Of Greg Blache, defensive linemen and linebackers...

[DieselPwr44]

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.

We should be used to it by now.

Opening Day in September for the last decade,about mid third quarter,everyone starts asking "Where's the pass rush at??"

Then in late December and early January,you see fans on ES with early draft talk like "We have to address the defensive line in the draft".

Now that its February,those same fans turn their attention to some hot prospect at LB or safety and try yet again to come up with another rationalization (BPA,scheme,we can put it off another year) as to why it's perfectly acceptable to ignore Dline again.

Wash rinse repeat

[Pounds]

So according to you there are no two-gap DT's that blow things up in the backfield.

For the most part that is not their primary responsibility of the position they play.

The success of their job is measured by how effectively they both command and handle double teams. This is how the three-technique is then enable to play his role.

But be mindful that Kedric and Anthony were not always asked to play two gaps and not always at the same time, either.

According to you, a DT should not be in the backfield if he is playing two gaps.

If he is, there was a breakdown in the offense's protection scheme.

Acccording to you' date=' a DT playing two gaps is not allowed to advance past the line of scrimmage due to the rules of the scheme.[/quote']

It's not that the DT is "not allowed", it's by the nature of his responsibility that very seldom will it happen.

For example, when Monty is playing the center's outside shoulder with a two gap read, he's playing both the 'A' and 'B' gaps. In his position he has to make a disciplined read of the play as the centerpiece of the d-line's alignment.

In a broader sense, think of what Casey Hampton is asked to do in Pittsburgh’s scheme.

No wonder you think our defensive line should be ignored and in direct contradiction to your previous posting history talking about acquiring BPA' date=' you say we must get LB's at all costs because they are our biggest need.[/quote']

One thing has nothing to do with the other; this is a post made independently of how I think we should approach the draft.

I never explained how we should acquire LBs, just that we should.

[Shilsu]

For the most part that is not their primary responsibility of the position they play.

The success of their job is measured by how effectively they both command and handle double teams. This is how the three-technique is then enable to play his role.

But be mindful that Kedric and Anthony were not always asked to play two gaps and not always at the same time, either.

If he is, there was a breakdown in the offense's protection scheme.

It's not that the DT is "not allowed", it's by the nature of his responsibility that very seldom will it happen.

For example, when Monty is playing the center's outside shoulder with a two gap read, he's playing both the 'A' and 'B' gaps. In his position he has to make a disciplined read of the play as the centerpiece of the d-line's alignment.

In a broader sense, think of what Casey Hampton is asked to do in Pittsburgh’s scheme.

Sorry, but I don't think you understand how it works and are just confusing yourself with terminology.

First of all, double team does not equal two gaps. I don't know if that's what you're trying to say because your entire post makes no sense. I'm just saying that to clarify for you. The Vikings have one of the top defensive lines in the league, and particularly have one of the best DT tandems. They run a primarily one-gap scheme but Pat Williams commands double teams because he is a threat, not because he is playing two gaps.

Second, DT's wouldn't even be blocked on pass plays if they weren't allowed to go past the line of scrimmage. The linemen would just have a staredown while the quarterback takes his time waiting for someone to get open. Well, that does sort of sound like the Redskins.

Third, plenty of two-gap DT's get into the backfield by manhandling their blocker(s). Not because of a breakdown in a protection scheme. In fact that's the whole damn point of a two-gap DT, which is to close the gap.

Lastly, if you don't think that in any scheme a DT that can consistently get into the backfield is an improvement over a DT that can't, or that a young productive DE is an improvement over an older DE with limited production, then you need to sit down and watch some games.

[Dracula]

This happens every year, someone always tries to defend the d-line too much.

Pounds, you didn't even talk about J. Taylor or Carter. Taylor was blown up on just about every running play and was a non factor in the pass rush...a truly useless player on the d line last year. Also, Grif is constantly injured, might as well leave him out of this conversation.

Occupying blockers and controlling gaps is good and all but when its 3rd and long...that crap doesn't matter...no one's running the football. They need to get to the quarterback more on obvious passing downs and they didn't. Plain and Simple.

Even Blache said, "We couldn't sack a bag of groceries"

[Skinsinparadise]

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

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.

Listerning to the rhetoric on pass rush, as far as I noticed Zorn was the LAST of the trifecta talking about improving it. First at it was Blache himself towards the end of the season, I recall even using the line that his defensive players couldn't "sack a bag of groceries" Then it was Vinny in his post season conference when asked about improving the team, he talked about 2 things: improved pass rush and protecting the passer.

Some time after that I recall Zorn said something about wanting a better pass rush. I don't recall Zorn articulating it much more than that or on a deep level. Oldfan knows am not a big Zorn guy, I don't care for his offensive play calling. Having said all that I acknowledge, he clearly knows a thing or two about offenses, QB play, etc.

When it comes to defense I haven't really noticed a peep out of Zorn in terms of explaining strategy so am gathering its not his drill. It would be hard for me to picture Zorn instructing Blache about defense or even for the matter defensive philosophy. And following the train of rhetoric, Zorn seems to be on the caboose, not the first car.

So to me its just as likely that Zorn is echoing what he was told the defense will try to do next season as opposed to the instruction coming from Zorn. Blache got defensive if I recall before the 2nd Eagles game when JLC drilled him on the team's lack of pass rush.

But other than that, Blache I do recall pointing to it as a problem including absolving Rogers for getting burned a couple of times on big plays, saying it was the fault of the lack of pass rush.

Now his scheme, I agree is a factor in the lack of pass rush, but I do find it curious that Blache himself called out his defense specifically on this issue. For my taste, Blache can articulate his side of the ball better than Zorn can articulate his offensive scheme, and clearly Blache's side of the ball was more successful this year, though granted could be better.

Given all of that, for a veteran coach like Blache to be given instruction from rookie coach Zorn as to how to run his defense, maybe, but my gut thinks its not going down that way.

[Oldfan]

We should be used to it by now.

Opening Day in September for the last decade,about mid third quarter,everyone starts asking "Where's the pass rush at??"

Then in late December and early January,you see fans on ES with early draft talk like "We have to address the defensive line in the draft".

Now that its February,those same fans turn their attention to some hot prospect at LB or safety and try yet again to come up with another rationalization (BPA,scheme,we can put it off another year) as to why it's perfectly acceptable to ignore Dline again.

Wash rinse repeat

There are two premises in your post that are very likely to be false.

The first is that the lack of pass rush is due to the lack of talent on the D line when it's quite possible that the cause is due to the defensive scheme; and even more likely that it's due to both a lack of talent and a passive defense.

The second premise is that drafting for need, which is a win-now approach, is the right way to correct a problem caused by a win-now approach of the past -- trading away draft picks and depending on free agency to build the lines.

[Oldfan]

Skinsinparadise: Listerning to the rhetoric on pass rush, as far as I noticed Zorn was the LAST of the trifecta talking about improving it.

Zorn was the only one of the three saying that he wanted a more aggressive defense. The remarks of Vinny and Greg were not specific on that point. Greg's seemed to be laying the blame on the lack of talent and Vinny's remarks didn't pinpoint cause.

Some weeks ago, I pointed out that Zorn's offense was trying to move the chains, avoid turnovers, control the football, play the field position game and help the defense hold the opponent's score down. I pointed out that our passive, bend-but-dont break defense was allowing opponents to move the chains, not playing the field position game well, and not creating takeaways to help the offense score more points. I said that the offensive and defensive approaches didn't compliment each other.

I predicted at the time that Zorn would ask Blache for a more aggressive defense and one poster replied just as you did here:

Given all of that, for or a veteran coach like Blache to be given instruction from rookie coach Zorn as to how to run his defense, maybe, but my gut thinks its not going down that way.

Jim Zorn is the head coach. His reponsibility covers offense, defense and special teams. If he wants his defense to attack, to put more pressure on the QB and create more takeaways. He has only to order it. He shouldn't have to tell Greg Blache how to accomplish the task.

[Pounds]

First of all, double team does not equal two gaps.

I never attempted to equate the two.

Here's your post:

Acccording to you' date=' a DT playing two gaps is not allowed to advance past the line of scrimmage due to the rules of the scheme. [/quote']

My answer:

It's not that the DT is "not allowed"' date=' it's by the nature of his responsibility that very seldom will it happen.

[b']For example[/b], when Monty is playing the center's outside shoulder with a two gap read, he's playing both the 'A' and 'B' gaps. In his position he has to make a disciplined read of the play as the centerpiece of the d-line's alignment.

In a broader sense, think of what Casey Hampton is asked to do in Pittsburgh’s scheme.

The bolded portion is one you missed in your hasty attempt to present a fallacious argument.

I never once said that Anthony plays with a one or two gap read exclusively, or that to get doubled one has to be playing two gaps.

Second' date=' DT's wouldn't even be blocked on pass plays if they weren't allowed to go past the line of scrimmage.[/quote']

Yes, but, to be fair, I never said this.

Third' date=' plenty of two-gap DT's get into the backfield by manhandling their blocker(s). Not because of a breakdown in a protection scheme. In fact that's the whole damn point of a two-gap DT, which is to close the gap.[/quote']

Closing the gap is a very different action than shooting it.

The primary responsibility in a two gap read is the eat the 'A' and 'B' gaps, read the play and occupy blocks.

Lastly' date=' if you don't think that in any scheme a DT that can consistently get into the backfield is an improvement over a DT that can't, or that a young productive DE is an improvement over an older DE with limited production, then you need to sit down and watch some games.[/quote']

Well, all of this is relative to the DT's or DE's responsibility and what you define as "production."

[Skinsinparadise]

Zorn was the only one of the three saying that he wanted a more aggressive defense. The remarks of Vinny and Greg were not specific on that point. Greg's seemed to be laying the blame on the lack of talent and Vinny's remarks didn't pinpoint cause.

I have been listening to all three all season whether its Redskins.com, reading the Post, listening to Vinny's radio show, etc. I heard Blache talked about it, not Zorn over the course of the season. Your point is that saying he wants a more aggressive defense is a different drill than saying pass rush?

I just googled Zorn and am trying to find his quote, the one I found said he asked for a better pass rush, but I didn't see that in quotations so i'll look to make sure that it was a direct quote because I remember Zorn sounding pretty much identical to Cerrato's line and recall it being said AFTER Cerrato.

Jim Zorn is the head coach. His reponsibility covers offense, defense and special teams. If he wants his defense to attack, to put more pressure on the QB and create more takeaways. He has only to order it. He shouldn't have to tell Greg Blache how to accomplish the task.

Agree, though his critics like to say he's stretched too thin to begin with, being the QB coach, OC, and head coach. Now he's thinking about the defense, too? Maybe. And it wouldn't shock me if Blache had more clout with the FO than Zorn.

But why do you think Blache is talking about improving the pass rush? I don't find him critiquing his talent so much, though he does once in a blue moon, but still not in the Zorn way -- I don't recall Blache pull a Zorn where after a game it was sound scheme, poor execution, with the exception of him picking on some plays but then in the same breath he will often criticize himself for blowing some calls.

I don't recall a Blache interview where I was left with the impression that he has a big ego or implied that if he only had the players...I recall Blache even praise Taylor for example late in the season and say that he wants him back.

Thinking about it Blache bucks up his players at least publicly much more so than Zorn. He has said he has a great group of guys, etc and even said he's coming back because of it and is blessed to be coaching these players.

[Oldfan]

I don't find him critiquing his talent so much, though he does once in a blue moon, but still not in the Zorn way --

I don't have a problem with the way either one of them handled their interviews. I never had the impression that either man was ego-bound. Zorn can be faulted for being too truthful in meeting the press.

The problems with the passing game were mostly problems with executing a new offense. Zorn is being criticized for stating what should have been obvious to anyone who thought about it for more than 30 seconds.

[IWANTOBEGM]

Defense was not the issue this year, the scheme and players worked, the problem is when an offense has trouble moving the ball, which the Skins had plenty of against top defenses, there needs to be some assitance from the defense in creating energy through turnovers and sacks (3 and outs just aren't sexy), we did not have a DTD this year...not one, which puts us close to the bottom in this category. Having said that when we played the Steelers 3 of the 6 were thanks to the D, the same goes for the Ravens game and the 10 points scored thanks to the D.

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't have a problem with the way either one of them handled their interviews. I never had the impression that either man was ego-bound. Zorn can be faulted for being too truthful in meeting the press.

The problems with the passing game were mostly problems with executing a new offense. Zorn is being criticized for stating what should have been obvious to anyone who thought about it for more than 30 seconds.

As for Zorn I agree they need to beef up the talent. I don't per se think that the scheme is so obviously good that Zorn has to be absolved. I don't think every guy who implements the West Coast is bound to succeed, so its all about the players. But we argued that in other posts so I won't go there here.

Really my point relating to Blache is watching how all of this unfolded, it doesn't strike me that after the season Zorn approached him and said look be more aggressive, and Blache said really Jim, I am not sure that's what I have mind next season but I'll suck it up and do it for you.

While I question Zorn's ability as a communicator based on when I hear him speak, Blache on the other hand strikes me a superb communicator and a good motivator. Great one liners, he seems to have a lot of personality to him, he has a clear and blunt manner of speaking, and many his players said that they love playing for him. He grabs my attention at least when I listen to him in a way that IMO Zorn doesn't even remotely approach.

While this is a bit of tangent, my point is that from my observation Blache has pointed out his defense's shortcomings in a more articulate and interesting way than Zorn -- and for that matter before we even heard the one setence from Zorn about it, which I don't recall was anything profound.

So based on that, my guess and it just is a guess that Blache DOES want a better pass rush next season, he's hinted that he did during the season so why not next season? And am guessing it wasn't Zorn that gave him that notion. And that's based on just listening to both coaches throught out the season. I could be wrong.

I do think the defense does need to upgrade their talent though. If you recall in terms of momentum changing plays like turnovers for example -- Sean Taylor when moved to free safety was an INT machine. Landry is a hitter but not an INT guy. You saw when Hall came as a CB he quickly become the top INT guy.

When Marcus Washington was at his prime, this defense was arguably better and he was a key cog to it. Who are the wrecking ball players on this D besides Fletcher and Landry? Is scheme really the problem? I doesn't strike me that the big run years ago of turnovers, didn't just happen because Gibbs told Williams be more aggressive and it just all came together just like that.

Back then Griffin, Marcus, Springs, Daniels were at their prime. Sean Taylor was in the backfield.

I agree with the main point of the thread, the onus is on the LB's in this defense. So we have HB Blades playing strong LB for a chunk of the season, Marcus played hurt, then we got a hurt Rocky and Finch playing weak side linebacker at the end. Not one dominant player on the D line, zero pro bowlers and they still finished 4th in the league on defense?

While you got plenty of critics of Jim Zorn, don't recall one critic of Blache on the subject of is this guy a competent D coordinator. Yes, he can be more aggressive but i don't think I've read anywhere about this defense from a talent level underachieving.

Listening to the D players, seems like plenty of them would run through a wall for Blache. Don't get that same vibe about Zorn.

[chipwhich]

Our defensive line folded like an accordian in the fourth quarter as teams ran it down our throat.

Our defensive line is not as strong as you suggest.

Our defensive ranking was a mirage.

Simply look at teams like the Steelers, Ravens and what real defensive lines can do for your defense. Although our overall rankings weren't much off from those two teams, the truth is they were superior by far.

To suggest that because of a scheme, we don't need pressure from our defensive line is absolutely ludicrous. Our defense played well despite our lack of pass rush. Had our line performed better, we wouldn't have collapsed when it mattered.

We need to bolster our defensive lines, AND our linebacker squad, and quite possibly our corners.

Griffin is quite possibly done because of age and injuries, our young d tackles were average, and our d ends were below average.

If we continue to ignore the trenches we will continue to have the same discussions year after year on ES.

[DieselPwr44]

The first is that the lack of pass rush is due to the lack of talent on the D line when it's quite possible that the cause is due to the defensive scheme

This is where,IMO, you are dead wrong.

Great defenses always have that pass rusher that all offensive coordinators must account for.

Name that guy on the current squad.

[Pounds]

Our defensive line folded like an accordian in the fourth quarter as teams ran it down our throat.

This was more a function of the style of defense we employ.

When you force an opposing offense to dink-and-dunk their way down the field it's no stretch of the imagination to assume that your defense will tire in the process.

Our defensive line is not as strong as you suggest.

Considering the scheme and what was asked of them therein' date=' the d-line is every bit the strength that I assert it to be.

Our defensive ranking was a mirage.

Yes, it was, but how does this statement relate to anything that was mentioned in the OP?

To suggest that because of a scheme' date=' we don't need pressure from our defensive line is absolutely ludicrous.[/quote']

Judging by this quote, I'm not sure you fully read the OP.

[Oldfan]

This is where,IMO, you are dead wrong.

Great defenses always have that pass rusher that all offensive coordinators must account for.

Name that guy on the current squad.

Jason Taylor explained that some (not all) of his lack of production had to do with the way he was being used.

All players are "scheme players." That great pass rusher you refer to is not an exception.

[SkinsFTW]

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.

Was thinking the same thing. Not sure why nobody replied to what you said but maybe the Redskins just have a thing for the square peg, round hole idea.

I mean, Rogers would be a great corner on a defense that didn't rely on the DB's for almost all of the turnovers, right? He's probably one of the best 5 cover guys but ask him to catch? Oops, sorry.

Then factor in the weakness at LB besides Fletcher and it makes you wonder. We have 2 speed ends, a couple smaller DT's or ends that can play DT, a couple great cover corners, why not rush the passer? Why is this not possible?

[Oldfan]

Skinsinparadise: While you got plenty of critics of Jim Zorn, don't recall one critic of Blache on the subject of is this guy a competent D coordinator. Yes, he can be more aggressive but i don't think I've read anywhere about this defense from a talent level underachieving.

Zorn has more critics than Blache because the defense was overrated and the offense underrated (maybe you saw my thread on the topic).

Most fans and media look at two stats; the NFL yardage rankings and the points. Both are deceptive because we had an offense that was helping the defense hold the opponent's score down and a defense that wasn't reciprocating by helping the offense score.

The most obvious stats to prove that are turnovers. The average turnover results in about four points. That means that the Dolphins (+17) scored about 68 points more than the Redskins (zero) as a result of the TO differential during the regular season. That's 4.25 points per game. Do you think we might have won a few more games with a +17 ratio?

Of the eight NFL offensive teams allowing the fewest turnovers, seven made the playoffs. The one exception was the Washington Redskins at #5 (18 turnovers). The Redskins defense finished in a three-way tie for 28th in the league with 18 takeaways.

It wasn't hard to predict that JZ would be unhappy with his defense because the passive, bend-but-dont-break strategies make it easy for the opponent's offense to do what he was laboring to do on offense.

I seriously doubt that Blache would change his philosophy if not ordered to do so. If his beliefs were not in sync with those of Gregg Williams, we would have seen a more aggressive approach right from the start. Gregg's Jags defense in 2008 ranked #31 with 17 takeaways. That's down from 30 in pre-Gregg 2007.

The Ravens defense had 34 takeaways. The defenses of Blache and Williams combined had 35.

[SkinsFTW]

There have been plenty of people questioning Blache as DC before last season. Remember the threads about how in 5 years in Chicago he had a great defense 1 time, and a crap defense every other season?

He had the #1 defense for points in 2001, every other year he was 20, 20, 22, 25. If you remember that year that was the one year when Chicago dominated sportcenter several times with freak wins from turnovers late in games.

I'd say that the trend with Blache is the passive defense, not the year where things seemed to fall right week after week for the Bears to finish 13-3 considering they finished 5-11 and 4-12 the years before and after.

[chipwhich]

This was more a function of the style of defense we employ.

Yeah, it's called a poor defensive line.

What you are saying is we employ a defense that can't stop the run and it's all the linebackers fault. Gotcha.

[Pounds]

Jason Taylor explained that some (not all) of his lack of production had to do with the way he was being used.

This very quote is one that prompted me to explore the reasons as to why Jason would say such a thing.

All players are "scheme players." That great pass rusher you refer to is not an exception.

This is an idea that' date=' I think, showed through in the OP, but many failed to decipher.[/size']

The d-line is not an area of concern because, as a unit, they perform their responsibilities well in occupying blocks. For instance, London Fletcher’s productivity, even at this age, has not dwindled, in part, because the DTs playing in front of him enable him to perform his job, but at a high level.

If sacks is what we want, Blache must adjust his schemes.

Giving Andre Carter and Jason Taylor wider splits and allowing Anthony Montgomery to play more instinctively are jut two examples of things Blache can do to accomplish a more aggressive brand of play from his front four.

But, the idea that Jason Taylor, for example, is going to beat a RT playing from the five-technique on passing downs, or do anything but set an edge on running downs is, well, fallible.

[Pounds]

Yeah, it's called a poor defensive line.

Again, you fail to demonstrate any requisite knowledge in addressing the issue.

You, yourself, said that the defense’s ranking was a "mirage" (something I happen to agree with, BTW).

Based on your comment above, should I take this to mean your basic supposition that our defense is now comprised, solely, of only four down linemen?

The back-breaking, time-consuming drives you reference were a direct, but unintended, consequence of the way Greg Blache calls his defense.

What you are saying is we employ a defense that can't stop the run and it's all the linebackers fault. Gotcha.

No.

What I said' date=' in the OP, is the occupation of blocks, in this case, for the sake of this argument, specifically, is the d-line's most primary function. [/size']

Do you propose that we have a bad defense solely because of our d-line?

How do you find this comment any less sweeping than the one bolded above?

[chipwhich]

The back-breaking, time-consuming drives you reference were a direct, but unintended, consequence of the way Greg Blache calls his defense.

Were aren't that much in disagreement. This is how I would complete your sentence:

The back-breaking, time-consuming drives you reference were a direct, but unintended, consequence of the way Greg Blache calls his defense AND a lack of talent on the defensive line.

There now we agree.

Montgomery and Golston get far too much credit on this board.

I agree that some of J Taylors lack of sacks were due to the scheme. But I would say it had more to do with lack of talent on the line.

I agree wholeheartedly, we desperately need linebackers. But we need d-lineman more.

[Pounds]

Seems like extremely poor team planning to have two defensive ends whose average weight is 249 pounds.

To my eye, with the addition of Jason Taylor and the pressure that inserting him into the starting lineup entails, Blache went into an over-compensatory state with the direction of his scheme.

If Jason Taylor, from the LDE position, plays from seven, nine, or eight-technique, he will do so leaving the ‘C’ gap exposed, but he will also have a better pass-rushing angle. So there is a balance there that Blache, compounded by Taylor’s own injuries, struggled to strike.

He was asked to play from the five-tech., and at times, from the six-tech. at the total expense of his sack statistics. However, the problem therewith was the onus Blache places on victory in individual match-ups; his scheme is predicated on them.

Andre Carter, on the other hand, is not in as a run-intensive position; so, naturally, he will perform better by virtue of lesser responsibility.

That is not to say, though, that he was any kind of liability in this regard. In fact, he is one of the better run defending RDEs, but also fell victim to the same circumstances that plagued Jason Taylor, i.e., scheme, coaching, etc.

I wouldn't mind this theory of defense at all if our defensive ends were 270+ pounds.

We sorely missed Phillip Daniels. He had an above average ability in scraping down the line' date=' winning his battles and collapsing things on the edge.[/size']

Demetric was no viable replacement in this regard.

[Pounds]

I agree wholeheartedly, we desperately need linebackers. But we need d-lineman more.

Whew, that was easy; I’m glad we can share some common ground.

Also, in the OP, I said that this line does need a productive three-technique. Someone who Griffin can transition the reigns to, as he becomes more of a rotational guy.