Of Greg Blache, defensive linemen and linebackers...

[#98QBKiller]

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.

Is this your subtle way of saying we need to trade down and draft Tyson Jackson?

[IbleedBnG83]

Is this your subtle way of saying we need to trade down and draft Tyson Jackson?

I'll say it...TRADE DOWN AND GET JACKSON!!

[#98QBKiller]

I'll say it...TRADE DOWN AND GET JACKSON!!

I wouldn't be opposed to it. He is a monster and would be great at helping push linemen back and send the QB running toward Andre Carter.

Plus we'd get a 2nd out of it and could possibly grab Phil Loadholt :cool:

[IbleedBnG83]

I wouldn't be opposed to it. He is a monster and would be great at helping push linemen back and send the QB running toward Andre Carter.

Plus we'd get a 2nd out of it and could possibly grab Phil Loadholt :cool:

I would like to slide him in on passing downs and send Wilson or Jackson opposite Carter. But whatever works!

[Oldfan]

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.

A good offensive play-caller will do the expected 50% of the time and the unexpected 50% of the time, which makes him unpredictable 100% of the time.

The blindside edge rusher is the defense's #1 weapon against an NFL passing game. Even when he's not getting to the QB, he can be in the QB's mind, creating a sense of urgency. I just think it's unwise to forego that advantage in a defensive scheme by having him play the run first.

Dwight Freeny has a good inside spin move which positions him to play the run at times; but ideally his DC wants the offense to have to use an eligible receiver in a double-team to stop him from disrupting the passing game.

[KDawg]

I can't disagree with Oldfan and Pounds enough on this topic. You don't change your entire defense just prior to the season because one of your guys went down. You just don't. The folly was trading for Taylor in the first place. He's useless in our system unless rotating with Carter.

He should have never worn the uniform, for both his sake and ours. If we keep him and we don't address DE, we now have to tweak our system for next season, and I'm sure Blache will. I don't see any reason why we can't upgrade at DE.

For the record, a blitz isn't necessarily to free up the linebacker's lane to the QB. A blitz is designed to get pressure, it doesn't matter who gets it. Ideally you'd want the LB free, yes, but it doesn't have to be.

[chaught76]

This is just my opinion, but there are only 2 ways Jason Taylor will be solid for our team:

- take a pay cut

- make a successful transition to strong-side LB

When Taylor was an MVP, he was playing OLB not DE for Miami. Granted, it was a different defensive scheme which means alot, but he can do it I think.

In reality, I think Taylor is gone.

[Oldfan]

I can't disagree with Oldfan and Pounds enough on this topic. You don't change your entire defense just prior to the season because one of your guys went down. You just don't. The folly was trading for Taylor in the first place. He's useless in our system unless rotating with Carter.

I'll let Pounds speak for himself, but the counter-argument I made has nothing whatsoever to do with Jason Taylor.

I do think, though, that coaches need to tweak their schemes to adapt to the available talent on both offense and defense.

[KDawg]

I'll let Pounds speak for himself, but the counter-argument I made has nothing whatsoever to do with Jason Taylor.

I do think, though, that coaches need to tweak their schemes to adapt to the available talent on both offense and defense.

I'm aware your argument has nothing to do with Taylor. But right now, I don't have the energy to keep saying the same things over and over, so I'm simply not going to. Maybe I'll get the urge to do it later.

[IbleedBnG83]

this is just my opinion, but there are only 2 ways jason taylor will be solid for our team:

- take a pay cut

- make a successful transition to strong-side lb

when taylor was an mvp, he was playing olb not de for miami. Granted, it was a different defensive scheme which means alot, but he can do it i think.

In reality, i think taylor is gone.

huge pay cut imo!

[Oldfan]

I'm aware your argument has nothing to do with Taylor. But right now, I don't have the energy to keep saying the same things over and over, so I'm simply not going to. Maybe I'll get the urge to do it later.

Well, I hope you won't repeat yourself. If that's all you have, that's all you have.

We disagree. We can leave it there.

[KDawg]

I have to disagree, my friend.

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

But you don't change your scheme just before the season starts. Signing Taylor was a mistake. In the NFL, you should be signing players that actually fit your scheme. It's not like high school where you adapt your scheme to the personnel, or even sometimes in college they do that. It's the NFL. Trading for Taylor was a huge blunder. Not because he's not good, but because he doesn't fit. Our personnel fits Blache's scheme other than an aging linebacker (who previously fit well), a DT that's capable of getting through the cracks and a strong DE (Who we had prior to injury and prior to signing another quick end rather than a strong one to replace him).

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.

I assume you mean any pass catcher, including backs, because most backs do an adequate job of protecting the QB. And that's where things like screens and delay routes come into play. If that end is getting after it too hard, I'm dink and dunking to his side all day long.

Are you proposing we move both ends to the outside shade of the last man on the LOS? I sure hope not.

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.

Freeney wouldn't be Freeney opposite a guy like Jason Taylor, either. We get no push up the middle and neither end would be able to collapse the pocket. Robert Mathis is a strong end who can close a pocket down. Freeney even can do that to a certain degree. They are different defensive ends than Andre Carter and Jason Taylor at this point. Both are much better pass rushers, and Mathis is better against the run (perhaps I'd give a stalemate with Carter, but he's much better vs. run than Taylor).

I'm not saying scheme can't be tweaked, it could be for this upcoming year if we keep the DEs the way they are... But why? Get a young, strong ox for a DE, fix the OT spot in free agency and sign an anchor in the middle of our D-Line and we can keep the same scheme and get some sort of pass rush. Turnovers and short fields score points. We don't get enough of that.

I'm sure if the personnel stays, Blache will figure something out with Palermo. But I really hope that isn't the case.

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.

Which is why we never should have signed him. It was too late to start screwing with the scheme, especially when Taylor started to get hurt. Small changes could have occured, but we're not going to revamp our defense for a guy who may not even see the field.

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.

I'm an OC. I want teams to be in man coverage. Please leave my receivers 1v1 against your DBs. The reason you blitz isn't to get the QB to throw the ball into man coverage. The reason you blitz is to get to the QB to create the "Oh **** Factor" for him and make him make poor decisions with the ball. Poor decisions can include holding the ball too long and taking a sack, forcing a throw into a spot where a receiver isn't open, trying to make a play with his feet only to get decleated, having the QB hold it too long again and get QB stripped, etc.

The problem with man is it often leaves backers versus a slot receiver.

If the front doesn't get pressure on the QB, that receiver should be open a whole hell of a lot against a LB.

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.

And why does there have to be a more logical explanation? His counterpart not closing the pocket isn't logical?

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

Then how did Andre Carter get ten sacks last year in a very similar defensive scheme?

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.

Opposite each other? I am proposing that. They're useless together. On a rotation, sure. Carter alone with a DE that can close a pocket? Very effective.

I can make the claim in perfectly good conscience, by the way. It doesn't keep me up at night if that's what you're getting at. Taylor is old, Parcells saw the writing on the wall and we bit.

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

Looping around isn't teeing off. It's creating a pocket. We get no pressure from the inside or outside and there's a nice little pocket there for a QB to step in to. Opposing QBs get all day to throw on us. Collapse the pocket from the outside in and get some penetration in the middle and now the DEs can tee off. Much like Andre Carter in the '07-'08 season.

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.

What do you base this on? Seems pretty homerish to me. And with Monty being an RFA (I believe it's RFA anyways), if he's the best DT in the NFC East, we're going to lose him. So what then?

Things should be so easy.

They're professional football players. Getting off a block shouldn't be "Herculean".

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

Then why did it happen last season?

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.

As I've said countless times, they never should have traded for Taylor. Changing the scheme for an injured player especially and right before the season starts has "BAD" written across it in big, bold letters. If we keep the same personnel this upcoming year, I'm sure you'll see changes. Even if we upgrade at positions and have packages with them in I'm sure you'll see some changes when they are in there. Doesn't mean it's going to be terribly effective.

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

Step up? Sure. Right into a perfectly formed pocket because we get no penetration up front.

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

A lot of blitzes aren't intended for the LB to get to the QB, although it seems that's the case. When an O Lineman sees a backer coming, that backer becomes priority number one if he shows to the lineman's responsibility. Alot of blitzes are just stunts with linebackers.

Example:

WDT lines up in a 2 read. WDE lines up in a 6 read. Pre snap responsibilities are C gap for the WDE, A-Gap for the WDT and B-Gap for the Will.

Now, the WDE comes around the top of the LOS to the A-Gap, the WDT slices B, through the tackle and just in front of the guard, and the Will blitzes C. Now those OL need to make a decision. Assume that we have our strong DT crashing A, occupying the center.

The Weak OG is going to watch the DT evacuate, but still try to get hands on him without leaving his area, the DE comes over the top to his area, who he may pick up, but if he's offbalance due to the stunt upfront he may not. The tackle sees the LB coming and picks him up, but now who's blocking the DT coming through the tackle through the B-Gap? If the OT chooses the DT to block, who's blocking the backer blitzing through the C. Now the back has to pick up a blitz.

Now, I said earlier backs are efficient at doing this, and alot of them are. But if you get them mismatched enough against those bigger guys, they aren't going to win all the time.

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.

And that's never been my contention. Our front four rarely does it, though, which is NOT acceptable.

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

Which is ideal... versus the run. Not the pass.

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

Neither do I. But I do expect us to give the offense less than 3 seconds to throw every once in awhile. We don't.

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

Trading for Taylor was the burden.

If I'm a DC, 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.

Most of the time only one of them had that assignment, and I agree here somewhat. Ideally you don't want that. Realistically, however, it happens when you trade for a guy who doesn't fit your scheme, and gets hurt during the season. You don't want to change your defense for an old, unreliable injured guy.

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

Always?

Interesting word choice, there. Manning never gets sacked? Brady? Montana? Young? Marino? Elway?

[KDawg]

Is this your subtle way of saying we need to trade down and draft Tyson Jackson?

Maybe

[KDawg]

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

The NFL's all-time leading sack-rusher was Bruce Smith. He was originally a 3-4 DE. 3-4 DEs aren't supposed to get 200 sacks. Yet he did anyways.

I agree that traditionally that is the case, but it's not set in stone. Getting to the QB isn't as important as posing a threat to getting there, though. The threat of a hurry creates sacks sometimes just on its own. better QBs are calmer in those hot situations, but the younger ones are sack magnets when hurried. Hurries are just as important as sacks, and both are needed to really pressure an offense.

[PROSCOUT]

ya know what? It is what it is. 99.9% of the time it is what it is.

The Redskins not putting pressure on the QB and not being able to shut down that final game winning drive, these are not anaomalies from 1 single season. This has been going on for 15 years and that's what the Redskins are.

If a team doesn't address the defensive line and the pass rush in the draft for 15 years,

then the only option is what they do. Which is to trade for future HOF players who are about to retire. This is what they did with Bruce Smith, Deion Sanders, and Jason Taylor. The Skins love Big Name Stars who have made headlines for years.

It is what it is. The Redskins will not draft a defensive lineman with their first pick. They will use a throw-away pick later in the draft and then pick up a mediocre free agent or trade for a washed up H.O.F. player.

HISTORY IS ON MY SIDE. It is what it is and we are what we are.

[Oldfan]

KDawg: But you don't change your scheme just before the season starts. Signing Taylor was a mistake...

We are agreed that signing JT was a mistake for reasons which include the fact that he wasn't a good fit for the scheme as you point out. However, I think you exaggerate the difficulty of tweaking a scheme to fit the available talent.

In 2005, when we were 4-6 and needed to win out to make the playoffs, Gregg Williams converted to an aggressive scheme that created sacks and takeaways. Philip Daniels went on a sack spree. Who knew that he could get sacks if turned loose?

Both the Chargers and the Cardinals improved during the 2008 season with more aggressive schemes on defense at about the mid-season point.

I assume you mean any pass catcher, including backs, because most backs do an adequate job of protecting the QB. And that's where things like screens and delay routes come into play. If that end is getting after it too hard, I'm dink and dunking to his side all day long.

As the OC, you begin with the disadvantage created by the rules which you can counter with your screens and delays, then the defense takes away your screens and delays to regain their advantage and you have to counterpunch, but the defense starts a step ahead -- and only has to match your moves to keep it.

Are you proposing we move both ends to the outside shade of the last man on the LOS?

No.

Freeney wouldn't be Freeney opposite a guy like Jason Taylor, either. We get no push up the middle and neither end would be able to collapse the pocket.

Agreed. Scheme is not the only factor affecting individual performances, but it's a strong factor that your argument minimizes.

I'm not saying scheme can't be tweaked, it could be for this upcoming year if we keep the DEs the way they are... But why?

Whether we upgrade the D line talent or not, we should upgrade the scheme to make the talent we have produce more sacks and takeaways. Our offense ranked #5 with just 18 turnovers. Our defense ranked in a three way tie for 28th with just 18 takeaways.

I've seen a couple of studies which concluded the average turnover results in about four points on the scoreboard. The Dolphins, with a +17 ratio, thus scored about 68 points more than the Skins who put up a zero on the ratio. That's 4.25 points per game.

[Oldfan]

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.

Until they change the rules of football or repeal the laws of physics, a wider split will continue to give the edge rusher an advantage.

[KDawg]

We are agreed that signing JT was a mistake for reasons which include the fact that he wasn't a good fit for the scheme as you point out. However, I think you exaggerate the difficulty of tweaking a scheme to fit the available talent.

In 2005, when we were 4-6 and needed to win out to make the playoffs, Gregg Williams converted to an aggressive scheme that created sacks and takeaways. Philip Daniels went on a sack spree. Who knew that he could get sacks if turned loose?

Both the Chargers and the Cardinals improved during the 2008 season with more aggressive schemes on defense at about the mid-season point.

Kicking the ends out is changing the scheme. It changes alignments, it changes assignments, it changes all sorts of things. It's not terribly difficult, but it's not worth doing with a guy who was hurt consistantly, either.

As the OC, you begin with the disadvantage created by the rules which you can counter with your screens and delays, then the defense takes away your screens and delays to regain their advantage and you have to counterpunch, but the defense starts a step ahead -- and only has to match your moves to keep it.

Why does the defense have to be a step ahead? Change your playcalls up. Keep the defense guessing. An offense that continues to wait for the defense to change before adapting is one that's going to be beaten. Anticipate. Know your opponent.

Agreed. Scheme is not the only factor affecting individual performances, but it's a strong factor that your argument minimizes.

I'm not minimizing scheme. It's important. However, as we've both agreed on, the signing of Taylor screwed the scheme more than the scheme screwed the scheme. In the NFL you have the luxury of signing only guys that fit the scheme. We don't do that. In fact, we're pretty bad at doing that.

Whether we upgrade the D line talent or not, we should upgrade the scheme to make the talent we have produce more sacks and takeaways. Our offense ranked #5 with just 18 turnovers. Our defense ranked in a three way tie for 28th with just 18 takeaways.

My proposition is that if we upgrade DE/DT, we don't have to upgrade the scheme. Some minor tweaks are necessary regardless, but it's not necessary to completely revamp it. If you keep changing scheme, you keep adding learning curve, which lengthens the time and reps it takes to master something.

I've seen a couple of studies which concluded the average turnover results in about four points on the scoreboard. The Dolphins, with a +17 ratio, thus scored about 68 points more than the Skins who put up a zero on the ratio. That's 4.25 points per game.

Not sure where this ties in. I'm saying that an upgrade at DE will increase our pressure, which would thus increase sacks/tipped passes, which will increase our interceptions and fumbles.

[darrelgreenie]

Kicking the ends out is changing the scheme. It changes alignments, it changes assignments, it changes all sorts of things. It's not terribly difficult, but it's not worth doing with a guy who was hurt consistantly, either.

I think that Palermo brought his own tweak to Blache's already established tendency to play run first along the d-line.

I can't speak for Oldfan fan, but i'm don't considering moving the ends to a wider stance more often a 'change' in scheme. I consider it a return to the scheme from '07 when Blache ran the d-line and they got more sacks.

My proposition is that if we upgrade DE/DT, we don't have to upgrade the scheme. Some minor tweaks are necessary regardless, but it's not necessary to completely revamp it. If you keep changing scheme, you keep adding learning curve, which lengthens the time and reps it takes to master something.

I agree that we should draft a DE and if possible DT. But, the scheme needs to be tweaked. Not a wholesale change just tweaked *(actually untweaked) to create more pressure and more sacks. Basically, Palermo needs more balance on his defensive line philosophy.

Not sure where this ties in. I'm saying that an upgrade at DE will increase our pressure, which would thus increase sacks/tipped passes, which will increase our interceptions and fumbles.

The same improvement that could result from an upgrade at DE i believe could occur if the scheme was adjusted.

(Did anyone happen to catch Palermo on Redskins Nation last week?)

[Oldfan]

KDawg: Kicking the ends out is changing the scheme. It changes alignments, it changes assignments, it changes all sorts of things. It's not terribly difficult, but it's not worth doing with a guy who was hurt consistantly, either.

We agreed that the trade for JT was a mistake for reasons which include the fact that he wasn't a good fit for the scheme as you pointed out. But, I said that I thought you exaggerated the difficulty of tweaking a scheme to fit the available talent. Jason wasn't injured when the trade was made so we can't add this to the argument against tweaking the system when he got here.

Why does the defense have to be a step ahead? Change your playcalls up. Keep the defense guessing. An offense that continues to wait for the defense to change before adapting is one that's going to be beaten. Anticipate. Know your opponent.

The rules of the game allow the defense a strategic advantage in defending against the passing game when the edge rusher can beat the tackle to the outside and hug the rail on his way to the QB. The offensive passing game needs to be two jumps ahead to gain the advantage, one to get even, another to go ahead.

On the other hand, if the edge rusher is lined up in a stronger position to stop the run, he has no advantage under the rules. Now, the offense needs to be only one jump ahead to gain an advantage.

It might be smart for the defense to play run first against teams like the Vikes, but it's not very bright against most offenses in the NFL.

If you keep changing scheme, you keep adding learning curve, which lengthens the time and reps it takes to master something.

I don't advocate that we "keep changing the scheme." I argue for adopting a more aggressive scheme and then sticking to it.

No one debates the advantages inherent in an offense that controls the ball and commits few turnovers. Yet they see no problem with a passive, bend-but-dont-break defense that makes it easy for the opponent's offense to control the ball and commit few turnovers. That doesn't square up.

Not sure where this [the turnover ratio] ties in. I'm saying that an upgrade at DE will increase our pressure, which would thus increase sacks/tipped passes, which will increase our interceptions and fumbles.

Of course it will, but a more aggressive scheme, one aimed at generating takeaways, will give us a better turnover ratio if we don't upgrade the talent and even more if we do. Moreover, scheme upgrades don't require spending draft picks or cap money.

[Pounds]

You don't change your entire defense just prior to the season because one of your guys went down. You just don't.

I understand this totally, but to not make adjustments along the way to better suit the players is neither justifiable, nor should it be acceptable.

Playing Jason in a roving role is not an adjustment, it’s just silly. Putting him in a position where he has to bull-rush his way to the QB is not suiting anything to his talents. This leads me to believe that Blache and his schemes are as rigid and inflexible as I claim.

The folly was trading for Taylor in the first place. He's useless in our system unless rotating with Carter.

I agree. But the fact remains' date=' his relative dip in productive was no fault of his own.[/size']

He should have never worn the uniform' date=' for both his sake and ours. If we keep him and we don't address DE, we now have to tweak our system for next season, and I'm sure Blache will. I don't see any reason why we can't upgrade at DE.[/quote']

What you say here was the most principle of my assertions: if we want anymore production from the players of our d-line, as they are, then Blache has to contour things to better fit their skills.

For the record' date=' [b']a blitz isn't necessarily to free up the linebacker's lane to the QB[/b]. A blitz is designed to get pressure, it doesn't matter who gets it. Ideally you'd want the LB free, yes, but it doesn't have to be.

It is when you blitz linebackers – that is what I was getting at.

[KDawg]

It is when you blitz linebackers – that is what I was getting at.

But it's not. A linebacker blitz is designed to get someone through the line. Not necessarily the linebacker, although the linebacker is ideal. The important part is getting someone through the line.

And just to clarify, I'm not saying Blache's scheme couldn't use tweaking. It can. But we wouldn't have had to do it if we didn't make the bonehead move to get Taylor in the first place.

[Pounds]

Which is why we never should have signed him. It was too late to start screwing with the scheme, especially when Taylor started to get hurt. Small changes could have occured, but we're not going to revamp our defense for a guy who may not even see the field.

I agree we should have never traded for him; the move was bad on a few different fronts.

As for tinkering with the scheme, all I propose is a wider split, for both Carter and Taylor on passing downs. Definitely not a total overhaul, nor a dramatic departure of philosophy.

Then how did Andre Carter get ten sacks last year in a very similar defensive scheme?

Every year that Andre plays almost exclusively from a five-technique I would expect lowly sack totals. He’s simply not going to bull-rush his way to ten sacks. Therein lies the difference.

Blache is penalizing both he' date=' and Taylor, to an extent, for what they aren't, as opposed to capitalizing on what they can do well.[/size']

I can make the claim in perfectly good conscience' date=' by the way. It doesn't keep me up at night if that's what you're getting at. Taylor is old, Parcells saw the writing on the wall and we bit.[/quote']

No, that’s not what I was getting at; it’s a figure of speech, apparently misplaced on my part.

I don’t agree, fully, though, that age was the foremost factor behind the drop-off in production. I think injury played more of a role.

In the right system, and as a RDE, I still think Taylor has a few more productive seasons in him.

Looping around isn't teeing off. It's creating a pocket. We get no pressure from the inside or outside and there's a nice little pocket there for a QB to step in to. Opposing QBs get all day to throw on us. Collapse the pocket from the outside in and get some penetration in the middle and now the DEs can tee off. Much like Andre Carter in the '07-'08 season.

Okay. Now I see exactly what you were driving at all this time. Makes sense.

Question: do you think our DTs played better under Williams versus Blache.

And' date=' on passing downs Blache should be able to make good use of edge rushers like Taylor and Carter, right?[/size']

What do you base this on? Seems pretty homerish to me. And with Monty being an RFA (I believe it's RFA anyways)' date=' if he's the best DT in the NFC East, we're going to lose him. So what then?[/quote']

I base it on what I’ve seen, not just this season, but the last.

From a one-technique tackle I want a player who effectively commanding double teams allowing the players around him to flourish. Both Kedric and Cornelius play better when Anthony is in the game flanking them. The only o-line I saw Anthony get totally blunted by was the Ravens, who I consider the best in the business. When Anthony anchors he is immovable and he’s fairly athletic.

Put him on the Giants, and he’d get six-plus sacks.

They're professional football players. Getting off a block shouldn't be "Herculean".

I would consider a 245 pound man bull-rushing a 315 pound man about five yards back into the QB to be pretty Herculean.

Then why did it happen last season?

I think Gregg likes sacks more than Greg and will do more scheme-wise to get ‘em.

As I've said countless times' date=' they never should have traded for Taylor. Changing the scheme for an injured player especially and right before the season starts has "BAD" written across it in big, bold letters. If we keep the same personnel this upcoming year, I'm sure you'll see changes. Even if we upgrade at positions and have packages with them in I'm sure you'll see some changes when they are in there. Doesn't mean it's going to be terribly effective.[/quote']

Change is all I’m asking for. Even slight change would suffice.

Truthfully, I couldn’t understand why Greg was unable to make even the most minor in-season tweaks, and still don’t.

Always?

Interesting word choice' date=' there. Manning never gets sacked? Brady? Montana? Young? Marino? Elway?[/quote']

Too strong?

I think a good QB, fluent in his system can mostly negate even the best pass rushes. Sacks most likely will be a by-product of the disguises in coverage.

[Pounds]

And just to clarify, I'm not saying Blache's scheme couldn't use tweaking. It can. But we wouldn't have had to do it if we didn't make the bonehead move to get Taylor in the first place.

Your points, from this one to every other one you made in this thread, were well taken and appreciated. Like I said previously, your insights and knowledge are more than valued.

I may be a layman, but I try to learn and glean as much info., on this game that I love, as possible.

[darrelgreenie]

2 Questions:

1) Why does everyone keep refering to Blache when Palermo is currently in charge of the d-line?

2) Did anyone else see Palermo's interview on Redskin's Nation last week?