Of Greg Blache, defensive linemen and linebackers...

[DieselPwr44]

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.

You are not going to sit there and say that on obvious passing downs,any respectable DC is going to tell his defensive unit not to get after the QB.

This team is talent deficient along the front four and has been for over a decade. Williams and Blache have been purposely hamstrung personnel wise by their front office because the defacto GM Vinny,doesn't believe in drafting Dline early.

Blache and Williams should've both got raises for making lemonade out of lemons.

[DieselPwr44]

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

If it weren't for your thickheadedness in believeing that scheme outweighs talent, what would you have to pontificate on?

[Pounds]

Not surprisingly, you completely miss the point.

Untrue, there is simply no reasonable response for your semantical and false analogistic arguments, that, so clearly, you, yourself, construct.

It doesn't matter what technique or gap a defensive lineman is playing.

It absolutely does; such was the premise of my initial argument.

Logically' date=' one should not expect Jason Taylor, as the strong-side end, to beat a RT, at a weight almost 100 pounds upwards of Taylor’s own, from the five-technique consistently and certainly to no end of a double-digit, give or take, sack season.[/size']

Playing Anthony Montgomery from a three-technique, as Blache, on occasion, so foolishly did, is to engender of him a wholly separate responsibility from one that would ensue from a one-technique.

The premiere defensive tackles (and ends) are able to disrupt things in the backfield' date=' whether they themselves are pursuing the ball carrier (runningback or quarterback) or are just pushing linemen backwards destroying running lanes or the pocket.[/quote']

I would argue that disruption at the point of attack is just as vital. The role of the one-technique, with a one or two gap read, is testimony of such a notion.

That is not to say, though, as you propose, that such a technique and subsequent responsibility would preclude such a player from wrecking backfield havoc, but I wouldn’t so misguided as to totally judge him by it.

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.

Such a claim would lead me to believe that you didn’t read' date=' fully, the OP.[/size']

Therein, I clearly stated this defense’s need for an addition of a three-technique.

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' date=' but it's close.[/quote']

This is an interesting notion you present and, one, which I will look at more closely.

I agree that, from a schematic vantage point, that defenses are built from the secondary inward.

[LoudMouth12thMan]

So, this is your long-winded, very articulate , way of saying we need to draft an OLB in the first round and acquire Albert Haynesworth through FA? Offensive line help in the draft would be nice too, at least for the future. The "future" may be this year, so there goes the young OLB that we need in the first round. Result=they draft an O linemen in the first or with their first pick. I'd be happy with either one being taken first even if they do find someone that will trade up to the 13th slot in order for us to get a second round pick.

[Pounds]

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

Well Sir, I appreciate the sentiment and the comment.

I fully understand that many or most people may not agree with me, but heck, it's the offseason; we might as well have something to talk about.

I digressed a bit' date=' 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.[/quote']

I agree here, and, if nothing else, Philip Daniels coming back next year should work to remedy some of the things you mention.

We suffered in his absence.

[Pounds]

So, this is your long-winded, very articulate , way of saying we need to draft an OLB in the first round and acquire Albert Haynesworth through FA?

I wouldn't go the Albert Haynesworth route. Not because he isn't a great player, but because I think, if given a legitimate shot, Anthony Montgomery's talents will suffice. Plus, he's more cost effective.

[Shilsu]

Untrue, there is simply no reasonable response for your semantical and false analogistic arguments, that, so clearly, you, yourself, construct.

It absolutely does; such was the premise of my initial argument.

Logically, one should not expect Jason Taylor, as the strong-side end, to beat a RT, at a weight almost 100 pounds upwards of Taylor’s own, from the five-technique consistently and certainly to no end of a double-digit, give or take, sack season.

Playing Anthony Montgomery from a three-technique, as Blache, on occasion, so foolishly did, is to engender of him a wholly separate responsibility from one that would ensue from a one-technique.

I would argue that disruption that the point of attack is just as vital. The role of the one-technique, with a one or two gap read, is testimony of such a notion.

That is not to say, though, as you propose, that such a technique and subsequent responsibility would preclude such a player from wrecking backfield havoc, but I wouldn’t so misguided as to totally judge him by it.

Such a claim would lead me to believe that you didn’t read, fully, the OP.

Therein, I clearly stated this defense’s need for an addition of a three-technique.

This is an interesting notion you present and, one, which I will look at more closely.

I agree that, from a schematic vantage point, that defenses are built from the secondary inward.

Thanks for continuing to contradict yourself. You tried to avoid that the defensive line could be much improved and now you state that Jason Taylor shouldn't be expected to do anything in this scheme but also that we need a three-technique DT.

There we go, half of the defensive line now needs to be upgraded under your own admission.

And please stop accusing other people of not reading your original post because you are unable to comprehend other people's points. Your entire argument around the defensive line not being a weakness is that the scheme doesn't allow them to do anything when in fact there are plenty of examples of teams where DT's and DE's with similar responsibilities are performing at a much higher level. In fact, the Washington Redskins defensive line in 2004 and 2005 had pretty much the exact same philosophy and performed much better than this group from EVERY single position.

Please expand your knowledge instead of making baseless conjectures and uneducated statements.

[Pounds]

If it weren't for your thickheadedness in believeing that scheme outweighs talent, what would you have to pontificate on?

As I said earlier in this thread, I would argue that, in this era of parity, scheme is what defines the modicum of talent in this league; it far outweighs the relative definition of talent.

[Oldfan]

If it weren't for your thickheadedness in believeing that scheme outweighs talent, what would you have to pontificate on?

This is either another strawman or you can't comprehend my position which is that "all players are system players." That means that their performance can't be graded on its own. It does not imply that scheme is more important than talent although it might well be in today's game.

I'm simply stating the obvious. It explains why a Jeff Garcia or Jake Plummer appears to be a better QB when he moves to a better team with a better scheme. It explains why a Matt Cassel can win 11 games for the Patriots despite his unimpresive resume'. It explains why Clinton Portis couldn't replicate his Denver numbers with the Skins.

[Oldfan]

As I said earlier in this thread, I would argue that, in this era of parity, scheme is what defines the modicum of talent in this league; it far outweighs the relative definition of talent.

Your idea that scheme has become more important in the modern NFL makes sense. Chuck Noll wasn't a coaching genius. He didn't need to be with his very talented teams of the 70s.

[LoudMouth12thMan]

I wouldn't go the Albert Haynesworth route. Not because he isn't a great player, but because I think, if given a legitimate shot, Anthony Montgomery's talents will suffice. Plus, he's more cost effective.

I disagree with your assessment of our front four. I don't disagree with your comments on Blache's scheme. From what I can tell, he does scheme the defense to stop the run first. I say that I disagree b/c you may not be considering the fact that Blache is working with the "ingredients" that he is given. He doesn't have a nasty DT that "disrupts" an O line merely with his presence.

Most championship-caliber teams have a nasty NT (DT) that can create havoc both in the run and pass game. Your opinion of Montgomery is high praise compared to what I see. You're saying that if put in the correct position, he could excel. That implies that he isn't being utilized correctly for whatever reason. I disagree.

If Blache has one strength and one alone, it is his ability to assess the talent, or lack thereof, that he has on his roster. I say this because of the comments that I've heard from him over the years regarding his players and the scheme, and I applaud him for his candor on the subject of talent evaluation. He is very honest on camera about what he has and where he thinks his team is from year to year. I'd surmise that he is dying for a talent like Haynesworth but that's my :2cents: A consistent middle rush is something that Blache has not had in at least three years in his tenure here.

[Skinsinparadise]

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?

You say the defense overated, offense underrated, as if its a fact as opposed to opinion.

Of course a better turnover ratio would produce more results. But doesn't personnel have something to do with it? As I mentioned Hall has throughout his career been an INT machine, did that stop when he came here, did Blache's scheme somehow slow him down? Nope, he quickly become the INT guy, too.

Carlos Rogers hasn't throughout his career been an INT guy. Landry is a hitter not a Ed Reed type. Sean Taylor was leading the league in INTs before his injury and untimely death and Taylor was a wrecking ball type of player who was great at knocking the ball out of the opponent's hands. Marcus Washington in his prime was a wrecking ball.

And agree with the premise of this thread, it is a LB driven defense and we got HB Blades and a hurt Marcus playing strongside and Rocky at weakside who wore down again towards the end of the season. I just don't buy the idea that we got great talent and Greg's scheme is keeping them down.

As for the D line, which player right now is considered even top 10 in the league? Heck Kiwanuka is basically the NY Giants backup DE, is arguably better than any pass rusher we have.

Which players are scary on this defense aside from Fletcher and Landry?

And as for the offense, a team with a pro-bowler LT, alternate pro-bowl RG, pro-bowl RB, pro-bowl FB, Pro bowl TE, former pro bowl WR and still one of best deep threats in the league, IMO this wasn't a unit that over achieved. I agree they need another WR, and a more beefed up line. But the unit was healthier than last year, nonetheless regressed. I recall lots of three an outs, don't recall them being great in third downs.

I do get your point about ball control, nonetheless the team didn't strike me magical in that category, and I do believe scoring points is a good thing and part of what an offense should be doing.

From what I can tell, he does scheme the defense to stop the run first. I say that I disagree b/c you may not be considering the fact that Blache is working with the "ingredients" that he is given. He doesn't have a nasty DT that "disrupts" an O line merely with his presence.

Most championship-caliber teams have a nasty NT (DT) that can create havoc both in the run and pass game. Your opinion of Montgomery is high praise compared to what I see. You're saying that if put in the correct position, he could excel.

I applaud him for his candor on the subject of talent evaluation. He is very honest on camera about what he has and where he thinks his team is from year to year.

I agree with this. I read everything I can get my hands on, I don't recall one scout, football perodical, commentator, anybody calling Montgomry an elite or for that matter very good player, and for that matter ANYBODY on the line (Griffin once was) aside from Taylor, and Taylor has his problems this season with injuries, etc.

Doesnt mean all these guys are right but to my naked eye watching the Skins and plenty of other teams all season, we seem to be missing that beast player. Who is that guy on the D line that has to be double teamed?

[Pounds]

Thanks for continuing to contradict yourself.

I did no such thing.

I addressed your fallacious arguments.

You tried to avoid that the defensive line could be much improved and now you state that Jason Taylor shouldn't be expected to do anything in this scheme but also that we need a three-technique DT.

No such avoidance exists.

Again' date=' I’m my OP (which you should really go back and read) I stated the need for a three-technique. In no way, shape, or form was that a response to any claim brought by you, as it predated your loathsome presence.[/size']

Question: how do you propose Jason Taylor, in his looping style, should beat a RT from the five-technique when he has demonstrated, since his days in Miami, that such a shade is counter intuitive to not only his athletic make-up, but his svelte frame?

*I look forward to a clear and concise response, rife with what I'm sure will be technical insight only you can provide.

However, in lieu of such a response, which likely isn't forthcoming, allow me to answer this for you, as you’ll unlikely be able to: he can’t and certainly not consistently.

Playing head up or shading the tackle’s outside shoulder presents no legitimate pushing angle for someone weighing 245 pounds against someone weighing 315 pounds.

There we go' date=' half of the defensive line now needs to be upgraded under your own admission.[/quote']

Provide a direct quote of where I state that half of the d-line should be replaced. That is to read, give me a quote where I say we need to replace five players on our defensive line.

Your entire argument around the defensive line not being a weakness is that the scheme doesn't allow them to do anything when in fact there are plenty of examples of teams where DT's and DE's with similar responsibilities are performing at a much higher level.

It’s safe to assume that there isn’t one universal scheme with a predetermined standard of responsibilities from which all defenses operate.

Different defenses vary differently' date=' as do accompanying responsibilities therewith.[/size']

In fact' date=' the Washington Redskins defensive line in 2004 and 2005 had pretty much the exact same philosophy and performed much better than this group from EVERY single position.[/quote']

I disagree, on all counts.

Greg "simplified" Gregg's schemes, thereby integrating his own philosophies and consequently altering the outcome. The aforementioned constitutes a change. Perhaps not one of a radical nature, but a change nonetheless.

Gregg's system was comprised of complex and diverse blitzes. Greg, on the other hand, subtracted these plays from his playbook in an attempt to "simplify" things for the personnel. Remaining elements were proven largely predictable and easily exploited.

His approach, in contrast to that of Gregg's, was one in which full onus was placed on the players in winning their one-on-one match-ups. This is how Greg defined his "simplification."

The unintended outcome, as it were, was the relative and seeming tapering off in statistical production. Leaving me with the boldfaced conclusion that not every player will win every match-up in every situation and that scheme at some point should aid in placing players in winnable situations, slanted to their skills.

Furthermore, I disagree that in '04 and '05 the performances from "every single position" was "better." Stats would bear out this superficial claim, but I would not assume to judge perform based on individual statistics.

Please expand your knowledge instead of making baseless conjectures and uneducated statements.

Ask a more specific question.

[Pounds]

I disagree with your assessment of our front four. I don't disagree with your comments on Blache's scheme. From what I can tell, he does scheme the defense to stop the run first. I say that I disagree b/c you may not be considering the fact that Blache is working with the "ingredients" that he is given. He doesn't have a nasty DT that "disrupts" an O line merely with his presence.

I think the ingredients are, for the most part, good; it’s his cooking that I don’t like.

Nevertheless, we will benefit from Phil Daniels return and would benefit from acquiring a three-technique to supplement Griffin’s production.

Most championship-caliber teams have a nasty NT (DT) that can create havoc both in the run and pass game. Your opinion of Montgomery is high praise compared to what I see. You're saying that if put in the correct position' date=' he could excel. That implies that he isn't being utilized correctly for whatever reason. I disagree.[/quote']

I think, firstly, that Monty is under-utilized, that secondly, he is misused and thirdly that Blache’s coaching is stifling his development.

There is no reason that he should not be playing more and when he doesn’t play as much as he should, it makes our DT production appear lacking.

Blache has, at times, played him from the three-technique and, at others and intermittently, with a two-gap read. Neither of those work to his strengths. We’d see a different player with allowed to play more intuitively and instinctively.

[Long-Time-Fan]

I disagree with the original post.

I like HB Blades and Rocky,they will be fine with LF and MW teaching them.

We ranked 8th in total D and 6th in touchdowns.296 total points.

7th against the pass

8th against the run

And we proved we can do it without Shawn Springs.

What we lack is people on D who can catch the ball,and not get penelties.

We had 80 penalties for 639 yards.not the worst but not acceptable either.

It would however be nice to have more big names on the D side of the ball.

And by that I mean have OUR guys become house hold names.

Not Free agents.

[Oldfan]

Skinsinparadise: You say the defense overated, offense underrated, as if its a fact as opposed to opinion.

From now on, if you will take all my opinions as opinions even if I neglect to add a qualifier, I'll return the favor.

Of course a better turnover ratio would produce more results. But doesn't personnel have something to do with it?

Yes. Stating that the defensive scheme needs to be more agressive in creating takeaways is not saying that talent isn't also a factor.

Which players are scary on this defense aside from Fletcher and Landry?

A well-designed scheme will not depend on star players, especially in this era of parity.

I do get your point about ball control, nonetheless the team didn't strike me magical in that category, and I do believe scoring points is a good thing and part of what an offense should be doing.

I didn't say the offense was "magical." I said it was underrated because it played the field position well, made few turnovers, and helped the defense hold the score down.

[Shilsu]

Question: how do you propose Jason Taylor, in his looping style, should beat a RT from the five-technique when he has demonstrated, since his days in Miami, that such a shade is counter intuitive to not only his athletic make-up, but his svelte frame?

*I look forward to a clear and concise response, rife with what I'm sure will be technical insight only you can provide.

Answer: Get a DE that CAN beat a RT from the five-technique.

You don't need any technical insight to answer such a blatant and obvious question. Meanwhile, you continue to sit there talking about how our defensive line is fine and that we need linebackers when you yourself admit that Jason Taylor is incapable of executing the scheme and that we need a three-technique DT. Then you go off on the typical loser's battle of semantics about "five players on our defensive line" when it should be clear to anyone with common sense that I was referring to half of our starting defensive line. Of course, context has never been your forte.

And then you go off-tangent yet again rambling nonsense about how Gregg Williams' and Greg Blache's schemes differ because of different philosophies on blitzing when my original quote says "the Washington Redskins defensive line" had the same philosophy.

So once again you miss the point and will continue to harp about how our defensive line is fine but we need linebackers.

Meanwhile, the funniest part is that Montgomery and Golston are both RFA's that we have yet to know if they'll be retained, not to mention Jason Taylor is another potential cap casualty, the fact that Erasmus James was cut, and your admission that we need a three-technique DT, not to mention we have no idea how much longer Phillip Daniels and Cornelius Griffin will be playing for us as well as Chris Wilson, Lorenzo Alexander, and Alex Buzbee currently being signed for one more year. That's pretty damn close to the "five" your loser mentality of semantics is demanding.

So now that you've regressed to trying to argue irrelevant semantics, what's next? Are you going to try asserting grammatical superiority again as if the proper use of commas will win you football games?

Ask a more specific question.

And yet more incoherent rambling from Pounds demanding I ask a question despite there being no reason to and I hadn't asked any other questions before aside from a pretty specific one asking if he hadn't noticed other defensive linemen throughout the league blowing things up in the backfield. This line of non-sensical babble pretty much sums up most of his arguments.

[eljeasel]

We ranked 8th in total D and 6th in touchdowns.296 total points.

7th against the pass

8th against the run

And we proved we can do it without Shawn Springs.

What we lack is people on D who can catch the ball,and not get penelties.

We had 80 penalties for 639 yards.not the worst but not acceptable either.

It would however be nice to have more big names on the D side of the ball.

And by that I mean have OUR guys become house hold names.

Not Free agents.

Im with this. The D is good. Not great. Needs more talent, but could become top flight.

[KDawg]

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.

Well, I think it's more of our defensive front that's strong against the run. Our DEs aren't very good against the run, but our linebackers and tackles are pretty stout, thus making the DL an overall strong point against the run (this is a slight revision to my statement earlier in verbage, not in my point of view). But yes, we agree we are good against 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.

But we don't have the personnel to do it. No scheme tells the DL to occupy blocks on a pass play. If we had the personnel to get there, we would be getting there much more often than we do. Greg Blache could use his players more effectively, and perhaps call different plays, but that doesn't change that our DL is incapable of creating pressure when they need to.

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?

If the pocket is going to be there, it really doesn't matter what technique they line up in. They can't get there.

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.

Our best dlineman is like saying which goldfish is the baddest sun**** in a 40inch aquarium of only goldfish.

Sure, he may be good for us, but when you throw him out into the big pond that goldfish is nothing.

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

Get off a block. Simple.

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.

Nope. But I also don't expect them to get to the QB looping around when they both do it. I have more faith in the two of them colliding and knocking themselves out than I do them getting to the QB.

On balance, 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.

That's not their job versus pass. It just isn't. Even on a stunt that's not their job. Someone will get free, doesn't matter who, but the idea is someone gets free. It doesn't have to be a LB.

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.

Reading run/pass is no burden

*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.

Completely disagree here. The line is a large part on why passes get tipped/picked, the QB hurries to throw a bad pass, etc.

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.

In a way, sure. But that's why a QB is the most important position in offense. But if a QB knows he's going to be running for his life every snap, that's going to effect him psychologically. Football isn't just a physical game.

Remember, it's 40% physical and 80% mental

[Oldfan]

Greg Blache could use his players more effectively, and perhaps call different plays, but that doesn't change that our DL is incapable of creating pressure when they need to.

Let's simplify.

I'm your right DE. Let's say that you have me playing head-up on the OT. We both know that, if you want me to pressure the QB, I would be more effective doing it by taking a wider split which puts the tackle at a disadvantage. We also know that, in doing so, we are trading off my advantage in stopping the run.

So, if you want to keep me lined up to stop the run first, you have no reasonable way to grade my ability as a pass rusher.

I don't think we can grade this D line on their ability to rush the passer since Blache and Williams both have been geared to stop the run first -- and the tradeoff HAS to be disadvantageous to pressuring the QB.

[KDawg]

Let's simplify.

I'm your right DE. Let's say that you have me playing head-up on the OT. We both know that, if you want me to pressure the QB, I would be more effective doing it by taking a wider split which puts the tackle at a disadvantage. We also know that, in doing so, we are trading off my advantage in stopping the run.

So, if you want to keep me lined up to stop the run first, you have no reasonable way to grade my ability as a pass rusher.

I don't think we can grade this D line on their ability to rush the passer since Blache and Williams both have been geared to stop the run first -- and the tradeoff HAS to be disadvantageous to pressuring the QB.

Head up on the OT on the weakside especially has advantages to it as well. You lose the ability to get an edge rush against a slower footed, normally bigger human being, but you gain the element of surprise when you have two ways to attack, dependent on the front called. You can go B-Gap if you don't have outside contain, and if you do have contain you can now go C-Gap.

To the TE side, it's really the same concept. Most of the time in an obvious passing situation, if there's a TE on the line he's going to release in to a route. If not, you can play inside or outside of him. If you're aligned in a 9, you can even get an extra jam off him and then you have the outside edge rush ability on the tackle if he releases.

There's no excuse for not getting to the QB. Admittedly, the signing of Jason Taylor was a bad one based on our scheme to begin with. Why you'd trade for Taylor to replace a much bigger man at DE is absolutely mind boggling to me.

But that's besides the point, the job still could have been done in the pass game as well as the run game using the same scheme. One huge issue that I've been saying time and time again is the inability for our DEs to cave the pocket from the outside in. Another huge issue is the fact that our DTs are occupying blockers... Even on pass. Making a pass/run read is something you should have learned in middle school and mastered by college.

The read isn't an issue. Get off of a block.

The tradeoff doesn't have to be less of a rush to the QB. Last year our pass rush wasn't good either, but it was better than this season. An upgrade at DE would greatly effect our pass rush. Even an upgrade at OLB and DT would probably help slightly. (An upgrade at DE and DT should give us a better rush than we had last year)

But last season, Andre Carter recorded ten sacks. In the same scheme. The difference was personnel. Our personnel is not adequate for our scheme and that's very apparent in one area in specific. One of our defensive ends.

(Again, I'm not saying we can't use upgrades at DT or OLB)

Furthermore, while I think Phillip Daniels is the major unsung hero of our defense, I don't think he's going to be much help next season. He's aging and coming off a major injury. We need a new DE... Badly.

We reach for entirely too many excuses here. Our scheme didn't stop us from getting pressure, our players did. Sure, Blache could have tried some other things, but who knows if they'd work.

Improve our personnel and our pass rush will flourish.

[darrelgreenie]

....But that's besides the point, the job still could have been done in the pass game as well as the run game using the same scheme. One huge issue that I've been saying time and time again is the inability for our DEs to cave the pocket from the outside in. Another huge issue is the fact that our DTs are occupying blockers... Even on pass. Making a pass/run read is something you should have learned in middle school and mastered by college.

(Again, I'm not saying we can't use upgrades at DT or OLB)

Furthermore, while I think Phillip Daniels is the major unsung hero of our defense, I don't think he's going to be much help next season. He's aging and coming off a major injury. We need a new DE... Badly.

We reach for entirely too many excuses here. Our scheme didn't stop us from getting pressure, our players did. Sure, Blache could have tried some other things, but who knows if they'd work.

Improve our personnel and our pass rush will flourish.

I agree 100% that we need to draft a DE, i'm of the mind that you keep drafting positions of importance. A good DE is hard to find and the more chances you take the better your chance of landing a good one.

I also agree that playing head-up on the OT/TE can have its advantages.

But, i think that historically a wide stance is more effective in terms of getting to the QB.

To my eye it seemed that Palermo played the DE tighter in this year then they did last year. Palermo admitted* that schemematically he was focused on stopping the run last year and that he needs to do a better job of getting pressure and sacks. *(Last week on Redskins Nation) To me that is a tacit admission that he was partially at fault for the lack of pressure.

Also, i don't understand how/why Wilson wasn't given more chances to pass rush this year considering that JT was hurt. This is a coaching/scheme failure. I get the impression that the staff wanted to put JT on the field just to save face that he wasn't a complete wash this year. When JT was healthy (if he every truely was) i thought the scheme didn't put him in the best postion to contribute.

I will agree that an upgrade at OLB (one that can pass rush) will also help improve the pressure b/c Blache/Williams often put their OLB on the edge with their hand in the dirt rushing from a wide stance. Imo Washington was ineffective in that role last year.

[Oldfan]

KDawg: We reach for entirely too many excuses here. Our scheme didn't stop us from getting pressure, our players did. Sure, Blache could have tried some other things, but who knows if they'd work.

I have to disagree, my friend.

The right scheme maximizes the talent potential. The wrong scheme limits it.

On the pass rush, the rules of the game favor the defense. The OTs can't hold and they can't move. They can't even twitch pre-snap while the DE is free to line up anywhere and shift laterally before the snap. As an OC, planning a passing game, I see negating this disadvantage, without spending an eligible receiver to do it, as my number one problem. As a DC, I want to maximize the advantage so that the offense has to use an eligible receiver in a double-team.

Head up on the OT on the weakside especially has advantages to it as well. You lose the ability to get an edge rush against a slower footed, normally bigger human being, but you gain the element of surprise when you have two ways to attack, dependent on the front called. You can go B-Gap if you don't have outside contain, and if you do have contain you can now go C-Gap.

As an OC, if the DC of the Indianapolis Colts had Dwight Freeney lined head-up on my LT, I'd be inclined to give him a big, wet kiss on the mouth. Freeney wouldn't be Freeney in the Blache scheme. Seems to me that any offense calling for play-action against Dwight Freeney is only slowing down the QB. That sucker's going to be pinning his ears back and coming hard on nearly every play.

[Pounds]

Well, I think it's more of our defensive front that's strong against the run. Our DEs aren't very good against the run, but our linebackers and tackles are pretty stout, thus making the DL an overall strong point against the run (this is a slight revision to my statement earlier in verbage, not in my point of view). But yes, we agree we are good against the run.

I disagree (with the bolded portion). As a RDE, Andre Carter is more than respectable against the run, both by virtue of his play and the lesser demands against the run that are natural of the position. His play against the run really didn't strike me as a glaring weakness.

And, Jason Taylor wouldn't look so bad if he wasn't being misused on run downs on the strong side.

But we don't have the personnel to do it. No scheme tells the DL to occupy blocks on a pass play. If we had the personnel to get there' date=' we would be getting there much more often than we do. Greg Blache could use his players more effectively, and perhaps call different plays, but that doesn't change that our DL is incapable of creating pressure when they need to.[/quote']

You're right, but in application this is how this defense is called. Blache masks the defensive line by sending LBs at the QB, forcing them to make throws into man coverage.

Take Andre Carter, for instance. There has got to be a more logical explanation behind his relative drop-off in terms of rushing the passer, other than the reverberating effect his counterpart at LDE has.

My inclination is that Blache's schemes aren't enabling.

If the pocket is going to be there' date=' it really doesn't matter what technique they line up in. They can't get there.[/quote']

Are you proposing here that Carter and Taylor are no longer effective players?

Otherwise, I cannot see how, in good conscience, you can make this claim.

If the QB is going to drop back and predictably stay in the pocket, all the more reason to let your DEs tee-off.

Our best dlineman is like saying which goldfish is the baddest sun**** in a 40inch aquarium of only goldfish.

Sure' date=' he may be good for us, but when you throw him out into the big pond that goldfish is nothing.[/quote']

I disagree, KDawg. I think Monty is the best DT in the NFC East, not named Fred Robbins.

He just may not be the two-gap monster that Blache wants him to be.

Get off a block. Simple.

Things should be so easy.

As they are currently utilized' date=' it would require Herculean effort on the part of our DEs to rush and hit/hurry/sack the QB.

They need to be split wider where they can make use of their speed. They are not bull-rushers. Greg Blache should not penalize them for what they cannot do, but mold a system around what they can.

Nope. But I also don't expect them to get to the QB looping around when they both do it. I have more faith in the two of them colliding and knocking themselves out than I do them getting to the QB.

I don't see why not. In these situations, they force the QB to step up.

That's not their job versus pass. It just isn't. Even on a stunt that's not their job. Someone will get free' date=' doesn't matter who, but the idea is someone gets free. [b']It doesn't have to be a LB.[/b]

By blitzing LBs, I'm sure Blache hopes they can come unabated.

While, in theory, I agree with you, my point all along was been, in practical application, none of this has materialized.

It's a fantasy to assume that the front four is going to generate enough pressure on every play so as to entirely dominate an offense.

Our d-linemen perform their most fundamental task: they force the point of attack.

I don't expect hits/hurries/sacks on every play; it's just not going to happen.

Reading run/pass is no burden

My point was that the way Blache uses his guys is the burden.

If I'm a DC' date=' never would I ask Jason Taylor, or Andre Carter, and most of the time both, to beat a linemen, who weigh upwards of 75 pounds more than them, to bull-rush their way to QB pressures.

Completely disagree here. The line is a large part on why passes get tipped/picked, the QB hurries to throw a bad pass, etc.

A good QB, proficient in his reads, is always going to beat a even the best of pass rushes.

[Warpath11]

Let's simplify.

I'm your right DE. Let's say that you have me playing head-up on the OT. We both know that, if you want me to pressure the QB, I would be more effective doing it by taking a wider split which puts the tackle at a disadvantage. We also know that, in doing so, we are trading off my advantage in stopping the run.

So, if you want to keep me lined up to stop the run first, you have no reasonable way to grade my ability as a pass rusher.

I don't think we can grade this D line on their ability to rush the passer since Blache and Williams both have been geared to stop the run first -- and the tradeoff HAS to be disadvantageous to pressuring the QB.

So why are scheme so rigid, I mean play heads up on a tackle on obvious running plays but when it is 3rd and long why can't our DEs (better suited as wide edge rushers) take a wider stance. I mean you wouldn't be showing your hand since everyone in the building knows it is a passing situation.