Welcome to the Washington Redskins Da'Ron Payne DT Alabama

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

 

@Skinsinparadise care to totally be a psycho for us and chart what formations offenses lined up in when we were in our 4-2-5? No pressure.  

 

Easier to show.  Allen and Ionnaidis typically lined up in front of the guard.  Swearinger and Foster playing on the strong side.  Though Brown sometimes lines up on the strong side.   Swearinger sometimes plays closer to the line of scrimmage than this, though.  Nicholson playing single high.  Often almost dead center.  Here he is shaded to the weak side.   Often cover 3, or cover 1.  Nickel corner in.   I throw some other 4-3 formations a page or so back -- almost identical with again Allen and Ionnaidis lined up right over the guards.  I'll keep watching and find some other common formations.  But the one below is pretty common.

 

 

 

Here's the arial view of it.

 

 

 

Here is them playing 3-4 with Allen in it.  Playing on the right side.  With Kerrigan and Preston swapping side -- usually they are on the reverse side.  McGee playing 4-5 ish on the left in pretty common.  Allen is 2-3ish almost always whether its 4-2-5 or 3-4.  And like I said in a previous post, sometimes Allen, Ionnaidis and Lanier play 0-1 in 3rd and long type plays. 

 

 

[TSO]

@Skinsinparadise I was more going for figuring out how often offenses were in 11 personnel when we were in our 4-2–5 nickel formation. Like, what did we line up in when they were in 12 or 21 packages? How often did we go to base or stay in the 4-2-5 in those formations and how does it compare to the rest of the league? 

 

I know you charting that would be madness, hence the way I phrased it. But, hey, I thought I’d ask.  

 

What I’m wondering is if we came out in that formation even when offenses were in heavier sets. I’m wondering if we stayed out of the base 3-4 not simply because we were matching offensive formations, but because we weren’t too fond of what we had up front.

 

If, say, we’re still lined up in the 4-2-5 a significant amount of the time against heavier formations, that would suggest to me that our coaches didn’t like our base 3-4 front. 

[Skinsinparadise]

38 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

What I’m wondering is if we came out in that formation even when offenses were in heavier sets. I’m wondering if we stayed out of the base 3-4 not simply because we were matching offensive formations, but because we weren’t too fond of what we had up front.

 

If, say, we’re still lined up in the 4-2-5 a significant amount of the time against heavier formations, that would suggest to me that our coaches didn’t like our base 3-4 front. 

 

Got it.  I got to watch more games.  It takes awhile to go through a game slowly.  But its amazing how much you can see when you do it as to the D line.  Its not hard to see who wins one on one match ups, clogs gaps, etc when you slow everything down.  But its hard to focus on everything on a play. 

 

From what I've seen, they find themselves in 4-2-5 a lot.  I presume its about multiple receiver sets since most teams run their offense that way.  Having said that I am rewatching the first game of the season right now, and they start off playing a lot of 3 DT fronts, Hood, McGee, Allen including with the Eagles playing 11.  

 

I don't know if that has something to do with the Eagles love of RPO?  But the Chiefs are a big RPO team and if I recall they went heavy 4-3 in that one. 

[Skinsinparadise]

To Sub's point about fronts versus formations.  Tough to get a beat on it versus the Eagles in game 1.  I don't know if they were in experimental mode being game 1 and just wanted to throw everything at the Eagles.   Part of the reason why I am in a wait and see mode this year about this defense is this game.  Some like to say you know dude did you see the Raiders game?  Don't you recall how we just beat down that team?  Yeah I do recall it.  The Raiders finished 6-10 last year.  They weren't that hot.  We beat up a bad team that year at home -- nice!  I know people thought the Raiders were good at that time.  But they weren't good last year. 

 

The other game often mentioned is the Rams game.  Re-watching the Rams game they played well at times but were helped BIG by the running game.  We absolutely destroyed the Rams as for time of possession.  36 minutes to 23 minutes.   That's crazy.  

 

The Eagles in this game seem to have their way with our defense at times.   Yeah I get when the Redskins D were fully healthy they could stop the run pretty well.  I buy into it.  But I don't buy yet this is a great defense at full strength.  I am hoping that perhaps having a true nose tackle and a RB who can help us with the time of possession drill -- we can have a really good defense.  But I am not thinking its just slam dunk.  Will see. Hope so. 

 

To the Eagles game #1.  At least from what i watched so far, you got a bigger mix of 3-4, 4-2-5.  And you got some things you typically don't see or much in other games I've watched.  For example Ionnaidis playing some nose.  One one play you had Ionnadis at nose and Allen on the left side on their tackle.  That's not something I recall at least yet elsewhere.  You see that below.  

 

 

 

Then below you got the Eagles with three receivers and we go 3-4.  More on that in a second.  I just think this play is symbolic. Maybe its just the Eagles blocking scheme based on the formation or whatever.  But they double up ends and leave one blocker on Hood.  Maybe with Payne in there at 0 he'd occupy two blockers. Or if you leave 1 on him like the Eagles do with Hood, he'd get to the QB. 

 

 

he's an arial view of the formation.  Cover 2 or quarters?

 

 

 

Here's how that played out.  Both Kerrigan and Preston back peddled in coverage.  Maybe that's the rationale of some 3-4 against 3 plus receivers.  I'll check it out some more.   Also Carson hey since no one is rushing from the edges -- don't worry about McGee, McClain, Hood -- they aren't touching you -- relax, you got a clean pocket.   He ended up completing a pass to his right. 

 

 

 

[skinny21]

@thesubmittedoneI think there may be something to your point about our linemen factoring in to how much we played nickel.  

 

However, I see a problem with us matching up against teams with 3 receivers and a te (or 2 wrs/2 tes) when in our 34... and it has less to do with our linemen.  I’d presume that formation leaves us relying more on Brown and/or Kerrigan/Smith in coverage, keeping in mind we have to factor in the rb as well.  

 

 

Ironically, hurry up also becomes a problem again, but not (necessarily) because of our NT.  

 

As an aside, would be great if Hamilton was able to take over for Brown in the near future (though unlikely) - guy doesn’t have the coverage issues Brown has.  

[OVCChairman]

On 6/2/2018 at 3:45 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's interesting though when you just sit there and watch Manusky's lineup play after play after play.  I am no scout or football expert but its hard to miss what he's thinking just by watching the permutations in the lineup and compare to down and distance.

 

I'll start with I'd be stunned if we see a 4-3 like you laid out.  Kerrgian-Preston are just about a given at end when they go 4-3.    So its just about always from what i've noticed thus far -- two traditional DT types and two DE-pass rushers playing 4-3.

 

They go for the beef in 3-4.  With the traditional 3 down lineman.  I'd presume that's when you mostly see Payne and Settle.  

 

Manusky can get exotic at times on third and long.  Then you sometimes see Ionnaidis, Lanier, Allen play 1.  Middle linebackers sometimes add to the rush from the A gap.  Sometimes a pass rusher plays inside.   Sometimes the pass rushers double up on one side and or you got 3 guys coming off the edges.  

 

At least from what I've seen so far -- Manusky isn't a load up on coverage on third and long guy like some teams do.  At least from the games I watched.  He instead is rushing 5 or 6 or he goes with a traditional 4-3 lineup and plays it straight.

 

As for Settle at NT.  I admit I haven't watched Settle at all.  But I noticed some of his critics in terms of being a traditional nose say he's more of a DE in a 3-4 than a traditional nose because of how he plays and that his weakness supposedly is that his balance isn't always that hot so he can find himself on the ground too much.  The description of him gives me more of a McGee vibe -- a big running stuffing DE as opposed to a nose.  But who knows.  He definitely has the girth to play 0-1 and some see him that way.  I got to watch some of his games and land on my own opinion on him. 

 

Teams seem to do very well against the defense on third and short when they run.  Maybe in those situations you go 4 DTs.  Goal line situations, too.

 

 

 

I'm sorry I didn't clarify, but I was speaking situational.   I do tend to wonder if we've played a lot of the alignments, simply because Manusky wants our 'best' front 7 on the field.  Having Smith and Kerrigan put their hand in the dirt at End might have been a product of not having a better option.  I love Kerrigan to death as a pass rusher, but I've rarely seen him be able to set the edge on running plays.  He's had a major propensity to over-pursue up field allowing for easy cut back lanes which have opened up major holes.  He's a top level pass rusher but his run defense worries me.  

 

This is where I get curious on seeing an alignment like I mentioned.  2nd / 3rd and short.  You can easily swap Smith or Kerrigan at either end spot, but the idea of having that much beef up front has me wondering about getting the offense back on the field. 

 

As far as Settle, the dude is way more athletic than his uniform size.  He made some plays at VT that didn't seem possible with how explosive he was off the line.  The only thing is he didn't do it EVERY play.  If you go to the Welcome to the NFL thread for him, watch some of the plays that are posted and how he blows up the middle of the line.  He can do it.  I think Manusky can get it out of him... especially on passing plays.  

On 6/2/2018 at 5:20 PM, mistertim said:

 

Ioannidis and Allen at DE in a 4-3 makes zero sense to me. Both of those guys are classic 3 tech 3-4 DE/4-3 DTs. Neither has the speed or flexibility to bend the edge and get around Tackles as a 5 tech sort of player like Kerrigan or Smith do; IMO it would be a waste of their talents. I remember when Bama tried to sometimes use Allen as a 5 tech DE and he was noticeably less effective on those snaps than when he was inside as a 3 tech where he always caused havoc. 

 

 

I agree they're not the best pass rush scenario alignment.  I apologize I didn't mean that was going to the be the alignment we're in for 3 downs... but the ability to rotate and players and move them around is what has me intrigued.  

[TSO]

From Keim:

 

Quote

The Redskins aligned Payne as the nose tackle in their base front during the OTA session last week that was open to the media, with Allen to his right. Payne also played tackle in the nickel package.

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/36568/saban-weighs-in-payne-hamilton-latest-in-tide-redskins-pipeline

 

[Koolblue13]

@OVCChairman I like what you're saying about settle. Figure he's not a starter and only going to be in for 15 or less plays a game. That should really help him. 

 

Spitballing here, but IF we have a running game and IF we can finally stop the run, we should finally be able to be in a more attacking mode late in games now allowing cats like Settle to do what he does and if he can blow up the middle, it will occupy blockers and allow Manu to do what he loves and that's attack the passer. 

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

This is where I get curious on seeing an alignment like I mentioned.  2nd / 3rd and short. 

 

Goal line

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3rd and 1 

 

 

 

3 & 1

 

 

[skinny21]

Throwing this out there...

 

Snaps:  ~ 65/game (I have a hunch we’ll be a bit under this)

Nickel:  ~ 40 (~65%) x2 linemen = ~80 dline snaps

Base:  ~ 14 (~20%) x3 = ~42 dline snaps

Goal line/Dime:  ~ 11 (~15%) ~ 30 total dline snaps?  

Total dline snaps = 152

 

Ioannidas ~ 40

Allen ~ 40

Payne ~ 30

Settle ~ 15

McGee ~ 20

Lanier ~ 8

Hood ~ 8

Total ~ 156

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

Ioannidas ~ 40

Allen ~ 40

Payne ~ 30

Settle ~ 15

McGee ~ 20

Lanier ~ 8

Hood ~ 8

Total ~ 156

 

That's interesting.  I think Settle is going to be more in the 8 snap group, and could possibly start the season as one of the half dozen or so inactives.  I don't think we'll have 7 active DL on gameday.

 

[OVCChairman]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Goal line

 

 

 

 

I meant see if we have those beef packages like goal line where we actually see Allen / Settle / Payne / Ioan all on the field with their hand in the dirt.  

[Skinsinparadise]

41 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I meant see if we have those beef packages like goal line where we actually see Allen / Settle / Payne / Ioan all on the field with their hand in the dirt.  

 

on the goal line photo versus the 49ers looked like 4 tackles up the middle.  So sure I can see that.  If its purely to shut down the middle versus the run on the goal line -- maybe?  Payne, Settle, McGee, Hood or Allen (if Hood makes the team?)

[skinny21]

2 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

That's interesting.  I think Settle is going to be more in the 8 snap group, and could possibly start the season as one of the half dozen or so inactives.  I don't think we'll have 7 active DL on gameday.

 

That’s a good point.  It’s going to be interesting to see how many DL we carry, but I have to agree we likely don’t have 7 active.  

 

No idea what to really expect from Settle, but I could see him getting some snaps at either DE or NT (in our 34)... if active of course.   

[Koolblue13]

On 6/4/2018 at 3:03 PM, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

That's interesting.  I think Settle is going to be more in the 8 snap group, and could possibly start the season as one of the half dozen or so inactives.  I don't think we'll have 7 active DL on gameday.

 

I agree with this. At least initially. I think Payne will be lower at first as well, unless he just blows it up in camp. 

I'm not positive that Hood (although I think he is) or Lanier are locks for the team either. I'm assuming McGee is since he is still here.

[HardcoreZorn]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

I agree with this. At least initially. I think Payne will be lower at first as well, unless he just blows it up in camp. 

I'm not positive that Hood (although I think he is) or Lanier are locks for the team either. I'm assuming McGee is since he is still here.

I feel like Lanier has to be but who knows. I think he's shown enough as a rotational rusher and is young with potential. Didn't realize he actually had 5 sacks last year.

[carex]

On 6/4/2018 at 4:03 PM, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

That's interesting.  I think Settle is going to be more in the 8 snap group, and could possibly start the season as one of the half dozen or so inactives.  I don't think we'll have 7 active DL on gameday.

 

 

I expect only six DL and Settle would probably need to be active,just because he's a true NT.  The last DL and most lkely to be inactive should be from the group of Lanier, McGee and Hood.  I think one will be five, one will be inactive, one will be cut.  I kind of expect McGee.  WIth his salary they can keep him if he's a starter, but not if he's the 4 5 or 6

[Vanguard]

58 minutes ago, carex said:

 

I expect only six DL and Settle would probably need to be active,just because he's a true NT.  The last DL and most lkely to be inactive should be from the group of Lanier, McGee and Hood.  I think one will be five, one will be inactive, one will be cut.  I kind of expect McGee.  WIth his salary they can keep him if he's a starter, but not if he's the 4 5 or 6

 

The Redskins have given me just about everything I could ask for this offseason.  The last thing I want them to do is cut Ziggy Hood.  Please, I won't complain about anything else, I promise, until the season starts. 

[carex]

15 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

 

The Redskins have given me just about everything I could ask for this offseason.  The last thing I want them to do is cut Ziggy Hood.  Please, I won't complain about anything else, I promise, until the season starts. 

 

he puts out a lot of effort and he could be fine if they play him at DE

[Koolblue13]

8 hours ago, carex said:

 

he puts out a lot of effort and he could be fine if they play him at DE

He's serviceable at DE. Better than Lanier. McGee is a better DT than Hood. One probably gets cut and I don't really care which one. 

[Hail2theSkins24]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

He's serviceable at DE. Better than Lanier. McGee is a better DT than Hood. One probably gets cut and I don't really care which one. 

 

 Anthony Lanier is a 24 year old building block on our DL. He has grown exponentially as a football player and had 5 sacks from Week 10 on. There’s no sense debating if he will make the roster, he is a lock. Ziggy Hood is a great locker room guy, but laughable to say he’s better on the field than Lanier at this point

[Koolblue13]

7 minutes ago, Hail2theSkins24 said:

 

 Anthony Lanier is a 24 year old building block on our DL. He has grown exponentially as a football player and had 5 sacks from Week 10 on. There’s no sense debating if he will make the roster, he is a lock. Ziggy Hood is a great locker room guy, but laughable to say he’s better on the field than Lanier at this point

Lanier is crap against the run and only began seeing playing time because everyone in front of him was injured.

 

I'm not saying he's worthless or crap and yeah, they obviously like him, he's cheap and has improved over time, but let's not make him sound like the second coming of Reggie White.

 

Our building blocks are Allen, Iaon and Payne. Lanier is a bubble player with some upside and a low contract being compared to a vet who's affordable and has had success when playing his correct position. 

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

6 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Lanier is crap against the run and only began seeing playing time because everyone in front of him was injured.

 

I'm not saying he's worthless or crap and yeah, they obviously like him, he's cheap and has improved over time, but let's not make him sound like the second coming of Reggie White.

 

Our building blocks are Allen, Iaon and Payne. Lanier is a bubble player with some upside and a low contract being compared to a vet who's affordable and has had success when playing his correct position. 

 

Lanier was not at a good playing weight last year.  This is a big off-season where we should see a "transformation" of sorts.

 

2016, we sign him as a UDFA, he weighed 265 lbs playing at a historically black college.  So no real strength training program.  He's 6'6 with a 35.25" arm length.

 

2017, he gets his weight up to around 285, he gets playing time and flashes as a pass rusher, but gets bulldozed as a run defender.  That's kind of understandable as his body type is more of a very large 4-3 DE right now.

 

This upcoming season will be big.  If he shows up with another 20 lbs on him, and hopefully spread in a good manner so his base is stronger.  Then I'm expecting him to not have this massive center of gravity disadvantage in the trenches.

[Koolblue13]

31 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

Lanier was not at a good playing weight last year.  This is a big off-season where we should see a "transformation" of sorts.

 

2016, we sign him as a UDFA, he weighed 265 lbs playing at a historically black college.  So no real strength training program.  He's 6'6 with a 35.25" arm length.

 

2017, he gets his weight up to around 285, he gets playing time and flashes as a pass rusher, but gets bulldozed as a run defender.  That's kind of understandable as his body type is more of a very large 4-3 DE right now.

 

This upcoming season will be big.  If he shows up with another 20 lbs on him, and hopefully spread in a good manner so his base is stronger.  Then I'm expecting him to not have this massive center of gravity disadvantage in the trenches.

I have high hopes for the kid as well, but there's a lot of ifs involved and our line is pretty talented right now. I personally think he's going to be very good for us, but we don't know that. That's my point. Hood shouldn't be dismissed as just a locker room personality. If in his natural position and in a good rotation he's solid. 

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

I have high hopes for the kid as well, but there's a lot of ifs involved and our line is pretty talented right now. I personally think he's going to be very good for us, but we don't know that. That's my point. Hood shouldn't be dismissed as just a locker room personality. If in his natural position and in a good rotation he's solid. 

 

You're scaring me.  This sounds like the pattern of thinking Redskins management has.  The guy is dead weight.  When he's in the game he doesn't go forward or backward, he's just there.  He has no presence, he doesn't make plays.  It's not that I don't like him, he just doesn't make this team better.