#98QBKiller Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Saumels's performance was noticeable worse when he aggravated his knee around mid-season. He lost his dominance in pass-protection and got beat a lot. I actually think we would've been better off putting Heyer in back then and letting Samuels go to IR and having his knee taken care of so he'd be completely fresh for training camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 The Skins offense was good in the first half of the season and probably deserves a B for that timeframe but for the second half gets nothing better than a big fat D. With the performance of the D, if we had a decent offense in the second half of the season, we're still playing this weekend. End of story. Your B grade for the first half and a D for the second half averages a C for the year. That's roughly equivalent to the #15 ranking I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Really good stuff there. While it doesn't completely sell me on the offense getting the job done, I do have concerns about the defense. The lack of turnovers and scoring opportunities by our defense has been an issue for the last several years. We could have won a few extra games if this offense could have capitalized off of the other team's mistakes or turnovers. If we improve on that issue right there and get a bit more aggressive on the defensive side of the ball, I think we'll see a much stronger team in '09. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 The offense doesn't get a D for the second half, it gets an F. If you go 2-6 after a 6-2 start, your defense continues to hold well and you muster 3 and out after 3 and out, and you score 11 or so points a game for the last 9 or whatever games, you get an F. That would bring our average down to a D for the year. Only two teams that gave up less than 20 points a game didn't make the playoffs and one of them was New England, who went 11-5. If it were so easy to have an 'overrated defense/underrated' you'd see more teams in that upper tier pull similar records or miss the playoffs. New England seems to have had a bit of bad luck in missing the playoffs, so essentially we're alone in that under 20 ppg. Plus, how often can a team expect an offense to LITERALLY not move the ball for even one first down and expect the defense to hold indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoudMouth12thMan Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I really, really, really hate to use this Parcell's cliche' but... This OP's post (and the article by what's-her-name) only proves that the "You are what your record says you are" theory is pretty accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 First, OF, I want to compliment you on a well thought out thread. These are the type of threads we need more of, whether you agree with the OP or not is irrelevant. This thread will generate great discussion. All that said, I don't really agree with the general flow of the thread. Starting with the offense. It's very true that for the most part we did a good job controlling the clock, but that wasn't always the case. We had plenty of three and out situations and plenty of dropped balls/sacks in critical positions of the game. In order to win, you need to score more points than the other team. In that regard, the offense didn't do it's job. It may seem like I'm over simplifying things here, and in a sense I am. However, scoring points and not allowing points wins games. It doesn't matter who scores the points. If the offense isn't getting the job done, it's up to the defense/special teams do get the job done. We didn't produce much offense from our ST/D units this season, either. That leads in to the defense and it's lack of creating turnovers. That hurt the defense, but the fact that our defense didn't allow over 25 points ONCE this season is telling. I also think we lost the field position battle the majority of the time. When it's 3rd and 8 and you run a 4 yard pattern, that's not helping your field position in a significant enough a way to really change the flow of the ball game. Our special teams were poor, especially punt returns with Randle El back there. Our punting game was on again and off again, but Plack did a much better job towards the end of the season than we did at the start of the year. And our field goal unit, thanks to Suisham mostly, was absolutely pathetic. In my opinion, our offense needs to do more with the football. If you chew up 35 minutes of clock but score 6-10 points, you're not going to win the majority of the time. You're only hurting your own team, especially going against a team with a quick strike offense. On the turn, if your defense doesn't do it's job in making things happen, you're leaving your offense out to dry. Our defense was very good at stopping teams, and forcing punting situations and getting the ball back. And that's great for most teams. However, with our lack of a return game forcing a punt usually pinned us deeper and deeper considering our offense didn't move the ball much. That costs us the field position battle. Improve special teams, make some improvement on the offense and defense and we're a contender. We need better punt team blocking, kicking, punting (as a whole on the season) and returning. Cartwright did a decent job this season, and he will always get us decent field position. He's consistent and it's great, but he's not going to break many. Which is fine, let's compliment him. It amazes me why so many people discount the importance of special teams in the field position battle. The reality is our defense could have done more, our offense could have done more and our special teams could have done ALOT more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 In my opinion the reason for this was not bad scheme, but inability to generate any pressure from the front four. We can agree that lack of talent is a BIGGER factor, but if you're saying that Blache's scheme is maximizing the use of the talent on board, we disagree. We can't just count blitzes. There are a number of defensive strategies involved. Just one example fresh in my mind: The niners needed just a field goal to win the game at the end and yet Rogers was ten yards off the WR and backpedaling at the snap. Stupid. That's not Rogers' fault. That's coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 Ghost: The offense doesn't get a D for the second half, it gets an F. If you go 2-6 after a 6-2 start, your defense continues to hold well and you muster 3 and out after 3 and out, and you score 11 or so points a game for the last 9 or whatever games, you get an F. We disagree on your observation that the defense continued to hold as well in the second half. I saw them come up weak in the fourth quarters of winnable games in the second half. Only two teams that gave up less than 20 points a game didn't make the playoffs and one of them was New England, who went 11-5. That cherry-picked stat isn't persuasive. The Skins offense was unique, it didn't score well but its style caused low-scoring games. Plus, how often can a team expect an offense to LITERALLY not move the ball for even one first down and expect the defense to hold indefinitely. None, but that wasn't the case with our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior1971 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I think we need to overhaul the OL and DL, we seem to be in pretty good shape everywhere else. But the main focus I would have in 2009 is the trenches! Can you imagine what our O and D could do with good lines??? Once we get a good O Line in front of Jason Campbell he wont have any more excuses! So with him still at QB through 2009 why not use this upcoming season to build a younger, better O Line and D line then we can work to make a strong run in 2010. Wonder how our LB's and secondary would function with a feirce front four?? To me this is the key to success for us "The Trenches" the place where ball games are won and lost!:helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pwyl Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 but the fact that our defense didn't allow over 25 points ONCE this season is telling. . nit pick- SF 27 WAS 24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 We disagree on your observation that the defense continued to hold as well in the second half. I saw them come up weak in the fourth quarters of winnable games in the second half. They were also giving up a lot of points early. I tried pointing that out with the Cincy loss, and nearly got my head taken off. While the offense was what it was, the defense was really slipping toward the end. I've been arguing that we need to get better players on the defense. While we have young guys who can step up on the offense, we don't have the same players on defense. Who can replace Washington? Griffin? No one on the current roster, that's for sure. It is obvious listening to Blache that he feels the same way to a certain extent. While he loves his guys and he knows that they play their guts out, he also knows it isn't the most talented bunch in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 According to them, Philly is the best team..I really just can't see this. They're good no doubt. But no way are the only 2 teams they're better than in the playoffs are the cardinals and the vikings. They also have the Panthers D ahead of us?...I follow the panthers as much as I do the redskins, and I'd take our D any day. The Vikings have the 4th best D in the league?...No way in hell. Personally, I think DVOA is one of the stupidest statistics to use in rankings, whichi s something they use heavily in forumla. the fact of the matter is the only reason our offense is ranked that high is because we played some decent D's and didn't score. Despite the fact that this DIDNT change when we played teams like the lions, rams, browns, and bengals pretty much dismisses that fact for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meskeet21 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 the defense is not overrated. thats crazy to even think so. they kept us in so many games but the offense was so goddamm inept that the defense just tired out in the 4th. wtf do you want from them. the offense is the problem, why the **** cant you see that? the only thing the defense needs is a dominating tackle. that will solve the pass rush situation. sure the offense thrives off turnovers and we werent very high, but the offense has to do its part as well. 2 drives is all what was asked for to go score a TD. and they couldnt do it. how many times did we go 3 and out? and our defense was rated 2nd in causing 3 and outs. our offense had to many chances, and they gave them all away, which in turns affects the defense. its that simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 nit pick-SF 27 WAS 24 While true, I also don't really care about that last game at this point. Once the season is lost, things change. But, you're correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 KDawg: First, OF, I want to compliment you on a well thought out thread. Thanks, Dawg ...In order to win, you need to score more points than the other team. In that regard, the offense didn't do it's job. It may seem like I'm over simplifying things here, and in a sense I am. However, scoring points and not allowing points wins games. If the offense had scored more points, I would have ranked them higher. Zorn's offensive approach this season was very similar to Mangini's in his first year with the Jets. He didn't have the talent to run the offense he wanted, so he played a boring, ball control, low-risk, dink and dunk style of WCO to try to keep the games close. ...When it's 3rd and 8 and you run a 4 yard pattern, that's not helping your field position in a significant enough a way to really change the flow of the ball game. Agreed. Z could have done better with his playcalling, I think. In my opinion, our offense needs to do more with the football. Those big rookie receivers have to come up big for us in 2009, as blockers and as runners after the catch. We need better punt team blocking, kicking, punting (as a whole on the season) and returning. Cartwright did a decent job this season, and he will always get us decent field position. He's consistent and it's great, but he's not going to break many. Which is fine, let's compliment him. Agreed on all counts. It amazes me why so many people discount the importance of special teams in the field position battle. The offense and defense are equal in importance as I see it. If you split on those with your opponent, special teams can make the difference. The coach who said you have to win two of the three unit battles got it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitejimmy Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 It's nice to see some intelligent discussion in here. Along the same lines, I think many fans tend to misdirect the blame for the lack of sacks on the DE position. Generally, our DE are asked to hold up the OT to allow the LB to make the plays. I think the injuries to MW and McIntosh and the lack of a true FS to allow LL in the box really limited our pass rush. Although ultimately, our scheme is the limiting factor in our pass rush, not our personnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Just thought I'd also point out these guys rank ARE ahead of Santana Moss as a WR, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 It's nice to see some intelligent discussion in here. Along the same lines, I think many fans tend to misdirect the blame for the lack of sacks on the DE position. Generally, our DE are asked to hold up the OT to allow the LB to make the plays. I think the injuries to MW and McIntosh and the lack of a true FS to allow LL in the box really limited our pass rush. Although ultimately, our scheme is the limiting factor in our pass rush, not our personnel. I'm not sure what makes you think our DE's job is to hold up the OT. In fact, when I watch, I see the contrary. I see DE's speed rushing up field on a "loop" pattern in order to get to the QB. I also see a huge pocket/hole for the quarterback and running backs to hit when they do that. And ya, theoretically that allows the LBs to flow to the evacuated area, but if you DT gets blocked by a single man, that allows the guard to block the backer. Furthermore, if the LB goes there and they ARE unaccounted for, there's a spot on the field where there is no one to cover. It's a dice roll. I don't want the dice to be rolled. Phillip Daniels did a great job not only holding the OT up, but driving him in to the pocket. I haven't seen a 'Skins DE do it that well in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoeRedskins Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 The offense is overrated when you look at what they did against the Bengals and every game after that. I would rather get 30 points by 100 yards than 10 points and 300 yards. You need to score, if you don't, your offense sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Just thought I'd also point out these guys rank ARE ahead of Santana Moss as a WR, I don't know that that is really too outrageous a thought. Santana is a playmaker. A big time threat every time he catches the ball. Problem is, he doesn't always catch the ball. I saw more drops from Santana the last two years than I saw from El, but I also saw more big plays. Tana is a better receiver, in my opinion, but the premise that El is better than Moss isn't outrageous, but it is highly debateable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 They also rank our OL 15th in pass protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MumboSauce Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Well I don't totally disagree...I think the D may be a tad overrated(you have to consider considering lack of pass rush, lack of turnovers). and still in many cases played well with those deficiencies. I'd give them about a 7 or 8th ranking. I also think Greg should have been more aggressive and they played bend but not break wayyy too much. The offense was good at ball control for the first half of the season but that's about it. Atrocious scoring and 3rd down conversions in the second half of the season. Any D would break down with an O like that and for the most part they kept this team in games that they otherwise would have been blown out of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 okay. I've seen all I need to see. Peterson as the 16th ranked back in the league is absolutely ridiculous. Cooley as the 14th ranked TE?...I'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire3fighter4 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I don't know that that is really too outrageous a thought. Santana is a playmaker. A big time threat every time he catches the ball. Problem is, he doesn't always catch the ball. I saw more drops from Santana the last two years than I saw from El, but I also saw more big plays.Tana is a better receiver, in my opinion, but the premise that El is better than Moss isn't outrageous, but it is highly debateable. You saw more drops from Santana because we've thrown the ball at him much more often, because of the fact he's a better receiver. I'm sorry, but the notion that ARE is better than Moss IS ridiculous. ARE isn't as bad as many people here make him out to be, but theres no way in hell he's better than Moss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 Personally, I think DVOA is one of the stupidest statistics to use in rankings, which is something they use heavily in forumla. The guys at FO are a step ahead with their statistics. They don't yet have the solutions, but at least they understand the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.