darklight1216 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 http://coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2766_The_Iciest_Issues_in_training_camp%3A_NFC_edition.html Long article; consider yourself warned. Washington Icy Issue: What’s Washington’s biggest problem entering the 2009 season? Icier Answer: They’re more imbalanced than Charles Manson. Redskins fans were fully aware of the team’s problems in 2008: they fielded a Super Bowl-caliber defense, but paired it with a Division 1-AA offense. So what did the team do in the offseason? It went out and laid down bank-busting dollars on defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth. And then they devoted every single top pick in the draft to defenders. So the imbalance that existed in the team’s physical make-up last year has merely been accentuated here in 2009. These moves are indicative of another imbalance, the one in the front office of owner Dan Snyder. It spells another long, frustrating season for Redskins fans. *Click Link for Rest* --------------------------------------------------------------------- I know it's a little late in the year for a training camp article, but I thought it was pretty funny, and yes, I think it's accurate, but that's just my opinion. What do you think; were these the iciest issues or did Chff miss the mark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 That at whole article was hilarious. However, in the AFC write-up he went pretty soft, which was.....WEAK! The Giants/Cowboys stuff was awesome. Guess our FO just didn't think the Offensive FAs out there this off season were as good as Haynesworth, or the picks at 13 were as good as Orakpo. I guess we'll see. But, yeah, he should have been a lot harder on some AFC teams (ehem Broncos/Browns just to name a couple), instead he just says, "the future of the franchise depends on it" a lot. Other than that it was a great article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 It's a bit misleading because the 2008 D was 'passive' with its bend-but-don't-break approach. Whether it's coaches' preference or lack of D-line talent, I don't know, but whatever the case, it is not a good approach to generate turnovers, which helps the D gets off the field sooner and gives the O more oppurtunities to score and/or play ball control. The D simply could not rush the QB without a blitz, and those blitzes were picked up or they got torched on a screen. Games such as the second Giants game, where the team had resorted to man coverage and 8-in-the-box to stop Brandon Jacobs while Eli torched the secondary, second Dallas game, where Romo sits to pee was left untouched despite the blitzing, even the Bengals game, where they were burned on a couple screens, showed this weakness. The team is still waiting on the development of the WRs and TE from the 2008 draft, so that's why no big acquisitions are made at that position. Not signing an o-linemen is a bit discomforting, but I guess space was need for Albert's contract. They did try to replace Jason Campbell, but that didn't happen in the end and now he's been the best-looking QB so far in training camp. If JC does stink it up, I wouldn't be surprised if Todd Collins gets the nod since Zorn has to win or he may be gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Generating sacks and turnovers = offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddub52 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Good post SCP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Redskins fans were fully aware of the team’s problems in 2008: they fielded a Super Bowl-caliber defense... No, we didn't lol. We fielded a very good defense, but for it to be considered a Super Bowl-caliber defense more sacks and turnovers needed to be generated. Signing Haynesworth and drafting the likes of Orakpo was the FO's attempt at making the defense into an actual Super Bowl-caliber defense....NOT a sign of "imbalance". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Skins spent three second-round selections on receivers the year before. They improved the defense this past offseason because the players they acquired were the best available -- and let's not forget the move to bring Dockery back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InsaneBoost Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Were going nowhere guys! This just makes it official. ROFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus87 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 As others have said- the defense was good at holding overall yards and points down, but sucked at creating turnovers or pressure on the QB. Haynesworth and Orakpo help fix that (and seriously, drafting a pass rusher in the 1st round was waaaay overdue anyway). Meanwhile, there were zero high-end FAs available for the o-line. Jordan Gross would've been nice, but Carolina was able to keep him around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bay Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I wasn't a fan of going after Haynesworth from the perspective of not wanting to invest so much into one player. Orakpo was a great choice. We have lacked a good pass rushing presence for some time now...basically since Ken Harvey. I disagree with the assessment of the article from the perspective that its a bit shortsighted. We drafted 3 receivers last year, so that part of the offense could conceivably improve. No need for a major investment into running backs as we're already 'loaded' there and Campbell is in a contract year. The only true area that needed improvement, and it is a big one, is the offensive line. That was addressed, allbeit casually, by bringing Dockery back and releasing Jansen to allow a younger player to step up. Not the greatest of sollutions, I'll admit. Also, it's a question on where do you look to improve your team. You can't have it all in the salary cap era. Do you focus on the offense and try to balance that with an alright defense? Or do you stack your defense (which is already the strength of the team) and hope that it can be so dominant that your offense doesn't need to be that good? A Ravens fan should be most aware that a dominant D can take an impotent O to the top. Though that team was a freak of nature and something I don't think we'll see again for a long long time, if ever. However, the model is still apt. Defense goes a long way in helping the offense. Though our defense was good last year, they weren't great and broke in a few critical areas. I think it is easier to stack up on your strength than to completely rebuild your weakness. That being said, we do need offensive linemen and bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darklight1216 Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 A Ravens fan should be most aware that a dominant D can take an impotent O to the top. Though that team was a freak of nature and something I don't think we'll see again for a long long time, if ever. However, the model is still apt. Defense goes a long way in helping the offense. Though our defense was good last year, they weren't great and broke in a few critical areas. I think it is easier to stack up on your strength than to completely rebuild your weakness. That being said, we do need offensive linemen and bad. Well obviously defense wins championships, but there is a vast difference between 14th in scoring (Ravens in 2000) and 28th? in scoring. Now couple that with a defense that, in all likelihood, is far from being what the Ravens were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMalcolmConnection Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Was New England not on there or was it just me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMalcolmConnection Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Nevermind, I'm stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darklight1216 Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 ^ LOL, it's okay; we all make mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Well obviously defense wins championships, but there is a vast difference between 14th in scoring (Ravens in 2008) and 28th? in scoring. Now couple that with a defense that, in all likelihood, is far from being what the Ravens were. I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Raven's Super Bowl season, not last year. The Ravens only allowed 10 points per game that year...every offense in the league would have been enough to win games. As for last year, the Skins offense averaged 21 points per game during the first 8 games, and 12.5 points per game during the last 8 games. It's not a matter of whether or not the Skins have enough talent to score the points, because they obviously do. It's gonna be a matter of which offense shows up--and stays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 It's a bit misleading because the 2008 D was 'passive' with its bend-but-don't-break approach. I agree. The defense was good last year but the #4 was overstated. We too often failed to stop teams when it really mattered and we have to face facts; other teams just didn't have to score that many points to beat us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darklight1216 Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Raven's Super Bowl season, not last year. The Ravens only allowed 10 points per game that year...every offense in the league would have been enough to win games. That was a typo; I meant 2000. The offense was 11th in '08, not that it matters... As for last year, the Skins offense averaged 21 points per game during the first 8 games, and 12.5 points per game during the last 8 games. It's not a matter of whether or not the Skins have enough talent to score the points, because they obviously do. It's gonna be a matter of which offense shows up--and stays. At least the opponents have pretty lousy defenses; that will cushion things some. I agree. The defense was good last year but the #4 was overstated. We too often failed to stop teams when it really mattered and we have to face facts; other teams just didn't have to score that many points to beat us. Give yourself some credit; other teams couldn't score on you very often either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant15fromNJ Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I guess he forgot about that were waiting on Devin and Kelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bay Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Well obviously defense wins championships, but there is a vast difference between 14th in scoring (Ravens in 2000) and 28th? in scoring. Now couple that with a defense that, in all likelihood, is far from being what the Ravens were. You've got to start somewhere. The Ravens offense had a good run game and were aided by great special teams. The former of which we have as long as the line and Portis can stay healthy. The latter has struggled, but will hopefully be improved. Sorry I didn't differentiate between the years. It made sense in my head. Give yourself some credit; other teams couldn't score on you very often either. But it wasn't a shut down defense, unfortunately. More turnovers could've potentially changed a few games. I'm not terribly upset by trying to build a defensive juggernaut. Not the biggest fan of the way it has been conducted, but now that we're in it I'm behind it 100%. Rather give out the good energy than the bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianm23 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Pretty much accurate about us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 MOre Hate, gotta love it, these guys always look silly in hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Well obviously defense wins championships, but there is a vast difference between 14th in scoring (Ravens in 2000) and 28th? in scoring. Now couple that with a defense that, in all likelihood, is far from being what the Ravens were. Helps your offense to score when the defense creates punts and turnovers, which the Ravens defense does. I'm sure your defense put your offense in good scoring situations. I know our offense sucked, but our defense didn't help matters by not getting turnovers in the opposition territory or sacking a guy inside his own 20 to force a punt that we could return near midfield. Instead, when we did force punts, the other teams were either near or past the 50 and we lost the field position battle ALOT!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.