Of Greg Blache, defensive linemen and linebackers...

[Pounds]

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.

I did. In the OP, I stated that they play from the five, but sometimes six-tech. Neither of which is a shade conducive for sacks, as they do not grant true pass rushing angles.

Also, as opposed to calling Jason Taylor "a truly useless player", I would say that he was a truly misused player.

Also' date=' Grif is constantly injured, might as well leave him out of this conversation.[/quote']

There is a reason I didn’t exclude him from my OP and that is because he is still a valued contributor to our defense and excels in what Blache values: stopping the run.

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.

I agree' date=' but I don’t take that as an indictment of the talent, as much as the way that talent was utilized.[/size']

Even Blache said' date=' "We couldn't sack a bag of groceries"[/quote']

My guess is that Blache fancies the fact that he’s quotable; it tickles him to provide the headline-friendly blurb.

Looking beneath the surface of a funny, yet grossly overly generalized comment, I find Blache’s most basic philosophy: why scheme when your players should beat the man across from him?

This all-too-elementary approach is to his defensive roster’s - as currently constructed - detriment.

In not every situation can every man win every match-up. Blache should recognize this and tailor a system to suit his player’s abilities.

[Pounds]

good post.. very well thought out and written.

Great post! I totally agree that our D-line is primly used to hold up blocks and we do need to add some quick lb's. But it may be time for Blache to change his ways cause they way teams are winning is by rushing the passer! ie: Steelers, Giants, Ravens!!!! I'd abs love for us to goto a 3-4 eventhough i know its not going to happen!!

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.

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

Thanks guys, I appreciate the comments and the discussion!

[KDawg]

First: I love well thought out posts and that's what you did here. Great job!

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?

See, I still strongly disagree that the DL is our strength. It's our strength in the run game, yes. In the pass game it's a horrible weakness. There is no scheme intended for a DL to occupy guards on a passing down, and that's what we do. All the time. Occupy the guards. That's phenominal vs. the run, and definitely gives the DL some respect...

But, our pass rush was non existant. In part due to a complete lack of penetration, in part in lack to a big body at DE forcing the pocket closed, and in part because our DEs like to loop around to the QB, Lawrence Taylor style, but then not get there and in part in poor play calling in passing situations.

A DL HAS to get off of a block against the pass. They make a read. If they read run, they maintain position on the line and anchor it down. If they read pass they NEED to get after the QB. Clogging running lanes vs. pass is useless the majority of the time unless you're playing a guy like Michael Vick.

The DL was below poor in that area and excellent versus the run. I don't think that qualifies it as a strength as a whole.

What I said, 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.

Yes. Versus the run. Versus the pass, it's absolutely not.

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

We didn't have a bad defense, we didn't get turnovers. We didn't get turnovers in a large part due to the fact that our DL can't pressure the QB. Pressure = Turnovers. If you can't pressure an NFL QB who has all day to throw, most of them will pick you apart. That's what happened, despite having a very good secondary.

Our DL was terrible in pass situations but very good against the run. I can't stress that enough.

[american soldier]

Your post was well thought out indeed. I must agree that this present defensive strategy was solid last year even without the sacks and turnovers. Teams simply did not score a lot of points on the skins defense, which is ultimately what you want. However, on more than one post, I've been lobbying for the Skins to switch to the 3-4 and to become more aggressive with the pass rush via blitzing. This, in order to take advantage of this pass oriented league.

A defense that can itself score points is a luxury. The Steelers and the Ravens have enjoyed this luxury for a few years. Defense wins Super Bowls!

Greg Williams and now Greg Blach both believe that their defense can play a lot more aggressive thus creating those big plays on defense if the offense was potent enough to score. In other words, the defensive strategy depended on their offense. Our offensive success depended on the play calling. The play calling depended on the package. And the package depended on the opposing defense. Geesh!!!! We’d lose the game before we stepped on the field because the opposition dictates what we do. So what gives? We all know again that defense wins championships. I'd concentrate on getting playmakers in the trenches; playmaking OLBs and a lineman that can create a push up the middle on the pass. I would start putting the game in the hands of the defense from start to finish. Hell if you’re not going to score, what’s the difference in losing 14-3 or 34-3? A loss is a loss.

Look, we all know that the most important position on offense is the QB. Less the Skins get pressure on the QB, teams don't have to worry about being one dimensional. They simply can resort to the dink and dunk pass to supplement the running game. They'll go deep when the opportunity presents itself; waiting for a coverage breakdown or a mental error to make the play they need. Right now, our offense has shown not equipped (mentally, physically, you fill in the blank) of scoring a lot of points. So the way to beat the Skins is to play the game close, take what this Skins defense gives you and make one or two plays on offense. The current Skins defensive strategy is perfect for that game plan. You don't have to worry about your QB being under pressure the entire game. If he throws an interception, the Skins offense may score but the risk is manageable.

The opponent’s strategy changes drastically if our defense is able to pressure the QB.

It shortens the field for our offense (the fewer the plays the better) which lessens mental errors.

To your point.....I understand your analysis. I just think we have a better chance of winning more game if our defense made more plays.

[KDawg]

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.

So explain to me then, why Andre Carter had ten sacks last year, in the same scheme, and four this year if it doesn't matter who our personnel is?

It's very effective in one facet of the game and useless in the other.

That's not a good scheme. Problem is, I don't think that's our scheme. I doubt Blache is telling the DL to maintain ground versus pass. We just can't get there.

[SWFLSkins]

But, our pass rush was non existant. In part due to a complete lack of penetration, in part in lack to a big body at DE forcing the pocket closed, and in part because our DEs like to loop around to the QB, Lawrence Taylor style, but then not get there and in part in poor play calling in passing situations.

KDawg, did'nt Williams employ the same technique in passing downs, but would send a corner, a safety or a LBer on an inside or an outside blitz. It seems to me that is where Washington was excelling as a LBer. I just don't recall Blanche doing that much last year. I do agree that our two DE's are too alike, and one big body would help. Also there is much mention here that our two younger tackles fail to collaspe the pocket enough. It is one thing to occupy your guy, but once in awhile, especially on critical downs it is required for them to beat thier guy. This seems to be what Pitts has done. I also noticed last year a fall off on stunts and moving guys around on the line.

I think we all agree Griff was missed, and an upgrade at DT and LBer is needed to get the pressure needed to get turnovers and take the heat off the backfield.

[Shilsu]

I never attempted to equate the two.

Here's your post:

My answer:

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.

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

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.

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

Not surprisingly, you completely miss the point.

It doesn't matter what technique or gap a defensive lineman is playing. The premiere defensive tackles (and ends) are able to disrupt things in the backfield, whether they themselves are pursuing the ball carrier (runningback or quarterback) or are just pushing linemen backwards destroying running lanes or the pocket.

Our defensive line has demonstrated that it is generally incapable of wreaking much havoc. Your claim that there isn't room for much improvement on our defensive line is pretty much based on ignorance. This thread is almost as bad as the ones a couple years ago about how a defense is built from the secondary in. Not quite as bad, but it's close.

[Oldfan]

So explain to me then, why Andre Carter had ten sacks last year, in the same scheme, and four this year if it doesn't matter who our personnel is?

I'm curious about your point, Dawg. What personnel changes do you see as accounting for Carter's dropoff in sacks?

[flexxskins]

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.

Well said.:applause:

[DieselPwr44]

The second premise is that drafting for need

When it comes to the defensive line, can you name the last time we drafted for need there??

When you go over a decade without ever spending a pick in the first three rounds on a DT or DE,please explain to the whole fanbase just when you do pick one?

Every 15 years? 20?

[Going Commando]

The most glaring weakness of the defense this season was its inability to get off of the field in the fourth quarters of close games. being able to get more pressure on a quarterback running a hurry up offense from our defensive front would probably help fix this.

[Wyvern]

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.

....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.

First of all, thank you for this your contributions to such thought-provoking thread. This has been a good discussion to follow.

I had already identified the outside linebacking corps as a need, alongside the team's needs at LDE, RT, C, and DT. However, prioritizing how the Skins address those needs will be the tricky part. From the draft the Skins might need to look at the offensive linemen first --mainly due to the depth of the 2009 talent pool, and also the fact this would help the Skins FO to effectively evaluate their QB..

I digressed a bit, but what I wanted to add was the following: while the Skins must be ever mindful of BPA, they should first seek a LDE who could better fit what Blache expects from that position, before trying to upgrade the linebacker behind him. Both positions are definitely needs -- but a large (270-285 lb.), quick LDE could have a greater impact in disrupting the run at the outset. It will also prevent the running back from turning upfield so quickly -- and force the RB to keep going east-west.

I'm not necessarily talking about wanting a DE for a dominating pass rush (it would be nice though) -- rather this is more about not wanting a 2009 repeat performance of our smallish LDE losing ground at his vital defensive point --the outside, frontline defense. With power running games, and blocking TEs aimed at his side, the DE needs to be able to hold up at this point of attack. My sense was that Jason Taylor wasn't able to hold up very well, and those behind him suffered for that.

Now a good LB would provide advantages too, and should a better-talented LB fall to when the Skins decide between LDE and LB -- I wouldn't be upset if they picked the LB. However, a bigger, stronger DE in front of that LB would allow the LB to better hone his technique for the NFL game, and also to better showcase his innate talents.

Thanks again for the great post.

[Oldfan]

When you go over a decade without ever spending a pick in the first three rounds on a DT or DE,please explain to the whole fanbase just when you do pick one?

I don't need to explain anything to "the whole fan base" since a large portion of the fanbase is bright enough to understand the sense in what I wrote without further explanation:

The second [false] 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.

[KDawg]

I'm curious about your point, Dawg. What personnel changes do you see as accounting for Carter's dropoff in sacks?

Addition: Jason Taylor

Subtraction (Due to Injury): Phillip Daniels.

I think I've been the only proponent of Daniels impact on our team for awhile now here

(Not literal, but I seem to be the only outspoken one about it)

He definitely improved our DL play... No matter how you slice it.

[DieselPwr44]

I don't need to explain anything to "the whole fan base" since a large portion of the fanbase is bright enough to understand the sense in what I wrote without further explanation:

The second [false] 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.

Under the whole BPA that Vinny and you espouse, there has NEVER been a Dlineman worth taking where the team picks.

So, do we keep stocking the line with once great pass rushers that are in the twilight of their career(Bruce Smith,Jason Taylor) or do you suggest some other method?

Oh, that's right!!! We can plug anyone in there as long as we have the proper scheme!!

How silly of me.......

[Oldfan]

Under the whole BPA that Vinny and you espouse, there has NEVER been a Dlineman worth taking where the team picks.

In the 2008 draft (the only one Vinny should take responsibility for), apparently not.

So, do we keep stocking the line with once great pass rushers that are in the twilight of their career(Bruce Smith,Jason Taylor) or do you suggest some other method?

Oh, that's right!!! We can plug anyone in there as long as we have the proper scheme!!

How silly of me.......

I guess if it weren't for your tiresome strawman arguments and sarcasm, you wouldn't have much to post.

[SWFLSkins]

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.

Sorry you took that way, it was a backhanded compliment. It was that good.

[Oldfan]

Addition: Jason Taylor

Subtraction (Due to Injury): Phillip Daniels.

I think I've been the only proponent of Daniels impact on our team for awhile now here

(Not literal, but I seem to be the only outspoken one about it)

He definitely improved our DL play... No matter how you slice it.

I can understand how the switch from Daniels to Taylor would reduce Carter's tackles (which were also down) since teams would run more to Taylor's side; but I don't understand how Taylor's presence would reduce his sacks total.

[SWFLSkins]

Yeah. It's my testimony to an over-abundance of free time.

When I write something like this I like to clearly state my thesis, offer counter claims and rebuke them as best I can.

I am sorry that I questioned you about the authenticity, it was meant as a compliment. It has been along time since a dialogue with this level of quality has been posted here. It is interesting to follow the discussion and many opinions here have excellent merit. Is it scheme or personnel or a a combination of the two?

I tend to think it is a combination. I would like to see the Blanche scheme advance this next season. And hopefully it will. The D must become more diverse and un-predictable. He seems to be playing it close to the vest and not gambling or mixing it up. This seems to be a holdover philosphy from Gibbs. Play not to lose and not to win. Don't give up the run whatever you do. It would be truly fascinating to hear Blanches thoughts on this thread.

An upgrade at tackle and possibly end is needed. I would tend to think that keeping Rogers and pairing him with Hall would be great for the longterm outlook in the secondary. If Springs needs to depart to have this occur so be it. This alone may signal much in regard to where Blanche stands in terms of being to loyal to his players. Carter? Washington? Springs? All must be looked at as possible players/positions to upgrade.

[KDawg]

I can understand how the switch from Daniels to Taylor would reduce Carter's tackles (which were also down) since teams would run more to Taylor's side; but I don't understand how Taylor's presence would reduce his sacks total.

Daniels collapsed the pocket, which forces the QB into Andre Carter.

Daniels got his hands up and had long arms, which caused the QB to hesitate on throws and Carter got him from behind.

[Oldfan]

Daniels collapsed the pocket, which forces the QB into Andre Carter.

Daniels got his hands up and had long arms, which caused the QB to hesitate on throws and Carter got him from behind.

Ah! Okay, that makes sense. Taylor couldn't collapse the pocket, but he did get his hands up. He knocked down several passes.

[KDawg]

Ah! Okay, that makes sense. Taylor couldn't collapse the pocket, but he did get his hands up. He knocked down several passes.

Because he's athletic he can jump and make the play. When you see a guy the size of Daniels with his hands up the QB has the (as we call it in coaching) "Oh ****" factor. Daniels still managed to knock down alot of passes as well.

Taylor, on the other hand, isn't going to be giving QBs the "Oh ****" factor, but he is athletic enough to jump up and knock the ball out of the air.

[Pounds]

First: I love well thought out posts and that's what you did here. Great job!

Thank you and coming from someone as knowledgeable as yourself, I read that as a compliment.

It was our discussion in the Channing Crowder thread that prompted me to start this thread; your insights are more than valued.

See' date=' I still strongly disagree that the DL is our strength. It's our strength in the run game, yes. In the pass game it's a horrible weakness. There is no scheme intended for a DL to occupy guards on a passing down, and that's what we do. All the time. Occupy the guards. That's phenominal vs. the run, and definitely gives the DL some respect...[/quote']

In saying that our d-line is a strength, I weighed both their play in the running and passing games; we agree in our respective assessments of their impact on the run.

Here’s my logic behind their role in the passing game: we have the personnel to get after the QB; the scheme as it relates to the way Greg Blache’s uses his players, however, seems to work to their detriment.

If I’m Greg Blache why not, in passing situations, line up Jason Taylor and Andre Carter in anything from a six to a seven to a nine-technique? Why not have Anthony Montgomery playing ahead of Kedric Golston in all situations? Why send ill-conceived blitzes and predictably dog LBs instead of trying any of the aforementioned?

But' date=' our pass rush was non existant. In part due to a complete lack of penetration, in part in lack to a big body at DE forcing the pocket closed, and in part because our DEs like to loop around to the QB, Lawrence Taylor style, but then not get there and in part in poor play calling in passing situations.[/quote']

You’ve before mentioned Philip Daniels’ bearing on the linemen around him; something I agree wholeheartedly with. We certainly missed him and his abilities as our LDE to his abilities to play from the interior line on passing downs.

I maintain the stance that Anthony Montgomery is our best DT and, quite possibly, our best d-lineman. But, for the most part, he plays behind Golston, who is not as effective. Monty won’t be able to collapse anything from the bench; a notion Blache should heed. Cornelius, arguably our second best lineman, plays best when paired with Monty.

A DL HAS to get off of a block against the pass. They make a read. If they read run' date=' they maintain position on the line and anchor it down. If they read pass they NEED to get after the QB. Clogging running lanes vs. pass is useless the majority of the time unless you're playing a guy like Michael Vick.[/quote']

This part I understand, but why not make their job easier in passing situations?

I don’t expect, and I’m sure you don’t either, Jason or Andre to win an individual battle with o-linemen that have sometimes 100 pounds on them playing from, say, a five-shade.

This is a major flaw in Greg’s philosophy; too much of his scheme is predicated on his guys beating the guys across from them. His approach is archaic and too simplistic. Not every guy is going to win every match-up in every situation. Greg needs to help them through his schemes. Yet, he doesn’t. The entire onus is on them and in a predictable scheme, of course, they are going to look bad.

The DL was below poor in that area and excellent versus the run. I don't think that qualifies it as a strength as a whole.

On balance' date=' I view their role in the defense, whether versus the run or pass, as enabling the backers behind them to make plays. They do this.[/size']

The backers behind them, though, aren’t always fulfilling their end of the bargain, leaving the front four to be viewed as ineffective.

With Greg’s blitz happy tendencies, dogging LBs have to hit home. Rocky, H.B. and an injured Marcus weren’t able to, exposing the back end and

making the front four appear flat-footed.

Yes. Versus the run. Versus the pass' date=' it's absolutely not.[/quote']

This is how things appear in application with Blache’s scheme put to practice.

I venture to say that if he tailored his system to his players the results would be different.

We didn't have a bad defense' date=' we didn't get turnovers. We didn't get turnovers in a large part due to the fact that our DL can't pressure the QB. Pressure = Turnovers. If you can't pressure an NFL QB who has all day to throw, most of them will pick you apart. That's what happened, despite having a very good secondary.[/quote']

You make perfect sense here, but I’ll take your premise one step further: Coaching/scheme = turnovers.

You want more sacks? Lessen the burdensome reads of the d-linemen by putting them in a position to capitalize on their God-given abilities. Don’t penalize them for malconforming abilities in a rigid and inflexible system.

*As an aside, I’m sure I’ll get taken to task for saying this, but I think d-line play in regards to the pass is an overstated thing at the NFL level. A thin line demarcates the average and sublime and I think scheme is that very difference.

I wouldn’t suppose, against the greatest QBs, that a great d-line will do anything other an drive home a very violent point.

In an NFL of three and five step drops, well-versed and fluent QBs, and schematic geniuses, any d-line, even the greatest, can be muted.

[SWFLSkins]

Because he's athletic he can jump and make the play. When you see a guy the size of Daniels with his hands up the QB has the (as we call it in coaching) "Oh ****" factor. Daniels still managed to knock down alot of passes as well.

Taylor, on the other hand, isn't going to be giving QBs the "Oh ****" factor, but he is athletic enough to jump up and knock the ball out of the air.

This addresses or raises the question I asked earlier on this subject, I seemed to notice that rotating players(missing last year)was also affected by injuries and or scheme last year. I would have been awesome to see four DE's in on third and long, well at least three.

[Oldfan]

Pounds to KDawg: You make perfect sense here, but I’ll take your premise one step further: Coaching/scheme = turnovers.

Agreed. During the stretch run of 2005, needing to win out to make the playoffs, Gregg Williams coached his defense to get more sacks and takeaways and he got them.

We really can't judge the ability of a D line to pressure a QB until their assignments make it as easy as possible for them to do so. When the DC is playing bend-but-dont-break and stop the run first, his defense isn't going to pressure the QB and help the offense with short-field advantages by producing takeaways.