Bailey, Smoot - Why Play Zone?

[Dan T.]

Discussion of whether Champ deserves the Pro Bowl got me thinking - For having two of the best cover guys in the league in Bailey and Smoot, it seems like we played an awful lot of zone this season.

I think it's another case of schemes that don't make the best use of the skills possessed by your personnel. Both Champ and Smoot are better suited to man up than play zone. And blanketing the primary receivers might help the pass rush by making the QB hold on to the ball a little longer, no?

[Ignatius J.]

first, neither had a particularly good year.

second, when you think a team is in man and they are actually in zone, interceptions are the result. The converse is not so true.

third, better run support. When Linebackers are in man coverage, they have to look in the backfield more and can get caught out of position far more easily.

fourth, no matter what you do, if you don't mix it up, you will lose.

-DB

[Om]

Easy.

They have yet to invent the cornerback that can play consistent man-to-man on a defense that is incapable of rushing an NFL passer.

Not Darrell Green, not Deion Sanders, even the great Raider duo of Mike Haynes / Lester Hayes. NFL passers and receivers are simply too good.

It's not fair to Champ, Smoot or even George Edwards to rate this secondary based on this year's performance, not w/o acknowledging that everything they did (and did NOT do) was heavily influenced by our inability to get after the quarterback.

[Church]

Originally posted by Om

Easy.

They have yet to invent the cornerback that can play consistent man-to-man on a defense that is incapable of rushing an NFL passer.

Not Darrell Green, not Deion Sanders, even the great Raider duo of Mike Haynes / Lester Hayes. NFL passers and receivers are simply too good.

It's not fair to Champ, Smoot or even George Edwards to rate this secondary based on this year's performance, not w/o acknowledging that everything they did (and did NOT do) was heavily influenced by our inability to get after the quarterback.

That's not entirely true.

The Washington pass defense isn't that far off from stats put up from last season and their highly ranked defense. An obvious exception is the number of sacks produced (they are 15 or so off of last years pace--honestly, facing both the Bears and Eagles O-lines should put them closer to that 15). Even with this difference, things like QB rating and YPG are all very similar to last season. They are on a pace to give up more TDs through the air but overall PPG are roughly the same as well.

One of the two most telling statistics that gives a truer representation of what is wrong with the Washington defense is looking at how the 2003 unit performs against the run versus the 2002 unit, and in looking at the 3rd down statistics. The former reveals a huge discrepancy: some 30 YPG difference with 2002 being more favorable. Where does this show up? Well, in 3rd downs. Overall, Washington is close to the league average, allowing roughly a 38% conversion rate for opponents on 3rd down. The problem arises in the number of 3rd downs they're able to force opponents into. Last I checked, Washington was near the bottom of the league (bottom 10) in 3rd down attempts against. They also give up close to 20 first downs a game (bottom 10 again). What does that mean? My guess is that while teams are converting at the average rate on 3rd downs, they're having big success on 1st and 2nd down, probably with running plays, allowing them to stay out of 3rd and long situations--obvious passing situations.

What does it mean? Well, I'd say the run defense is a much bigger problem than the pass defense for the Redskins this season. Champ Bailey had a telling (and funny and true) quote in the Daily Press paper in regards to the Dallas game and Troy Hambrick (paraphrasing from memory):

"Watching that guy on film, he looked soft as hell. We have a way of making people look good."

That's the issue. Pass defense, like several other things surrounding the Redskins over the past few seasons, is largely the scapegoat in all of this. Yes the defensive line is a problem, moreso due to its and the linebackers inability to stop the run. That should have been expected, however with what was lost over the offseason. While Gardener flamed out in Denver, Wilkinson quietly played extremely well for the Lions. He made my final tally for Pro Bowl voting in fact. I'm off topic slightly but yes, the Redskins do need a consistent pass rushing threat, but they better allow for that threat to be able to stop the run as well if things are to be fixed.

[OURYEAR#56]

We should man up every game. If we play szone let's go get players like Cousin from Carolina. Who you may ask...exactly.

[Om]

Church, the question I answered was "with Bailey and Smoot, why play zone?"

You told me that wasn't so, and then set about answering the question "what was the real problem with the Redskins defense."

If you can't rush the passer, you can't rely primarily on man coverage. CB's can't go man for 5-10 seconds down after down. Just can't do it.

And we can't rush the passer. So Edwards discovered early in the year, and had no choice but to protect his secondary with zones.

I'll believe I'll stand by my pat answer to the actual question at hand, thank you.

[NoCalMike]

Once the Skins put together a decent pass rush, then zone will go away and we will bring back Man-to-man that made Bailey look so good his first couple of years here.