Chalk Talk Discussion Topic: What's the issue with our defense?

[gbear]

Odd question, as fans we talk about running the ball to control the clock and keep our porous D off the field. We always assume we can't trade possessions with a team like the Giants or the Saints because that would be playing their game, a high scoring shoot out. My question is "How long before they start saying the same thing about us?" I can see a situation where the other teams want to run the ball to keep it out of RGIII's hands, and at that point will the strength of our team against the run finally show up?

I always read on here about other teams passing because it's the easiest way to attack our D, but is it possible our O is having a lot of its success because of this rational?

[Oldfan]

I didn't want to start a new thread, but had some thoughts on the defensive performance as it relates to our offense....

Your thoughts make sense. I'll add mine.

We cannot simply assume that more defensive takeaways equals more wins. There's no doubt whatsoever that a very agressive defense, one that blitzes more, just for example, can create more takeaways. However, it's equally true that such a defense will be burned more often: "live by the blitz, die by the blitz."

Sometimes, the net effect of an aggressive defense with mediocre talent, like ours, is simply to raise the points total for both teams. On the deceptive NFL points ranking, the offense will look better than it really is and the defense worse.

[Koolblue13]

My statement was 100% true..

Atogwe was injured and not effective for 3/4s of the season . Laron was injured and played one good half of football in 2011 then regressed until he went on IR. Kevin Barnes was beat like a drum playing in the slot. Doughty & Gomes played a ton last year at FS, SS just like they have this year. New safety coach I will give you that but anyone is a upgrade over Jackson. Tough for the players to respect and listen to a guy that partied with them on a regular basis.

If the secondary wasn't thought to be the most glaring weakness on defense, why would we sign 3 safeties and a cornerback, then draft one safety and 2 cornerbacks, as well as bring in an actual DB coach?

[Koolblue13]

One thing that I'd love to hear about...

Does anyone with the benefit of film (Paradigm, LL, whoever) have a breakdown of how well Doughty actually played? He looked a LOT better than last year after a quick look... But quick looks can be deceiving.

I always thought Reed was solid around the line, but struggled in coverage. I don't remember seeing him playing deep at all personally.

Also, kind of off topic, from another thread, but you were discussing the LeBeau 3-4 and I was curious if Jim Johnson ran a similar 3-4 defense. His was also super aggressive and fun to watch (usually).

[KDawg]

Odd question, as fans we talk about running the ball to control the clock and keep our porous D off the field. We always assume we can't trade possessions with a team like the Giants or the Saints because that would be playing their game, a high scoring shoot out. My question is "How long before they start saying the same thing about us?" I can see a situation where the other teams want to run the ball to keep it out of RGIII's hands, and at that point will the strength of our team against the run finally show up?

I always read on here about other teams passing because it's the easiest way to attack our D, but is it possible our O is having a lot of its success because of this rational?

As long as our coverage unit is as bad as it has been (or the play calls... Or both) then no, I don't see teams running to run the clock. I realize that an incomplete pass is inherently more risky in that a dropped pass or incomplete pass will result in a stopped clock... But opposing receivers are running wide open a very large portion of the time. And when they aren't, there are sometimes running lanes for the quarterback. You could effectively run the clock while still taking advantage of the Redskins weakness. That said, it's a bit riskier, but it's a risk/reward scenario.

I'm also not sure how good our run defense actually is. Peterson had a decent day, they just went away from him. I'd say our pass defense is pourous and our run defense is above average to good. I don't think it's exemplary, though.

[Lavarleap56]

If the secondary wasn't thought to be the most glaring weakness on defense, why would we sign 3 safeties and a cornerback, then draft one safety and 2 cornerbacks, as well as bring in an actual DB coach?

Maybe be a because we lost 2 corners and decided Barnes was not a fit? We also lost 2 safeties and you usually have to replace those players to fill out your roster. I'm not saying the secondary is perfect by any means. The secondary is good enough to get the job done with a better 3-4 DC.

[KDawg]

I always thought Reed was solid around the line, but struggled in coverage. I don't remember seeing him playing deep at all personally.

Also, kind of off topic, from another thread, but you were discussing the LeBeau 3-4 and I was curious if Jim Johnson ran a similar 3-4 defense. His was also super aggressive and fun to watch (usually).

Jim Johnson ran a similar 4-3 defense. The premise was similar... zone blitzes and coverages and idea wise. But personnel was a bit different. Most of the time they'd align in a 4-3 under with a 1-tech/shade tech (inside shoulder of guard, shoulder of center), and a 5-tech (outside shoulder of the tackle) to the weak side and a 3-tech (outside shoulder of guard) and 5-tech to the strong side. Vs. a TE the SAM backer would squat on him. The WILL and MIKE would play over the guards.

In alignment, it looks a HELL of a lot like our 3-4 defense. The SAM is positioned like Kerrigan or Rak would be. The weakside end plays the other OLB role. The interior is the strong DE and the under and nose tackles.

Same premise, but technically not a 3-4.

And while LeBeau was considered the "father of the zone blitz" many consider Johnson to be the "perfecter of the zone blitz", though that is a debated point.

[Lavarleap56]

If the secondary wasn't thought to be the most glaring weakness on defense, why would we sign 3 safeties and a cornerback, then draft one safety and 2 cornerbacks, as well as bring in an actual DB coach?

The old safety coach partied with the players on a regarding basis. Slowick had some issues with the DB's last season and was moved to LB.

[Koolblue13]

KDawg, thanks. I always thought they ran a 3-4. I can see the difference though. Thanks. He was a great coordinator.

LL, that makes sense. I agree our front 7 or the play calling could be a little better and we obviously don't seem to be getting any real push into the pocket, but our secondary has to shoulder a good portion of the blame for leading the league in big plays given up.

[Mahons21]

Maybe he's running the same blitz packages because of the players he has on the field. How much do they know? What can they execute? This obviously has to be a concern.

Ive wondered this myself OF. It seems assumed that since blitzing schemes have been vanilla, it's Hasletts fault. While I can't disagree with any certainty I sometimes wonder about the players and the role the play.

Especially when people compare our D to the Steelers D. Their front 7 players are so much more dynamic, the comparison is hardly fair. Pit has OLBs that can cover and ILB that can blitz very well. This allows play calling to be a lot more dynamic. Furthermore their d-line has been 2-gapping for how many years now? As opposed to Jenkins who's on his 7th game 2-gapping.

I think there's a lot more to the equation than "Haslett is bad."

[Warpath11]

The better the play of your front 7 is the easier it is on your secondary. You want to minimize mistakes on the backend then pressure the QB and don't give him all day to throw. Simple as that.

Sounds like the Giants model and I'd say they have been pretty good the past few years. Their secondary talent is not that impressive but their front 4 generates so much pressure that it masks most of the deficiencies of the back end. Also, due to the Giants front 4 teams game plan to get rid of the ball quickly so that aids the secondary as well (even before the game starts)

What would be better to have a great pass rush with a weak secondary or a weak pass rush with a great secondary? I dont care how good of a DB someone is to ask to cover NFL receivers for extended periods is a pretty risky proposition (unless you have 2-3 Revis types, but those dont grow on trees).

[KDawg]

Sounds like the Giants model and I'd say they have been pretty good the past few years. Their secondary talent is not that impressive but their front 4 generates so much pressure that it masks most of the deficiencies of the back end. Also, due to the Giants front 4 teams game plan to get rid of the ball quickly so that aids the secondary as well (even before the game starts)

What would be better to have a great pass rush with a weak secondary or a weak pass rush with a great secondary? I dont care how good of a DB someone is to ask to cover NFL receivers for extended periods is a pretty risky proposition (unless you have 2-3 Revis types, but those dont grow on trees).

Well, here's the thing...

When you create pressure it causes the QB to go to his hot read as soon as he sees it coming. That means the underneath stuff needs to be covered up. Our coverage unit (not necessarily the secondary... The coverage unit and the "front 7" have overlap with each other) has not done a great job of that. The question there is: why?

Is it because they aren't capable, or is it because the coverage called doesn't put them to their strengths/in the spots that opposing offenses are picking us apart in?

It's probably a mix of both issues, to be honest.

And again, it's the chicken or the egg.

The coverage unit needs to be able to cover for at least a few seconds, the pressure package needs to get to the QB to force them to make a throw at a more efficient rate and the coordinator needs to be able to put people in position to succeed. I think we're below average in terms of all three parts right now. With the majority of the blame to lay on the shoulder of the coordinator.

[Mahons21]

Haslett's DVOA/Ranking previous to the skins:

As a DC:

95 Steelers: -11.4%(7th)

96 Steelers: -11.3%(3rd)

2006 Ram: 17.9%(32nd)

I was about to do them as a HC as well, but didn't think it would be that accurate. I don't think any of us would look at our defense DVOA and think it indicative of Shanny.

So what we have here is a very small sample size, and probably not too much can be drawn from it. However it does appear that there's a very clear correlation between the level of talent Haslett has to work with and the teams defensive DVOA (obvious to most I know).

Haslett has proven that a.) given enough talent he can produce a top 5 defense, and b.) he's not going to make mountains out of molehills, if he doesn't have a very talented defense, he's not going to turn them around in to something special (very few coaches do).

[MartinC]

Is it because they aren't capable, or is it because the coverage called doesn't put them to their strengths/in the spots that opposing offenses are picking us apart in?

I have noted from the snap count breakdowns that we leave our inside backers on the field for literally every snap meaning they are in on nickel packages and even some dime. I assume this trying to keep your best 11 on the field. But if I'm an OC looking at our defense I am seeing mismatches in underneath coverage and I am also seeing if I 3 WR and a TE or 4 receivers I am getting a mistmatch inside if we play zone or on one of the slot receivers if we play man. Its also a really simple read for the QB and a quick throw which takes the pass rush out of the equation.

I just think we are asking too much of our linebackers in coverage.

We also see some physical mismatches with teams picking on London in coverage isolating him with taller receivers or TEs and just throwing it high where he cant make a play on it - the 2 point conversion Sunday was a classic example of this.

[Mahons21]

KDawg,

Don't you think that's what the zone/fire blitz gives up? The underneath stuff.

Playing 3 underneath and 3 deep, gives up the RB check downs, and the bubble screens. Every now and then you're able to catch a team off guard on these routes, when the OLB to the play side is dropping and not rushing, and we've seen a couple of our OLBs make plays in these instances. But for the most part these are going to be the routes you give up, you just have to sound tackling once the catch has been made.

In my opinion the intent of the defense is to play an aggressive style of bend don't break (I know that makes little to no sense). It's bend don't break in the sense that 1/3s underneath and deep, invite the underneath throws, which create long drives and the hope is their will eventually be a turnover/mistake/penalty/difficulty in the RZ. But it's also aggressive because you're going to be bringing extra defenders quite frequently, and the offense is supposed to have a difficult time diagnosing which guys you are bringing (I think back to the game v Indy Haslett's first year, where Manning was throwing balls into coverage left and right). IIRC Landry was all over the field this game, and IMO having an additional player that can blitz successfully allows a defense to be a lot more dynamic.

This is all just me kind of thinking out loud, but I don't think blitzing and allowing the shorter routes is indicative of poor play calling, or some disconnect between the secondary and front-7. Rather it is how the scheme works.

[Lavarleap56]

KDawg, thanks. I always thought they ran a 3-4. I can see the difference though. Thanks. He was a great coordinator.

LL, that makes sense. I agree our front 7 or the play calling could be a little better and we obviously don't seem to be getting any real push into the pocket, but our secondary has to shoulder a good portion of the blame for leading the league in big plays given up.

I don't think the secondary should shoulder blame just because blame has to go somewhere. Secondary is probably one of the hardest groups to judge u less you really know all the coverage concepts and plays as they work with the defensive scheme up front. Those coverage concepts also have a lot of variables that cause them to change based on offensive motions, who releases into a route, and etc. It is easy for fans to place blame on the closet CB or safety while assuming that guy messed up.

Your coverage schemes are built around your pressure plan up front. Coaches don't design and call these blitzes thinking they won't work so naturally the secondary is strained and weekend when the blitz does not create pressure. Every team in the league has secondary issues when their blitzes don't hit home not only the Redskins. Last week in the Haslett vs LeBeau thread I showed how even Pittsburghs secondary allows open WR's with the difference being their pressure affected the QB.

LeBeau's scheme is predicated on causing confusion with the pressure packages and combination coverage schemes to cause doubt in the QB. The combination of pressure and coverage schemes are aimed at making a qb think certain routes are not available to him which takes away from his assurance in the offense.

Haslett's issue is his pressure scheme, play calls,and predictably.. You can not confuse people if they know what is coming.

[Warpath11]

I have noted from the snap count breakdowns that we leave our inside backers on the field for literally every snap meaning they are in on nickel packages and even some dime. I assume this trying to keep your best 11 on the field. But if I'm an OC looking at our defense I am seeing mismatches in underneath coverage and I am also seeing if I 3 WR and a TE or 4 receivers I am getting a mistmatch inside if we play zone or on one of the slot receivers if we play man. Its also a really simple read for the QB and a quick throw which takes the pass rush out of the equation.

I just think we are asking too much of our linebackers in coverage.

We also see some physical mismatches with teams picking on London in coverage isolating him with taller receivers or TEs and just throwing it high where he cant make a play on it - the 2 point conversion Sunday was a classic example of this.

I thought of this as well a little while ago while watching the 49ers. They also leave their two ILBs in the game the entire time. Though their 2 ILBs are the best in the business and can cover just as well as DBs when in zone (IMO). I dont think our ILBs can do this on a consistant basis. I wonder if how often the Steelers take out their ILB in nickle/dine situations. I dont think Larry Foote is a 3 down LB at this point I wonder how often he is replaced in obvious passing stuations?

[Oldfan]

... I don't think any of us would look at our defense DVOA and think it indicative of Shanny...

I haven't checked the DVOA rankings on Mike's teams, but my general impression is that the Denver Super Bowl teams had more talent on the defense than on offense. Then, once Mike took full control of the team in 1999, that talent slowly dwindled because of poor drafting.

I don't think Mike ever had a firm fix on what kind of defense he wanted in Denver. He seemed to have a new DC, with a new scheme, about every other year.

And, as I wrote in my recent thread, I don't think his offensive scheme is good at ball control -- which makes it more difficult for the defense to shine.

[KDawg]

KDawg,

Don't you think that's what the zone/fire blitz gives up? The underneath stuff.

Yes. But that doesn't mean it has to. You can use whoever you want to bring pressure on a fire zone. You can even do it from a cover 2 look. There are so many variations. You can go 2 deep 4 under. You can do 1 deep 5 under. Variation is the key and the spice of life. I would guess, based on observations while the games are in play and not based on film study at all... That our variation is lacking and thus the quarterbacks know exactly where to go when they see a blitz.

Playing 3 underneath and 3 deep, gives up the RB check downs, and the bubble screens. Every now and then you're able to catch a team off guard on these routes, when the OLB to the play side is dropping and not rushing, and we've seen a couple of our OLBs make plays in these instances. But for the most part these are going to be the routes you give up, you just have to sound tackling once the catch has been made.

Also a match up zone scheme would prevent this issue. I'm not sure if we're playing match up zone or not, but I'd have to guess we are. If the corner drops and there is no deep threat he needs to play up. If #1 goes deep, the corner needs to carry him deep. And again, variation would help alleviate this issue sometimes.

1/3s underneath and deep, invite the underneath throws, which create long drives and the hope is their will eventually be a turnover/mistake/penalty/difficulty in the RZ.

I'd guess that is Haslett's goal. But we're breaking far too often for this to be an effective strategy at the moment.

This is all just me kind of thinking out loud, but I don't think blitzing and allowing the shorter routes is indicative of poor play calling, or some disconnect between the secondary and front-7. Rather it is how the scheme works.

I definitely think it's a combination of a lack of a pass rush, poor coverage and poor coaching, to be honest. But that's just my opinion.

[Mahons21]

I find it very odd that Haslett has all this talent according to some, yet he spends all game shuffling people in and out of the lineup. Talk about creativity/adjustments, they were in full effect in this Vikings game.

[Mahons21]

KDawg,

,

In my opinion we're breaking on the back end because of talent not scheme. What would you do to increase pressure, and also help the back end to prevent big plays? It's a catch-22 of sorts in my opinion.

[KDawg]

Haslett's DVOA/Ranking previous to the skins:

As a DC:

95 Steelers: -11.4%(7th)

96 Steelers: -11.3%(3rd)

2006 Ram: 17.9%(32nd)

I was about to do them as a HC as well, but didn't think it would be that accurate. I don't think any of us would look at our defense DVOA and think it indicative of Shanny.

So what we have here is a very small sample size, and probably not too much can be drawn from it. However it does appear that there's a very clear correlation between the level of talent Haslett has to work with and the teams defensive DVOA (obvious to most I know).

Haslett has proven that a.) given enough talent he can produce a top 5 defense, and b.) he's not going to make mountains out of molehills, if he doesn't have a very talented defense, he's not going to turn them around in to something special (very few coaches do).

He also inherited Dick LeBeau's defense with the Steelers and had a ton of talent that was coached by LeBeau. As the years went on, his defenses got worse once they started to truly become "his" defenses.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 09:45 AM ----------

I find it very odd that Haslett has all this talent according to some, yet he spends all game shuffling people in and out of the lineup. Talk about creativity/adjustments, they were in full effect in this Vikings game.

I don't think Haslett has a ton of talent, to be honest, especially with Rak and Carriker out.

That said, he's partially responsible for the talent that he does have. Unless, of course, Bruce and Mike make defensive talent decisions. And if that's the case, we've got much larger issues at hand.

[KDawg]

KDawg,

,

In my opinion we're breaking on the back end because of talent not scheme. What would you do to increase pressure, and also help the back end to prevent big plays? It's a catch-22 of sorts in my opinion.

I don't disagree that there's a lack of talent. I also think that our scheme may be technically sound, but our playcalls aren't well timed and we don't utilize the personnel that we have efficiently enough.

But it's a combination of things. Not one or the other. In my opinion, anyways.

[Oldfan]

...What I'd be interested in seeing is whether the Haslett is calling plays differently this year than he did in 2011...

Seems more likely that he's calling coverages the same as last year -- and defenses have a book on him.

[Mahons21]

He also inherited Dick LeBeau's defense with the Steelers and had a ton of talent that was coached by LeBeau. As the years went on, his defenses got worse once they started to truly become "his" defenses.

Forgive me, I'm on this new iPad and somehow I deleted half of the DVOAs

1997: -13.2 (1)

1998: -7.6 (6)

1999: 5.1 (22) I would venture to say something happened to his level of talent this year, such a drastic drop from 6 to 22nd.

Furthermore his best year was actually his 3rd year as their DC. The really only bad year he had was his last year, so it's not fair to say they got progressively worse, they were good for his first 4 years and then on his 5th they did extremely poorly. That's a fairly large 1 year swing to be indicative or some sort of progression in my opinion. I honestly don't remember enough about these Steelers to analyze them that closely though.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 09:45 AM ----------

I don't think Haslett has a ton of talent, to be honest, especially with Rak and Carriker out.

That said, he's partially responsible for the talent that he does have. Unless, of course, Bruce and Mike make defensive talent decisions. And if that's the case, we've got much larger issues at hand.

I'm sure he has some influence on who he gets, but so does Mike, so does Bruce, so do the scouts, I can't give him that much grief for his personnel, especially considering he's short 2 projected starting safeties, a 5 tech, and arguably the best player on defense in Rak.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 09:59 AM ----------

I don't disagree that there's a lack of talent. I also think that our scheme may be technically sound, but our playcalls aren't well timed and we don't utilize the personnel that we have efficiently enough.

But it's a combination of things. Not one or the other. In my opinion, anyways.

It's tough to do things efficiently when you have no consistency and are constantly doing things on the fly. I just read some snap count article on WaPo for our defense, and it's insane, 4 players shuffling at safety 3 guys shuffling at ILB, 3 guys shuffling at OLB. These aren't guys coming off for a break, this is how he has to run his defense to be effective at all.

Dear posters who say Haslett doesn't adjust, YOU ARE WRONG. Not addressed towards you KDawg, just for clarification sake.