Of Greg Blache, defensive linemen and linebackers...

[Oldfan]

Pounds: I don't have the stats on hand, but I'd be willing to bet that we were one of the more blitz-intensive teams in the league; a fact that lost us at least one game.

Counting blitzes is not a good way to measure the "aggressiveness" of a defense. Gregg Williams was known for his blitzes, but his defenses didn't create takeaways from Buffalo to last year's Jags which had 17 last year compared to 30 the year before (exception noted below).

My Rhodus333: biggest problem with our defense isn't so much with its philosophy, but more the players ability to properly execute it through the whole game.

Improving the schemes doesn't cost draft picks or require taking hits against the salary cap, so this is where you start to improve a team.

Warpath11: Now having said that we are in no position to become this attacking style of defense due to our talent limitation. So in my opinion kudos to Blache for doing what his talent allows him to do.

When Gibbs wanted sacks and takeaways in the 2005 stretch run, Gregg Williams produced them. Philip Daniels explained his sacks explosion on being allowed to take a wider split. Neither Williams nor Daniels performed as well before or since.

[IbleedBnG83]

I think its very sad that someone creates an intelligent post with a well-thought out, well-articulated argument, and the first reaction is to question whether the OP is really the author.

it says alot about the quality of posts we have become used to here.

Not everyone is able to write as well as this particular poster. Actually most people are not. This is a message board for Redskins fans, not for authors and publishers. We can appreciate well written posts, but at the same time, its not something expected. It doesn't mean that any other posts written are less in quality and shouldn't be posted. I think that was a compliment to the OP. No need to be so negative about other posts.

[Koolblue13]

Maybe we could trade for Briggs. That guy is a beast.

[IbleedBnG83]

Maybe we could trade for Briggs. That guy is a beast.

Oh hey Danny, whats up? I didn't see you for a second. Where is Vinny? Carrying the raquet ball bag in from the car?

[Pounds]

It seems likely that, if Blache is to comply with his orders, he will have to abandon his stop-the-run-first goal. and, if he does that, the entire defensive scheme will have to be changed.

Not necessarily, he'll likely keep the secondary's coverage schemes the same. More than likely, Zorn's wishes will ultimately fall victim to Blache's beliefs, resulting in mere and sporadic 'tweaks.' The result will look something like our '07 defense.

On passing downs, or situations which present to us a clear statistical advantage in our being aggressive, Blache will likely split Andre Carter and Jason Taylor wider and strip the DTs of their two gap reads.

But, I'm of the mind that Greg is far more concerned with stopping the run, first, in hopes of engendering such situations.

Now' date=' your conclusion begins with the premise "for this defense, as currently constructed..." leaves me wondering if that premise is even necessary to your conclusion.[/quote']

That may be an instance of wordiness on my part, Oldfan. You know, poetic license.

Read "as currently constructed" to mean that with a philosophy predicated on d-linemen who occupy blocks the linebackers must bring a playmaking element for said philosophy to prove successful.

If the D line is a stronger unit than the linebackers' date=' isn't it likely that it will be the stronger unit regardless of the scheme Blache employs?[/quote']

Theroretically yes, but in practical appliacation the results may lead a great majority to think otherwise; this serves as the crux of my premise.

The d-line scheme, in this case, serves as the foundation for which Greg builds his auxiliary philosophies.

[e16bball]

While Robbins is an above-average player, he is joined by Barry Cofield and Jay Alford; two of the NFC East's young and up-and-coming DTs. Also on passing downs, Tuck slides down the line and plays from the three-technique, bolstering NY's already formidable DT rotation.

Cofield and Alford are nothing more than average players. Cofield is a bit above-average in the run game, and Alford is a decent penetrator. They are not impact players.

Tuck played 3-tech in 2007, but was exclusively a DE in 2008.

It was not an overly impressive group last season, which is my sole point here.

As far as their safeties, NY's back end gets overshadowed by the play of their LBs and d-linemen, but that's not to say that they are not a strength. In this case, though, they play in the figurative shadow cast by the front four.

Again, not an impressive group. Not players who would be considered a strength of any team. Phillips is an up-and-comer, but pretty much an average unit at best.

At any rate, the NYG example is just devil's advocacy. I figure all theories should be applied practically.

This is the only real concern I have on the line. Griffin's age will, at some point, play prominently into this group's overall performance.

More than any one factor, Monty is a victim of circumstance. His play tapered off because Blache decided to start one of his favorites in Kedric.

If Monty was allowed to play more instinctively, the results would be more favorable.

It's no coincidence that under Greg(G!) Williams, Monty had one of the best seasons of any DT in the league, but under Blache, when stuck riding the pine, he's not as impactful.

I personally don't believe this. Monty was disappointing from training camp on this season, and made no impact in the vast majority of games. He's a player with noted motivation problems, and his conditioning and effort were questioned, from what I recall. My eyes confirmed that in the games.

I hope you're right, and that Monty just needs consistent playing time to be a dominant force. But I'm a little worried that the red flags on him are starting to come out and surface. Hopefully the contract is a motivator.

[Skin'Em84]

This is why, as time goes on, I get more and more enthralled with the Orakpo pick. He's got the physical ability, and possibly the talent, to be a one of those DE/LBs like Taylor, Suggs and others, where he could drop back in coverage or rush the passer on any play.

[TheLongshot]

More than any one factor, Monty is a victim of circumstance. His play tapered off because Blache decided to start one of his favorites in Kedric.

If Monty was allowed to play more instinctively, the results would be more favorable.

It's no coincidence that under Greg(G!) Williams, Monty had one of the best seasons of any DT in the league, but under Blache, when stuck riding the pine, he's not as impactful.

What you say here makes no sense, since Monty played under Blache when he was his defensive line coach. I might be mistaken, but as the DL coach, he had the ability to decide who plays on his line. I also find it funny when you say that Blache doesn't let him play instinctively, since that is one of the things that Blache brings to the table over the complicated schemes of Williams, that he allows his players to play more naturally and instinctively.

Monty's problem since he's gotten here is that he's a very inconsistent player. The guy has all the talent in the world, but he doesn't always apply it every play. That is most likely why he was benched over Golston.

[Warpath11]

Hopefully the contract is a motivator.

Technically speaking he is a RFA this off-season so it would indicate that a new contract, with the Skins anyway, is not that important to him since as you point out some his desire/motivation (lackthereof) was clearly evident last season.

[Pounds]

Counting blitzes is not a good way to measure the "aggressiveness" of a defense. Gregg Williams was known for his blitzes, but his defenses didn't create takeaways from Buffalo to last year's Jags which had 17 last year compared to 30 the year before (exception noted below).

I'm conflicted, but I certainly see the merit in your point.

Blitzing, and the reliance thereof, may not be an accurate depiction of a coach's approach, but it certainly serves as a barometer to an outsider who isn't privy to a coach's approach in every situation.

Furthermore, takeaways, in this respect have nothing to do with anything.

Bltizes ¹ Turnovers

Not all turnovers are the result of blitzes, or, for that matter, the direct consequence of aggressiveness.

[IbleedBnG83]

I'm conflicted, but I certainly see the merit in your point.

Blitzing, and the reliance thereof, may not be an accurate depiction of a coach's approach, but it certainly serves as a barometer to an outsider who isn't privy to a coach's approach in every situation.

Furthermore, takeaways, in this respect have nothing to do with anything.

Bltizes ¹ Turnovers

Not all turnovers are the result of blitzes, or, for that matter, the direct consequence of aggressiveness.

I agree. I think blitzing too much leaves many weaknesses and/or holes in the defense. Sometimes blitzing is because of a weakness up front and not just scheme.

I feel if they not only change the scheme of the DL to attack rather than to hold, and also upgrade the DT position, that we will not need to blitz as much by generating more pressue with just the DL. Subsequently when we do blitz, it will be much more effective.

[Warpath11]

Counting blitzes is not a good way to measure the "aggressiveness" of a defense. Gregg Williams was known for his blitzes, but his defenses didn't create takeaways from Buffalo to last year's Jags which had 17 last year compared to 30 the year before (exception noted below).

Gregg Williams didn't use the blitz to get turnovers, IMO, because he still had his secondary play loose even when he sent the blitz (by loose I mean he didnt want his DBs jumping routes...too often). Rather Gregg blitzed on 3rd and long so that the QB had to get rid of the ball quickly short of the frist down where his loose LBs/DBs could make the tackle before the receiver had an opportunity to gain additional yardage for the first down.

Also I think the game where Daniels exploded was a mere fluke not something different in the scheme.

[Dark Acre]

I don't care how clever and "effective" Blache's scheme is, if we don't generate a pass rush and get turnovers, we won't win.

[Oldfan]

Pounds: More than likely, Zorn's wishes will ultimately fall victim to Blache's beliefs, resulting in mere and sporadic 'tweaks.' The result will look something like our '07 defense.

Are you implying that Blache will take a passive-aggressive stance to disobey orders rather than abandon his own scheme preferences?

But, I'm of the mind that Greg is far more concerned with stopping the run, first, in hopes of engendering such situations.

I doubt that Jim Zorn will be satisfied with this approach. If Greg won't change, the conflict in philosophies is inevitable. Against the Vikings, "stop the run first " makes sense. It's not very bright against teams with high-quality passing games like the Patriots, Colts, Chargers or Cardinals.

[Pounds]

What you say here makes no sense, since Monty played under Blache when he was his defensive line coach. I might be mistaken, but as the DL coach, he had the ability to decide who plays on his line.

Yes, but their player utilization principles varied.

I also find it funny when you say that Blache doesn't let him play instinctively' date=' since that is one of the things that Blache brings to the table over the complicated schemes of Williams, that [b']he allows his players to play more naturally and instinctively[/b].

That's a fallacy; nothing more than media propelled drivel. Blache's schemes as they relate to the d-line are rigid and largely inflexible. If they weren't Andre Carter and Jason Taylor would have had more than their combined 7.5+-.

All Greg did in simplifying Gregg's system was subtract the blitzes that actually worked, thereby leaving in those that were predictable and easily exploited by opposing offenses.

Monty's problem since he's gotten here is that he's a very inconsistent player. The guy has all the talent in the world' date=' but he doesn't always apply it every play. That is most likely why he was benched over Golston.[/quote']

This is true, but only in contrast to a player like Kedric. More than that, though, it's hard for anyone, talented or not, to be consistent from the bench.

[Pounds]

Are you implying that Blache will take a passive-aggressive stance to disobey orders rather than abandon his own scheme preferences?

In practical application? Yes. But without any insubordinate fervor.

I mean, we've heard all of this before, have we not? Not only after the disappointing '06 season, but by many other teams wanting to get more aggressive in hopes of generating more turnovers.

BTW, I take Zorn's mandate with a grain of salt. He likely has in no pull in the defensive meeting room and in instituting gameplans.

His mandate is one, I'm sure, Greg was already aware of before he gave it.

I doubt that Jim Zorn will be satisfied with this approach. If Greg won't change' date=' the conflict in philosophies is inevitable.[/quote']

Absolutely. Which is what should prompt Greg's firing or "resignation" after this season or next.

Against the Vikings' date=' "stop the run first " makes sense. It's not very bright against teams with high-quality passing games like the [b']Patriots, Colts, Chargers or Cardinals[/b].

Against teams like this it would be wise for Greg to allow the DEs and DTs to "pin their ears back" more often, rather than forcing offenses into some "dink-and-dunk-scoring-envitabilty" mode.

[Chump Bailey]

That's a fallacy; nothing more than media propelled drivel. Blache's schemes as they relate to the d-line are rigid and largely inflexible. If they weren't Andre Carter and Jason Taylor would have had more than their combined 7.5+-.

If that's the case - then why when B. Mitchell asked Blache point-blank after a loss on the post game show why the DL cannot get to the QB Blache stated something to the effect that - "why are some people short and some tall"

It is all not just scheme - that's the fallacy...

He clearly wants to pressure the QB more but lacks the DL to do it.

[Oldfan]

I don't care how clever and "effective" Blache's scheme is, if we don't generate a pass rush and get turnovers, we won't win.

I think we agree, but I would make the point differently. I would say that the effectiveness of a defense can't be measured by NFL yardage stats or points allowed while ignoring takeaways and its ability to help the offense score more points.

[Oldfan]

BTW, I take Zorn's mandate with a grain of salt. He likely has in no pull in the defensive meeting room and in instituting gameplans.

I cannot imagine any head coach without the juice to determine the broad strokes of strategy on both sides of the ball. Even Norv Turner, whose authority is as limited as any HC in the NFL with a strong GM like A.J. Smith, got Ted Cottrell fired and replaced with Ron Rivera and a more aggressive approach to turn the Chargers season around.

[Pounds]

Cofield and Alford are nothing more than average players. Cofield is a bit above-average in the run game, and Alford is a decent penetrator. They are not impact players.

I disagree.

You can argue that, in this case, the unit may be greater than the sum of it's parts, but each player brings a particular skill set of merit. The rotation of these players is more important than any one of them individually. Undoubtedly, NY's DTs are a strength of their defense.

Tuck played 3-tech in 2007' date=' but was exclusively a DE in 2008.[/quote']

He may have played predominantly from the DE position, but not exclusively.

At any rate' date=' the NYG example is just devil's advocacy. I figure all theories should be applied practically.[/quote']

Any defense as successful as NY's must competently disguise coverages (an integral element to safety play). NY's success on defense stretches further than the strength of their front seven.

Monty was disappointing from training camp on this season' date=' and made no impact in the vast majority of games.[/quote']

I disagree.

Monty was our best d-lineman the whole season through. The only time I saw him get moved was in the game against Baltimore, against what should be considered the best all-around o-line in the game.

[IbleedBnG83]

I cannot imagine any head coach without the juice to determine the broad strokes of strategy on both sides of the ball. Even Norv Turner, whose authority is as limited as any HC in the NFL with a strong GM like A.J. Smith, got Ted Cottrell fired and replaced with Ron Rivera and a more aggressive approach to turn the Chargers season around.

Apples to oranges

[Pounds]

If that's the case - then why when B. Mitchell asked Blache point-blank after a loss on the post game show why the DL cannot get to the QB Blache stated something to the effect that - "why are some people short and some tall"

I think you took my point out of the original context.

It is all not just scheme - that's the fallacy...

My friend' date=' in this era of parity, scheme is what defines the modicum of talent in this league.[/size']

He clearly wants to pressure the QB more but lacks the DL to do it.

If he granted Andre Carter and Jason Taylor wider stances and allowed Anthony Montgomery to play more instinctively, the outcome would be a different from the one we saw in '08.

[Pounds]

I cannot imagine any head coach without the juice to determine the broad strokes of strategy on both sides of the ball. Even Norv Turner, whose authority is as limited as any HC in the NFL with a strong GM like A.J. Smith, got Ted Cottrell fired and replaced with Ron Rivera and a more aggressive approach to turn the Chargers season around.

Without knowing the specifics of the San Diego situation, I'd venture a guess and say that Turner's position was one held by Smith, with Norv serving as the "face" of the decision.

[Pounds]

Really? I really didn't think we blitzed all that much. It seemed to me we did much more with Williams, and that was something Blache said when he came in, that we would play more man and blitz less.

In general, this is true, but there were some games where Blache went nuts. Often times, in those games, we were doing a fairly good job of generating push with our front four, yet Blache blitzed relentlessly.

[Chiefinonhaze]

Great Post. Finally people understand it doesn't matter if we have Julius Peppers on One side and have Osi on the other, we will still run the same scheme designed to stop the run. I believe it is an effective scheme and people put WAY to much blame on the defensive line.

We were ranked 4th for a reason. We were a good defense. I see no problem with our defense, except for depth at linebacker. If we could somehow generate some sort of explosive offense, our defense would keep us in every single game.

There is nothing wrong with the defense IMO. They gave us plenty of chances to beat the Steelers. Our offense kept screwing up those chances.