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

you have to be kidding me ...

there is no 'reasoning' with JSPB - he's in his own little world ...

the defense played OK ....

but .... with 'great' effort ...

SkinsJock wrote: you have to be kidding me ...

there is no 'reasoning' with JSPB - he's in his own little world ...

the defense played OK ....

but .... with 'great' effort ...

SkinsJock, you spelled out what I am saying - "great" effort, but the performance was "good" enough. One of these days I will learn to use fewer words to make my point.

I wouldn't go as far as saying there is no reasoning with JSPB. He provided evidence to support his case. The term "great" is relelvant. 3 Turnovers! 1 TD and set up another! Held them to 3 FGs instead of 3 TDs. That is what Haz has and Shanny have been harping on about the change to this defense.

I thought it was a good discussion. He saw that as great and I saw it as just good enough, but I also saw the players playing above their talent level, now ain't that just great!

I respect where he is coming from - my perspective is just my perspective - not the right perspective.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder ...

I thought the defense played well and there were some good aspects ... but

I'm not going to agree that this was a great game by the defense

Here's a few random stats I stumbled across

The 2011 Redskins had a grand total of 28 touchdowns in 16 games.
-8 rushing TDs
-19 passing TDs
-1 defensive TD (INT returned)

That goes along with 13 interceptions and 8 defensive fumble recoveries.


The 2012 Redskins have so far in six games had a grand total of 22 TDs
-11 rushing TDs
-6 passing TDs
-5 defensive TDs (2 fumble returns, 3 INTs returned)

That goes in with 8 total interceptions and 5 defensive fumble recoveries.

While our D may look awfully bad sometimes, we have really turned a corner in the turnover department and certainly in the defensive scoring.

that's the thing - the defense this year has not been awful but, there's no way that I would say that we have a good defense

I also would not categorize last week's overall work by the defense as 'great' - good yes but not great


the defense as a whole is OK but the area we have some issues with is the secondary

last wek's EFFORT by the defense was great - the defense helped - GREAT JOB

Haslett's take on the defensive perfomamce against the Vikings

...fourth defensive touchdown of the year.

Defense has 4 TDs this year

“Bend but don’t break,” is a description that several players used to describe their performance in the 38-26 victory. But defensive coordinator Jim Haslett dislikes the phrase. Although pleased with the turnovers, touchdown and stingy red zone effort, Haslett says his unit has to do a better job of getting off the field.

That has got to change for the Giant game.

“I don’t like [bend but don’t break], because we blitzed like five times a row in the fourth quarter. I wouldn’t say it’s ‘bend but don’t break’ if you’re blitzing,” Haslett said Thursday. “Last week, we had a nice lead and we didn’t want to give it up and we kind of played conservative along the way, trying to eat up time on the clock. I don’t think we’re bend but don’t break. I wouldn’t use those terms.”

Blitzing 5 times in a row is conservative for Haz.
Notice Haz bragging about how many times he blitzed in a row. How many times were those blitzes effective? Are his blitz schemes the best schemes? Is he bltizing at the right times. He blitzed on that PI in the end zone when I thought the conservative approach was working and eating up the time. Haz seems to be more concerned with getting credit for his schemes than the wins.

But the Redskins allowed the Vikings to get out of bounds at the end of those runs and catches, stopping the clock — exactly what Haslett didn’t want. That left the Vikings plenty of time to stage a comeback.

“We were trying to play it safe. We didn’t want to give up any big [plays],” Haslett said. “We were up by 2-1/2, three scores, so we were just playing coverage and trying to eat up time. We were actually trying to keep them in bounds, but we obviously didn’t do a very good job of that. We’re going to do a drill today.”

I am glad that Haz is pointing this one out - this was the only sore spot I saw in the play of the players; however, Haz is always saying, after the fact, that we will have to work on that. Shouldn't fundamentals like this be coached all year long? Why doesn't he have the D ready to go, game after game? I don't beleive that our players are that bad - not as talented yes, but not that bad.

Again, I point to a flawed complicated scheme that robs the players of instinct and fundamentals - too busy trying to remember where they are supposed to be than playing football. We saw it with Gregg and we see it with Haz. Players going to other teams and becoming all-pros.

Red_One43 wrote:We saw it with Gregg and we see it with Haz. Players going to other teams and becoming all-pros.

Can you point to one of those players? We've had a couple of guys leave and play well elsewhere, but it's not like they didn't play well here too, and were hamstrung by the scheme.

Deadskins wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:We saw it with Gregg and we see it with Haz. Players going to other teams and becoming all-pros.

Can you point to one of those players? We've had a couple of guys leave and play well elsewhere, but it's not like they didn't play well here too, and were hamstrung by the scheme.

The all pro thing is exaggeration on my part, but let's look at someplayers:

Walt Harris flat out didn't play well in Gregg's Scheme. He went to the Niners and darn near leads the league in INTs. Walt didn't suddenly get more talent - he was used in a many that fit his strengths.

Let's look at another: Carlos Rogers. good cover guy here, but you may have forgotten that his nickname was "double move" because he bit on that so much in single cover.

But, I don't have to speculate with Carlos. He is the one who came out and said that the Niners simplified things and ask guys how they think they should be used and then draw up the schemes to fit the guys strengths.

Evidence to support Carlos:
With Harbaugh, he took over the same players and 3-4 base that the Singletary had on D and made that D better - Did he infuse a lot of new talent into the D? No, he simplified things and put played players to their strengths.

Haz puts the same guys in a 3-4. He tries Andre Carter at LB, doesn't work so they use him primarily as a rush end in the 4-3. Andre Carter is still ineffective. The next year, Andre Carter goes to the Pats. The Pats play a 3-4 base, but find a way to get 10 sacks out of Andre Carter as a hand in the dirt rush end in an injury shortened season (not all pro but much better than Haz got out of him).

*Note I remember some folks posted back in 2010 that Haz wasted Andre Carter and I said that he didn't because Carter proved to be ineffective at LB and was too small to play DE in the 3-4. I was wrong, I didn't know that DCs were allowed to be creative and deviate from their base defense. Haz knew, he didn't want to because players must fit the scheme not scheme fit the players.

Haz and Gregg's schemes are about being aggressive and too me, they get overly aggressive for theirs and the defense's own good.

Red_One43 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:We saw it with Gregg and we see it with Haz. Players going to other teams and becoming all-pros.

Can you point to one of those players? We've had a couple of guys leave and play well elsewhere, but it's not like they didn't play well here too, and were hamstrung by the scheme.

The all pro thing is exaggeration on my part, but let's look at someplayers:

Walt Harris flat out didn't play well in Gregg's Scheme. He went to the Niners and darn near leads the league in INTs. Walt didn't suddenly get more talent - he was used in a many that fit his strengths.

Let's look at another: Carlos Rogers. good cover guy here, but you may have forgotten that his nickname was "double move" because he bit on that so much in single cover.

But, I don't have to speculate with Carlos. He is the one who came out and said that the Niners simplified things and ask guys how they think they should be used and then draw up the schemes to fit the guys strengths.

Evidence to support Carlos:
With Harbaugh, he took over the same players and 3-4 base that the Singletary had on D and made that D better - Did he infuse a lot of new talent into the D? No, he simplified things and put played players to their strengths.

Haz puts the same guys in a 3-4. He tries Andre Carter at LB, doesn't work so they use him primarily as a rush end in the 4-3. Andre Carter is still ineffective. The next year, Andre Carter goes to the Pats. The Pats play a 3-4 base, but find a way to get 10 sacks out of Andre Carter as a hand in the dirt rush end in an injury shortened season (not all pro but much better than Haz got out of him).

*Note I remember some folks posted back in 2010 that Haz wasted Andre Carter and I said that he didn't because Carter proved to be ineffective at LB and was too small to play DE in the 3-4. I was wrong, I didn't know that DCs were allowed to be creative and deviate from their base defense. Haz knew, he didn't want to because players must fit the scheme not scheme fit the players.

Haz and Gregg's schemes are about being aggressive and too me, they get overly aggressive for theirs and the defense's own good.

Didn't NE switch to a 4-3 the in the year that Andre had all those sacks? And hasn't Andre been out of football since that year?

emoses14 wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

Deadskins wrote: Can you point to one of those players? We've had a couple of guys leave and play well elsewhere, but it's not like they didn't play well here too, and were hamstrung by the scheme.

The all pro thing is exaggeration on my part, but let's look at someplayers:

Walt Harris flat out didn't play well in Gregg's Scheme. He went to the Niners and darn near leads the league in INTs. Walt didn't suddenly get more talent - he was used in a many that fit his strengths.

Let's look at another: Carlos Rogers. good cover guy here, but you may have forgotten that his nickname was "double move" because he bit on that so much in single cover.

But, I don't have to speculate with Carlos. He is the one who came out and said that the Niners simplified things and ask guys how they think they should be used and then draw up the schemes to fit the guys strengths.

Evidence to support Carlos:
With Harbaugh, he took over the same players and 3-4 base that the Singletary had on D and made that D better - Did he infuse a lot of new talent into the D? No, he simplified things and put played players to their strengths.

Haz puts the same guys in a 3-4. He tries Andre Carter at LB, doesn't work so they use him primarily as a rush end in the 4-3. Andre Carter is still ineffective. The next year, Andre Carter goes to the Pats. The Pats play a 3-4 base, but find a way to get 10 sacks out of Andre Carter as a hand in the dirt rush end in an injury shortened season (not all pro but much better than Haz got out of him).

*Note I remember some folks posted back in 2010 that Haz wasted Andre Carter and I said that he didn't because Carter proved to be ineffective at LB and was too small to play DE in the 3-4. I was wrong, I didn't know that DCs were allowed to be creative and deviate from their base defense. Haz knew, he didn't want to because players must fit the scheme not scheme fit the players.

Haz and Gregg's schemes are about being aggressive and too me, they get overly aggressive for theirs and the defense's own good.

Didn't NE switch to a 4-3 the in the year that Andre had all those sacks? And hasn't Andre been out of football since that year?

This was a sore subject for him all year last year. He said due to the strike shortened season, it would be easier to start out in a 4-3 and mix up the fronts from odd to even. Yes, they were in the 4-3 more than the 3-4, but that is EXACTLY my point use the scheme that fits your players. Belicheck showed the flexibility and Haz has yet to. Haz did and does use the 4-3 from time to time, in 2010, he could haved used it more than not during that tranisiton. Again, I hindsight this to show that Haz is not a put the players in the scheme that works guy, but more of a "this is what we do guy." A lot of DCs will tell you that they use multiple fronts. The Pats proved that Andre Carter had a lot left if used right and could be used on a team that traditionally ran a 3-4. Haz could have done the same or similar, but didn't.

“We’ve played a mixture of odd fronts and even fronts, but I just felt like from a starting point — given the lack of spring opportunities to practice and meet, and the shortened training camp in terms of actual number of practices — that from a teaching standpoint we felt like there would be more carryover teaching our base defense and nickel defense really as one front,” Belichick explained.

This talk shows the willingness of Belicheck to make the adjustments.

LINK

Andre Carter suffered a severe quad tear against us last year and took awhile to recover. Though he is 33 and coming off a severe injury, he is currently playing for the Oakland Raiders.

Oakland Raiders

I can't really give you Carlos. He played great here. The difference in SF was he got glasses. He says it's the system because he was disgruntled here. It's the same reason he made all of his other comments about the team.

Deadskins wrote:I can't really give you Carlos. He played great here. The difference in SF was he got glasses. He says it's the system because he was disgruntled here. It's the same reason he made all of his other comments about the team.

Problem is glasses do not put one in the position to make plays. Carlos did more than just catch the INTs in SF. He was in position to make the plays. That is what he is trying to tell us. You can say it is being disgruntled, but you neglect the fact, that Harbaugh took the basically the same Singletary defensive players and turned them into a Championship D. They were good players that put into a simplified system.

You are using that term "great" again. Which is always going to be a relative term. I cannot say a guy whose nickname was "double move" played great here. Although, the double move thing to me, doesn't say he was a not a good player here. I am saying that he was not utilized right. You put any corner in that situation enough, they will get burned. Unfortunately, for Carlos, it was on a basic football move that he was getting burned.

You don't want to give me Carlos? I accept that, because I do believe that he is a fine cover guy and was here.