS to the redzone, once there, they screw up more than most other teams. That CAN'T be blamed on the defense.

Yes, I guess we will have to agree to disagree... because I disagree with this a lot. The sequences leading up to a red zone opportunity, IMO, do affect the opportunity. I don't want to stretch the baseball analogy too far, because it is bordering the bizarre, but if the pitcher could somehow do something to end that half an inning and instantly load the bases for his offense, that opportunity is much better than the offense trying to build up to the bases loaded, possibly collecting a couple outs on the way, and allowing the opposing manager and pitcher to adjust to the flow of a given half inning.

Offensive football drives can run out of steam for similar reasons... a defensive coordinator getting a good feel what the opposing playcaller is doing within that drive, defenders getting a feel for what the opposing personnel tendencies during that drive, wear and tear, etc. A drive that has been going on for 60 yards before reaching the redzone is a different redzone opportunity than the one that starts there. If a team drives 60 yards to get into the redzone and then stumbles in the redzone, does that necessarily mean that they wouldn't have scored on that same drive if it had started in the redzone? Unless you can say that hypothetical is ALWAYS the case (absolutely 100% of the time), then redzone opportunities are fundamentally different depending on what leads up to them.

[TerpSkin]

I brought up the Pittsburgh example in order to illustrate that there HAVE been times where our offense has been given opportunities by the defense, but they screwed the pooch. The defense can give you the ball ALL DAY LONG in enemy territory but if you end up with field goals because of an INEFFICIENT RED ZONE OFFENSE, then it's all for naught.

I'm not sure bringing up 1 or 2 examples from a hand chosen game against undeniably one of the best defenses in the league is fair to even present in a general discussion. The more drives that begin in the redzone, the more TDs we will have even if some drives that start there don't end up in TDs and some drives that start outside the redzone do end in TDs.

[Taylor4Life]

Yes, I guess we will have to agree to disagree...

It's cool. I think you DO have a valid point that if the defense forced more turnovers, we'd obviously have a higher point total. But, IMO, the redzone woes are due mostly to a lack of playmakers on offense and horrible pass protection.

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have a 2000 Ravens type of defense, but I think that the one we have is definitely good enough to keep us in EVERY game.

[Darth Tater]

Bend don't break? Gave up less than 250 yards against Seattle and, on average, only give 272 yards per game. Statistics also show that we are well above average at getting off the field well before the opposition can score. We've done this facing some of the best offenses in the league. If we were "bend don't break" we wouldn't be among the league leaders in points allowed since we've also challenged some of the most accurate kickers.

We've had severe problems against the run 3 times this year but rank near the top as a rushing defense. Against Seattle, one of our biggest issues was not playing the run and did you realize that Morris got half his yards off just 3 carries? That most of those yards on those runs came after contact? That we KNEW that Seattle's run game wasn't going to beat us? In the first meeting with Dallas, we shut their run game down and the reason they stopped running is because they couldn't run. Our problem stopping the run in the Giants game, the second Dallas game and Seattle was inconsistent tackling not inability to stop the outside run. In fact, the Dallas 2 run game had been pretty inconsistent up until the fourth quarter when the defense was tired. Against Seattle, as you surely know, we weren't laying heavily for the run. In any case, most defenses have a bad couple of games over the course of a season.

[bubba9497]

sacks do not make a good defense, in fact some teams are so concerned with getting sacks they become vulnerable to the run, and big plays down the field.

sacks are big plays, but as the Skins show not necessary to play great defense.

[KNGwithOUTaCrwN]

pressure will help increase the amount of turnovers we make

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Imo pass-rushing ends are NOT what we need; we need a force at DT who can consistently create pressure up the middle, as well as versatile ends who can play the run and provide some rush - think Demetric Evans on steroids (not literally!!!11!!!)

[TerpSkin]

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have a 2000 Ravens type of defense, but I think that the one we have is definitely good enough to keep us in EVERY game.

I agree entirely... I hope I have made it clear throughout my posts that I am very happy with our defense in general. I guess my biggest gripe is the overly-simplistic view that so many people seem to have which is that the team's point production ranks low solely because of our offense. It is also because, as great as our defense is, it is not the type of defense that scores points and creates lots of golden opportunities for our offense. IMO many of the teams that rank higher than us in points per game have worse offenses than us.

The problem with this misconception is that people tend to think the only way to fix point production is by spending most offseason resources on offense, and when we spend offseason resources on defense it is to continue the trend that has "worked" for us so far. The end result is that we never draft DL. We systematically don't value them as much as other teams because, "hey, the defense is fine... just look at how few points and yards people get against us... but that offense really blows -- just look how few TDs we get!"

In another thread floating around, Phoward12 paraphrased an espn980 segment:

Apparently, of all the games where a team has scored 30 or more points this season, 70% of those teams have had at least 1 touchdown on either defense or special teams contribute to their scoring.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=272187

And I bet you this percentage goes up drastically if you add turnovers in the opponent's side of the field to the defensive and special teams TDs.

My point is not that our defense is bad... in fact I have said over and over that it is great. But the poor point production is a product of having a pretty good but not great offense combined with a defense that does not create points and golden opportunities as much as most other teams and special teams that is consistently good, but also does not create a lot of points and golden opportunities for the offense.

We can keep spending all of our major resources (ie first day draft picks and big time FA dollars) on WRs, TEs, RBs, QBs, and secondary until we are blue in the face, and I think we will continue to struggle to put up a lot of points with any frequency until we have a defense and special teams that creates points and easy scoring opportunities for the offense... or at least is not among the worst in the league in that regard.

[TerpSkin]

Imo pass-rushing ends are NOT what we need; we need a force at DT who can consistently create pressure up the middle, as well as versatile ends who can play the run and provide some rush - think Demetric Evans on steroids (not literally!!!11!!!)

I agree with this statement quite a bit as well. I have been saying DL and front 7 all along (careful not to single out DEs)... and I think you are right that the most important thing for our particular situation is getting a truly studly DT. Like I said before, I like all of our DL and would hate to see any go... but the simple fact is we do not have any real studs right now. Jason Taylor has been in the past (and maybe still can be)... but with his current health and comfort within our scheme situation he is not. Griffin has had a couple years in the stud area, but while still very good, he is no longer an NFL standout. We need some elite DL... even just 1 or 2 might make a huge difference.

Unfortunately, since we have continually ignored DL at the top of the draft, we don't have any 1st round of the draft DL who are just coming into their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th season in the league and starting to reach star-levels. This means we will still probably have to wait a few years for that possibility even if we do finally address DL in the next draft... which I am confident we will not.

[[[ghost]]]

If we had a premiere pass rush we'd have the beat defense in the league.

[Taylor4Life]

And I bet you this percentage goes up drastically if you add turnovers in the opponent's side of the field to the defensive and special teams TDs.

I really agree with what you're saying here, except for the part of the offense escaping blame. The 1983 Redskins, arguably the best Redskins team ever (had we not lost the Super Bowl), had a RIDICULOUS turnover margin. But they also had an offense that could score when given an opportunity.

Blown assignments, drops, sacks, bad play calls, and penalties are what's killing us in the redzone. It's not "over simplistic" to point out that those things have NOTHING to do with the defense.

In an earlier post, in a nutshell you contended that if the Redskins were given shorter fields more often, than their red zone efficiency would improve. You offered a very broad generalization by assuming that a shorter field means less time for opposing coordinators to make adjustments, etc. While those things may be GENERALLY true, and while I can't prove a negative (that the Skins WON'T improve redzone efficiency, given your scenario), YOU certainly can't prove that the offense would stop killing itself in the redzone, or that playmakers on offense will magically surface under this scenario.

I can also point out that even a dramatic improvement in redzone efficiency would only barely put us in the middle of the pack. I'm not sure you realize how bad we are in this regard (30th in the league!!!).

Put simply, this offense would obviously benefit from more turnovers in opposing territory. But, judging from its track record, it would probably do less with those opportunities than most other offenses in the league.

[kingfish50]

With out pressure and or sacks on the QB, it gives him time to throw down field thus, the big play. Seems to happen to us every week.

Just think how brutal this defense would be with really good DE's applying pressure and forcing the opposing QB to throw into our secondary.

[Darth Tater]

With out pressure and or sacks on the QB, it gives him time to throw down field thus, the big play. Seems to happen to us every week.

Just think how brutal this defense would be with really good DE's applying pressure and forcing the opposing QB to throw into our secondary.

We are one of the best at NOT letting the opposition throw down field as only 4 times has anybody hit a 40+ yard pass on us and against 20+ yard throws, only two teams are better in the NFL. We have done this against some of the best deep ball throwers in the NFL.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I think that unless you're playing a 3-4 (which is built to rush the passer) you should be focusing on building a solid DT rotation and finding good DEs (that can stop the run and apply some pressure - not pure speed rushers) through mid-tier FAs and the mid-late rounds of the draft.

[DallasSucks19922010]

Our secondary is really good for not having a consistent pass rush. Imagine how many picks they would get if the pass rush took off 1-2 seconds off the time they give them now.

[TerpSkin]

YOU certainly can't prove that the offense would stop killing itself in the redzone, or that playmakers on offense will magically surface under this scenario.

That's true... and I have never said our offense is anything better than pretty good. But your comment about the redzone ranking again goes back to the point that neither of us can prove. Although I believe it is a much wilder assumption to say that our offense (which we know moves the ball very well when starting in our own territory) will cease moving the ball if we were to start more often in enemy territory than it is to say the offense will score more TDs if we start drives more often in enemy territory.

But either way, it is undeniable our points per game ranking (even if it comes just from FGs and defensive TDs) would improve if we had a defense that wasn't one of the worst at takeaways and forcing opponents to punt from deep in their own endzones due to sacks far behind the line of scrimmage.

Now before everybody incorrectly assumes I am not happy with our defense because of my assertions above... the point again is simply that our points per game struggles aren't solely on our offense. And I believe the best bang for our buck in terms of generating more points per game is to focus more on improving our defense's ability to generate takeaways, sacks, and points and let the offense improve with the personnel on hand (although I do believe we will need to spend some resources on bringing more youth to the OL).

Unfortunately, we will probably continue to come to the same conclusion that we have been coming to for the past 10 years and more which is to build the defense through the secondary and invest heavily in offensive skill positions... and my guess is we won't see much improvement in points per game due to the continuing issues that I have been pointing out. That Phoward1 thread I referenced earlier comes to mind again.

[Xero21]

It means that if we had a pass-rush we would have an incredible defense.