The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

skinsfan#33 wrote:They are as much to blame for this skid as the O is.

I'm not saying they aren't. But who cares if they start off bad, if the offense is scoring zero points? Regardless of how/when, the defense is holding opposing offenses to a respectable amount of points.

The defense makes critical mistakes to keep themselves on the field SOMETIMES. But ALL defenses do that. The top ranked defenses do it. It's just magnified here because we lost.

Also, the defense cannot play aggressively when they're constantly playing with so little points on the board. You can't be an attacking defense with an offense like this because 9/10 they won't score, so U have to play conservative and they weren't built for that. So yea, they look worse than they should because they're being forced into a different mindset.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:It's hard to play good defense when you're offense puts up 0-12 points a game.

Apparently it's even harder to get this through people's heads. You guys want this defense to hold opposing offenses to the same level of ineptitude that our own offense operates at... That's flawed logic.

Agree. While I believe the defense has regressed a bit, it is no coincidence that our defense has been less effective in games where our offense has put up dismale numbers.

We have one of the WORST offenses in the NFL -- I would go as far as bottom 3. We have a mediocre defense -- in the 12-18 range. However, when your defense is forced to be on the field for over 2/3rds of the game, it tends to appear even worse.

With that said, we do need to majorly upgrade our corners.

But in reality, the root of our problems is with our offense, not the defense.

markshark84 wrote:With that said, we do need to majorly upgrade our corners.

But in reality, the root of our problems is with our offense, not the defense.

I disagree and agree. I disagree that DB is the major concern. IMO and as I started earlier, we've had better secondary's here that have had the same issues. If you want to improve the secondary, do so by improving the pass rush. Let's get a bigger body in there than Cofield and move him to end. Let's upgrade at LB, I love Rocky but we could get a better there. Our secondary isn't worse than a lot of teams out there but the pass rush is ineffective.

I agree about the offense.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

markshark84 wrote:With that said, we do need to majorly upgrade our corners.

But in reality, the root of our problems is with our offense, not the defense.

I disagree and agree. I disagree that DB is the major concern. IMO and as I started earlier, we've had better secondary's here that have had the same issues. If you want to improve the secondary, do so by improving the pass rush. Let's get a bigger body in there than Cofield and move him to end. Let's upgrade at LB, I love Rocky but we could get a better there. Our secondary isn't worse than a lot of teams out there but the pass rush is ineffective.

I agree about the offense.

I agree with your statement in that the best way to improve pass protection is by getting to the QB early -- but if you look at our DL personnel, they "appear" adequate (and next year we will have Jenkins back from injury), although both Bowen and Carricker could easily be upgraded (I just am not sure that should be the priority). I personally believe we do not have an adequate #2 CB and our #1 CB is grossly underperforming.

I don't see moving Cofield as the answer, but I agree that we need another LB -- however, with the draft picks curently at our disposal for 2012, I would prefer to see us concentrate on picking up OL and a QB before addressing the LB position.

markshark84 wrote:I don't see moving Cofield as the answer, but I agree that we need another LB -- however, with the draft picks curently at our disposal for 2012, I would prefer to see us concentrate on picking up OL and a QB before addressing the LB position.

- Carriker, Bowen, Cofield, Jenkins, the rookie NT.

Cofield is kinda of an experiment. He disappears and he's undersized, no matter how hard he plays. We could upgrade there. If you want to be an elite 3-4, you need an elite NT. Cofield is good but he's not consistently so, nor is he elite. We need a bigger body there.


I'm not saying to make defense a priority. But there we have both free agency and the draft. We have a TON OF CAP ROOM. And we might not resign LL to a big deal... We can make a lot of improvements with this team.

We need QB, oline and a #1 WR. The defense can be improved marginally.

Does anybody feel like Hasleet has been less aggressive with the play calling since the cowboys game?

CajunSkin wrote:Does anybody feel like Hasleet has been less aggressive with the play calling since the cowboys game?

You can't be as aggressive as he has been when playing from behind....

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:They are as much to blame for this skid as the O is.

I'm not saying they aren't. But who cares if they start off bad, if the offense is scoring zero points? Regardless of how/when, the defense is holding opposing offenses to a respectable amount of points.

The defense makes critical mistakes to keep themselves on the field SOMETIMES. But ALL defenses do that. The top ranked defenses do it. It's just magnified here because we lost.

Also, the defense cannot play aggressively when they're
constantly playing with so little points on the board. You
can't be an attacking defense with an offense like this
because 9/10 they won't score, so U have to play
conservative and they weren't built for that. So yea, they
look worse than they should because they're being forced
into a different mindset.

This D shouldn't be playing aggressively. They aren't good enough. That aggressive play got them a loss in Dallas.

Sure I would love the offense to score more but prior to last weeks debacle they were averaging 18 ppg (yes, removed Kerrigan's TD from that average). Is it too much to ask your D to hold a team under 10 points in the first half?

The O needs to pickup the slack, but how about the D pitching a shut out or holding a team under 20?


The D has only held the other team under 20 twice and the tesm is 2-1 in those games and would have won all theif the D hadn't given up a 3rd and 21.

The games where they allowed 20 or more the team is 1-3, so if the team wants to win the D needs to keep the score under 20.

It would be great if we could put up 35 per game, but that isn't how we are built. Until we get an OL, a QB, and a big time WR the D is going to have to cart the load. And they aren't doing it right now.

this D is much improved over last years it is still missing a few pieces non the less that side of the ball is not to blame.the offense cant score and when see a score like 23 zip why do most people say wow they cant stop anyone. the goose egg is what we should all be worried about.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:We need QB, oline and a #1 WR. The defense can be improved marginally.

agree 1000000000%

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:The logic is there and your response is inconsistent with the thread.....don't highjack it. There are a million and one threads about our INEPT offense....I needn't start another

-If you can't comprehend how one effects the other, I'll explain it to you.

-If time of possession doesn't make sense to you, ask someone, we can explain it to you.

-If the word fatigue is foreign and how it relates to the line above, I'll explain it to you.

-If the concept of playing with a lead from a defensive POV, doesn't make sense. Just ask me.

So sir, to sum this up. You cannot accurately depict the defense without honestly discussing how the offense contributes to their success or lack thereof. But, if you're goal is to be inaccurate, which is a common theme around here. I'll still be happy to "hijack" your thread with sprinklings of love, joy and common sense.

Best post of the year!

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:They are as much to blame for this skid as the O is.

I'm not saying they aren't. But who cares if they start off bad, if the offense is scoring zero points? Regardless of how/when, the defense is holding opposing offenses to a respectable amount of points.

The defense makes critical mistakes to keep themselves on the field SOMETIMES. But ALL defenses do that. The top ranked defenses do it. It's just magnified here because we lost.

Also, the defense cannot play aggressively when they're
constantly playing with so little points on the board. You
can't be an attacking defense with an offense like this
because 9/10 they won't score, so U have to play
conservative and they weren't built for that. So yea, they
look worse than they should because they're being forced
into a different mindset.

This D shouldn't be playing aggressively. They aren't good enough. That aggressive play got them a loss in Dallas.

Sure I would love the offense to score more but prior to last weeks debacle they were averaging 18 ppg (yes, removed Kerrigan's TD from that average). Is it too much to ask your D to hold a team under 10 points in the first half?

The O needs to pickup the slack, but how about the D pitching a shut out or holding a team under 20?


The D has only held the other team under 20 twice and the tesm is 2-1 in those games and would have won all theif the D hadn't given up a 3rd and 21.

The games where they allowed 20 or more the team is 1-3, so if the team wants to win the D needs to keep the score under 20.

It would be great if we could put up 35 per game, but that isn't how we are built. Until we get an OL, a QB, and a big time WR the D is going to have to cart the load. And they aren't doing it right now.

While I totally agree that us being too aggressive in the Dallas game cost us (and I put all the blame on Haslett) I disagree that we shouldn't be playing aggressively on a regular basis. Our offense is so inept that we need to take chances at certain time in the game on defense to either create a turnover and set our offense up with good field position, or score points from the defensive side........i.e. a DHall pick 6 , which would come in handy this Sunday.

Countertrey wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:The logic is there and your response is inconsistent with the thread.....don't highjack it. There are a million and one threads about our INEPT offense....I needn't start another

-If you can't comprehend how one effects the other, I'll explain it to you.

-If time of possession doesn't make sense to you, ask someone, we can explain it to you.

-If the word fatigue is foreign and how it relates to the line above, I'll explain it to you.

-If the concept of playing with a lead from a defensive POV, doesn't make sense. Just ask me.

So sir, to sum this up. You cannot accurately depict the defense without honestly discussing how the offense contributes to their success or lack thereof. But, if you're goal is to be inaccurate, which is a common theme around here. I'll still be happy to "hijack" your thread with sprinklings of love, joy and common sense.

Best post of the year!

Except it had nothing to do with our Defense.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:The logic is there and your response is inconsistent with the thread.....don't highjack it. There are a million and one threads about our INEPT offense....I needn't start another

-If you can't comprehend how one effects the other, I'll explain it to you.

-If time of possession doesn't make sense to you, ask someone, we can explain it to you.

-If the word fatigue is foreign and how it relates to the line above, I'll explain it to you.

-If the concept of playing with a lead from a defensive POV, doesn't make sense. Just ask me.

So sir, to sum this up. You cannot accurately depict the defense without honestly discussing how the offense contributes to their success or lack thereof. But, if you're goal is to be inaccurate, which is a common theme around here. I'll still be happy to "hijack" your thread with sprinklings of love, joy and common sense.

Best post of the year!

Except it had nothing to do with our Defense.

I've helped you out by using bold above. (You're welcome!)

And if you still have any questions, notice that CLL says he's happy to explain any of these points in greater detail. So, for example, if you don't think time of possession or fatigue have anything to do with our defense, you can ask CLL about it.

redskinz4ever wrote:this D is much improved over last years it is still missing a few pieces non the less that side of the ball is not to blame.the offense cant score and when see a score like 23 zip why do most people say wow they cant stop anyone. the goose egg is what we should all be worried about.

Don't act like they have been laying goose eggs for the whole season. They have had bad games and as much as the offense was mostly responsible for the Bills loss, the D was every bit as responsible for the Panthers loss (and the Cowgirls loss for a lesser degree)

Everyone says "but they didn't give up a TD" against the Pukes. True, but they did give up six scoring drives and 3 & 21.

Pathetic.

Yes, they have less to improve on, but seriously they should. How many high draft picks have been used on the D? How many on the O? How many FA where brought in for the D?

They should be better.... They HAVE MORE TALENT!

Irn-Bru wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:The logic is there and your response is inconsistent with the thread.....don't highjack it. There are a million and one threads about our INEPT offense....I needn't start another

-If you can't comprehend how one effects the other, I'll explain it to you.

-If time of possession doesn't make sense to you, ask someone, we can explain it to you.

-If the word fatigue is foreign and how it relates to the line above, I'll explain it to you.

-If the concept of playing with a lead from a defensive POV, doesn't make sense. Just ask me.


So sir, to sum this up. You cannot accurately depict the defense without honestly discussing how the offense contributes to their success or lack thereof. But, if you're goal is to be inaccurate, which is a common theme around here. I'll still be happy to "hijack" your thread with sprinklings of love, joy and common sense.

Best post of the year!

Except it had nothing to do with our Defense.

I've helped you out by using bold above. (You're welcome!)

And if you still have any questions, notice that CLL says he's happy to explain any of these points in greater detail. So, for example, if you don't think time of possession or fatigue have anything to do with our defense, you can ask CLL about it.

Oller don't patronize me. I completely agree that CLL has good points what I seige on is how they apply to our D.

ToP does impact the D, but the D allowing long drive after long drive after long drive in the first half of games while the o is struggling is as much to fault for the lopsided ToP as the offenses woes (besides that doesn't explain the Panthers game - the offense punted once)

Fatigue definitely impacts the D and if that was the radin the D was struggling they would play worse as the game goes on. This isn't the case.

If it was fatigue the D is as much to blame for their fatigue as the offense. How about forcing a freaking punt! Instead of letting the other team start on the field for most of the game. Do your job, get off the field and give the offense a chance to stock to their game plan.

No, I completely understand what CLL was saying. His pint just don't apply to our D.

Now of they had forced like 6 or 7 point before they allowed their first score than I would agree.

They are overrated. Still better than the O, but overrated!

Countertrey wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:The logic is there and your response is inconsistent with the thread.....don't highjack it. There are a million and one threads about our INEPT offense....I needn't start another

-If you can't comprehend how one effects the other, I'll explain it to you.

-If time of possession doesn't make sense to you, ask someone, we can explain it to you.

-If the word fatigue is foreign and how it relates to the line above, I'll explain it to you.

-If the concept of playing with a lead from a defensive POV, doesn't make sense. Just ask me.

So sir, to sum this up. You cannot accurately depict the defense without honestly discussing how the offense contributes to their success or lack thereof. But, if you're goal is to be inaccurate, which is a common theme around here. I'll still be happy to "hijack" your thread with sprinklings of love, joy and common sense.

Best post of the year!

In fact, it was so good... and pertenant to our Defense, that I'll say it again...

Best post of the year! And raise you a blue thumb guy...

It is so overrated that 50% of the D will NOT be here in 2012.

Defense WIN CHAMPIONSHIP - not gonna happen until this D takes its collective head out of its collective arse. The potential is there, sadly it has not come to fruition.

This thread is about the D and in the opinion of some here that it is over-rated

That is just flat out wrong

the franchise is a lot closer to being consistently competitive on the defensive side than the offense by a long shot

SkinsJock wrote:This thread is about the D and in the opinion of some here that it is over-rated

That is just flat out wrong

the franchise is a lot closer to being consistently competitive on the defensive side than the offense by a long shot

I don't think anyone would argue that the D isn't a lot closer to being consistently competitive, but that doesn't mean they' re not overrated or don't have a lot of room to improve.

Some would say the D would be better if the O stayed on the field longer and put up more points. While that is a kind of Captain Obvious statement. I mean like, no kidding, every defense would benefit from that.

What they fail to realize (or admit) is the D is largely responsible for their own fatigue. They allow long drive, after long drive, after long drive and allow the the other team to run up a 20 point lead in the first half (or so) of a game.

Now just like the D gets tired because they are on the field a lot (and in or case that is largely their fault), a struggling O never has a chance to get going if they only get 3 or fit possessions before they are down 20 and their is less than a half to play.

Yes, the D is interdependent with the O but so is the O.

So while the D is much close to being consistently competitive, it isn't there yet, and still has a way to go.

SkinsJock wrote:This thread is about the D and in the opinion of some here that it is over-rated

That is just flat out wrong

the franchise is a lot closer to being consistently competitive on the defensive side than the offense by a long shot

I don't think anyone would argue that the D isn't a lot closer to being consistently competitive, but that doesn't mean they're not overrated or don't have a lot of room to improve.

Some would say the D would be better if the O stayed on the field longer and put up more points. While that is a kind of Captain Obvious statement. I mean like, no kidding, every defense would benefit from that.

What they fail to realize (or admit) is the D is largely responsible for their own fatigue. They allow long drive, after long drive, after long drive and allow the the other team to run up a 20 point lead in the first half (or so) of a game.

Now just like the D gets tired because they are on the field a lot (and in our case that is largely their fault), a struggling O never has a chance to get going if they only get 3 or 4 possessions before they are down 20 and there is less than a half to play.


Yes, the D is interdependent with the O, but so is the O interdependent with the D.

So while the D is much closer to being consistently competitive, it isn't there yet, and still has a way to go.

This franchise is getting there - BOTH the defense and the offense have issues - the D has a ways to go but is still 'better'


there are many here that may feel that the defense is not playing well - this is a game that involves both defense and offense

this past game showed we have little of one and nothing from the other
26 yards rushing is pathetic

let's not judge the progress of growth here on just 1 game - get over it

How are they "overated"? Justify that they are overated???? Who is running around screaming that they are a finished product? Who is declaring that they are prepared to win a championship ala the Ravens, with literally no offense? Cite evidence that anyone is saying anything close to that? YOU Can't... because no one is saying it. THAT would be overated. This d is capable of some awesome things... but it's not yet a championship team. And NO ONE is saying that.

They ARE capable of keeping this team in games... all that would have been required to convert this from a 3-4 team to a 5-2 team was some offensive production... INCLUDING LAST SUNDAY... Keep in mind that 2 of Buffalo's scores were off of turnovers, and a short field. This defense still badly needs a legit NT, and at least 1 corner who can perform in man cover... It needs safety depth... and it needs Orakpo to pick up some LB skills and some additional rush moves (Kerrigan is a work in progress, but watching him in coverage, he's making consistent gains... we already know he has the complete package in the pass rush...). Had Jarvis not suffered his knee injury, the personality of this D-line would have been completely different. It's not far off...

skinsfan#33 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:This thread is about the D and in the opinion of some here that it is over-rated

That is just flat out wrong

the franchise is a lot closer to being consistently competitive on the defensive side than the offense by a long shot

I don't think anyone would argue that the D isn't a lot closer to being consistently competitive, but that doesn't mean they' re not overrated or don't have a lot of room to improve.

Some would say the D would be better if the O stayed on the field longer and put up more points. While that is a kind of Captain Obvious statement. I mean like, no kidding, every defense would benefit from that.

What they fail to realize (or admit) is the D is largely responsible for their own fatigue. They allow long drive, after long drive, after long drive and allow the the other team to run up a 20 point lead in the first half (or so) of a game.

Now just like the D gets tired because they are on the field a lot (and in or case that is largely their fault), a struggling O never has a chance to get going if they only get 3 or fit possessions before they are down 20 and their is less than a half to play.

Yes, the D is interdependent with the O but so is the O.

So while the D is much close to being consistently competitive, it isn't there yet, and still has a way to go.

+1
+1
+1

Right you are....!!! Get off the field, sit on bench, and rest a while.....

skinsfan#33 wrote:Oller don't patronize me.

You left it hanging out there. Someone was going to smash that post sooner or later. What were you expecting?

I completely agree that CLL has good points what I seige on is how they apply to our D.

Chris's whole point was that these factors were relevant to our defense. How could he have "good points" but have totally missed the mark with those same points?