Defense

[Golgo-13]

If we can sign a solid DT, how strong will our defense be this season?

[bulldog]

Assuming that Wynn plays end and Smith/Coleman platoon on the other side, the Redskins with the pickup of a DT should be in position to have one of if not the best defense in the NFC.

The Redskins have the best linebacking corps in the conference and one of the best trios of corners in Bailey, Smoot and Green.

If we can ratchet up the play of the front four which I see happening with Wynn already, then the Skins will be right there.

[9inarow]

Originally posted by escholz

If we can sign a solid DT, how strong will our defense be this season?

Didn't we go through this already?

Wasn't the topic, "With Trotter We Have the #1 D in the NFL!!!"

So now, it's "With Trotter (AND a SOLID DT), We Have the #1 D in the NFL!!!"

Tomorrow, it's gonna be, "With Trotter (AND a SOLID DT {and our 5'8" CB}), We Have the #1 in the NFL!!!".

Eddie

[Om]

Yeah, sure wish WE had been able to land the 5 guys in the draft (lest we forget; a safety, a guard, a 2nd wideout, a really tall receiver from a small school, and a blocking FB) that would be the "foundation of our team for the next 10 years" ...

Try the decaf, 9.

[9inarow]

Originally posted by Om

Yeah, sure wish WE had been able to land the 5 guys in the draft (lest we forget; a safety, a guard, a 2nd wideout, a really tall receiver from a small school, and a blocking FB) that would be the "foundation of our team for the next 10 years" ...

Don't forget ... REALLY tall WR. :notworthy

Jeremiah's gonna want out of the division after he gets a helmet full of our new OG and FB. :high:

Oh yeah!

Eddie

[bulldog]

the Cowboys are going to find that Williams is a fine player but taking a safety that high in the draft costs you when it comes time to dole out dollars for your defense.

you need to save those dollars for your franchise corners and front seven performers.

safeties, even good ones, DO become available from time to time.

even the best safeties like Ken Houston and Ronnie Lott were either traded or released at some point during their careers.

[9inarow]

Originally posted by bulldog

the Cowboys are going to find that Williams is a fine player but taking a safety that high in the draft costs you when it comes time to dole out dollars for your defense.

Yep ... like the $5 million you guys are paying Deion Sanders right now.

Let's see ... sign Trotter to $5 million a year. Oops, Jensen - Bailey, we're gonna have to let one of you go.

:cool:

Eddie

[Zen-like Todd]

9inarow, don't be bitter because our 5'8 #4 cornerback is better than your #1 CB.

[9inarow]

Hey, you guys just signed another undrafted rookie FA DB!

:notworthy

Eddie

[Art]

0forSpurrier,

The thread we had previously was with Trotter and a defensive tackle we can be the top defense in the NFC. It was precisely the same as this thread. If you lack the ability to recall such recent conversations accurately you may be better off not referencing them so you don't appear scatterbrained. Or, moreso I mean.

With a solid defensive tackle, there is little doubt that the Redskins defense will be among the league's best. But, where is that solid tackle? Other than Adams it's hard to see one you'd qualify as very solid. With Adams, the Redskins would have the best defensive personnel in the game and with Lewis coaching to solidify the unit's cohesion, it's hard to envision a group that will show up more impressively.

[Golgo-13]

IMHO, this defense had the chance of being a very beautiful thing for us.

[Golgo-13]

Gee... I wonder who voted that it will be a disapointment...

[Darth Tater]

Our D has the potential now to be number 1 in the NFL in effectiveness and that's without signing a 'run-stuffer' DT (whatever that is). The d's performance is going to be highly dependent on our offense. A good offense makes our opponent one dimensional. Remember, some of Pettibon's best defenses were terribly inefficient against the run (allowed around 4 yards per attempt) but they were very effective against the run (teams didn't have much time to run and were playing from behind -- if not by the scoreboard, at least in their mind).

[Wacky Ralph]

I don't think our D will live up to its advanced billing. Part of the reason is that I think Spurrier's offense---particularly in his first year---will cause alot of turnovers, putting the D in bad situations. The other part is that we're WAY too thin in the middle of the D-Line. I mean, if we lack depth NOW, what's the D-Line gonna look like in December??? D-Lines wear down faster than O-Lines.

I think we're also lacking depth on our O-Line, but if we get lucky and avoid injuries, it won't hurt us too badly. But the lack of depth on the D-Line will be a heartbreaker, especially in the 4th quarter, when teams are just grinding it out.

Our LBs will make lots of tackles............but down the field. I think we'll be about 9-7 this year.

[Guest Goatroper]

Your point is well taken Wacky. Depth is key to maximizing the play of those big guys in the trenches, the grunts. What is the advantage of a Pro Bowl linebacker if he is getting consistently clanged by OGs and FBs in the fourth quarter because his DL is plumb wore out?

Y'all are saying you are ONE DT away from the best D in the league. Gonna take more than one, amigos. They don't all need to be Pro Bowlers, either. Just a bunch of big guys who can bring it hard in the late rounds.

Of course, DLs with solid rotation guys are going to send starters to the Pro Bowl.

[Art]

We were No. 10 in the league last year with the same defensive front, but two fewer Pro Bowlers and one fewer quality defensive coach. No. It might not take another defensive lineman to assure a lofty ranking this year. It will certainly solidify that though so with, say, Adams, you suddenly have a defensive line with good depth (as Wynn can float around) and dynamic linebackers capable of making plays. I don't think we'll get Adams mind you, but as an example that's the name I'll use .

[Tommy-the-Greek]

Be positive Art. We may have the one trump card to play to get him here. Marvin Lewis. Big Sam and Big Daddy would definately give us the inside track at the best "D" in the league.:cool:

[Wacky Ralph]

Originally posted by Art

We were No. 10 in the league last year with the same defensive front, but two fewer Pro Bowlers and one fewer quality defensive coach. No. It might not take another defensive lineman to assure a lofty ranking this year. It will certainly solidify that though so with, say, Adams, you suddenly have a defensive line with good depth (as Wynn can float around) and dynamic linebackers capable of making plays. I don't think we'll get Adams mind you, but as an example that's the name I'll use .

The paradoxal conundrum is that, in many ways, the worst thing that COULD happen to our defense is Spurrier's offense actually working!! Against Coach Marty, everyone knew we weren't gonna light up the scoreboard for 35 points. Everyone knew that we'd try to play a conservative ball-control offense, trying to limit our mistakes. So, in turn, the other team played more conservative on offense, too. I guess they figured, "Humph. No reason to go balls-out and try to score 30 points against the Redskins, because 21 points is probably all we need to win!! So, let's limit our mistakes, too, so we can get our victory, go home, and get drunk."

I don't take the Cowboys' defense seriously, either, for that reason. They ranked in the top-five last year?? Well, when you have the lowest-rated passing offense in the NFL, as commanded by Air Marshall Carter, everyone knows that you're not gonna need a whole lot of points to win. So, in turn, all of Dallas' opponents probably played more conservative, too. I think this year Dallas will be exposed BIG time, especially with their Corners.

[Guest Goatroper]

I think this year Dallas will be exposed BIG time, especially with their Corners.

Certainly not by the Washington Redskins, though.

[Skins24]

The 3 people who voted disappointment:

Goat

9inarow

Qcard

or whacky?

Everyone knew that we'd try to play a conservative ball-control offense, trying to limit our mistakes. So, in turn, the other team played more conservative on offense, too. I guess they figured, "Humph. No reason to go balls-out and try to score 30 points against the Redskins, because 21 points is probably all we need to win!! So, let's limit our mistakes, too, so we can get our victory, go home, and get drunk."

If your coach tells you to just go out and play half hearted, and not give it your all...you have a bad coach.

Have you not forgotten, we were on pace to give up the most points in league history.

We have WAY too much talent with the players we already have, never mind adding more player, to be a disappointment. And we have WAY too good a coach to let those players be a disappointment. No matter what the offense does.

the worst thing that COULD happen to our defense is Spurrier's offense actually working!!

How so??

If our offense is working, that means we are going down the field and scoring points. Scoring big even. Which means the other teams will be trying to catch up. Which means THEY are the one likely to commit the turnovers.

If they are trying to catch up they are likely to pass. In case you haven't noticed our corners are top of the line (and we have depth). So how is our O going to cause our D to be less than what they should be?

[Art]

Ralph, reply within....

"The paradoxal conundrum is that, in many ways, the worst thing that COULD happen to our defense is Spurrier's offense actually working!!"

Tis a silly place you've gone with this argument, Ralph. Was it the worst thing for the Rams defense that the Rams offense was the best in the league again? Was it the worst thing for the Steelers defense that the Steelers offense was working to the tune of the No. 3 offense in football?

I know you'll get into what happened last year, but, if you'll look close you'll see something you might not realize.

"Against Coach Marty, everyone knew we weren't gonna light up the scoreboard for 35 points. Everyone knew that we'd try to play a conservative ball-control offense, trying to limit our mistakes. So, in turn, the other team played more conservative on offense, too."

That's not actually completely true, but, it is right that we did play conservatively on offense. We led the league in false start penalties which almost uniformly condemned a drive to nothingness. We led the league in series of three and outs that uniformly put our defense on the bad edge of the field position game and in urgent situations nearly every time the opposition had the ball. In fact, that we were so conservative on offense put MORE pressure on our defense because of it. Success on offense would force the opposition offense to take more chances and put the ball in the air more. Where we want them putting the ball is in the air against us where we have secondary strength to take advantage of mistakes. The point you make could be right. Equally, it could be wrong. That it cuts so clearly both ways, it adds little to the debate.

"I guess they figured, "Humph. No reason to go balls-out and try to score 30 points against the Redskins, because 21 points is probably all we need to win!! So, let's limit our mistakes, too, so we can get our victory, go home, and get drunk." "

Well, I know most teams adopted a, "Let's not score against Washington this week," stance. I mean, after the first three weeks and all that is. You see, I don't think the opposition tried not to score on us all that willingly. I think the opposition tried to score every time they touched the ball. I really think they did. And, I think the reason they stopped scoring so much was because our defense changed schemes, simplified our approach and put our corners and free safety into a majority of man coverage schemes taking a lot of what the opposition was able to do.

"I don't take the Cowboys' defense seriously, either, for that reason. They ranked in the top-five last year?? Well, when you have the lowest-rated passing offense in the NFL, as commanded by Air Marshall Carter, everyone knows that you're not gonna need a whole lot of points to win. So, in turn, all of Dallas' opponents probably played more conservative, too. I think this year Dallas will be exposed BIG time, especially with their Corners."

The Cowboys did a beautiful job of playing to their strengths as a defense. A team with no pass rush, and no legitimately pass rushing linebacker, with no cover corners to fall back on, played a soft umbrella coverage and utilized hard working lineman and good speed backers to limit yardage and points against. But, they generated few sacks and few turnovers due to that passive scheme. Ask an honest Cowboy fan and they'll tell you they HATED last year's Cowboy defense because it didn't really DO anything.

Ok, since you can't find an honest Cowboy fan, just go look at a Cowboy board and the archive. In large part I think the Cowboys defense of last year was similar to our defense of 2000. We, too, were ranked fourth. But we were a soft defense and we didn't really "create" much. I think you'd have a hard time finding a single Redskin fan who thinks our 2000 defense was superior to our 2001 defense despite being ranked six spots higher.

Dallas is going to dial it up some this year and attempt to play in a defense that will create a bit more than simply holding off the outbreak. This will likely lead to Dallas fans next year saying "Our defense was better eventhough we weren't ranked as highly." I think your point is fair, Ralph, but, ultimately your point can easily be turned with solid evidence to the contrary, and rendered moot.

Yes, our defense could suffer if our offense is working and producing 400 yard games. But, I assure you, it'll also make opposing teams suffer in the process .

[cowboykilla]

Damn art, you got some LOOOOONG a$$ replies.

[Wacky Ralph]

Art:

What gives? I thought I could just post some outrageous theories on this forum without anyone challenging my ideas. What's going ON here? This WASN'T supposed to be part of the deal!!!!

"Tis a silly place you've gone with this argument, Ralph [saying that if Spurrier's offense performs at a high level, in a paradoxical fashion, it could actually be a bad thing for the defense]. Was it the worst thing for the Rams defense that the Rams offense was the best in the league again? Was it the worst thing for the Steelers defense that the Steelers offense was working to the tune of the No. 3 offense in football?

I know you'll get into what happened last year, but, if you'll look close you'll see something you might not realize."

-I wanna make sure everyone understands me. Spurrier's offense lighting up the scoreboard would be GOOD for the team, no question about it. But it could also result in a lower defensive rating for our team. Why? Because the other teams would be forced to take more risks, to open up their offense. When you knew that Marty S would be content to gameplan for a 10-7 ballgame, you tend not to run schemes that involve alot of risks. Instead, you keep things close to the vest. But if you know that you'll need 25+ points to win on Sunday, you'll be more aggressive with your gameplan.

"That's not actually completely true, but, it is right that we did play conservatively on offense. We led the league in false start penalties which almost uniformly condemned a drive to nothingness. We led the league in series of three and outs that uniformly put our defense on the bad edge of the field position game and in urgent situations nearly every time the opposition had the ball."

-Right. When you're another team, and you know your offense will get another series in a little bit without losing ground in the scoreboard, you're more content to punt the ball away than worry about possibly turning the ball over. On 3rd and 8, you figure, "Well, we don't NEED a 3rd down to stay in the game. Playing field position football is smart against a team with an anemic offense. Where did I put my taco?"

"In fact, that we were so conservative on offense put MORE pressure on our defense because of it. Success on offense would force the opposition offense to take more chances and put the ball in the air more. Where we want them putting the ball is in the air against us where we have secondary strength to take advantage of mistakes. The point you make could be right. Equally, it could be wrong. That it cuts so clearly both ways, it adds little to the debate."

-It put more pressure on the defense in someways, less in others. More in the sense that our defense needed to keep the other team from racking up points... but less in the sense that the other teams would gameplan as aggressively as they would against a team that's a legitimate threat to notch 30+ scores in a game.

"You see, I don't think the opposition tried not to score on us all that willingly. I think the opposition tried to score every time they touched the ball. I really think they did. And, I think the reason they stopped scoring so much was because our defense changed schemes, simplified our approach and put our corners and free safety into a majority of man coverage schemes taking a lot of what the opposition was able to do."

-Hey, I'm not knocking our defense. I'm just saying that in my opinion, I think they benefited by teams not feeling threatened by our offense. I mean, when you're gameplanning against Tony f'n Banks, you don't go in there with the mind-set, "AAH!! Every time we touch the ball, we need to get SOMETHING!! Go all out, boys!! That's TONY BANKS in there!" Nah. You play more conservatively, confident that Banks will somehow screw up, so don't take any chances.

"The Cowboys did a beautiful job of playing to their strengths as a defense. A team with no pass rush, and no legitimately pass rushing linebacker, with no cover corners to fall back on, played a soft umbrella coverage and utilized hard working lineman and good speed backers to limit yardage and points against. But, they generated few sacks and few turnovers due to that passive scheme. Ask an honest Cowboy fan and they'll tell you they HATED last year's Cowboy defense because it didn't really DO anything."

-Yeah, they definately over-acheived. But if their opponents honestly felt that Quincy Carter/Ryan Leaf/Red-Haired Guy/Other Black Guy were capable of scoring 25 or more points against them, there defense would've been shredded. Ya know? But if I'm, say, Seattle, and it's 3rd and 7 against Dallas, with the ball on their 45 yard line........I don't feel like I HAVE to score. I just don't want to make a foolish mistake. Instead, I'd be happy to give the Cowboys poor field position, because there's no way they can march 80 yards down the field and score a TD.

"Ok, since you can't find an honest Cowboy fan..."

-Is George W. Bush a Cowboy fan??? I've become very patriotic lately. Is H. Ross Perot a Cowboy fan?? And who do you think is taller-- Dan Snyder, Ross Perot, Doug Flutie, or any of the CBs drafted by the Eagles??

"I think you'd have a hard time finding a single Redskin fan who thinks our 2000 defense was superior to our 2001 defense despite being ranked six spots higher."

-That brings us to a more interesting question......How do you determine what makes a good defense?? I agree with you that the yards-against-rating Dallas received last year did NOT accurately convey the ability of their defense.

"I think your point is fair, Ralph, but, ultimately your point can easily be turned with solid evidence to the contrary, and rendered moot."

-Well, since it could go either way, why don't we just assume that I'm right? Ralphs have feelings, too. My cat's breath smells like catfood.

"Yes, our defense could suffer if our offense is working and producing 400 yard games. But, I assure you, it'll also make opposing teams suffer in the process . "

-Works for me!!!!!!

[cowboykilla]

Good god. How long did it take you to write all that? I ain't gonna lie, I didn't read it. I have to be able to have my dorm room packed up by May 3rd, so I didn't know if I'd have time.

[Zen-like Todd]

What cowboykilla said. I dont think I've read any of those posts, to be honest

I have enough assigned reading as it is :laugh: