Of Greg Blache, defensive linemen and linebackers...

[Oldfan]

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?

I didn't see the interview. However, the "play the run first" strategy preceded Palermo with both Blache and Gregg Williams. If Greg didn't approve of Palermo's alignments, he had only to tell him to adjust. Palermo isn't the problem.

[darrelgreenie]

I didn't see the interview. However, the "play the run first" strategy preceded Palermo with both Blache and Gregg Williams. If Greg didn't approve of Palermo's alignments, he had only to tell him to adjust. Palermo isn't the problem.

The reason why i asked if anyone say the interview is because Palermo basically said that he needed to do a better job of getting pressure abd sacks from the d-line and he mentioned that the scheme was to stop the run 1st.

Greg may be the DC but Palermo is the D-Line coach.

I think when there is fault at a postion the fault begins with that position coach.

IMO blaming Blache for the d-line is like blaming Zorn for the receivers lack of production instead of Hixon.

[Oldfan]

IMO blaming Blache for the d-line is like blaming Zorn for the receivers lack of production instead of Hixon.

False analogy. Blache can see the defensive alignments and approve or disapprove of them quickly in early season practices. There is obvious hard evidence.

The theory on this board that Hixon is incompetent is purely speculation with no hard evidence. If true, it's a conclusion that JZ might reach only after careful observation of Hixon's methods over time.

[SWFLSkins]

The theory on this board that Hixon is incompetent is purely speculation with no hard evidence. If true, it's a conclusion that JZ might reach only after careful observation of Hixon's methods over time.

As if one season with two second rounders is not enough? That may speak volumes about Zorn's ability to be a Head Coach. I would tend to think since Zorn has been around the game that he would know if Hixon is capable or not.

[Pounds]

The reason why i asked if anyone say the interview is because Palermo basically said that he needed to do a better job of getting pressure abd sacks from the d-line and he mentioned that the scheme was to stop the run 1st.

This was apparent to me in observing not only how this defense was called, but, moreover, I think to engender more "known" situations on third down.

Very seldom was there are variance in the play-calling even against the likes of the Saints and Cardinals.

Greg may be the DC but Palermo is the D-Line coach.

I think when there is fault at a postion the fault begins with that position coach.

You're definitely correct here. Just or unjust, though, as DC, Blache will bear blame for his defense's play.

[Oldfan]

As if one season with two second rounders is not enough?

Two second rounders can't make much of a contribution in their rookie WCO year is sufficient evidence of Hixon's incompetence? Is that what you're saying?

That may speak volumes about Zorn's ability to be a Head Coach.

In what way? I don't follow.

I would tend to think since Zorn has been around the game that he would know if Hixon is capable or not.

Maybe he does.

[skinny21]

Well Pounds, I agree with you all the way. I'm surprised some people are ripping you for an excellent post. Okay, I'm not surprised, but some of the rebuttals/responses seem a bit ridiculous to me.

You're saying the D-line fulfilled their responsibilities well, but you made it clear that YOU would want a pass-rush that is also able to effectively rush the passer.

You also talk about the d-linemen containing their gaps, and the linebackers attacking the LOS to stop the run. This puts pressure on Rocky and Marcus to perform/stay healthy. HB is obviously not suited to coverage in the SAM spot, even though he is a solid backup for Fletcher. In other words, we're really thin at the OLB spots, which makes this our #1 priority this offseason. As someone already said, one needs only look at 2006 to see how poor linebacker play effects this D.

I think of it this way... who has more injury concerns, our d-line or our linebackers? Obviously our backers. And which has less depth? Obviously our linebackers. So... what is our #1 need this offseason? You said it man, OLB.

[darrelgreenie]

False analogy. Blache can see the defensive alignments and approve or disapprove of them quickly in early season practices. There is obvious hard evidence.

The theory on this board that Hixon is incompetent is purely speculation with no hard evidence. If true, it's a conclusion that JZ might reach only after careful observation of Hixon's methods over time.

I think you're getting a bit off topic here, i'm just point out that the you are passing over the position coach and blaming the DC.

Gregg Blache was the D-line coach last year, where imo there was a more balanced approach to playing run vs pass rushing. (We had more sacks last year)

This year there is more of a focus on stopping the run, and Palermo not Blache is the D-Line coach.

Yet, no one has mentioned Palermo.

I don't understand the logic behind blaming Blache when its Palermo's line. *Especially after Palermo has already accepted the blame.

The theory on this board that Hixon is incompetent is purely speculation with no hard evidence. If true, it's a conclusion that JZ might reach only after careful observation of Hixon's methods over time.

Oh, BTW what does ^^ have to do with me?

i was using the Hixon comment as an analogy, maybe a poor analogy to show that blame should begin with the postion coach.

I didn't say that Hixon is incompetent.

IMO blaming Blache for the d-line is like blaming Zorn for the receivers lack of production instead of Hixon.

Imo the rookie WRs, ARE and Thrash didn't produce.

[Oldfan]

darrelgreenie: I think you're getting a bit off topic here, i'm just point out that the you are passing over the position coach and blaming the DC.

I understood your point and responded to it. I think you used a false analogy: Blache had only to look at Palermo's alignments (eyeball evidence). If he didn't order a change, Blache's silence can be taken as the tacit approval of Palermo's superior in the chain of command.

Palermo's statements don't change these facts. Your Zorn to Hixon analogy involves an entirely different, far more complex, situation. The two situations are not alike.

Blache and Williams have always believed in the "stop the run first" strategy. Palermo's alignments only exacerbated the problem caused by a strategy that hindered the D line in applying pressure to the QB. It was a tradeoff that Blache and Williams were willing to make. It's that decision that will now be challenged if we are reading the current situation correctly from the public statements of Zorn and Cerrato.

[DGREENHULK]

Man I totally agree about the LB corps. If we don't upgrade soon, we're going to see a defense like the one of 2006 (remember Highway 57?) that couldn't stop the run to save its life. The year that Sean Taylor had way more tackles than a Safety should because we just couldn't stop anything up front.

Yup at this pace our LB's will start to look like our current OL...OLD SLOW and prone to injury...gotta get some help there...By the way our D couldn't stop the run to save our season last year...remember MBIII running wild in the 4th when we needed a stop and McClain in the Baltimore game same result....Oh and Cedric Benson in the Cinncy game...he ran all over us too!

Wanted Angry/Huge DT apply inside.

[Shilsu]

I think of it this way... who has more injury concerns, our d-line or our linebackers? Obviously our backers. And which has less depth? Obviously our linebackers. So... what is our #1 need this offseason? You said it man, OLB.

Hmm... When Cornelius Griffin and Joe Salave'a were injured in mid-2005, we went on a losing streak that almost destroyed our chances of getting to the playoffs.

When Griffin played through injuries in 2006 and Big Joe played so badly he was eventually released, our defense became absolutely horrendous.

When Phillip Daniels went down during the offseason, we had to trade a 2nd and 6th for Jason Taylor who also ended up being injured early in the regular season.

When Griffin didn't play in 2008 versus the 0-16 Lions, we almost lost.

Hmm...

[Pounds]

Yup at this pace our LB's will start to look like our current OL...OLD SLOW and prone to injury...gotta get some help there...By the way our D couldn't stop the run to save our season last year...remember MBIII running wild in the 4th when we needed a stop and McClain in the Baltimore game same result....Oh and Cedric Benson in the Cinncy game...he ran all over us too!

Wanted Angry/Huge DT apply inside.

It's a valid point you make here, one, though, that I think is magnified and specifically brought to the fore by the way Blache calls this defense.

When you force opposing offenses to dink-and-dunk their way to scores it should be assumed that the defense will wear down in the process. Sometimes, they were on the field for stretches in excess of six minutes, but couldn't get off; I see this as a by-product of the defensive calls through three quarters exacting their subsequent toll.

Traditionally, we were stout through three, with breakdowns in the fourth. On balance, that doesn't make us bad; although, it may appear that way.

[Pounds]

You're saying the D-line fulfilled their responsibilities well, but you made it clear that YOU would want a pass-rush that is also able to effectively rush the passer.

While it was my contention that for our defense to continue any kind of upward progress, LB should be an area of strength, if above all others, I did try to make it clear that I want a consistent and effect rush from our down four.

I appreciate that you read the OP.

You also talk about the d-linemen containing their gaps' date=' and the linebackers attacking the LOS to stop the run. This puts pressure on Rocky and Marcus to perform/stay healthy. HB is obviously not suited to coverage in the SAM spot, even though he is a solid backup for Fletcher. In other words, we're really thin at the OLB spots, which makes this our #1 priority this offseason. As someone already said, one needs only look at 2006 to see how poor linebacker play effects this D.[/quote']

I just think that we have glaring holes on both the strong and weak sides at LB. Furthermore, I think addressing those issue would mask other blemishes and fervently add something to Blache's predictable blitzes, LB, or not.

I think of it this way... who has more injury concerns' date=' our d-line or our linebackers? Obviously our backers. And which has less depth? Obviously our linebackers. So... what is our #1 need this offseason? You said it man, OLB.[/quote']

Depth at LB is a concern, of course so to is the depth on the d-line, but logically we cannot hope to fully address both areas, given our limited resources.

[Pounds]

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

I’m going to pose the question once more, maybe this time you’ll answer it as opposed to dancing around it.

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.

You don't need any technical insight to answer such a blatant and obvious question.

And yet you couldn’t answer this "blatant and obvious question."

Meanwhile' date=' 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.[/quote']

Yes. Such was my premise. I don’t see why you feel the need to restate it for me.

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' date=' context has never been your forte.[/quote']

Shilsu, arguing with someone is very different action than attributing false claims to them.

You should, by now, anticipate the defense of my own words.

I eagerly await your brandishing me with a quote where I state the need to replace "five players on our defensive line."

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.

First of all' date=' by definition one cannot "go off-tangent." Second of all, my answer addressed the very departure in philosophy, which [u']you[/u] introduced to the discussion.

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

I never once presented my notions under the auspices of fact. They should be read as a promotion of discussion. You don’t agree with me' date=' that’s fine. Truthfully, I would carefully reassess my claims if they did meet your agreement.[/size']

Meanwhile' date=' 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.[/quote']

What’s funny? In the OP is the following qualifier: "For this defense, as currently constructed…"

Is it your assertion that none of the above are members of this defense, as currently constructed, upon the date of the OP?

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

Don’t hate commas, Shilsu. They did nothing to you.

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.

As for your "offering"' date=' of course I’ve noticed other DTs, but other DTs were never the subject of my OP; they don’t play for the Redskins. Answering this question adds nothing to the discussion, nor is it relevant; therefore, I dismissed it. [/size']

But still, and to this moment, Shilsu, suffice it to say that I’ve not once read a post of yours, which adds anything of tangible and substantial worth to this discussion. Your antagonistic tone won’t be mistaken for any compelling or thought provoking take.

Here forth, I won’t address any posts of yours made in the interest of furthering a divisive and counter productive "discussion." If you’ve got something worth while to add than by all means…

[skinny21]

While it was my contention that for our defense to continue any kind of upward progress, LB should be an area of strength, if above all others, I did try to make it clear that I want a consistent and effect rush from our down four.

I appreciate that you read the OP.

I just think that we have glaring holes on both the strong and weak sides at LB. Furthermore, I think addressing those issue would mask other blemishes and fervently add something to Blache's predictable blitzes, LB, or not.

Depth at LB is a concern, of course so to is the depth on the d-line, but logically we cannot hope to fully address both areas, given our limited resources.

Yeah, I'm in agreement that the d-line needs a lot of help as well... I'm hoping for a decent/good LB pickup in FA, keep Monty and Golston (they haven't tendered them right?), use our first and third on an offensive and defensive tackle (not necessarily in that order). Heck, I'm not even all that opposed to paying out the nose for Haynesworth (I'm not sold either way here, but the dude could potentially elevate our D to elite assuming we got a decent LB and squared away our CB situation).

[darrelgreenie]

Blache had only to look at Palermo's alignments (eyeball evidence). If he didn't order a change, Blache's silence can be taken as the tacit approval of Palermo's superior in the chain of command.

I can see that we're at an impass here. I respect your opinions and appreciate your posts.

But, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I find fault with Palermo more then Blache.

Blache may give tacit approval but that doesn't make it his scheme.

Imo when Blache was the D-line coach last year, the DEs especially Carter and Wilson were given more chances to rush from a wide stance then they were this year.

Palermo was the D-line coach last year and i thought the DEs were given fewer chances to rush from a wide stance under his regime.

HTTR!

if were lucky...maybe these players will help render this discussion moot next year....

if were lucky....

[skinny21]

Hmm... When Cornelius Griffin and Joe Salave'a were injured in mid-2005, we went on a losing streak that almost destroyed our chances of getting to the playoffs.

When Griffin played through injuries in 2006 and Big Joe played so badly he was eventually released, our defense became absolutely horrendous.

When Phillip Daniels went down during the offseason, we had to trade a 2nd and 6th for Jason Taylor who also ended up being injured early in the regular season. To be fair, we didn't have to trade for Taylor, that's just our sometimes boneheaded FO.

When Griffin didn't play in 2008 versus the 0-16 Lions, we almost lost. I'd be surprised if this was the reason (particularly the singular reason) considering Rudi Johnson managed 21 yds. But to be clear, I think you're right that we're better with Griffin, and that we need a suitable replacement soon. Our lack of higher d-line picks has definitely hurt us.

The difference here is that I feel like Washington needs a replacement now and Blades does not appear to be it. Don't get me wrong, I like him a lot, just not as an OLB. So that leaves us with a WLB with questionable knees, a SAM that might not be back and has health problems and no viable backups/replacements (although I like the fire Fincher shows).

This is why I agree with the OP that OLB is our most questionable position in this scheme. Do I want to see a better penetrating DT added first along with a change in scheme? Yes.

Hmm... Hmmm indeed.

[Shilsu]

I’m going to pose the question once more, maybe this time you’ll answer it as opposed to dancing around it.

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.

So to paraphrase...

Pounds: Our d-line is fine in this scheme.

Shilsu: Our d-line can be improved.

Pounds: How?

Shilsu: Get players that can blow things up in the backfield.

Pounds: How do you propose JT should beat a RT in this scheme?

Shilsu: Get a player that can beat a RT in this scheme.

Pounds: Stop dancing around the question. How do you propose JT should beat a RT in this scheme?

This is why your arguments are nonsensical, Pounds. I am essentially repeating that we need to get players on the d-line while you keep asking dumb questions that have no relevance.

By the way, isn't Free Safety still a need according to you? After all, the only one we have on our roster is Kareem Moore. :doh: