'Skins "D" the exception to the rule?

[Taylor4Life]

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...

:no:

That ain´t what I said.

It went more like this -

...judging from its track record, it would probably do less with those opportunities than most other offenses in the league.

As stated earlier,neither one of us can definitively prove either premise. But the data that we DO have (30th in red zone scoring %) certainly supports MY contention more than it does yours. Again, I agree that a more aggressive defense will get us more points on the board. But those opportunities would most likely result in more field goals, not touchdowns, due to the impotence of the offense.

than it is to say the offense will score more TDs if we start drives more often in enemy territory.

Again, what makes you believe that our problems in the red zone, which I have listed countless times in this thread, will magicly right themselves if they, perhaps, have an average of one or two additional starting drives in enemy territory per game? Am I missing something here?

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.

Totally agreed.

[dent19]

It may help the Defense, but it is definately down on the list of needs if you ask me.

1.Oline- G,T (stop the pressure on the qb)

2.Dline- End, DT (get pressure on the qb)

3.LB- OLB's Middle is good (cover, blitz, run d)

4.RB- bring back Mason

If your list isn't like this your lunch'n. and what team are you watching??

[G1]

Although a beast of a pass rusher would be nice, we don't need one to tale away the long ball.

Landry's presence in the scheme does that.

[HoyaSkins28]

turnovers turnovers turnovers. if we had a guy like albert haynesworth on our team our offense would have the ball almost the whole game.

[BALLz]

<double post>

[BALLz]

1.Oline- G,T (stop the pressure on the qb)

2.Dline- End, DT (get pressure on the qb)

3.LB- OLB's Middle is good (cover, blitz, run d)

4.RB- bring back Mason

If your list isn't like this your lunch'n. and what team are you watching??

Guess I'm Lunch'n

My list would look more like this:

1. OG

2. OLB

3. OT

4. DT

Everyone assumes that just picking up a stud pass rusher will boost our sack output with out giving up anything anywhere else. More than likely that won't be the case. There aren't any FA available that could help us that way and no one in the draft. Tyson Jackson is the only DE with some size but it's widely known that he doesn't excel as a pass rusher. The rest would be a liability against the run.

[Koolblue13]

Guess I'm Lunch'n

My list would look more like this:

1. OG

2. OLB

3. OT

4. DT

Everyone assumes that just picking up a stud pass rusher will boost our sack output with out giving up anything anywhere else. More than likely that won't be the case. There aren't any FA available that could help us that way and no one in the draft. Tyson Jackson is the only DE with some size but it's widely known that he doesn't excel as a pass rusher. The rest would be a liability against the run.

I'm with you. Although I have no idea what "lunch'n" means.

Does anybody think Griff scares anybody? How much is he getting paid to not do his job. I think he has been one of our largest problems for a few years on D. Okay against the run, but zero in pass rush or even collapsing the pocket. We really need a monster in the middle. It would free our LBs and our PRing Ends.

[Voice_of_Reason]

The back end of the defense is very very good: Rogers/Smoot/Springs/Landry/Horton/Hall all are able to cover, tackle, hit people, and make plays. Well, Roger's couldn't catch a cold, but apart from that...

The LBs are a mixed bag: London Fletcher should be getting Defensive Player of the Year votes. He won't win, but he's playing THAT well. The OLBs are good. Rocky M. seems to be playing well coming off of his knee surgery that ended last year. The other side with Washington/Blades/etc. is more questionable.

The D-Line is very eh. Carter is ok and Taylor is very good when healthy. The other DEs are eh to ok. The DTs are eh to ok also. There is no push there.

If you upgrade the line, it takes pressure off of the rest of the folks.

But I'm not going to complain too much about it until the off season. They can't solve this problem until Free Agency or the Draft.

[TerpSkin]

Again, what makes you believe that our problems in the red zone, which I have listed countless times in this thread, will magicly right themselves if they, perhaps, have an average of one or two additional starting drives in enemy territory per game? Am I missing something here?

Let's just pretend for a moment that moving the ball does not get more difficult in the redzone than it is in other areas of the field. I know that it is more difficult, but just for the sake of revealing the underlying problem, let's pretend it is not. Some drives go 30 yards, some go three and out, some go 60, etc. If more drives are starting in your own territory, more drives will end in the redzone. Adding the fact that moving the ball in the redzone becomes a little tougher doesn't change the FACT that some drives run out of steam for other reasons than being in the redzone. Therefore comparing average number of TDs per redzone appearance between teams without taking into consideration the distribution (not just the average) of starting field positions is worthless.

The fact that some drives end at the 40 yard line or 50 yard line means that some drives end for other reasons than it becoming more difficult in the redzone... therefore it would be absurd to say that every drive that ends in the redzone ended just because it gets harder in the redzone... therefore the redzone TD percentage is not a stand-alone statistic.

Again, I am not arguing that we are a redzone juggernaut that is held back purely by our defense... but I believe we are better than our redzone ranking indicates. I guess the main point of all my ranting is that if the front office allows itself to think the points per game struggles and abysmal red zone ranking is all on the offense, then we will not do the most effective thing (IMO) to improve this team in the offseason.

[kevin11]

Every team plays bad teams, that's a pretty dumb argument. We definitely do not struggle against the run, we are ranked in the top 10 in the nfl against the run. We've played the Cardinals, the Eagles, the Cowboys, the Saints, the Steelers, the Giants. I'd say those are some pretty good offenses and we are still ranked 3rd.

Our fans are so spoiled it's rediculous.

We have had trouble stopping the run in the last 2 games. You can't deny that.

I thought the cowboys was a fluke, but, since Seattle ran on us, I'm really worried.

[Shilsu]

Does anybody think Griff scares anybody? How much is he getting paid to not do his job. I think he has been one of our largest problems for a few years on D. Okay against the run, but zero in pass rush or even collapsing the pocket. We really need a monster in the middle. It would free our LBs and our PRing Ends.

Cornelius Griffin does do his job. The problem is, he's getting old and is also always playing consistently injured. It's very evident when he's in and when he's out of the lineup.