Of Greg Blache, defensive linemen and linebackers...

[elkabong82]

excellent thread pounds. perhaps LBer, or more specifically, Malauga, really is our target this draft.

[Oldfan]

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.

While the specualtion about Cottrell's future was at its peak, A.J. Smith announced in the media that no coaching changes were anticipated during the season. Ted Cottrell had been Smith's pick for the job before Norv was hired. Something or someone changed his mind. It's reasonable to think that Norv's opinion was influential.

[Shilsu]

Oh gees, just another a way to neglect our defensive line.

Say it IS the scheme. An aging Cornelius Griffin along with Montgomery and Golston and old Daniels and Taylor at the end fit the scheme so well that there's no room for improvement by upgrading any of them? :doh:

[TheLongshot]

Yes, but their player utilization principles varied.

Sure, but what we saw in 2008 was very similar to what we saw in 2007. There was certainly circumstantial evidence that Blache had a lot of influence in the changes from 2006 to 2007.

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+-.

I never said anything about the players freelancing or anything like that, but that the system is less rigid and probably more customized to the talent at hand.

BTW, getting more sack numbers for the sake of more sack numbers probably isn't going to improve the defense, particularly if you leave running lanes open.

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.

So, are you saying that we shouldn't play players based on merit, but only on their potential? That doesn't sound like a winning formula. If Golston is the better player, he should play.

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"

That pretty much sums up what I heard from most of his press conferences. I think he mostly knew that this line wasn't going to be a great pass rushing line. Certainly it shows with his desire in the past year to upgrade the DT position. After watching the defense this past season, I can't disagree with him. We get little push up the middle.

That being said, I wouldn't be disappointed with going LB either. It is a place where we have some serious depth issues.

[elkabong82]

Oh gees, just another a way to neglect our defensive line.

Say it IS the scheme. An aging Cornelius Griffin along with Montgomery and Golston and old Daniels and Taylor at the end fit the scheme so well that there's no room for improvement by upgrading any of them? :doh:

The thread starter said in his original post that he thinks we need a 3-technique DT along the DL. :doh:

And nowhere in his post did I see him say we can ignore DL, rather he broke down the scheme of our D to try and show people that DL might not be as big of a weakness as most think.

For like the umpteenth time with you, try understanding someone's actual point instead of twisting their words into some over-simplified and incorrect version that makes it easy for you to retort by belittling someone rather than discuss the actual point.

[Shilsu]

The thread starter said in his original post that he thinks we need a 3-technique DT along the DL. :doh:

And nowhere in his post did I see him say we can ignore DL, rather he broke down the scheme of our D to try and show people that DL might not be as big of a weakness as most think.

For like the umpteenth time with you, try understanding someone's actual point instead of twisting their words into some over-simplified and incorrect version that makes it easy for you to retort by belittling someone rather than discuss the actual point.

Every year the same heads try to talk about how our defensive line isn't that big of a weakness. And every year they are wrong.

[Pounds]

Sure, but what we saw in 2008 was very similar to what we saw in 2007.

To my eye it was different. With Gregg the splits were wider and less of an onus was placed on two gap play. Greg's approach was to "simplify" things by putting more emphasis on one-on-one battles and asking the same players to assume more responsibility.

I never said anything about the players freelancing or anything like that' date=' but that the system is less rigid and probably more customized to the talent at hand.[/quote']

I would argue the opposite. Asking Jason Taylor to shade the tackle's outside shoulder, or sometimes even face-up, is hardly asking him to do anything customized to his abilities, let alone his frame.

BTW' date=' getting more sack numbers for the sake of more sack numbers probably isn't going to improve the defense, particularly if you leave running lanes open.[/quote']

A measure of a good defense would be the balance they strike between the two.

So' date=' are you saying that we shouldn't play players based on merit, but only on their potential? That doesn't sound like a winning formula. If Golston is the better player, he should play.[/quote']

Well, it depends on how Greg defines 'better.' If better means the highly motivated, all-effort player, well, then Kedric is that guy. But, if better means the more gifted player, then Anthony is that guy.

A more even-handed rotation between the two is really the better answer.

[elkabong82]

Every year the same heads try to talk about how our defensive line isn't that big of a weakness. And every year they are wrong.

Really? Because every year (save '06) our D is a top 10 unit. Of course "wrong" really depends on your version of "right." If a team is consistently a top 10 unit, how can their DL be a BIG weakness? If you are talking in terms of just turnovers and sacks, then DL def. could be viewed as a weakness. However, the OP actually discussed that point, and said our D isn't set up to get a ton of sacks, rather they are focused on stopping the run and limiting the pass. Of course I too would like for us to get the answer on the DL that creates a ton of pressure (I just so happen to think we need a big DT to collapse the pocket), but just because we aren't leading the league in sacks doesn't mean the D is bad, nor does it mean DL is a major weakness.

Ultimately the goal of the D is to stop scoring. The Redskins were 6th in points allowed, just 2 points behind the Giants.

Like I said before, please point out where the OP said we should ignore the line, as you suggested he did.

When you are done with that, please provide something that backs up your assertion that DL is a big weakness every year. You could go with sacks, but the OP already explained that. So why don't you actually argue his points about scheme which discuss why we lacked a ton of sacks this past season? Or will you simply talk about something else and maintain your "I'm right because I said so" attitude?

[Pounds]

Say it IS the scheme. An aging Cornelius Griffin along with Montgomery and Golston and old Daniels and Taylor at the end fit the scheme so well that there's no room for improvement by upgrading any of them? :doh:

How would you define improvement?

Given their responsibilities, our d-linemen performed well.

[Reaganaut]

I agree this was by choice. The choice was a wise one GIVEN THE COMPOSITION OF THE PERSONNEL HE INHERITED. In other words, he adjusted his system to the talent of his players. Given a secondary with all first round picks, he went with that strength instead of the third rounders on the line. Wouldn't you do the same? It's rational. If he had a line like the Giants do you think he would have made the same choice?

I end my argument here.

[Shilsu]

How would you define improvement?

Given their responsibilities, our d-linemen performed well.

Improvement means doing a better job in the present and the future.

[Shilsu]

Like I said before, please point out where the OP said we should ignore the line, as you suggested he did.

First of all, as to rating how big of a weakness the DL is... You don't rate an individual unit by the overall defensive ranking. Or do you say the Cardinals' running game is not a weakness because of their offensive ranking? I hope not, because that's just stupid.

As for your "please point out where the OP said we should ignore the line"... From the original post:

"the front office must address the LBing corp ASAP, and, if need be, completely at the expense of the defensive line"

Oops. Elkabong82 stuck with his foot in his mouth. Again.

For the billionth time.

[Chump Bailey]

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.

But Pounds, if it were that simple don't you think GB could detect it? Didn't he also state he wanted the guys to play more instinctive before the season started? LB is certainly a need without question, but I do think you are exaggerating to an extent the capabilities of our DL.

[Oldfan]

I agree this was by choice. The choice was a wise one GIVEN THE COMPOSITION OF THE PERSONNEL HE INHERITED. In other words, he adjusted his system to the talent of his players.

Is it your opinion that Carter and Jason Taylor are best used when they line up to stop the run first on most downs? Taylor offered his opinion that he wasn't being used in the way that had given him success in Miami. When Springs offered his opinion that we needed a stronger pass rush, do you think he was calling out his teammates or the scheme?

[Chump Bailey]

That pretty much sums up what I heard from most of his press conferences. I think he mostly knew that this line wasn't going to be a great pass rushing line. Certainly it shows with his desire in the past year to upgrade the DT position. After watching the defense this past season, I can't disagree with him. We get little push up the middle.

I agree - that's why I do not agree it is simply a matter of scheme. We need a talent infusion and someone that IS capable of getting into the backfield. VC talks about it - Blache is aware of it - Zorn wants it - it is evident from anyone watching this team the past decade that we generally suck at getting to the QB. It's time to stop talking about it and start doing something to alleviate it.

[Oldfan]

I agree - that's why I do not agree it is simply a matter of scheme.

It probably isn't simply about the scheme or simply about a lack of talent. It's probably both.

Scheme changes don't cost draft picks and they don't require taking hits on the salary cap, so that's the place to start. If we have the opportunity to improve the team's personnel at any position, we should do it; but drafting for need is a win-now approach of the kind that has kept us down for several seasons.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

long story short:

no turnovers ever

no sacks ever

no pressure ever

yes we stop the run, and yes teams dont seem to accumulate yards against us, but without drive killing sacks, pressure on the QB, and multiple turnovers, we will never be a championship caliber defense, regardless of our ranking.

[Laron Burgundy]

The problem is that if our d line is set up to stop the run first then we have possibly the two worst defensive ends in the league for such a task. Seems like extremely poor team planning to have two defensive ends whose average weight is 249 pounds. I wouldn't mind this theory of defense at all if our defensive ends were 270+ pounds.

[Pounds]

Improvement means doing a better job in the present and the future.

This is a meaningless statement.

Could you elaborate as to what improvements you'd like to see in relation to the d-line?

[Shilsu]

This is a meaningless statement.

Could you elaborate as to what improvements you'd like to see in relation to the d-line?

It can't be helped when you have to be spoonfed everything.

Do you notice that other premiere tackles in the league are frequently blowing things up in the backfield? Do you see any of our players as individuals or as a unit doing that on a consistent basis?

There's one example.

[Pounds]

But Pounds, if it were that simple don't you think GB could detect it?

Yes, and, I'm by no means accusing Blache of being dumb, nor do I suppose that I know more than him.

Such moves, though, as the ones I described to you in my original response appear to run counter to what Blache wants out of this unit.

Didn't he also state he wanted the guys to play more instinctive before the season started?

If he did, the demands he placed on the d-line certainly did not bear this remark out.

[darrelgreenie]

Very nice thread Pounds!

1st of all i agree with your assessment of d-line scheme. But, i would attribute the 'stopping the run at all cost' scheme more to Palermo running out where Blache began. Blache both here and in Chicage has prefered bigger LDE to help stop the run (Phillip Daniels). I think Palermo became so focused schematically on stopping the run that the pass rush suffered as a result. If you consider that under Blache with less pass rushing talent at DE then we had this year we got more sacks. It seemed to me that Palermo had the DE's playing nearly head up on the OT/TE across from them and he rarely allowed them to pin there ears back from a traditional wide angle pass rushing stance. But, from what i heard on Redskins nation signs point to a scheme change next year. (http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?p=6106937#post6106937)

IMO when you sell out to stop the run at the expense of pass rush we need to finish better then 8th against the run for the scheme to be a success.

I hate relying on raw stats because there are so many factors at play, for example we during we played some teams that didn't really try to run the ball against us so this imo skews our run defense stats.

Also, the few times when we really needed and wanted to stop the run we couldn't like the second Cowboys game.

Some of the other top run defenses are also the top sack defenses.

And this is where the scheme was flawed Blache/Palermo need to create a defense where stopping the run and getting sacks aren't mutually exclusive.

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 think you are dead on about Monty though, double GG knew how to get him to produce and it seemed that he started the training camp in Blache's dog house. I thought Monty was gonna have a breakout year.

The Trench

I kinda see your point, but the when people reference 'trench' on either side of the ball they mean from the line. All things being equal a good line makes the other components better more then the other components can make the lines better.

I've heard some people refer to the middle of the 'triangle' the DTs MLB and SS/FS as the heart of the defense.

The Conclusion

For this defense, as currently constructed, with Blache as DC to continue any kind of upward progress, the front office must address the LBing corp ASAP, and, if need be, completely at the expense of the defensive line; particularly on the strong and weak sides.

I agree with you about the need for at least a SAM backer especially since Blache often has them rushing the QB with their hand in the dirt. (And if they could becomethe heir apparent to Fletch that wouldn't hurt either)

[Pounds]

You're still not suggesting any improvements, Shilsu.

Do you notice that other premiere tackles in the league are frequently blowing things up in the backfield? Do you see any of our players as individuals or as a unit doing that on a consistent basis?

As one-technique tackles, I wouldn't expect Kedric or Anthony to be in the backfield "blowing things up." Their role, as is the role of any one-tech. is to anchor and eat the 'A' and 'B' gaps; this is why Blache, at times, askes of them a two gap read.

And, while Cornelius has slowed down, he is still one of the better run stopping DTs in the game. He is not asked to shot a particular gap. And, often in passing situations he is playing from the one-shade, where his responsibilities are as described above.

All of the above is what prompted me, in my OP, to state, "they [the defensive line, but for the sake of this discussion the DTs] perform this task [the occupation of blockers] very effectively, although at the expense of their individual statistics."

[Pounds]

Very nice thread Pounds!

Thank you, Sir.

If you consider that under Blache with less pass rushing talent at DE then we had this year we got more sacks. It seemed to me that Palermo had the DE's playing nearly head up on the OT/TE across from them and he rarely allowed them to pin there ears back from a traditional wide angle pass rushing stance.

This is a great point you make here. I'm sure Palermo had some influence as to the d-line scheme, and it may be that the coupling of two, seemingly, like-minded thinkers works to the detriment of the 'Skins.

[Shilsu]

You're still not suggesting any improvements, Shilsu.

As one-technique tackles, I wouldn't expect Kedric or Anthony to be in the backfield "blowing things up." Their role, as is the role of any one-tech. is to anchor and eat the 'A' and 'B' gaps; this is why Blache, at times, askes of them a two gap read.

And, while Cornelius has slowed down, he is still one of the better run stopping DTs in the game. He is not asked to shot a particular gap. And, often in passing situations he is playing from the one-shade, where his responsibilities are as described above.

All of the above is what prompted me, in my OP, to state, "they [the defensive line, but for the sake of this discussion the DTs] perform this task [the occupation of blockers] very effectively, although at the expense of their individual statistics."

So according to you there are no two-gap DT's that blow things up in the backfield. According to you, a DT should not be in the backfield if he is playing two gaps. Acccording to you, a DT playing two gaps is not allowed to advance past the line of scrimmage due to the rules of the scheme. No wonder you think our defensive line should be ignored and in direct contradiction to your previous posting history talking about acquiring BPA, you say we must get LB's at all costs because they are our biggest need.

Bravo.