Page 2 of 2

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:23 pm
by MDSKINSFAN
I always say blitz with Laron! but we barely ever do it. He is one of the best blitzing safetys in the game. I believe him blitzing led to one of Romo's INT's. He needs to have more defensive calls adjusted to his vast skill set

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:32 pm
by jmooney
I dont know what Blache's philosophy is on bringing the FS,but for me,you only do that in nickle. Its very risky, especially against QB's that get rid of the ball quickly. You better make real sure youre gonna get there or its likely 6 points.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:51 pm
by VetSkinsFan
Before we go ahead and start switching and assigning FS/SS, why not just test Horton out there at FS? When we had area 51 for that short period of time, we didn't really need/have a FS/SS moniker. We had two safeties who were sick at their game. Maybe Horton can do the same type of thing. This is in no way waying Horton is as good as #21, but if he is versatile enough, why not?

Chris Horton

4.54 40yd

I'd feel a lot better with Landry's 4.35 speed back there.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:17 pm
by SkinsJock
I'm not sure you let a player like Horton go - this guy is something very special.

At this time the team is just going to have to play Landry at FS - I do not believe they will change at this time unless we cannot adapt to our weakness against the run on the outside.

Landon Fletcher is doing great at leading the team on the field and it is my opinion ONLY that Landry will not be replacing Fletcher (as defensive leader) until Fletcher can no longer do that job.

I do not think we can let Horton go until we find out how good a player he is - this is only his first year and you do not let players go when they have so much potential to improve :shock: (how much better can this guy be?)

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:25 pm
by SkinsFreak
I agree with everyone! :D

I think the point is that Landry can do a lot back there. I don't believe anyone is suggesting moving Landry to SS on a permanent basis. I think the idea is moving the safeties around and giving LL some packages at SS if Springs can hold down the FS position. I've noticed that when LL comes to the line in a blitzing look, the opposing QB's take notice because everyone is aware of how well LL can blitz and the power of his game at the LOS.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:32 pm
by tribeofjudah
VetSkinsFan wrote:Before we go ahead and start switching and assigning FS/SS, why not just test Horton out there at FS? When we had area 51 for that short period of time, we didn't really need/have a FS/SS moniker. We had two safeties who were sick at their game. Maybe Horton can do the same type of thing. This is in no way waying Horton is as good as #21, but if he is versatile enough, why not?

Chris Horton

4.54 40yd

I'd feel a lot better with Landry's 4.35 speed back there.


Let's just put CP back there:
1. he hits hard
2. he is quick, sideline to sideline
3. he "beat" LL in a race

How about that....???

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:33 pm
by tribeofjudah
SkinsFreak wrote:I agree with everyone! :D

I think the point is that Landry can do a lot back there. I don't believe anyone is suggesting moving Landry to SS on a permanent basis. I think the idea is moving the safeties around and giving LL some packages at SS if Springs can hold down the FS position. I've noticed that when LL comes to the line in a blitzing look, the opposing QB's take notice because everyone is aware of how well LL can blitz and the power of his game at the LOS.


word...

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:22 pm
by jmooney
Troy Polamalu, thats the type of impact I think Landry can make at SS

Think about how Troy influences every game he is in from that position.I think we could get the same contribution or more from Landry, so much so, that, if we lose a bit by moving Horton to the back end or putting Springs there, were a better team overall.

It sure would be nice if Horton turned out to be able to play that position.
Technically a FS only needs his 4.3 speed if he made a mistake, its more about instinct and vision. Horton seems to have those 2, experience is more my concern than height or speed. A mistake at that position more than likely is gonna cost in points.

I dunno, it just seems like we have fantastic personnel, theyre just in the wrong spots to maxmize their potential. Although, Ive never collected a dime as a coach, I know what I would do. Then again, I'm the guy that used Charles Woodson as a linebacker. :twisted:

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:14 am
by chiefhog44
Did you see the blitz he had to cause the interception in the cowgirls game. That was nasty

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:39 am
by CanesSkins26
Landry is being wasted at FS. He actually has ZERO interceptions during the regular season in his career so far. His only interceptions came in the Seattle playoff game last season. He would be far more effective closer to the line of scrimmage. It's a waste of his skills to have him roaming deep in the secondary.

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:59 am
by Hawk096
He can't be as bad as the Seahawks Kelly Jennings (yes he's a corner back, but still). So be pleased with what you got.

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:36 am
by VetSkinsFan
Again, it's not all about results, but the REASON of these results. Not too many people test our deep secondary and I believe that he's a large part of the reason why.

Additionally, I believe that Horton is too good to sit on a bench and put Springs as FS. I want LL and Horton on the field in the best set up possible.

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:52 am
by oneman56
definitely enjoying everyone's thoughts on this so far! Someone just mentioned our personnel and I too think Blache has so many weapons to use. It seems to me that although our defense has been fantastic, I defiinitely don't blame them for any of our losses, that they could be even better. Just this week for the 1st time I noticed Jason Taylor being moved around a little bit, noticed him on an inside blitz that was picked up but still nice to see some diversity. I think LL when he's been close to the line has caused chaos, I've seen him make an incredible sack where he was actually taken to the ground and still got the sack, he was part of the INT last week and I think he can do this stuff all day long. I'd just like to see him near the line of scrimmage more often is all, I think he's better suited there but that doesn't mean I don't think he's a capable FS. Heck, I'd like to see a blitz package with Andre Carter, Jason Taylor and LL all coming from the same side of the field every once in a while. With our offensive struggles our defense needs to be able to create even more turnovers and opportunities for our offense and I think LL can help with that moreso by being close to the line of scrimmage. That may mean we give up a deep ball every now and again but it still would positive overall, in my opinion.

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:28 pm
by USAFSkinFan
I hate to mess with success... our defense has actually held 8 of the 9 teams we played below their scoring average for the season... Pittsburgh is the only exception, averaging 20.9/game and we gave up 23... I'm not counting the 7 points the offense gave up to the Rams on the fumble return... 8 of 9 is pretty darn good, lets leave well enough alone (other than generating a pass rush... that would be nice)

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:33 pm
by Countertrey
USAFSkinFan wrote:I hate to mess with success... our defense has actually held 8 of the 9 teams we played below their scoring average for the season... Pittsburgh is the only exception, averaging 20.9/game and we gave up 23... I'm not counting the 7 points the offense gave up to the Rams on the fumble return... 8 of 9 is pretty darn good, lets leave well enough alone (other than generating a pass rush... that would be nice)


Finally, a voice of reason. The defensive backfield of the Redskins has been consistent, and unshakable. People, there is a reason for that. The fact that a free safety's name does not get mentioned is a good thing, folks.

Maybe Kareem Moore is the real deal at FS... problem is, we KNOW that Chris Horton is the real deal at SS. Landry is excellent wherever he plays... yeah, he probably has a little more impact at SS, but the coaches have obviously decided that the drop off at FS in moving him is not worth the gain. Go with it. The one thing we DON'T need to be worrying about on this team is the defensive backfield.

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:32 pm
by SkinsFreak
Countertrey wrote:
USAFSkinFan wrote:I hate to mess with success... our defense has actually held 8 of the 9 teams we played below their scoring average for the season... Pittsburgh is the only exception, averaging 20.9/game and we gave up 23... I'm not counting the 7 points the offense gave up to the Rams on the fumble return... 8 of 9 is pretty darn good, lets leave well enough alone (other than generating a pass rush... that would be nice)


Finally, a voice of reason. The defensive backfield of the Redskins has been consistent, and unshakable. People, there is a reason for that. The fact that a free safety's name does not get mentioned is a good thing, folks.

Maybe Kareem Moore is the real deal at FS... problem is, we KNOW that Chris Horton is the real deal at SS. Landry is excellent wherever he plays... yeah, he probably has a little more impact at SS, but the coaches have obviously decided that the drop off at FS in moving him is not worth the gain. Go with it. The one thing we DON'T need to be worrying about on this team is the defensive backfield.


The "voice" some here are responding to came directly from the Redskins...

With cornerback Shawn Springs healthy and willing to play free safety, players believe safety LaRon Landry, the best athlete on the defense, warrants more snaps around the line of scrimmage.


I know many here would love to think they could alter line-ups and game plans, but this one came from the team. The idea of Springs sharing time at safety actually started last year under Gibbs, so this is nothing new. But with Horton playing so well, Moore impressing in practice and the addition of Hall, some within the organization obviously feel LL could make some noise from the SS position. This would never have been possible last year, but the addition of Hall, Horton and Moore makes this plausible.

I understand the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, but I don't see the harm in moving these guys around in certain situations or packages to gain an advantage. It may never happen anyway, but Blache would have to consider the potential of scheming it.

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:43 pm
by Countertrey
I don't see the harm in moving these guys around in certain situations or packages to gain an advantage.


But they DO. Landry move up to blitz, Horton moves back to cover. The bottom line is, Springs can't stay healthy. He can't be relied upon, and hasn't played a snap in weeks. I'm certainly not counting on him, and I'm not sure that the "team" should be counting on him.

Obviously, if Springs is playing, especially with Hall now on the team, the story is different... but I wouldn't hold my breath. And, the reality is, the DB's are the only consistent performers on the team... to a man. They are really a remarkable crew, with depth and consistent reliability that is usually only dreamed of by defensive coordinators.

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:03 am
by VetSkinsFan
With cornerback Shawn Springs healthy and willing to play free safety, players believe safety LaRon Landry, the best athlete on the defense, warrants more snaps around the line of scrimmage.


This is idle chatter from the team just like we have idle chatter here...it says nothing specifically about implementation.

The health of Springs is a great and valid point. A great talent who cannot be relied upon is not worth relying on. I see no problem with LL, Springs, Horton, being on the field as a three safety set, but Springs CANNOT be relied on for any length of time. I would speculate that's why we have Hall.

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:55 am
by SkinsJock
As some have suggested - for the rest of this season, Landry at the LOS would only be a situational thing - I think that all that most are suggesting is maybe looking at getting this guy more plays near the LOS where he seems to be able to cause so many problems - I certainly agree that the defensive backfield has been playing well, it's just that it might be a way to create a little more pressure, is all :lol:

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:42 pm
by Countertrey
Consider that one of the reasons our corners are able to play so aggressively is the fact that they have the best cover safety in the league behind them. They have absolute confidence that a mistake will not result in an instant 6. That allows them to sell out in coverage. Every time 30 is moved into the box, that insurance policy is gone. Corner play would be degraded, with softer cushions.

You don't get anything for nothing. Springs may change the equation, but I don't see him ever being physically reliable again.

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:02 am
by CanesSkins26
Consider that one of the reasons our corners are able to play so aggressively is the fact that they have the best cover safety in the league behind them.


Seriously? Landry is certainly not the best cover safety in the league. Sean Taylor was arguably one of the best at that and Laron isn't anywhere near as good as #21 was.

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:38 pm
by Countertrey
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Consider that one of the reasons our corners are able to play so aggressively is the fact that they have the best cover safety in the league behind them.


Seriously? Landry is certainly not the best cover safety in the league. Sean Taylor was arguably one of the best at that and Laron isn't anywhere near as good as #21 was.


So I exaggerated... the point is still valid. He is an excellent Safety in coverage with incredible range. Taylor was deadly playing cover 3. His range and speed baited quarterbacks into double teams that couldn't be seen because Taylor was so far off the play. Guess what? Taylor is no longer there, so that comparison is both pointless and unfair to anyone playing today. Landry is no Taylor, but he is not far off.