Our Dline Sucks...again

[Gamebreaker]

Originally posted by Art

This was not a team transformed by talent. It was not a team that went from No. 18 to No. 1 in total defense because of an influx of talent. It improved because of a radically different scheme Parcells allowed Zimmer to employ. It was a team that took teams by surprise and suddenly started winning games.

What radically different scheme? Zimmer said himself that he couldn't play a more aggressive style of defense because he didn't have the players to do so. ESpecially at corner and DL. Unlike us, they do have a ProBowler on their DL in Glover. The Cowboys ran the same defensive scheme they always have, they just used a few coverages and plays that Zimmer wouldn't allow them to in previous seasons. I recall Parcells speaking highly of Zimmer when he first arrived in Dallas, and talking about how the defense was an area that he had taken care of.

Also, the addition of Newman allowed them to play more man coverage on the outsides, instead of same soft zones. This why the defense became more aggressive and made more plays, yet Mario Edwards was exposed as a weakness when it came to man coverage. This also allowed Zimmer to be more aggressive with his safeties as well, Woodson and Williams weren't exposed in zones as much trying to help the corners, and were allowed to switch roles at times and attack the line of scrimmage.

Your point of saying their defense improved because of the change in scheme is false. The change in scheme only happened because they had a change in talent. Which means the talent is what made that defense improve. Surely you knew that before you even engaged this argument.

[Commander Adama]

Originally posted by Liberty

Ok Yomar what would you have done? Who would you have signed and or drafted?

Originally posted by Yomar

I would have traded down and taken Harris or Wilfork

Well, personally I am glad you are not in our FO. That's not a slam at all, just a big difference of opinion. We have post June 1st cuts and the 5th-6th rounds to looks at our DLine.

[Art]

Originally posted by Gamebreaker

What radically different scheme? Zimmer said himself that he couldn't play a more aggressive style of defense because he didn't have the players to do so. ESpecially at corner and DL. Unlike us, they do have a ProBowler on their DL in Glover. The Cowboys ran the same defensive scheme they always have, they just used a few coverages and plays that Zimmer wouldn't allow them to in previous seasons. I recall Parcells speaking highly of Zimmer when he first arrived in Dallas, and talking about how the defense was an area that he had taken care of.

Also, the addition of Newman allowed them to play more man coverage on the outsides, instead of same soft zones. This why the defense became more aggressive and made more plays, yet Mario Edwards was exposed as a weakness when it came to man coverage. This also allowed Zimmer to be more aggressive with his safeties as well, Woodson and Williams weren't exposed in zones as much trying to help the corners, and were allowed to switch roles at times and attack the line of scrimmage.

Your point of saying their defense improved because of the change in scheme is false. The change in scheme only happened because they had a change in talent. Which means the talent is what made that defense improve. Surely you knew that before you even engaged this argument.

GB,

The Cowboys made no improvements to the defensive line that went 5-11 and finished No. 18. Simply put in a reserve for a starter they wanted to keep. No doubt Newman's addition allowed more comfort on the outside, especially as the year went on, but, playing zero coverages and blitzing more than any team in football throughout the early part of the year was radically different than the Cowboy team the year before that was generally very passive defensively and blitzed little.

Zimmer has always had sound design and well-hidden looks. The fact of the matter is that the Cowboys had to pull back from being quite as aggressive as the year wore on despite Newman getting better. The Cowboys were their most aggressive before they knew how Newman would be and took teams by surprise. They got figured out a little and had a weaker -- though still good -- second half because of it and became increasingly less aggressive once teams exploited them.

I don't think you seriously believe a rookie corner in his first several games was the type of talent infusion that brought about the immense improvement and drastic play-calling differences you saw in Dallas early on. I know you know that as Newman was getting better and better the Cowboys were blitzing less and less in the same way because teams were taking advantage of it more and more.

Simply stated, this was a simple schematic shift that attacked the line of scrimmage that took teams by surprise. No rookie playing his first game gives a coach the sort of comfort you are talking about. In fact, at one point early in the year one announcing team wondered if Newman was losing confidence for being beaten despite good coverage. The change in scheme happened before they knew what Newman would be.

And, more, they changed slowly back as Newman emerged from competent, to good, to potentially VERY GOOD corner over the course of the year. As he was playing his best, the Cowboys were risking the least. This invalidates your progression.

Though, despite the fact of this, you'll have 10 Cowboy fans quickly siding with you hoping to beat me up, so, you should take that as seriously as you wish knowing it doesn't alter the facts.

[BG]

That is a great point Art.

Ignoring the Dline has gotten us some pretty damn good talent on offense and at LB. Let's not forget that.....

[The Consigliere]

Originally posted by Art

Until you are willing to give a nod to that improvement, your position lacks credibility. You can agree more needs to be done and not enough has been done without lying. As that's a possibility here, why is it that so few of you who are so worried about the defensive line demonstrate you can accomplish this?

I can't believe stuff like this Art. The DL First minority has been swallowing nothing but, "Draft Taylor," and "Taylor is the next Lott, Draft Taylor," posts for the past three months, there have been some Taylor supporters that have made legit and thorough arguments to justify their opinions w/facts and logical analysis, but they are a huge miniority. The DL Contingent has consistently been more thorough in at least analyzing the variables involved in this decision and the wisdom which goes both ways. But now many of us are just lying? I have no doubt that some of us resort to exageration to illustrate points, sometimes obfuscating the truth in the process, but that does happen at times when a minority is trying to make itself heard.

Talk about straw men, just cast many of us as liars and knock us right down.

I have no doubt that the DL is better now then it was six months ago, but I have HUGE doubts that it is good enough to get the job done and avoid being a HUGE weakness when the season starts. Having professionals that are actually among the elite in their profession will help, Parcells proves that everywhere he goes by adding 3-5 wins generally upon the previous coaches record within a season or two. But this DL lacks elite players, or even above average players. The Raiders didn't start Upshaw in the Super Bowl because they wanted to, they started him because they had no other option and were capped out. Their defense wasn't especially that good that year either and his immediate departure after the Super Bowl tells you how key he actually was. W/cap concerns, he was one of the first out the door and it wasn't like he was making loads of money. Noble is an unknown, competant as a Cowboy but now coming off an injury, Wynn was solid but was below average last year, Daniels hasn't had a good season since 2001 and is really getting up there in age, Griffin while one of the better DT's available in free agency has never come close to approaching his rookie year performance according to scouts and mediots, and Haley and our other DT's are more or less rotational stop gaps who if we're lucky might be turned into capable starters under the new regime but strike me as more likely "the best we can do at this time."

Safeties come cheap in free agency, the second best safety in this draft was available for about for a very small fraction of what Taylor will command. DL's don't come cheap in free agency. We actually could conceivably have landed Wilfork AND Udeze in a trade down this year. I don't see how that's even remotely a poor option.

Btw, we've ignored the DL on day one of draft day since 1992, save Kenard Lang, if you're talking about draftees. We've traded day one picks for some guys (Gilbert, Big Fatty), but actual original draftees have not been brought in. It's no coincidence that are DL has been a consistent problem for more than a decade because of this. Continually using expensive and shoestring budget stop gap measures to address the DL is why we're in this mess and it's wise to note that pushing back DL yet again will almost assuredly mean that whomever we draft at DL next year on day one will likely be producing (if they're quality) no sooner than 2006. Defensive Lineman are rarely studs as rookies, they generally take time to grow into the game (although the rare Peppers and Kearse are contrary examples), and now we've pushed back that development even longer.

I can only imagine that the front office simply felt that either Wilfork or Udeze weren't good enough options, or they didn't expect them to fall as far as the Pats picks/other offers they may have received. Of course they're more informed than me, and then all of us DL first guys and Taylor supporters, but that doesn't mean they get a free pass. There were quite a few of us that loved Culpepper in '99, after all, but the front office only had eyes for Couch in that QB class, and that's certainly one of the reasons the BJ trade happened. The fact is, no matter how informed you are, sometimes you're flat out wrong.

I imagine that in the fullness of time, Taylor will prove to be a very good (though not Lott-esque) or possibly great safety, but I'm not so sure this move will prove to be the wisest course for a team w/our needs and cap issues.

Based on what the 20 and 21 slots got in signing bonuses last year, it's fair to say that we could have picked up Udeze and Wilfork and possibly another pick, and signing bonuses that total only about 70% of what Taylor himself will command if we'd trade down.

I just don't agree w/the deal on any level save the fact that Taylor is supposed to be a very special player, and as Carnack says, the Golden Rule of drafting is taking the best guy, particularly when he's the best by a substantial degree. The problem is that I don't subscribe to that view when it comes to kickers, punters, fullbacks, center's and safeties, not in the top 10 anyway, not considering what those positions command in terms of signing bonus money in free agency, and how high the second best options at those positions usually go on draft day.

Hopefully Taylor's great, I've got my fingers crossed, and I hope, quite badly, that was I was thoroughly wrong about Udeze. He and Wilfork were certainly more risky, but I felt they were worth the risk.

C'est la vie, let's hope you Taylor fans were right. There's a bonus worth about 13-14 million that will demand that you were right, and a DL in need of real legit youthful, speedy, athletic talent that will also demand it. Anyway, it's all over, nothing to be done now but hope for the best, and place faith in a coaching staff that is certainly the best we've had since 1992. HTTR.

[Yomar]

Art, I think the Cowboys are an excellent example of the difference good coaching can make on a team, and I expect to see an overall improvement in the performance of the Redskins next season primarily because of a serious improvement in coaching on both sides of the ball. And I expect to see that reflected in the team's overall record. But there is no getting around the talent issue on our DLine. Football is a simple fundamental game and the most simple fundamental truth is that the team that wins the battle at the line of scrimmage wins the war more often than not. Ultimately its blocking and tackling and there is only so much coaching can do. Drawn up on a chalkboard every play should be a touchdown or a sack depending on if you are an X or an O, it comes down to execution and that comes down to talent.

Where coaching can have the greatest effect is in minimizing errors, and maximizing talent, but if you don't have much talent up front, there isn't much that coaching can do to overcome that, at least I don't think there is. As I said before, any good coach will tell you it comes down to the players and its not just humility that makes them say it. A good coach can get the most out of his players, but he can't squeeze blood from a stone.

[Gamebreaker]

Art,

I think you may have a few games mixed up. I watched alot of Cowboys games last season. Early on, I was surprised because I expected Newman to get torched every week and that didn't happen. I heard announcers giving him praise and didn't see him struggle until like most rookie corners would. A good defensive coordinator will recognize the potential in a corner and allow him to play up to that potential. The same way Bailey was allowed the harder assignments as rookie, with Darrell Green still starting across the field.

The only game Newman was abused in was the Giants game, in which Toomer beat him pretty badly and in which he bounced back nicely. Other than that, he held his own better than any Cowboys corner has since Deion. And that allowed for the more aggressive schemes.

The only time they played a game with all out blitzes happened around mid-season, starting with our team. Mainly because Parcells and Zimmer knew our coaching staff weren't competent enough to adjust to it. And again aganist Buffalo, because Bledsoe was also poorly protected last season. Yet that ended when they played NE the week after. The all-out blitzing had less to do with their own weaknesses, and more to do with exploiting the other teams'.

I know they made no improvements to the DL. Yet my whole point was that you were saying the scheme is made their defense better, when I knew the scheme didn't change they just found better talent. The better talent is what allowed them to be more aggressive. This was something Zimmer had been advocating for years.

[The Consigliere]

Good point on Weaver, Art, a huge portion of the CPND board was crying out for Weaver two years ago (I wanted him or Antonio Bryant, attitude and all) and then were stunned into silence when Betts was the pick. When we had 2 third rounders and skipped Alex Brown, Eric Heitmann and some other nice line prospects (on the DL and OL) I was apoplectic.

In '01 supposedly it was going to be Kendrell Bell, and then Pittsburgh took Bell one slot before us, so Marty had the conversation with Smoot, and we got Smoot. Surprisingly good draft in retrospect, I'm not a Gardner fan, and feel we can get better, but he's certainly been better than Terrell, Smoot was great, McCants was a real find, and as bizarre as the Rosenfels pick seemed, he's managed to stick around in the league thus far.

Last year my problem w/Dockery wasn't the pick, I thought he was solid value there, it was the rumor of how HIGH he was on our draft board. Sometimes you can be out there, and be a sage, a real guru, other times you're out there on your own because you're an idiot. In this given instance, Dockery's been good, but top 20 overall good? I have no clue why we were THAT high on him.

The ugly truth about the DL at least when it comes to first rounders, is generally the decisions to skip DL help have held some wisdom to them. Going Tom Carter over DL help in '93 made some sense since Green had helt out the previous year and was already a 10 year vet, who knew he had another 10 years in him? In '94 it was QB all along, we had a QB guru right (whoops!), '95 is where I disagree. Though I didn't join the forum(s) until late '95, I did hear a DC based sports talk show, and it seemed to me that if not a majority, at the very least a strong contingent of fans wanted Sapp, (w/Carter being the next best option) considering our putrid DL in '94. Instead we went for another Turner Pet Project. In '96 it sounds like the brains in command felt Gardener wasn't worth the #6? overall pick (and he did drop quite a bit) and there were no other DL's that interested us so we went with the Fat Gilbert trade, who could have known that god would supposedly be his agent? The one problem there wasn't Fat Gilbert, it was the fact that we traded up for Andre Johnson when Tony Brackens should have been the pick. He was considered a top 15 talent and was still available at the end of round 1. Highly motivated, good motor, came back from injury and was a dynamo at Texas in his last season. We passed on him and Alstott (also a need) for Johnson. Brackens never became an elite player, but for Jville he remained a reliable pass rushing threat and solid run defender for eight seasons. That was nuts and unjustifiable. In '97 there was a clump of evenly rated Defensive Lineman at our slot and we were finally going for DL help, Kenny Holmes, Kenard Lang, Renaldo Wynn and Trevor Pryce were the guys, if I recall correctly most guys had them ranked 1. Holmes 2. Pryce 3. Wynn and 4. Lang though I could be wrong. As it turns out, only Pryce ended up being worth the money and the slot, everyone else swung and missed including us. Supposedly in '98 we were interested in Fred Taylor and Mo Collins until we swung the Fat Gilbert Deal and decided instead to pursue Big Fatty. Reasonable move. In '99, Dishman had just imploded, hit the wall in the worst way I'd ever seen, and we badly needed corner help and besides this was the QB/Williams/Edge/USC LB whose name escapes me/Bailey and Holt draft. I had Holt, Culpepper, R. Williams, McAllister, Bailey as five of my top six as well as the unfortunate Couch who I had ranked third behind Culpepper and Williams. Going DL there wasn't an option. '00 there were two options, Simon and Brown, but we passed on both for LB and LT help. Passing on Brown in retrospect was quite wise, passing on Simon was probably a push, as he and Samuels have both had off years at times but have also looked terrific. In '01 there was no doubt a WR would be the pick.

I remain convinced that if Haynesworth had not been picked by Tennessee we might actually have seen Ramsey go elsewhere, maybe to Buffalo, instead. But Tennessee picked him one slot before us. And of course last year we had no #1 pick and for good reason. In truth you can pretty much justify passing on DL for any one of these specific years other than (to me) '95 and Sapp and '96 and Brackens.. My problem is that although you can justify a lot of the individual moves, the moves as a whole, and in particular the lack of interest in addressing DL in the second and third round (where if you HIT on a guy it's a HUGE steal in terms of cap money savings over the first contract) strike me as insanely foolhardy drafting strategies over the long and the short term and unjustifiable as a whole.

[Art]

Consig,

I'll start by telling you that in the first sentence of your third paragraph you've accomplished MORE than any "DL at all costs" supporter I've seen in weeks. Simply giving that passing nod I was referencing to the obvious improvement is a start. It is probably also important that you know I was not a true Taylor supporter. I was more in the Winslow camp with a late surge toward Taylor.

In any case, the camp I was most strongly in was not one that was adequately expressed on this board, but should be defined as follows. When you are drafting at No. 5 in the draft, you have to get the most highly regarded, most well rounded, most ready to participate potential playmaker possible. Period. In the end, this camp meant at No. 5 I could have accepted Fitzgerald or Gallery as the pick.

There are only so many legitimate stars in the league. At No. 5 you were almost assured your choice of players who were generally considered the finest prospects in this draft. You don't pass that up for need. Doing so is bad management. Had we been picking down at No. 12 or so, this wouldn't be a conversation. It would have been defensive line and we'd have all been smiling today.

But, we lost our last game and a lot of teams won and we won tiebreakers and got the No. 5 pick. You can't pass up the opportunity to get the sort of rare player available that high in the draft. There are busts, to be certain. But that is superstar territory and unless you are overwhelmed you can't move out of that spot.

The people heavily for Taylor or for Winslow were likely members of this camp. More than a Best Player Available camp. It was a "when you've got a chance to get the draft's best player, you can't pass it up." We had that chance. To some we may have connected on it.

Now to the specifics.

Griffin is an above average player. Upshaw was injured much of the Raiders Super Bowl year, so they were starting someone else until he returned, and they immediately inserted him into the lineup. That was not a forced problem. That was because he was their best player. Imagine that. Upshaw, the best defensive end on a Super Bowl team. Impossible? No. It just happened.

I would rate the rest of the three in the rotation as average players and Haley as below average -- based on as a starter -- though fine as a reserve. At safety, it's not untrue we could make due with something other than what we got. But, to many, Taylor was the finest safety prospect in a generation. The sort of hybrid player at the position who presents potential for great immediate return and future excellence.

There is no question we have ignored the defensive line for far too long. Last offseason I was beating the defensive line drum as hard as many of you here are. I was NOT for the Coles signing because I wanted defensive line help at all costs.

Perhaps that's why I'm in a different boat than you are now. I was wrong. Coles wound up being too rare a talent to pass up. Too beneficial to the present and future to ignore. No defensive lineman available to us had that sort of immediate impact and none is likely to have a future one.

While that doesn't alter the NEED to get a defensive lineman in the draft, and soon, it does put into perspective the line of thinking that dictates to you that any pick other than a defensive lineman is the wrong one. In fact, the right one was made last year with Coles. It was made the year before with Ramsey. It was made the year before with Gardner -- though Hutchinson may have been the real right one. It was made the year before with Arrington and Samuels.

Where we've had the potential to make the most of our first rounders, we've done so and looking back it's true we've not done enough to draft defensive lineman and yet it's equally true that looking back in the last five years, there's nothing we could have done differently really. I think had we not done the Brad Johnson trade we could have ended up with Kearse and Bailey had we not surrendered what we did for Johnson. Otherwise, there was really nothing that was done differently.

We haven't taken a dog of a player who didn't deserve it missing out on a defensive lineman. At the end of this year Taylor may have 10 interceptions and you may be where I am now, realizing that you can't fixate on one need at the expense of value and the ability to land a successful player otherwise. We've been on a roll with that lately.

We need to keep that roll going with a good defensive lineman soon. This just wasn't the draft to do it. There's a reason Udeze, Smith and Wilfork dropped so far. It's because they weren't all that good as prospects. They may be great pros and one day we may look back at the one that got away. Yet, even then, it's much more likely you'd regret having missed out on the No. 5 guy to take No. 21 if that was your choice.

[Art]

Originally posted by Yomar

Art, I think the Cowboys are an excellent example of the difference good coaching can make on a team, and I expect to see an overall improvement in the performance of the Redskins next season primarily because of a serious improvement in coaching on both sides of the ball. And I expect to see that reflected in the team's overall record. But there is no getting around the talent issue on our DLine. Football is a simple fundamental game and the most simple fundamental truth is that the team that wins the battle at the line of scrimmage wins the war more often than not. Ultimately its blocking and tackling and there is only so much coaching can do. Drawn up on a chalkboard every play should be a touchdown or a sack depending on if you are an X or an O, it comes down to execution and that comes down to talent.

Where coaching can have the greatest effect is in minimizing errors, and maximizing talent, but if you don't have much talent up front, there isn't much that coaching can do to overcome that, at least I don't think there is. As I said before, any good coach will tell you it comes down to the players and its not just humility that makes them say it. A good coach can get the most out of his players, but he can't squeeze blood from a stone.

Yomar,

Williams will run a complex system. It won't be a simple 11 men have 11 jobs based on what I call system like you see with Rhodes. But, as complex a the reads and keys will be, just as they were under the scheme of Lewis and Edwards, the difference is that with Lewis and Edwards the scheme dictated you catch the offensive player, hold him, then release him after reading the play.

In such a system there is little you can do to hide the weakness of a defensive lineman who can't get free. However, in a system where the keys and reads dictate specific action where YOU force the offense to react to you, the difference can not be more clear.

Look at Dan Wilkinson. In the Lewis system which he was ill-suited, he was horrible. Even playing next to a dominating player, Wilkinson simply had no ability to catch, read, release and react. Yet, the year before, under Marty, once the system was made simple and he was essentially told to get upfield, he was as dominating a defensive tackle as there was in football for a 10 week stretch.

He wasn't overly productive, but he was disruptive. Such a simple schematic change can make that sort of difference in the performance of a player. Our defensive line lacks a guy -- other than Noble perhaps -- who is ideal for a passive system that requires linemen be able to hold their ground and shed blockers.

However, the line DOES have guys who at the snap of the ball can get into a hole and attack. They may not make a play, but, the attack is what will disrupt. The aggression will dictate what the offense can do. If the offense is running a trap and our defense is pushing upfield at the snap, the defensive tackle will get in the backfield before the trap can hit him, where in the Edwards system, he'd be standing there waiting for the lineman to smack him.

You can hide weakness by removing it from the equation. When you don't have players who can pick and choose where they go, stop letting them pick and choose. Make them use what skill they do have to push quickly one way. It'll burn you when you guess wrong. But, it will create opportunities. It'll open up other sorts of weaknesses, like the big play which we were generally good about not giving up recently. But, it will give you strengths you haven't had in years.

You can have a Corvette and still lose a race to an Escort if the Corvette has to navigate an obstical course while the Escort gets to make a straight sprint. Talent simply allows you to do more things. It doesn't mean you can't do anything.

[The Consigliere]

We'll have to see why they dropped Art. I'm more convinced that it had something to do with how unusual Taylor, KW2, R. Williams/Fitz/, Gallery and the QB's were. I imagine that they slipped past the teens (except for Harris) mostly due to need issues and player availability. But I also will freely admit that for whatever reasons scouts just soured on Wilfork over this past year, and Udeze did not impress people enough. Maybe I am wrong about Udeze, I'm less convinced about Wilfork (motor issues), but maybe I'm wrong about him in the degree to which I was willing to take the risk.

I have little doubt that Taylor warrented at least his projected draft status, my argument is mostly w/strategy. I just don't think it was good draft and team building strategy to use cap money and that slot for that position, it's less about the player than the reality of how Safety is dealt with in the NFL. I'm more than willing to wait a year or two to sign an elite or second tier free agent safety to a 4-6 million dollar signing bonus, and use our 5 to trade down and pick up Defensive Lineman, or even other positional players and a #1 the following year as say Dallas did, then I am to using the #5 straight up on Taylor. I loved that Dallas trade. If I'd been washington I'd have traded down, in this situation probably with the rumored Patriots trade (20 and 21 and 1 other pick we could squeeze out of them). In this situation I could either land Wilfork and Udeze, or take Udeze, and trade the other #1 w/Buffalo for what Dallas got.

In that deal we could do:

1.) K. Udeze or V. Wilfork

2.) Sean Jones or Darnell Dockett

5.) Isaac Hilton

5.) Chad Lavalais

(I wouldn't have done the Cooley trade).

And next year we'd have two #1's and we'd still have our 2nd and third rounders. I'd project our #1 to be between 12 and 21, and the Bills to be between 8 and 16. Not bad at all.

Still, at least we got what the majority of this board considers a sure thing. That's far better than anything we got between '84 and '98, barring some USFL guys, early in drafts. I hope you're right, I'm just not at all happy with our DL situation, I really hope Williams is able to make some magic out of the debris he has around here, I actually like some of the depth we have, I just don't like the fact that we don't have anything I'd consider a legit starting option on the DL other than Griffin. C'est la vie.