Pounds Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Well said, Oldfan. However, I disagree with this statement: A defensive coordinator should be trying to exploit that advantage. I don't think Gregg Williams or Greg Blache have done that well. This issue lies solely with Greg Blache. In today's NFL, having a 'stop-the-run-first' mentality is, at best antiquated, if not wholly and surprisingly stupid. He has two great ends in Taylor and Carter, yet squanders their pass rushing abilities. Under Greg(G!) Williams, Andre Carter, last year, had 10.5 sacks and produced, statistically, one of his best seasons. Williams is interested in getting sacks and turnovers, Blache, well, not so much. Regarding Daniels' quote, remember now that, Blache was Williams' d-line coach and likely insisted on "tighter technique." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think you are right. Blache schemed to stop the run, knowing he didn't have the talent to after the QB. He has Andre Carter, who produced 10+ sacks last season. He has Jason Taylor, who, while aging and not what he once was, is capable of 10+ sacks. He has Anthony Montgomery who if placed in the proper scheme could have a six to eight sack season. The tools are there; it's the obsolete philosophy that's holding the defense back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laron Burgundy Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Ok, if it is the lack of great olb's that is crippling our pass rush then is aaron curry an acceptable 1st round draft pick this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 What I don't understand is...why other teams with undersized DEs (Colts, Eagles, Giants etc) dont worry about getting (and dont seem to get) gashed by runs designed to attack the undersized DEs? Whereas when we play it is a major concern...is it something to do with scheme or are their undersized guys just strong enough at the point of attack not to get creamed in the run game. When you look at the way those teams align there DE's typically they'll have a slight outside shade on the OT's on run downs/situations and they'll line up wide on passing downs/situations(The Colts are the exception as they line there DE's wide in all situations except short yardage)...Those defenses don't get gashed b/c they get penetration into their assigned gaps...Our D on the other hand aligns the DE's either head up on the OT's or with a slight outside shade, and our philosophy seems to be more about clogging gaps than getting penetration(our D uses a 2gap philosophy but we have 1gap talent, strange but it's been succesful)...Thus AC and JT getting hooked on outside runs b/c they don't have the girth to clog gaps, and our Dline rarely getting any penetration on runs... Problem is, even when our ends are given free reign to kill the QB on 3rd and longs - we still can't catch so much as a whiff of a sack! That leads me to believe that our players just don't have the skill set to rush the passer. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one.I'm guessing the staff figures that they'd rather have the Dlineman be strong stopping the run and below average rushing the passer than mediocre at both.. We definitely have the talent....Honestly when have you ever seen our DE's actually get free reign to just pin their ears back and go...If AC and JT were allowed to widen their splits I believe you would see alot more pressures/sacks from them...They simply aren't big enough or strong enough to line up head up/slightly outside of the OT and get around them...The wider they line up the more space they have to make moves, the better angle they have to get to the QB... How many times did we see AC or JT almost get to the QB? The problem is b/c they were aligned so tight they had to take a more rounded rush angle like this: ( ) to get around the OT... A wider split would allow them to take a more direct rush angle like this: / \ to get by the OT... It seems to me the 3-4 is a reaction to the west coast offense. How do you disrupt a timing, short drop passing game? Blitz off the edges in the throwing lanes as well as drop different people into coverage.The problem I see with the Redskins D is that you can tell on almost every play where they rush is coming from as well as what the coverage is going to be. The fact that we give up as few points as we do speaks to the amazing talent we have on the D side of the ball. No actually the 3-4 was created as a way to get a more athletic LB on the field instead of a Dlineman(The same reason teams went from a 5 man line to a 4 man line in the 50's to combat the greater use of the forward pass)...It had nothing to do with the WCO... 3-4 has been around since the 1940s. It's not a reaction to anything WCO.It was the zone blitz designed by Dick LeBeau in the early 90s that was made to counter the WCO. So stop spewing out conjecture as fact. Also, it won't run throughout the NFL. It requires certain personnel that doesn't come by that easily. The 4-3 will stay. Your almost correct on this Dick LeBeau actually developed the 3-4 zone blitz while he was Cinncinnati's D co-ordinator in the 80's, then he brought it over to Pittsburgh in the late 80's/early 90's and they became Blitzburgh... lol, I know its been around since then, it has come back like you said in the early 90's through Dick LeBeau.The point wasn't that the 3-4 is a new idea, but that the 3-4 run by LeBeau now was a result of trying to beat the WCO. "The overarching idea of the zone blitz is to create confusion and force the quarterback to make a throw before he is ready." http://chi.scout.com/2/636979.html As to the idea that the personnel to run it doesn't come easy, look around the league at who the sack leaders are now. More and more players are fitting the mold of the outside LB's in the 3-4. Fast and big guys that there were few of in the 80's and 90's are all over the place today. The 3-4 "zone blitz" scheme run by LeBeau wasn't designed to beat any one type of offense it was designed to cause confusion for any offense... Actually more teams ran the 3-4 D in the 80's and 90's than the 4-3....So in fact there was an abundance of Fast big guys that play OLB in the 3-4...They're called 4-3 DE's... Well said, Oldfan. However, I disagree with this statement:This issue lies solely with Greg Blache. In today's NFL, having a 'stop-the-run-first' mentality is, at best antiquated, if not wholly and surprisingly stupid. He has two great ends in Taylor and Carter, yet squanders their pass rushing abilities. Under Greg(G!) Williams, Andre Carter, last year, had 10.5 sacks and produced, statistically, one of his best seasons. Williams is interested in getting sacks and turnovers, Blache, well, not so much. Regarding Daniels' quote, remember now that, Blache was Williams' d-line coach and likely insisted on "tighter technique." Actually ALL of the top defenses and anybody that understands football, knows that you have to stop the run first and foremost... Ok, if it is the lack of great olb's that is crippling our pass rush then is aaron curry an acceptable 1st round draft pick this year? If we stay at 13 he would be the pick IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Actually ALL of the top defenses and anybody that understands football, knows that you have to stop the run first and foremost.... Think about that. If you are playing the Jags or the Vikings, it makes sense to stop the run first. If you are playing the Patriots or the Colts, it's dumb as hell. Your defensive priority should be aimed at stopping what the opponent's offense does best. It's my impression that most NFL coaches know that, but I don't have a survey to back up my assertion. However, I read a quote from Canafora's "unidentified NFL executive" referring to Blache's run-first approach as "old school." Bellichick's approach depends on adapting to the opponent on both offense and defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pounds Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Actually ALL of the top defenses and anybody that understands football, knows that you have to stop the run first and foremost... In today's NFL, where corners can barely touch receivers, this is a decaying football maxim. Logic, however, dictates the caveat that if your opponent has no passing attack, then, yes, stopping the run is paramount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REEGSKINS Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 scheme is definitely a big reason why we arent getting sacks. ive heard phillup elude to it also j. taylor and even blatche himself. we play a bend but dont break system. we want teams to have to drive on us instead of quick scores. our ends 1st responsibility are to stop the gaps and let the Lbs make the plays. im not a big fan of it, but our management are this scheme and chose to stick with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 scheme is definitely a big reason why we arent getting sacks. ive heard phillup elude to it also j. taylor and even blatche himself. we play a bend but dont break system. we want teams to have to drive on us instead of quick scores. our ends 1st responsibility are to stop the gaps and let the Lbs make the plays. im not a big fan of it, but our management are this scheme and chose to stick with it. Right, and I don't understand it. Almost everyone understands the advantages of ball control and not turning the ball over on offense -- and yet no one criticizes a bend-but-don't-break defense (that allows the opponent to control the ball) that doesn't create turnovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Think about that.If you are playing the Jags or the Vikings, it makes sense to stop the run first. If you are playing the Patriots or the Colts, it's dumb as hell. Your defensive priority should be aimed at stopping what the opponent's offense does best. It's my impression that most NFL coaches know that, but I don't have a survey to back up my assertion. However, I read a quote from Canafora's "unidentified NFL executive" referring to Blache's run-first approach as "old school." Bellichick's approach depends on adapting to the opponent on both offense and defense. No it's not dumb as hell...The Colts and Patriots will run on you if you let them...Take for example our games this past season against the Saints and Cardinals, 2 of the better passing offenses in the NFL...We took away their running games and made them one dimensional, and neither of those offenses was able to pass up and down the field on us...The problem with Blache's scheme IMO is not that it's an old school "run first approach" but that when teams are in passing situations that he doesn't release the hounds and allow AC and JT to line up wide pin their ears back and get upfield... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 In today's NFL, where corners can barely touch receivers, this is a decaying football maxim. Logic, however, dictates the caveat that if your opponent has no passing attack, then, yes, stopping the run is paramount. By saying stop the run first by no means am I saying that you line up with 8 in the box against a 4WR spread set...But a run first mentality means that you arent giving anything up in the run game AT ALL, and your going to force the offense to be one dimensional... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laxpunk2006 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Right, and I don't understand it. Almost everyone understands the advantages of ball control and not turning the ball over on offense -- and yet no one criticizes a bend-but-don't-break defense (that allows the opponent to control the ball) that doesn't create turnovers. It may allow teams to control the ball but it prevents them from putting points on the board. Points win games, not ball control. Please don't take that as me discrediting ball control. I am much happier with a time of possesion based offense that can move the chains consistently than one that has just as good of a chance of going 3 and out/turnover as they do a quick strike. But as an example look at our own team. We bent a lot of defenses, but we sure as hell didn't break any. If our defense were to be more aggressive we would likely get more pressure/turnovers but we would also likely lose some of our gambles as well and give up more points. On a team with zero quick strike ability and complete lack of a deep passing game geting behind by multiple scores is almost a gameover despite the time of the game. Offenses and defenses feed off of each other. If we were to ever actually get a lead of more than three or so points you may see a little more aggression from our defense going for the kill. As long as we fail to score offensively our defense will be handcuffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 No it's not dumb as hell...The Colts and Patriots will run on you if you let them...Take for example our games this past season against the Saints and Cardinals, 2 of the better passing offenses in the NFL...We took away their running games and made them one dimensional, and neither of those offenses was able to pass up and down the field on us...The problem with Blache's scheme IMO is not that it's an old school "run first approach" but that when teams are in passing situations that he doesn't release the hounds and allow AC and JT to line up wide pin their ears back and get upfield... The evidence of two cherry-picked games wouldn't prove much to begin with, but your case is made weaker since the Cardinals ran unexpectedly well against us. Your logic escapes me. If I want to make the opponent one-dimensional, I should be taking away the dimension that serves them best. Your two examples were of teams that came onto the field one dimensional and we plotted to take away what they didn't do well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 It may allow teams to control the ball but it prevents them from putting points on the board. Points win games, not ball control. Sorry, my friend, you can't have it both ways. If ball control is a good idea on offense, then it's an equally good idea to prevent the other team from controlling the ball on defense. Ball control on offense helps the defense keep the opponents score down. Preventing ball control by the opponent's offense helps our offense score more points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpath11 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Your logic escapes me. If I want to make the opponent one-dimensional, I should be taking away the dimension that serves them best. Your two examples were of teams that came onto the field one dimensional and we plotted to take away what they didn't do well. Are you not also a big proponent of the time of possesion move the chain type football. What better way to chew up clock and move the chains than with an effective running game. Take for example the Patriots, if you take away the pass and drop you LBs deep in coverage everytime I would gladly take the 5-6 ypc until you stop the run. Id rather make a team one dimensional via stopping the run becasue the amount of mistakes increases greatly when the QB throws a lot (sacks fumbles, ints etc...). To me it is a no brainer if you stop the run and make a team beat you with the pass you have made your job as a defense that much easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Are you not also a big proponent of the time of possesion move the chain type football. What better way to chew up clock and move the chains than with an effective running game. Jim Zorn would tell you that the better way is to mix runs with short passes. Take for example the Patriots, if you take away the pass and drop you LBs deep in coverage everytime I would gladly take the 5-6 ypc until you stop the run Well, of course you can't drop LBs into coverage EVERY time. There are more subtle ways of playing pass-first against teams like the Patriots such as those mentioned in my OP. To me it is a no brainer if you stop the run and make a team beat you with the pass you have made your job as a defense that much easier. I'll bet Bellichick would beat you 52-7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpath11 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I'll bet Bellichick would beat you 52-7. Not a great example...while we did drop the LBs to stop the pass they also rushed the ball 35 times for 145 yards with almost half of those runs coming in the first half. Tom Brady attempted 38 passes as a team they attempted 41 becuase Matt Cassell was put in garbage time and they let the kid throw. So they not only beat us with the pass they also dismantled us with the run...Balance I still stand by making a team one-dimensional and that one dimension should be passing. I am not even sure how one makes a team one dimensional by allowing them to run all day long...makes no sense as they will neve get off the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think the future of NFL defenses is to run the 3-4.With outside pash rushers getting bigger and faster you can exploit this weakness by having two edge "LB's" able to come from either side while the DT's take up four of the front 5. With both of the edge rushers lined up pre-snap the line must adjust their coverage to one side or the other, forcing the TE/RB to pick up the other LB. Teams like Baltimore and Pitt do a great job of dropping the LB on the edge or even a DT into coverage to mess up the line's protection. nice post Old... dave....I think some it has ro do with LB...specifically how the interior D line creates space for the LBs to move to the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 So they not only beat us with the pass they also dismantled us with the run...Balance The Patriots, like most winning teams, do not have a balanced attack. They pass to get the lead and run to hold it. That's not balance. They do it with different formations. They ran more than 50% of their plays this season from the shotgun spread. I still stand by making a team one-dimensional and that one dimension should be passing. I am not even sure how one makes a team one dimensional by allowing them to run all day long...makes no sense as they will neve get off the field You exaggerate. Teams are seldom equally good at passing and running. The teams that excel at passing aren't good enough to "run on you all day long" unless you have to completely sell out to stop their passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 The evidence of two cherry-picked games wouldn't prove much to begin with, but your case is made weaker since the Cardinals ran unexpectedly well against us.Your logic escapes me. If I want to make the opponent one-dimensional, I should be taking away the dimension that serves them best. Your two examples were of teams that came onto the field one dimensional and we plotted to take away what they didn't do well. It's not cherry picking...It's providing two relevant examples of superior passing teams that we played to clarify my point...I'm not going to play pseudo intellectual and do a statistical analysis of the past 10 seasons...that's for you to do, I'm not big on stats anyways as they are very misleading and generally don't tell the whole story...I go by what my eyes tell me, and what I know from experience... Back to my point....The Cardinals game proves what I'm saying exactly, we went into the game and initially disregarded the Cardinal run game and loaded up for the pass...What happened? They ran the ball at will on us, controlled the clock early and actually held the lead on us...It wasn't until we took away the run game and forced them to become one dimensional that the game turned... My logic is NFL logic...If you listen to any D coordinator or player you hear being interviewed they will say that priority one is to stop a team from running the ball , then they will take away what the team does best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoudMouth12thMan Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 The fact that we don't have a dominant DT (Nose Tackle) who can plug up the middle and get a big push is one reason, I'd surmise, that Blache tries to stop the run first when it comes to scheming his Line. He's so reliant upon all seven or eight guys to stop the run and the pass rush from his front four have always been non-existent. If you put a huge, physical, high motor guy in the middle and a bigger MLB we'd be more effective in stopping the run and freeing up the edges on passing downs. London Fletcher is a beast, but his size hurts us to some degree especially since we don't have that dominant Nose like a Haloti Ngata, Haynesworth, or Pat Williams. And yes, I know that we play a 4-3 scheme, but Griff, Alexander, and Golston should be playing the 3 technique alongside of a monster Nose guy. Montgomery hasn't been what the Skins have expected, and he is not a violent enough presence there. That lack of a beast NT has more to do with the lack of pass rush than just the Ends and where they line up IMO. If Daniels comes back along with Taylor and Carter and they get a dominant NT via FA or the draft, we could be scary on the D line in '09. With a monster Nose, it will screen London, create pressure up the middle on passing downs and on runs, and we'd be instantly better on the front seven this upcoming season. I'll bet any amount of ES cred' that I have (which is minimal ) that this organization goes hard after Albert Haynesworth or targets a dominant DT in the draft in the first two rounds if they can't get Albert. They'll try to keep Daniels and Taylor (for less money if they can do that) and hope that they are just missing that one guy who can make the difference. I thought Montgomery would become that guy but he has not developed like they and we'd hoped. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 jtyler42 -- The Cardinals game proves what I'm saying exactly, we went into the game and initially disregarded the Cardinal run game and loaded up for the pass...What happened? They ran the ball at will on us, controlled the clock early and actually held the lead on us...It wasn't until we took away the run game and forced them to become one dimensional that the game turned... So, you are claiming that Blache went into the Cards game with a mind to disregard the run and stop the pass first? Now, why would he do a silly thing like that if your following statement is true? My logic is NFL logic...If you listen to any D coordinator or player you hear being interviewed they will say that priority one is to stop a team from running the ball , then they will take away what the team does best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 The fact that we don't have a dominant DT (Nose Tackle) who can plug up the middle and get a big push is one reason, I'd surmise, that Blache tries to stop the run first when it comes to scheming his Line. He's so reliant upon all seven or eight guys to stop the run and the pass rush from his front four have always been non-existent. Maybe, I mean, I agree that a big man could make a big difference, but it seems more likely to me that the reports of Blache being an old school, stop the run first kind of guy who has used the same approach in previous NFL jobs are true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpath11 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Thinking back on last year and our coaching search the only thing I sometimes think about is the staff that would have been had Fassel gotten the job. Particularly the defensive coordinatior, in which case it would have been Rex Ryan /drool. We would have had the aggressive turnover making machine we all so covet, though, Id guess their rankings would not have been as impressive i think we would have had more sacks and turnovers in the minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 So, you are claiming that Blache went into the Cards game with a mind to disregard the run and stop the pass first? Now, why would he do a silly thing like that if your following statement is true? Blache went against sound NFL logic, and tried to get cute...Our D got punched in the mouth in the first half...When Blache adjusted and got back to sound NFL defense, taking away the run FIRST and forcing them to pass they became one dimensional, and the game turned... Look I understand that it's hard for you to grasp, but there is a difference between an offense being one dimensional through it's own volition, and a defense forcing the offense to become one-dimensional...When an O is one dimensional through it's own volition the threat of the run is still there as well as the threat of play action...When a D forces an O to be one dimensional they are able to just tee off against the pass and teams are rarely successful when that happens unless they are just supremely talented to the opposition... You aren't ever going to hear of a defense going into a game saying we're going to force a team to run on us...As a defensive player being run on is demoralizing, it also greatly reduces the chance of getting/forcing turnovers, it keeps your offense off the field lessening your teams opportunities to score...etc, etc... This is a very good thread OldFan, you always raise/pose interesting thoughts and ideas and provide a good platform for debating all the different ideas that people have! :applause::applause::applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Blache went against sound NFL logic, and tried to get cute...Our D got punched in the mouth in the first half... Nah. I don't believe that. Look I understand that it's hard for you to grasp, but there is a difference between an offense being one dimensional through it's own volition, and a defense forcing the offense to become one-dimensional... That's not a concept hard to grasp, but it just doesn't apply. The smart defensive strategy is to put the priority on stopping what the opponent does best. More often than not, the run is what they do best by default -- like the Redskins teams in recent years -- because it isn't easy to put a consistently good passing game on the field. It's the most difficult of all coaching tasks. This is a very good thread OldFan, you always raise/pose interesting thoughts and ideas and provide a good platform for debating all the different ideas that people have! :applause::applause::applause: Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.