The Myth of a great defense

[crazyhorse1]

Redskin struggles to the end zone last season seem to have sparked the myth that last year's defense was excellent. If it was excellent, it was only in comparison to last year's offense, which featured a near total collapse in the second half of the season.

Actually, the defense was only about average in the NFL last season and tailed off at the end of the season in a fashion that alarmed the FO into stocking up densive players throughout the pre-season and draft.

Reasoning that the defense could no longer stop either the pass or the run, it signed Fat Albert to help both and signed Orakpo, whom they gambled could also help both in spite of the fact he is widely believed to have a suspect motor that loses its power too quickly.

Also, in relation to offense, the FO decided to gamble that Samuels and Randy Thomas would effectively return from injury and that they'd find someone to beat out Heyer, whom they regard as a lifetime backup, and that either Kelly or Thomas would be useful.

They guessed that the offense, if everything nice happened, would average about 17 points a game this season, and felt they could win if they made major improvements on defense so that the new D would give up fewer than that. That is the gamble upon which this seasons rides.

Last year's defense gave up 17 or more points ten times and had only two games in which it gave up eleven or less. It was not a an especially solid defense, only an average one, in spite of prevailing opinion, and spectacularly failed to hold leads on several occasions or stop opponents from running out the clock. Forget league ratings. Rating are based on elements that make them unreliable

The question was: will it be easier in the short term to improve the offence or improve the defense. Logic came down on the side of defense because the draft and FA field was longer on quality defensive players than it was on offensive counterparts. The FO made the right decision, not for the future, but to win in the short term. That is why it seems odd to me that some cite Zorn as looking to the future and attribute to him a desire to "develop" players when he has actually shown no sign at all of trying to develop anyone. He uses new players only in cases of need and even when starting them hestitates to throw to them or call plays that involve them.

So, what we'll actually see this year is the results of a decision to win now
rather than later, even if the front office would rather you didn't see it that way. Part of the obfuscation is the myth that we had an excellent defense last year, full of stars and soon-to-be stars, and sure to become a great one if Haynesworth and a rookie are added and the fatigue factor that hurt the D last year is countered with depth.

The tough D last year is a Myth, my fellow Skins fan, and this year's a gamble for unlikely success now, rather than an attempt to build for the future. In relation to Danny's dreams, it's more of the same.

[Fios]

I suppose it's worth noting that, by the idiotic standard established above, there were only 3 good defenses in the entire NFL last season. What a moronic post.

[Cappster]

Thank you, Crazyhorse1, for providing yet another post with a positive outlook. Our defense was solid last year and I don't believe you address all of the different variables that come into play when evaluating a defense.

We ranked 6th in points allowed

We ranked 5th in first downs allowed

We ranked 7th in 3rd down percentage

Those are key stats that are hard to ignore CH1. The thing that killed us last year is the inability to force turnovers. Now what can we do better this year to become an impact defense? Pass Rush. Our secondary arguably played better than any other last year, but the opportunities for turnovers were scarce as the opposing QB had all day to throw. I don't believe any is hailing our defense from last year as a truly "great" defense, but they were solid nonetheless.

[VetSkinsFan]

The defense being on the field more than the offense was the single biggest factor IMO.

[SkinsFreak]

That is such a stupid post... chalked full of hyperbole, inaccuracies and flat out ignorance. The entire NFL "fooled" Skins fans into thinking we ended up with the 4th ranked defense last year. What a pathetic post.

[Chris Luva Luva]

I think its fair to say that opposing teams may not have attacked us as hard because they didn't need a rack of points to beat us. If we were in a shoot out offensively week to week would the defense have faired as well? I dunno. It's crazy to insinuate that this isn't a top unit though.

[langleyparkjoe]

Dude! I live and swear by that defense you just so casually bashed!! What do you mean rankings don't mean anything? Rankings are based on the on-field play and they did a pretty damn good job to me. You can say whatever you want dude but only 3 defenses were better than us, 2 in the AFC North (1 SB winner by the way) and the other is in the NFC East with us.

Perspective- All of the NFC East teams were in the top 10 and our defense was better than the rest of them. Does that not mean anything to you bro?

I honestly have no idea what you want man, our fellow posters can put up stats all day to prove that your statements are a bunch of opinionated (sp) crock.

For the record, I believe we will be 1st or 2nd best this year and yes this is my opinion but I honestly have that much faith in this "new" defense.

Obfuscation

Fat Albert was funny though

[TincoSkin]

im taking a different rout on CH1's post. while i dont agree with it I will take it for what it is. we did have problems with our D last year. It was not an elite squad. if it was i would have had it on my fantasy team!

but the reality is we did not get pressure on the oppositions qb. we were great at stopping the run and on many key 3d downs we played well. but without that pressure on the qb our opponents opened up passing lanes and drew our guys out of the box which further opened up the run late in games.

what we have done in the offseason is not a short term fix but an adept move learning from our past mistakes. we got JT last season for the expressed purpose of bringing pressure on qbs. this would have helped our DBs and forced more turnovers (somthing which we lacked). obviously that was a bust (another FA that cost money and time) but we learned.

we did bring in another FA but this time the player is not 100 years old and spending his time dancing. we also brought in young guns with talent. and now with jarmon we have a man who we can groom to replace our older parts as the break down over the next few years.

our D was solid, but the idea that it is overrated is wrong. we lacked in areas and now those areas have been addressed.

[Smithian]

The tough D last year is a Myth, my fellow Skins fan, and this year's a gamble for unlikely success now, rather than an attempt to build for the future. In relation to Danny's dreams, it's more of the same.

[Deadskins]

It was not an elite squad. if it was i would have had it on my fantasy team!

Typical fantasy football defensive scoring in no way relates to actual defensive performance. Sacks are much too heavily rewarded. My fantasy league plays individual players on D, and I had several Skins on my team. London Fletcher is a fantasy monster.

[TincoSkin]

It was not an elite squad. if it was i would have had it on my fantasy team!

Typical fantasy football defensive scoring in no way relates to actual defensive performance. Sacks are much too heavily rewarded. My fantasy league plays individual players on D, and I had several Skins on my team. London Fletcher is a fantasy monster.

sooooo if you were in a league that played team D (like me) would you have the skins last year? no. if they were an elite team, one that was capable of turnovers and sacks, would you put them on a fantasy team? yes. i think your point is valid if this were a discussion about fantsy sports vs the real game. as it stands our team last year could not make turnovers of sacks happen. both of these things are essential for an elite D and an elite fantasy D.

[Deadskins]

It was not an elite squad. if it was i would have had it on my fantasy team!

Typical fantasy football defensive scoring in no way relates to actual defensive performance. Sacks are much too heavily rewarded. My fantasy league plays individual players on D, and I had several Skins on my team. London Fletcher is a fantasy monster.

sooooo if you were in a league that played team D (like me) would you have the skins last year? no. if they were an elite team, one that was capable of turnovers and sacks, would you put them on a fantasy team? yes. i think your point is valid if this were a discussion about fantsy sports vs the real game. as it stands our team last year could not make turnovers of sacks happen. both of these things are essential for an elite D and an elite fantasy D.

I disagree. I think we did have an elite D last season. The # 4 ranking demonstrates that.

[crazyhorse1]

Thank you, Crazyhorse1, for providing yet another post with a positive outlook. Our defense was solid last year and I don't believe you address all of the different variables that come into play when evaluating a defense.

We ranked 6th in points allowed

We ranked 5th in first downs allowed

We ranked 7th in 3rd down percentage

Those are key stats that are hard to ignore CH1. The thing that killed us last year is the inability to force turnovers. Now what can we do better this year to become an impact defense? Pass Rush. Our secondary arguably played better than any other last year, but the opportunities for turnovers were scarce as the opposing QB had all day to throw. I don't believe any is hailing our defense from last year as a truly "great" defense, but they were solid nonetheless.

You are precisely right about the lack of turnovers last year killing us. We were sub par in regard to an element of defense in which a single play can mean a 14 flip, as well as an morale crushing shift in momentum. When our D's are good at it, we never tire of hailing it as the most important element of a defense. Most top teams in the NFL, year after year, are among league leaders in creating turnovers.

The Redskin D last year looked far better on paper than it actually was. For instance, it was fairly highly rated against the run and pass in re. to yards allowed primarily because other teams would get ahead of us, know we couldn't score, and just burn time with short yards runs the whole second half or fouth quarter. Even when teams moved unstoppably against us and destroyed our chance of winning, they were actually enhancing our D stats on paper in regard to average gain, total yards allowed, etc. If they had been forced out of their prolonged stalls, which was the D's job to do, they would have doubtless gained many more yards against us, but would have possibly opened a door for us to win. So, they played it safe and dull and just killed time by running the ball down our throats a few yards at a time-- saving our stats on paper but making us look and feel helpless.

We were, in fact, one of the weakest short yardage defenses in Redskin uniforms in recent years when the game was on the line. In several games we failed to stop sustained drives of straignt on vanilla plays in the clutch and eliminated the offense's chances of getting us back in game or hanging up a win. That, coupled with utter failure to create turnovers greatly assisted our offense to its collapse. That's why getting a stopper like Haynesworth became a multi-million dollar priority. That's also why a so-called top rated defense needed to spend its top pick on a guy who can potentually cause turnours, stop the run, stop the pass, and stop drives by picking up sacks.

In regard to points allowed, the stat looks better on paper than the field because all of the above.

As for our good-looking numbers in regard to allowing first downs-- obvious. Team that used short yardage tactics against us burned so much time in the process that first downs were relatively few per game. If the first downs achieved against us had been by the pass, there would have been many more first downs, but our chances for turnover would be improved and our chances at winning magnified. We have and had a good coverage defense.

First rule of defense: stop the run first. We didn't in the clutch and benefited on paper because statistical measurements of performances have inherent flaw. The FO knows that.

Those who call me an idiot for my view of the defense as a just average unit last year, might well reflect that my view is totally supported by actual FO personnel decisions, not contradicted by them.

Raise your hands-- all of you who were or are surprised that the Skins virtually ignored the offense in regard to additions and reinforcements while blowing their wad on defensive players for the coming season.

You, not me, are football idiots. You think with your feelers instead of feel with your thinkers. You grasp at feel good-myths and want to be developed by Zorn, who will love you. Why not change your avatars. Fios could go from a cup to a picture of Elton John with tears streaming down his big, pink sunglasses and singing Candle in the Wind.

[Cappster]

Our average points per loss deficit was 9. I wouldn't say that 9 pts. is a comfort zone for any team to hold onto a lead even against a offensively challenged team. I can see your reasoning about other teams having a lead and running out the clock, but I also think it is naive to think other teams didn't go for the knockout punch. The only teams to beat us by double digits were the teams with a top 5 defense and with an offense that ranked within the top 12. Not counting the double digit losses, we lost by an average of 5 points per game with the other 5 teams that beat us.

[crazyhorse1]

Our average points per loss deficit was 9. I wouldn't say that 9 pts. is a comfort zone for any team to hold onto a lead even against a offensively challenged team. I can see your reasoning about other teams having a lead and running out the clock, but I also think it is naive to think other teams didn't go for the knockout punch. The only teams to beat us by double digits were the teams with a top 5 defense and with an offense that ranked within the top 12. Not counting the double digit losses, we lost by an average of 5 points per game with the other 5 teams that beat us.

I agree with much of what you say. I think other teams didn't go for or succeed in delivering knock-out punches because of our secondary, which I do think is way above average (our problem was the line, which was below average). I think that the FO has guessed the nine point ad, as you say, was critical. I agree with the FO that the ad can and could be closed more easily by a couple of replacements on the DL or near it than by replacing maybe three OL. for the furture, which maybe can be done next year-- hence the OL gamble that supposes Samuels and Thomas can come back solid this year, Casey can hang on, and Heyer can be backed up.

Personally, I prefer looking long term, but given the FO's and Zorn's objectives, I think their logic impeccable. Note: it is not a pie-in-the-sky view of a homer like Theismann and other fans I know, but a solid construct, ground in reality. Here's hoping it works. I can do that without thinking its a gamble that will likely pay off. I repeat other remarks I have made, in essence, when I say that Heyer will probably fail, Samuels will be slowed by multiple earlier injuries, if not new ones, and Thomas will soon be out of football (not paralized, I hope).

[Deadskins]

In several games we failed to stop sustained drives of straignt on vanilla plays in the clutch and eliminated the offense's chances of getting us back in game or hanging up a win. That, coupled with utter failure to create turnovers greatly assisted our offense to its collapse.

That door swings both ways. The O going three and out so often contributed greatly to other teams wearing our D down late in games. A couple of well placed first downs would have resulted in W's where we took an L.

[crazyhorse1]

In several games we failed to stop sustained drives of straignt on vanilla plays in the clutch and eliminated the offense's chances of getting us back in game or hanging up a win. That, coupled with utter failure to create turnovers greatly assisted our offense to its collapse.

That door swings both ways. The O going three and out so often contributed greatly to other teams wearing our D down late in games. A couple of well placed first downs would have resulted in W's where we took an L.

True. The offense was a huge contributing factor in the failures of D, especially toward the end of the season as age and injury caught up to it.

[TincoSkin]

It was not an elite squad. if it was i would have had it on my fantasy team!

Typical fantasy football defensive scoring in no way relates to actual defensive performance. Sacks are much too heavily rewarded. My fantasy league plays individual players on D, and I had several Skins on my team. London Fletcher is a fantasy monster.

sooooo if you were in a league that played team D (like me) would you have the skins last year? no. if they were an elite team, one that was capable of turnovers and sacks, would you put them on a fantasy team? yes. i think your point is valid if this were a discussion about fantsy sports vs the real game. as it stands our team last year could not make turnovers of sacks happen. both of these things are essential for an elite D and an elite fantasy D.

I disagree. I think we did have an elite D last season. The # 4 ranking demonstrates that.

elite means somthing special. we may have ranked 4th in total yards but we ranked 6th in points per game. 10 teams let up between 18 and 21 points per game including us. only three teams let up fewer.

ravens 15.2 p/g
titans 14.6 p/g
steelers 13.9 p/g

18 points is two touchdowns and a field goal (or in some games we had 6 field goals )

the three 'elite' defenses in the league let up about 2 touchdowns or fewer!

in addition we ranked tied for 27th in fumbles! goooo! thats bad...

now that being said we did rank 6th in points against (awesome) and 4th in yards (awesome) but we were not by definition, elite.

elite: the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.



we were great. not elite

[aswas71788]

I give the defense a lot of credit. Yes, there were games where the defense failed to stop an opposing teams offense and we lost the game. There were more times when the defense stopped the other teams offense and our offense went 3 and out, usually with Campbell throwing to someone 6 or 7 yards short of the first down and there were games where the defense was on the field longer than the offense. If the defense is going to get better, the offense has to step up their part of the game. Getting rid of Campbell would be a great start in improving the offense.

[Leadbelly]

Seriously? I love this website and check the board everyday for topics...I consume the views but rarely post. However this egrigious error has induced me to write.

1. The defense posted very good numbers inspite of the offense. How many 3 and outs did we have? I'm sure some stats junkie can spit that out. Alot is my guess. So while being tired and overworked the defense somehow managed to keep us in games.

2. How good were you the first time you rode a bike? Given his first head coaching job along with the first season he ever called plays, Zorn faced a uphill challenge. Once coaches got film on us and broke down what we did they figured out how to negate the offense from a game. With some experience under his belt and a winning attitude even the most pessimistic Skins fan has to believe that our offense can do bettter. A sucessful offense breeds an ever most sucessful defense as you are putting the opponent in uncomfortable positions. An opposing play-caller has to think much harder when stuck inside their 20 yard line. This compounded by the fact that we improved our defense and now posess the ability to show many more looks has me thrilled.

3. If you wanna be nagative why don't you become a Lions fan...at least you'll always be right

[Fios]

The Redskins played 6 games against top 11 offenses, including 4 games against the top 3 offenses. They had 10 games in which they held the opponents under 21 points. If the Redskins offense managed to average 21 points a game (a feat 23 other teams were able to achieve) the team would have been a lock for the post-season. The job of the defense is to hold the opposing offense out of the end zone as frequently as possible (check) and to give the ball back to the offense. Only 5 teams in the NFL had more plays from scrimmage last year than the Redskins.
This is not a question of perspective or interpretation. Long-winded diatribes packed with cherry picked stats prove absolutely nothing. The Redskins defense was factually, empirically and indisputably great last season.

[Fios]

It was not an elite squad. if it was i would have had it on my fantasy team!

Typical fantasy football defensive scoring in no way relates to actual defensive performance. Sacks are much too heavily rewarded. My fantasy league plays individual players on D, and I had several Skins on my team. London Fletcher is a fantasy monster.

sooooo if you were in a league that played team D (like me) would you have the skins last year? no. if they were an elite team, one that was capable of turnovers and sacks, would you put them on a fantasy team? yes. i think your point is valid if this were a discussion about fantsy sports vs the real game. as it stands our team last year could not make turnovers of sacks happen. both of these things are essential for an elite D and an elite fantasy D.

I disagree. I think we did have an elite D last season. The # 4 ranking demonstrates that.

elite means somthing special. we may have ranked 4th in total yards but we ranked 6th in points per game. 10 teams let up between 18 and 21 points per game including us. only three teams let up fewer.

ravens 15.2 p/g
titans 14.6 p/g
steelers 13.9 p/g

18 points is two touchdowns and a field goal (or in some games we had 6 field goals )

the three 'elite' defenses in the league let up about 2 touchdowns or fewer!

in addition we ranked tied for 27th in fumbles! goooo! thats bad...

now that being said we did rank 6th in points against (awesome) and 4th in yards (awesome) but we were not by definition, elite.

elite: the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

we were great. not elite

You can't just examine these stats in a vacuum. Seven of the top 10 scoring offenses in the NFL last year were NFC teams, including two NFC East teams: the Giants were 3rd and the Eagles ranked 6th. Six of the bottom 10 were AFC teams, including 2 AFC East teams: the Bengals, who were dead last and the Browns, who were second worst. So the Steelers got 4 games against the second worst and worst offenses in the NFL (if you include the Redskins, they had 5 games against bottom 5 offenses ... sigh) while the Redskins played 4 games against top 6 offenses. Note that I am not suggesting that means the Steelers were not an elite defense, just that you need to have perspective with these.

[crazyhorse1]

Seriously? I love this website and check the board everyday for topics...I consume the views but rarely post. However this egrigious error has induced me to write.

1. The defense posted very good numbers inspite of the offense. How many 3 and outs did we have? I'm sure some stats junkie can spit that out. Alot is my guess. So while being tired and overworked the defense somehow managed to keep us in games.

2. How good were you the first time you rode a bike? Given his first head coaching job along with the first season he ever called plays, Zorn faced a uphill challenge. Once coaches got film on us and broke down what we did they figured out how to negate the offense from a game. With some experience under his belt and a winning attitude even the most pessimistic Skins fan has to believe that our offense can do bettter. A sucessful offense breeds an ever most sucessful defense as you are putting the opponent in uncomfortable positions. An opposing play-caller has to think much harder when stuck inside their 20 yard line. This compounded by the fact that we improved our defense and now posess the ability to show many more looks has me thrilled.


3. If you wanna be nagative why don't you become a Lions fan...at least you'll always be right

If you were psychologicallyy ready to be other than myth directed, you would have been able to recall that the Skins were close to the bottom of the league in such critical D areas as sacks, creating turnovers, stopping key drives, key stops, goal line stands, blocking punts and field goals, stuffs, playing outstanding games, recovering fumbles, making interceptions. being plain tuckered out, etc. Further, we were close to last in the league in playing flat-out busts acquired in free agency, undeveloped players, and former stars who made diminitive contributions. I haven't checked it out, but I doubt a single player from our D line last year achieved a higher ranking by anyone authorative higher than "average" and that any fair accessor would rate the D line last year as "below average." Further, did any other D line in the league require more fixing at the expense of an insipid offense than ours did before the 09 season. Even at this late date, we've brought in a raw prospect at DE at extreme cost with the hope of replacing Daniels at a position which already has a slew of replacement candidates. Desperation, yes.

The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

If your unconscious ego insists on deletions even after knowing all of the above, why don't you root for the Giants?

[yupchagee]

Seriously? I love this website and check the board everyday for topics...I consume the views but rarely post. However this egrigious error has induced me to write.

1. The defense posted very good numbers inspite of the offense. How many 3 and outs did we have? I'm sure some stats junkie can spit that out. Alot is my guess. So while being tired and overworked the defense somehow managed to keep us in games.

2. How good were you the first time you rode a bike? Given his first head coaching job along with the first season he ever called plays, Zorn faced a uphill challenge. Once coaches got film on us and broke down what we did they figured out how to negate the offense from a game. With some experience under his belt and a winning attitude even the most pessimistic Skins fan has to believe that our offense can do bettter. A sucessful offense breeds an ever most sucessful defense as you are putting the opponent in uncomfortable positions. An opposing play-caller has to think much harder when stuck inside their 20 yard line. This compounded by the fact that we improved our defense and now posess the ability to show many more looks has me thrilled.


3. If you wanna be nagative why don't you become a Lions fan...at least you'll always be right

If you were psychologicallyy ready to be other than myth directed, you would have been able to recall that the Skins were close to the bottom of the league in such critical D areas as sacks, creating turnovers, stopping key drives, key stops, goal line stands, blocking punts and field goals, stuffs, playing outstanding games, recovering fumbles, making interceptions. being plain tuckered out, etc. Further, we were close to last in the league in playing flat-out busts acquired in free agency, undeveloped players, and former stars who made diminitive contributions. I haven't checked it out, but I doubt a single player from our D line last year achieved a higher ranking by anyone authorative higher than "average" and that any fair accessor would rate the D line last year as "below average." Further, did any other D line in the league require more fixing at the expense of an insipid offense than ours did before the 09 season. Even at this late date, we've brought in a raw prospect at DE at extreme cost with the hope of replacing Daniels at a position which already has a slew of replacement candidates. Desperation, yes.

The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

If your unconscious ego insists on deletions even after knowing all of the above, why don't you root for the Giants?

Ever hear of Fletcher, or Landry? Flrtcher should have gone to the pro bowl. Landry was 1st alternate. Our CB's also played very well.

[crazyhorse1]

Seriously? I love this website and check the board everyday for topics...I consume the views but rarely post. However this egrigious error has induced me to write.

1. The defense posted very good numbers inspite of the offense. How many 3 and outs did we have? I'm sure some stats junkie can spit that out. Alot is my guess. So while being tired and overworked the defense somehow managed to keep us in games.

2. How good were you the first time you rode a bike? Given his first head coaching job along with the first season he ever called plays, Zorn faced a uphill challenge. Once coaches got film on us and broke down what we did they figured out how to negate the offense from a game. With some experience under his belt and a winning attitude even the most pessimistic Skins fan has to believe that our offense can do bettter. A sucessful offense breeds an ever most sucessful defense as you are putting the opponent in uncomfortable positions. An opposing play-caller has to think much harder when stuck inside their 20 yard line. This compounded by the fact that we improved our defense and now posess the ability to show many more looks has me thrilled.


3. If you wanna be nagative why don't you become a Lions fan...at least you'll always be right

If you were psychologicallyy ready to be other than myth directed, you would have been able to recall that the Skins were close to the bottom of the league in such critical D areas as sacks, creating turnovers, stopping key drives, key stops, goal line stands, blocking punts and field goals, stuffs, playing outstanding games, recovering fumbles, making interceptions. being plain tuckered out, etc. Further, we were close to last in the league in playing flat-out busts acquired in free agency, undeveloped players, and former stars who made diminitive contributions. I haven't checked it out, but I doubt a single player from our D line last year achieved a higher ranking by anyone authorative higher than "average" and that any fair accessor would rate the D line last year as "below average." Further, did any other D line in the league require more fixing at the expense of an insipid offense than ours did before the 09 season. Even at this late date, we've brought in a raw prospect at DE at extreme cost with the hope of replacing Daniels at a position which already has a slew of replacement candidates. Desperation, yes.

The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

If your unconscious ego insists on deletions even after knowing all of the above, why don't you root for the Giants?

Ever hear of Fletcher, or Landry? Flrtcher should have gone to the pro bowl. Landry was 1st alternate. Our CB's also played very well.

Sorry, I didn't know Fletcher and Landry played on the D line.