Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Is this the most talented yet misused defensive front we've had in years?


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

My major point was going to be more about personnel. The actual players you have on the team, the kind of players you target and how they fit a scheme, as opposed to x's and 0's. Like how our front 4 in a 4-2 is very weak against the run because he have 2 OLB playing end.

 

Kind of like having light and mobile ZBS linemen and then always wondering why you can't make any short yardage runs when you need them.

 

I disagree with this contention. Coming out of college, Kerrigan was thought of more as a 4-3 DE, and that I think remains his natural fit. As a 4-3 OLB, he much more often is rushing the passer and seldom drops into coverage. He's almost always playing a de-facto DE in a 4-2. Kerrigan is stout enough against the run for our run defense to be solid. Ditto Preston Smith. The traditional 4-3 RDE is a speed player without great size. Only rarely have 4-3 DE's has both thespeed to rush the passer and the power to stop the run. Those players are rare, and that is part of the reason for the rise of the 3-4. It's easier to find personnel. 

 

I think we were soft against the run in our 3-4 defense for two reasons. One, our DT's have not been very good for quite some time. Our 4-3 was fine against the run when Allen was playing and before Ioannidis broke his hand. The second reason is that a 4-2 by nature is a nickel defense. There is one less LB close to the line of scrimmage to stop the run. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Dont think anyone is disputing that... and I don't understand how that means I should rescind my statement on a different subject.  

 

We dont have the team that can afford to live and die in a 3-4... and we dont...

 

It's not a different subject, and you are disputing it. I'm guessing because you don't understand what I'm saying. When you run a basic scheme, you look for players to play in it, right? For instance, when you have a base that is a 3-4, the linebackers that you're looking for are outside LB's that can rush the passer, but need to be able to drop into coverage from a stand up position, as a for instance. in a 4-3, that isn't their first job, because that is what you're DE's are doing, and they also almost never drop into coverage, unless it's a zone blitz.. Once you get out of base, you have different packages, but they guys you have on the roster are there because of the base scheme you are running, and may, or may not be all that good at what you are wanting to do. For instance, Kerrigan, who is listed at 259, is not going to be stout enough against the run in a 4-2 playing on the LDE side.

 

3 hours ago, Anselmheifer said:

 

I disagree with this contention. Coming out of college, Kerrigan was thought of more as a 4-3 DE, and that I think remains his natural fit. As a 4-3 OLB, he much more often is rushing the passer and seldom drops into coverage. He's almost always playing a de-facto DE in a 4-2. Kerrigan is stout enough against the run for our run defense to be solid. Ditto Preston Smith. The traditional 4-3 RDE is a speed player without great size. Only rarely have 4-3 DE's has both thespeed to rush the passer and the power to stop the run. Those players are rare, and that is part of the reason for the rise of the 3-4. It's easier to find personnel. 

 

I think we were soft against the run in our 3-4 defense for two reasons. One, our DT's have not been very good for quite some time. Our 4-3 was fine against the run when Allen was playing and before Ioannidis broke his hand. The second reason is that a 4-2 by nature is a nickel defense. There is one less LB close to the line of scrimmage to stop the run. 

 

1. Yes and no. Kerrigan was though to be either, but in a 4-3 he wasn't going to be playing LDE, as that is side on a 4-3 that generally has the DE weighing 285 pounds or more. Kerrigan coming our was 263 and is listed at 259. He's not big enough, and to be frank almost any OLB is going to be a large disadvantage doing so. Now, if you flip him to RDE, than I agree with you, he's perfect for that.

 

2. 3-4 don't have DT's, they have a NT and DE's, which cover different gaps, and have different jobs. Now, I know what you're going to say, and before you say it I'm going to say this. It's better to have a guy that IS what the job requires than trying to put a guys that is not as well suited for that role. That's my point here.

 

3. We're going to disagree on "ease" of finding personnel. the 3-4 had the hardest position to find, the NT. It's tougher to find that QB, and it's not even close. 4-3 is much easier. DT's and DE's are pretty easy to find. Kerrigan is a RDE. So is Smith. Allen is a perfect LDE in a 4-3, and maybe not a perfect fit as a DE in a 3-4.

 

People run the 3-4 for a couple reasons. First, it's less predictable. You don't know where the pressure is coming from as easily as you do in a 4-3. Also, many people think that your Linebackers tend to be your best athletes, and having 4 of them on the field is better than 3. It's more dynamic, but it's less stout.

 

I'm also on a lot of pain meds and muscle relaxers right now, so if I sounds like an idiot, I'm having some help in that dept. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

It's not a different subject, and you are disputing it. I'm guessing because you don't understand what I'm saying. When you run a basic scheme, you look for players to play in it, right? For instance, when you have a base that is a 3-4, the linebackers that you're looking for are outside LB's that can rush the passer, but need to be able to drop into coverage from a stand up position, as a for instance. in a 4-3, that isn't their first job, because that is what you're DE's are doing, and they also almost never drop into coverage, unless it's a zone blitz.. Once you get out of base, you have different packages, but they guys you have on the roster are there because of the base scheme you are running, and may, or may not be all that good at what you are wanting to do. For instance, Kerrigan, who is listed at 259, is not going to be stout enough against the run in a 4-2 playing on the LDE side.

 

 

 

Clearly you're not understanding.  I understand the entire philosophy of a base scheme, I promise.  

 

My comment was geared toward the people who are so wrapped up in what Madden and NFL.com 'list' as our 'base scheme' and how they are all up in arms that we need to change it.  We don't line up in a 3-4 as often as some people may think.  The coaching staff clearly is not as stuck on some sort of idea that we HAVE to have a 3-4 alignment, because they KNOW it's not what we're suited for, and it's not the best alignment for what we're playing against.  

 

I've NEVER heard Jay Gruden, Greg Manusky, or any other person comment on what our 'base' scheme actually is.  I've never heard Jay say "we're going to stick with the 3-4 because it's the best defense we have."  He's never said it because it would be incorrect.  I would gladly say otherwise if I actually heard someone in charge of calling the defensive plays, actually say we're a 3-4 defense.  Based on the plays we ran last year, the alignments we were in the most, and the matchups we looked to have, the 3-4 is not in fact our base defense... or at least not the one we line up in the most.  

 

YES you need to get players that fit your defensive scheme... but we don't actually put a 3-4 out on the field as often as we do others, so to get upset that we don't have players that fit a 'traditional 3-4' is a shallow argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Clearly you're not understanding.  I understand the entire philosophy of a base scheme, I promise.  

 

My comment was geared toward the people who are so wrapped up in what Madden and NFL.com 'list' as our 'base scheme' and how they are all up in arms that we need to change it.  We don't line up in a 3-4 as often as some people may think.  The coaching staff clearly is not as stuck on some sort of idea that we HAVE to have a 3-4 alignment, because they KNOW it's not what we're suited for, and it's not the best alignment for what we're playing against.  

 

I've NEVER heard Jay Gruden, Greg Manusky, or any other person comment on what our 'base' scheme actually is.  I've never heard Jay say "we're going to stick with the 3-4 because it's the best defense we have."  He's never said it because it would be incorrect.  I would gladly say otherwise if I actually heard someone in charge of calling the defensive plays, actually say we're a 3-4 defense.  Based on the plays we ran last year, the alignments we were in the most, and the matchups we looked to have, the 3-4 is not in fact our base defense... or at least not the one we line up in the most.  

 

YES you need to get players that fit your defensive scheme... but we don't actually put a 3-4 out on the field as often as we do others, so to get upset that we don't have players that fit a 'traditional 3-4' is a shallow argument.

 

 

OK. I will say I don't think there are as many people wrapped up in that as you might think, I don't think you're giving them as much credit as they deserve.

Greg Said when he was first promoted to DC that he was going to run a 3-4, and since then, we have continued to get players that fit that scheme.

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/29914/greg-manusky-says-redskins-will-stick-with-3-4-but-must-stop-the-run

 

The issue I have is this: If you're out getting pieces for a 3-4, and you only run it 20-30% of the time, is that a good idea? This is where putting a square peg into a round hole becomes a issue. Am I being more clear on this now?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 8:38 PM, Darth Tater said:

Looks like defense will be illegal soon

Have never quoted myself but this is a paraphrase of what was said in the 40s when unlimited substitution was enacted and after the 1978 rules changes (legalized certain types of offensive holding while creating the 5 yard rule) by former players and coaches. Also, one of the greatest historic football minds thought the forward pass would ruin football.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Awesome seeing this thread bumped and thinking there's news or something interesting, only to find QB...... Err..... I mean base formation talk. Again and again. 

 

Block me then. Sorry to inconvenience you so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

OK. I will say I don't think there are as many people wrapped up in that as you might think, I don't think you're giving them as much credit as they deserve.

Greg Said when he was first promoted to DC that he was going to run a 3-4, and since then, we have continued to get players that fit that scheme.

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/29914/greg-manusky-says-redskins-will-stick-with-3-4-but-must-stop-the-run

 

The issue I have is this: If you're out getting pieces for a 3-4, and you only run it 20-30% of the time, is that a good idea? This is where putting a square peg into a round hole becomes a issue. Am I being more clear on this now?

 

 

I get that, but we haven't been getting pieces to run a 3-4 until seemingly now.  Settle may be the first player we've picked up that even resembles fitting the mold of the NT position, despite there being options out there over the last few years.  I'll be the first one to admit I've thought we NEEDED that in a bad way, til I actually saw how often we lined up in it.  I don't think the true demand is there to invest the kind off money a top 5 NT would command, and NTs are not an easy find in the draft.  Most coming out of college are undersized, or overwhelmed the minute you pull back on the 'see ball, get ball' mentality.  I actually think we (til we took Settle) have focused more on the 4-2-5 Nickle look type player, because that's the best matchup vs the current league trend.  We have the personnel for that, as the emphasis is versatility and mobility, over brute force.  Adding a true NT now is a bonus.  We need the ability to plug the middle and stop the run, and a 'true' NT on the interior who is available when the situation calls for it, is a MAJOR piece to what we need to do to make that happen...

 

I do have to say, the copy cat league is swinging back toward the value in RB, but with the emphasis being on the RB in the passing game, the NT's value is not going to be AS big as it was in previous eras where the RB was a focal point of the offense.   Pair that with the ever growing love of the slot WR, and flexible vertical threat TE, the emphasis on matchups is at it's highest.  All of this comes together with the emphasis being to have the ability to move laterally.  Anymore it's speed sideline to sideline that appears to be the best thing going.  Obviously there is not only 1 way things can be done to be successful, but as far as the Redskins go, it would appear that we aren't focused on the 3-4, and it's just a title.  


Maybe there aren't people as wrapped up as I think, but i've been hearing the same narrative from people about the argument of what our 'base' scheme should be, when you can in theory put ANY defensive alignment as our base and it would qualify.... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I get that, but we haven't been getting pieces to run a 3-4 until seemingly now.  Settle may be the first player we've picked up that even resembles fitting the mold of the NT position, despite there being options out there over the last few years.  I'll be the first one to admit I've thought we NEEDED that in a bad way, til I actually saw how often we lined up in it.  I don't think the true demand is there to invest the kind off money a top 5 NT would command, and NTs are not an easy find in the draft.  Most coming out of college are undersized, or overwhelmed the minute you pull back on the 'see ball, get ball' mentality.  I actually think we (til we took Settle) have focused more on the 4-2-5 Nickle look type player, because that's the best matchup vs the current league trend.  We have the personnel for that, as the emphasis is versatility and mobility, over brute force.  Adding a true NT now is a bonus.  We need the ability to plug the middle and stop the run, and a 'true' NT on the interior who is available when the situation calls for it, is a MAJOR piece to what we need to do to make that happen...

 

I do have to say, the copy cat league is swinging back toward the value in RB, but with the emphasis being on the RB in the passing game, the NT's value is not going to be AS big as it was in previous eras where the RB was a focal point of the offense.   Pair that with the ever growing love of the slot WR, and flexible vertical threat TE, the emphasis on matchups is at it's highest.  All of this comes together with the emphasis being to have the ability to move laterally.  Anymore it's speed sideline to sideline that appears to be the best thing going.  Obviously there is not only 1 way things can be done to be successful, but as far as the Redskins go, it would appear that we aren't focused on the 3-4, and it's just a title.  


Maybe there aren't people as wrapped up as I think, but i've been hearing the same narrative from people about the argument of what our 'base' scheme should be, when you can in theory put ANY defensive alignment as our base and it would qualify.... 

 

I'm going to completely disagree with your first statement. Obviously we've been getting pieces for the 3-4 since we switched over when Shanny got here. I will agree that we didn't focus in the NT, the most important part of it until last year when we got Pipkins and Phil Taylor. To me that just tell's me how bad we were under Haz and One Who Will Not Be Mentioned.

 

I will disagree some on your 2nd point, I think that the focus is swinging back to the running game. For a while it was going with "RB by committee" and no one was putting much stock in having a bell cow type back. That is swinging back to being coveted, and when you look at the guys that are going high again, all of them are big, physical (except for Barkley, and maybe he should be) running backs. While I think running backs in the passing game are still as important, it's clear the NFL is remembering that having a guy that can carry the load is, as well.

 

I know, the passing game has been en vogue for some time, but it seems like that teams that can run the ball are the ones that are doing well. Why? Probably because it gives defense more to think about when a team is balanced, and you can't cheat. Anytime you can make a team one dimensional, you're usually winning. So, even in today's league, stopping the run is important.

 

As far as"speed" goes, that is one of the reasons to go 3-4 as opposed to 4-3. As I said in a previous post, the 3-4 gets your best athletes on the field, so I think that one of the reasons to run that as a base, AND to go out and get players that fit in that scheme (which is the thing I think we're talking about here).

 

And that leads to your last point. Yes, we don't play our base that much, maybe 20-30% of the time. But, if you don't have the horses to run it, like having a serviceable NT, why bother? If we're in a 4-3 front the majority of the time, why not just go and get a REAL 4-3, along with appropriate personnel? So, when we go to our 4-2-5, it's a easy substitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

I'm going to completely disagree with your first statement. Obviously we've been getting pieces for the 3-4 since we switched over when Shanny got here. I will agree that we didn't focus in the NT, the most important part of it until last year when we got Pipkins and Phil Taylor. To me that just tell's me how bad we were under Haz and One Who Will Not Be Mentioned.

 

I will disagree some on your 2nd point, I think that the focus is swinging back to the running game. For a while it was going with "RB by committee" and no one was putting much stock in having a bell cow type back. That is swinging back to being coveted, and when you look at the guys that are going high again, all of them are big, physical (except for Barkley, and maybe he should be) running backs. While I think running backs in the passing game are still as important, it's clear the NFL is remembering that having a guy that can carry the load is, as well.

 

I know, the passing game has been en vogue for some time, but it seems like that teams that can run the ball are the ones that are doing well. Why? Probably because it gives defense more to think about when a team is balanced, and you can't cheat. Anytime you can make a team one dimensional, you're usually winning. So, even in today's league, stopping the run is important.

 

As far as"speed" goes, that is one of the reasons to go 3-4 as opposed to 4-3. As I said in a previous post, the 3-4 gets your best athletes on the field, so I think that one of the reasons to run that as a base, AND to go out and get players that fit in that scheme (which is the thing I think we're talking about here).

 

And that leads to your last point. Yes, we don't play our base that much, maybe 20-30% of the time. But, if you don't have the horses to run it, like having a serviceable NT, why bother? If we're in a 4-3 front the majority of the time, why not just go and get a REAL 4-3, along with appropriate personnel? So, when we go to our 4-2-5, it's a easy substitution.

 

 

I dont think we are that far off... 

 

I don't think we've truly gone after 3-4 type players....  Guys like Trent Murphy at DE, is not a recipe for a functional 3-4.  Converted OLBs, at least in my personal opinion, do not make good 3-4 DEs.  They make really good 4-3 DEs... but not so much in the 3-4.... and we've been doing it all the way up til last year with Trent Murphy.  I actually absolutely agree with your final statement about the 'REAL' 4-3 being our 'base.'  My point is why do people still want to criticize the team for running a 'base' 3-4, when we really dont.  We don't have the personnel for it, and we don't run it very often.  For all intents and purposes, we have a 4-3 defense, based on the formations we run, and the players we have... it's just not listed on the team website.  

 

Yes the focus is swinging back to the running game, but not like it was before.  This past year we had 9 RBs get over 1000 yards rushing.... 

 

1 Kareem Hunt, RB KC 272 1,327 4.9 69 12 8 82.9 1 60
2 Todd Gurley II, RB LAR 279 1,305 4.7 57 8 13 87.0 5 66
3 Le'Veon Bell, RB PIT 321 1,291 4.0 27 3 9 86.1 2 74
4 LeSean McCoy, RB BUF 287 1,138 4.0 48 12 6 71.1 3 55
5 Mark Ingram II, RB NO 230 1,124 4.9 72 11 12 70.3 2 50
6 Jordan Howard, RB CHI 276 1,122 4.1 53 5 9 70.1 1 61
7 Melvin Gordon, RB LAC 284 1,105 3.9 87 5 8 69.1 1 58
8 Leonard Fournette, RB JAX 268 1,040 3.9 90 4 9 80.0 2 46
9 C.J. Anderson, RB DEN 245 1,007 4.1 40 7 3 62.9 1 47

 

 

7/9 of those guys are 2 dimensional backs.  Ingram wasn't leaned on in the passing game as much because he had Kimara, and Howard only had 125 receiving yards.  More and more of the 'bellcow' guys have to be multidimensional.  The days of the ground and pound are gone, so the ability account for the RB so much in the passing game is imperative.  Yes the teams running the ball are doing WELL, that's a fact of life.  Run the ball, stop the run, more often than not you're going to be in a position to compete.  Fail in either of those two places and usually you're on your heels.  

 

The old school mentality of a 3-4 may have lent itself to more speed, but with the versatility now along the D-line, and the fact that you can have a lineup like 


Kerrigan / Allen / Ioannidis / Smith...

 

thats a REALLY fast D-line... match that with the MLB like Brown, you can really cover sideline to sideline in a hurry...  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I dont think we are that far off... 

 

I don't think we've truly gone after 3-4 type players....  Guys like Trent Murphy at DE, is not a recipe for a functional 3-4.  Converted OLBs, at least in my personal opinion, do not make good 3-4 DEs.  They make really good 4-3 DEs... but not so much in the 3-4.... and we've been doing it all the way up til last year with Trent Murphy.  I actually absolutely agree with your final statement about the 'REAL' 4-3 being our 'base.'  My point is why do people still want to criticize the team for running a 'base' 3-4, when we really dont.  We don't have the personnel for it, and we don't run it very often.  For all intents and purposes, we have a 4-3 defense, based on the formations we run, and the players we have... it's just not listed on the team website.  

 

Yes the focus is swinging back to the running game, but not like it was before.  This past year we had 9 RBs get over 1000 yards rushing.... 

 

                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       

7/9 of those guys are 2 dimensional backs.  Ingram wasn't leaned on in the passing game as much because he had Kimara, and Howard only had 125 receiving yards.  More and more of the 'bellcow' guys have to be multidimensional.  The days of the ground and pound are gone, so the ability account for the RB so much in the passing game is imperative.  Yes the teams running the ball are doing WELL, that's a fact of life.  Run the ball, stop the run, more often than not you're going to be in a position to compete.  Fail in either of those two places and usually you're on your heels.  

 

The old school mentality of a 3-4 may have lent itself to more speed, but with the versatility now along the D-line, and the fact that you can have a lineup like 


Kerrigan / Allen / Ioannidis / Smith...

 

thats a REALLY fast D-line... match that with the MLB like Brown, you can really cover sideline to sideline in a hurry...  

 

Trent Murphy was not a DE here, he was a OLB, so I don't think he fits with your narrative. Now, he did put his hand in the ground when we went to a 4 man front, but he also stood up and dropped in coverage when we were not. He was a 3/4 OLB, and probably was not well suited for it. Which is why he's gone. But I think they were trying to find another Ryan Kerrigan. That's what a lot of teams do, go after a undersized DE that gets a lot of sacks and try to make a OLB out of them.

 

I disagree about personnel, I think we DO have the personnel for a 3-4, and have been building on that for years. the only piece we didn't have was IMO the most important part, the NT. And I blame Allen and the DC's for trying to get by with chump change at the position for years. I think they undervalued it.

 

I'll point out that the 4-3 DL you posted is not a real 4-3 DL,. It's fast, but it's not as stout like true 4-3 DL would be (working from a base perspective). A base 4-3, with our personnel would look something like this.

 

Allen / Ionnidis / Payne / Kerrigan

 

The difference is of course Allen on the outside, being the Philip Daniels/Charles Mann type DE, going back to the days when we ran a 4-3. Stronger against the run, being about 20+ pounds heavier than your RDE but can still get after the QB.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 757SeanTaylor21 said:

A 4-3 with kerrigan payne allen and smith would be nasty. Lbs would be anderson brown and foster.

 

You are going to see a ton of that, maybe more than half of the time, except for a 4-2 featuring Foster and Brown. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said:

Whats the latest on Payne, i heard he injured himself a week or two ago, Was it minor?

 

He was in a walking boot until (I think I heard) yesterday. Will sit out another week or two.

 

To answer the original question. We don't know until we see live action. Also, maintaining a high level over an extended period of time is an ingredient to be called "best".  Time will tell.

Edited by Stadium-Armory
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The article below projects only 6DL to make our 53 and leaves off Hood and Phil Taylor. No way does that happen. Taylor makes it, if healthy. Do players on PUP count towards the 53?

 

https://thesportscapitol.com/2018/08/05/redskins-training-camp-53-man-roster-projection-2-0/

 

Defensive line (6): Jonathan Allen, Da’Ron Payne, Stacy McGee, Matt Ioannidis, Anthony Lanier, Tim Settle

Others: Phil Taylor, Ziggy Hood

Notes: Since these roster projections are for Week 1, let’s keep in mind a specific Week 1 dynamic. Veterans with at least four accrued NFL season have their salaries guaranteed if they are on the roster that first weekend. That’s why teams occasionally will waive this type of veteran with the intention of re-signing in Week 2. The Redskins pulled this maneuver in 2016 with Cullen Jenkins. Interesting to wonder if they consider going this route with Taylor or Hood in the hopes of keeping a player they fear might be claimed on waivers. One source shot down my plan with Hood, stating the Redskins wouldn’t risk losing him based on his leadership and locker room dynamics. The folks with Pro Football Focus probably offer a different spin.

Going with six DL regardless is a bit risky for a team often in four-lineman formations, but doable. Recovery status for Payne (ankle), who is out another 1-2 weeks, and McGee (groin surgery) may play into any Week 1 roster configuration. McGee would be the only lineman with more than two years of NFL experience in this setup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

Trent Murphy was not a DE here, he was a OLB, so I don't think he fits with your narrative. Now, he did put his hand in the ground when we went to a 4 man front, but he also stood up and dropped in coverage when we were not. He was a 3/4 OLB, and probably was not well suited for it. Which is why he's gone. But I think they were trying to find another Ryan Kerrigan. That's what a lot of teams do, go after a undersized DE that gets a lot of sacks and try to make a OLB out of them.

 

I disagree about personnel, I think we DO have the personnel for a 3-4, and have been building on that for years. the only piece we didn't have was IMO the most important part, the NT. And I blame Allen and the DC's for trying to get by with chump change at the position for years. I think they undervalued it.

 

I'll point out that the 4-3 DL you posted is not a real 4-3 DL,. It's fast, but it's not as stout like true 4-3 DL would be (working from a base perspective). A base 4-3, with our personnel would look something like this.

 

Allen / Ionnidis / Payne / Kerrigan

 

The difference is of course Allen on the outside, being the Philip Daniels/Charles Mann type DE, going back to the days when we ran a 4-3. Stronger against the run, being about 20+ pounds heavier than your RDE but can still get after the QB.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Murphy

 

Quote

2016[edit]

Prior to training camp, it was announced that Murphy would move from strongside linebacker to defensive end. Murphy gained over 30 lbs in order to be better suited to play the role.[75][76] On August 8, 2016, it was reported that the move to defensive end was cancelled after Junior Galette, who was taking over the starting strongside linebacker role, suffered an achilles injury.[77] Head coach Jay Gruden named Murphy the backup strongside linebacker behind Preston Smith to start the regular season.[78]

On September 18, 2016, Murphy returned to defensive end after the line had multiple injuries and was had underwhelming performances.[79] He had six combined tackles and made two sacks on Dak Prescott in their 27-23 loss. This marked his first multi-sack game of his career.[80] On October 2, 2016, he made a season-high five solo tackles and sacked Cody Kessler during the Redskins' 31-20 win over the Cleveland Browns. In Week 7, Murphy recorded two solo tackles and sacked Matthew Stafford in a 20-17 loss at the Detroit Lions. This was his sixth consecutive game with a sack. He finished the 2016 season with 47 combined tackles (29 solo), a career-high nine sacks, and a pass deflection in 16 games and zero starts.[81]

 

 

I remember prior to 2016 there was a big conversation about him moving to DE full time, and he was willing to do it and it appeared to have been the plan all along because he was a 'tweener' type guy who didnt fit one role or the other.  

 

You're right, that's not your typical 4-3 alignment, but as I said in earlier posts, now you're looking for matchups ,and you're aligning your defense accordingly.  I WOULDN'T put that line out there the vast majority of the time, but when speed is a need, it could work very well.  With the versatility of all our D-line as well as OLB, you can put different pieces in different places depending on the situation... and that was my point.  We don't have to get restricted to finding a 'specific' guy for a 'specific' gap technique, because we have versatile guys who have the ability to do more than 1 thing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anselmheifer said:

The article below projects only 6DL to make our 53 and leaves off Hood and Phil Taylor. No way does that happen. Taylor makes it, if healthy. Do players on PUP count towards the 53?

No, but only for the first 6 weeks and another week to decide if they should go on IR (I think). We did it with Hall last season but the only guys eligible are the ones already on PUP (who count on the TC roster). Also, I believe those players salaries still count to cap.  Further, we can cut someone like Phil Taylor or Ziggy Hood who are likely to be available come mid-season if needed. Unfortunately, the IRed guys can only get rehab now and younger players must be waived first, so you can't use it as a development squad anymore.

 

Kind of funny, I never understood why the practice squad used to be known as the Taxi Squad.  All thanks to Paul Brown who used to have his boss' taxi company 'hire' a lot of the guys he had to cut. They, of course, never put in 1 day at the taxi company but showed up for practice. If they were needed to play for the real team, they temporarily quit the taxi company until they got demoted again. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To get away from the generic 3-4 vs 4-3 debate.

 

Our Week 1 opponent just had their starting Center tear his ACL.  I don't wish for injuries, but this is a fortuitous outcome for the DL as we're likely breaking-in two rookies who will play significant snaps at 0 or 1 tech.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

To get away from the generic 3-4 vs 4-3 debate.

 

Our Week 1 opponent just had their starting Center tear his ACL.  I don't wish for injuries, but this is a fortuitous outcome for the DL as we're likely breaking-in two rookies who will play significant snaps at 0 or 1 tech.

 


Could be big for us, as well as how David Johnson is recovering, important info for our D-line. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anselmheifer said:

The article below projects only 6DL to make our 53 and leaves off Hood and Phil Taylor. No way does that happen. Taylor makes it, if healthy. Do players on PUP count towards the 53?

 

https://thesportscapitol.com/2018/08/05/redskins-training-camp-53-man-roster-projection-2-0/

 

Defensive line (6): Jonathan Allen, Da’Ron Payne, Stacy McGee, Matt Ioannidis, Anthony Lanier, Tim Settle

Others: Phil Taylor, Ziggy Hood

Notes: Since these roster projections are for Week 1, let’s keep in mind a specific Week 1 dynamic. Veterans with at least four accrued NFL season have their salaries guaranteed if they are on the roster that first weekend. That’s why teams occasionally will waive this type of veteran with the intention of re-signing in Week 2. The Redskins pulled this maneuver in 2016 with Cullen Jenkins. Interesting to wonder if they consider going this route with Taylor or Hood in the hopes of keeping a player they fear might be claimed on waivers. One source shot down my plan with Hood, stating the Redskins wouldn’t risk losing him based on his leadership and locker room dynamics. The folks with Pro Football Focus probably offer a different spin.

Going with six DL regardless is a bit risky for a team often in four-lineman formations, but doable. Recovery status for Payne (ankle), who is out another 1-2 weeks, and McGee (groin surgery) may play into any Week 1 roster configuration. McGee would be the only lineman with more than two years of NFL experience in this setup.

 

I'm fine with the six in bold.  We lose experience and leadership by cutting Taylor and Hood, but we have youth and talent with Settle and Lanier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Murphy

 

 

 

I remember prior to 2016 there was a big conversation about him moving to DE full time, and he was willing to do it and it appeared to have been the plan all along because he was a 'tweener' type guy who didnt fit one role or the other.  

 

You're right, that's not your typical 4-3 alignment, but as I said in earlier posts, now you're looking for matchups ,and you're aligning your defense accordingly.  I WOULDN'T put that line out there the vast majority of the time, but when speed is a need, it could work very well.  With the versatility of all our D-line as well as OLB, you can put different pieces in different places depending on the situation... and that was my point.  We don't have to get restricted to finding a 'specific' guy for a 'specific' gap technique, because we have versatile guys who have the ability to do more than 1 thing.  

 

 Like playing Hood to NT? Versatile does not equate good. I get what you are saying, but if you're doing something that vast majority of the time, it's smart to get the guys that do that WELL, not just be able to do it..........kinda.

2 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 


Could be big for us, as well as how David Johnson is recovering, important info for our D-line. 

 

Considering it's now who, Sam Bradford out there, and has non-moble he is, that might make a big difference if we get push up the middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

Considering it's now who, Sam Bradford out there, and has non-moble he is, that might make a big difference if we get push up the middle.

Yep, he’d still make a darn good flag football qb - gotta pressure/hit him to bring out the ghosts of hits* past.  

 

*that reads like a typo (but isn’t)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...