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

Let me ask you guys. A friend of mine seems to think our D sucked last year because of our O. we went back and forth about this for like an hour. I think our D just sucked, lack of a pass rush and lack at CB and Safety. He said our offence couldn't stay on the field long enough and D stayed tired. He said the Greg is the best coach we have and the problem is the offence side(hinting that it was Gibbs fault). He even said we should get rid of CP and said Campbell isn't our answer at QB either. He really made me mad. He calls himself a Redskin fan.

I Disagree with this I think we put together some good drives. Just thought I would share this and see what you guys think.

BnGhog wrote:

I think our D just sucked

That's it - that's all you need to say, and the nail has been hit well and truly on the head. There is a theory that the offence didn't help the defence, but that's because they were incapable of scoring more points than the defence conceded. And I don't blame them.

1. The offense sucked with MB at the helm. They didn't score when they had the ball. They didn't score when the defense held.

2. The defense was tired. The offense punted all the time and kept an already mediocre defense back on the field.

3. Lack of chemistry.

4. Lack of a pass rush.

5. Poor DB play, partly due to #5.

6. Springs injuries, see #5, #4.

7. Injury to the safey position.

8. Couldn't stop the run.

9. Poor safety play due to them trying too hard to pick up other peoples slack.

10. It seems that simliar defenses had issues this year, they could possibly have been figured out.

11. Arrington faxing the defense playbook to the league.

12. Missusing Archuleta

13. No luck

14. Lack of turnovers, see #14 and #4. (Carlos Rogers hands )

15. Phanton injures to LB corps not revealed till post season.

After JC got in control and actually got the offense moving, the defense could no longer fault anyone but themselves.

Let's not take any credit away from the defence - they stunk the place out, all on their own, with absolutely no help from the offence or special teams.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Let's not take any credit away from the defence - they stunk the place out, all on their own, with absolutely no help from the offence or special teams.

You can't just single out the defense, its impossible. They feed off of each other.

The defense is aided by the offense eating up clock and resting them. = Our offense did NOT do that until 3/4 of the way through the season.

The defense is aided by the offense scoring points when they force a punt. = Our offense had trouble with that.

The defense is aided when the offense puts up any kind of points. = Again, our offense had a lot of trouble with that.

The offense is aided by getting a short field. HOWEVER, that is a luxury. Just because they have to start at the 20 doesn't make a 9/10 3&outs excusable.

They both stunk but the offense showed tons of promise/growth towards the end.

But when our offence was not great, but we still made it to the Playoffs in 05 that was mostly because of our D. Our offence wasn't good enough to make the PO on their own. With that same D who knows what our record would have been this year.

Chris: I hear you, I really do. I just don't recall the defence being any good when they were rested either. They were lousy at the start of games, the middle of games, and the end of games. When the offence did improve, it always seemed to be chasing the game. If the offence did do something to seize the initiative in a game, the defence would just give it back.

You've been criticising our offence for the last two years for not helping out the defence in any way, and rightly so. But this time , the boot is on the other foot.

However, I really think the defence can just as quickly return to being a top ten unit next season, and with the further development of JC over the next 12 months, I am quietly confident about next year (very, very, very quietly confident)

BnGhog wrote:But when our offence was not great, but we still made it to the Playoffs in 05 that was mostly because of our D. Our offence wasn't good enough to make the PO on their own. With that same D who knows what our record would have been this year.

Ok, so why is it that the defense always has to pick up the slack? When will this offense be held to the same standard? People seem to give the O a free pass and expect the defense to intercept every pass. Its weird.

I also feel the 2006 offense was worse than the 2005 offense.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:..They both stunk but the offense showed tons of promise/growth towards the end.

Actually I thought the defense looked even better than the offense ....




















but then the game started

Chris Luva Luva wrote:1. The offense sucked with MB at the helm. They didn't score when they had the ball. They didn't score when the defense held.

2. The defense was tired. The offense punted all the time and kept an already mediocre defense back on the field.

3. Lack of chemistry.

4. Lack of a pass rush.

5. Poor DB play, partly due to #5.

6. Springs injuries, see #5, #4.

7. Injury to the safey position.

8. Couldn't stop the run.

9. Poor safety play due to them trying too hard to pick up other peoples slack.

10. It seems that simliar defenses had issues this year, they could possibly have been figured out.

11. Arrington faxing the defense playbook to the league.

12. Missusing Archuleta

13. No luck

14. Lack of turnovers, see #14 and #4. (Carlos Rogers hands )

15. Phanton injures to LB corps not revealed till post season.

After JC got in control and actually got the offense moving, the defense could no longer fault anyone but themselves.

Other then that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Other then that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

I think they really fought their guts out.

BnGhog wrote:Let me ask you guys. A friend of mine seems to think our D sucked last year because of our O. we went back and forth about this for like an hour. I think our D just sucked, lack of a pass rush and lack at CB and Safety. He said our offence couldn't stay on the field long enough and D stayed tired. He said the Greg is the best coach we have and the problem is the offence side(hinting that it was Gibbs fault). He even said we should get rid of CP and said Campbell isn't our answer at QB either. He really made me mad. He calls himself a Redskin fan.

I Disagree with this I think we put together some good drives. Just thought I would share this and see what you guys think.

2006 time of possesion: Skins 29:59 ; Foes 30:01 OR 2 SECONDS.

2nd Eagles game we had the ball almost 40 minutes and still lost.

2nd Giants game we had the ball 4 minutes more than the G string, yet they still rushed for more than 200 yards.

The Offense could have helped out more, but the D would have still sucked!

It's true that a solid offence helps the defense by keeping it off the field. But the problem was not just that our defense got tired in the second half of games and gave up too many yards. The problem was the lack of big plays all season -- even in the first half of games when the defense was still fresh. The defense had too few forced fumbles, too few interceptions, and no defensive touchdowns. Those weaknesses have nothing to do with the offense.

The defense was terrible, and it's just too easy to blame the offense for their woes.

2004 was the year we had our best defense right? Well... our offense was terrible. Tom Tupa punted 103 times that year... over TWENTY more than Frost punted this season.

In 2004 we simply had both the right people for the system and depth:

-Solid depth all over the defensive side of the ball.

-An excellent middle linebacker who fit perfectly.

-Star outside linebackers (including LeMar Marshall who was excellent over the middle in 2005, but not very good at all last season... and may be too small for the middle.)

-Solid, if unexceptional cornerbacks who played smart.

-Hard hitting safeties who could cover and play run support.

This season, in 2006 we had no depth, and a ton of injuries. The players we did have on the field were not very good as a whole.

With some work, the D can build on the pieces they have and be a force again, but Gregg Williams is a terrible personell man. He's constantly ignoring the weaknesses of potential players because thinks he can work on them...

Skinsfan55 wrote:The defense was terrible, and it's just too easy to blame the offense for their woes.

Nobody is giving the offense a free pass but its crazy to not acknowledge that they effect each other. Scoring 24 points a game is something we need consistently from this offense REGARDLESS of how the D plays.

I agree the two affect one another but I think some people overblow the connection.

A solid, well conditioned and young defense with depth would minimize the effect that other units of the team have on it.

Now, the 1991 Redskins are possibly the best Redskins team ever (I am on this big 1991 kick because I bought a yearbook and video on ebay the other day) and while they had an excellent offense that scored often... they also had big strike ability, and put the defense back on the field pretty quickly as well.

There's a certain energizing effect from scoring points, but a tired defense is still a tired defense... but that 1991 squad had the right depth, along with a perfect mix of youth and veterans to pull through.

Other defenses go through worse than what the Skins saw in 2006

Skinsfan55 wrote:I agree the two affect one another but I think some people overblow the connection.

A solid, well conditioned and young defense with depth would minimize the effect that other units of the team have on it.

True but when your D is injury riddle, winded and just got off the field they are doomed when it's a 3 and out and they are right back out there. On the regular bases

Skinsfan55 wrote:Now, the 1991 Redskins are possibly the best Redskins team ever (I am on this big 1991 kick because I bought a yearbook and video on ebay the other day) and while they had an excellent offense that scored often... they also had big strike ability, and put the defense back on the field pretty quickly as well.

Scoring quickly allows the defense to be more aggressive and able to take chances, this also allows the coaching staff to insert players to build depth. The Redskins played from behind more often than not in 2006 so taking chances was a limited option even if everyone had been healthy.

Skinsfan55 wrote:There's a certain energizing effect from scoring points, but a tired defense is still a tired defense... but that 1991 squad had the right depth, along with a perfect mix of youth and veterans to pull through.

That 1991 Defense was a scoring defense and a scoring defense will give you a short field when it is short of it's goals. When you have a offense that isn't moving the chains (at any pace) regardless of what you want you D to be it will undoubtly become a "bend but don't break"/"prevent" unit. While continuing to get hurt.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Other defenses go through worse than what the Skins saw in 2006

Name one that started the year with a new DE still learning scheme and the players around him, a rookie LB taken in the first round that wasn't ready to play teams at the start of the season forcing a LB that you signed to Vet min contract to start most of the year, and you top and only cover corner limping not knowing when his season will start.

Should you happen to come up with a team (Iknow there aren't more than one) did they lose their starting saftey on the first play of the season?

I agree you can't put it all on the offense and you have to lighten that load too, because they started the season without their #1 RB

The Defense stunk! This is no secret. But guess what the Offense stunk it up in the first half of the season as well. Once Brunell was benched we started to see improvement on the offensive side. Our Defense seemed to suck the whole year.

1niksder wrote:True but when your D is injury riddle, winded and just got off the field they are doomed when it's a 3 and out and they are right back out there. On the regular bases

Yes, and thats where I feel the offense gets a free ride. It's like....so what that they go 3-out 99% of the time, the defense is supposed to stop it. This defense had issues this year and the offense for the 3rd consecutive did jack until it was too late. The offense doesnt get scrutinized like the defense and thats not fair. It's time for the offense to man up and take responsiblity.

You can't expect the defense to stand tall when the front-office tore them down over the years.

It's time for the offense to man up and take responsiblity.

How is the offense NOT doing this? They aren't the ones blaming the defense, and they showed some pretty drastic improvement toward the end of the year. If it's the fans that you have beef with (for blaming the D more than you think they should), then keep hounding them. . .by all means.

But to say that the Skins offense isn't taking responsibility isn't really correct.

Irn-Bru wrote:

It's time for the offense to man up and take responsiblity.

How is the offense NOT doing this? They aren't the ones blaming the defense, and they showed some pretty drastic improvement toward the end of the year. If it's the fans that you have beef with (for blaming the D more than you think they should), then keep hounding them. . .by all means.

But to say that the Skins offense isn't taking responsibility isn't really correct.

When I say that, I mean by scoring a respectable amount of points which they did towards the last quarter of the season.

But like you pointed out, my beef is moreso with the fans.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Other then that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

I think they really fought their guts out.

They were super smart too, you forgot that.

Chris maybe I've gotten too used to the D playing well and I'm not used to have a team that sucks on both sides of the ball. I used be able to say "but our D kicks a." and I can't say even that this year.


But really think about it. " Defence wins championships"

Id rather have a good D and a not so great O. Look back at KC when Al Saunders was their. Best O in the NFL, More point average than any other team in the NFL. But no D and No superbowl. Indy, It has taken them so many years y haven't they made it, but this year their D steped up. And the O had not been playing their best this last few games of the season.

1niksder wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:I agree the two affect one another but I think some people overblow the connection.

A solid, well conditioned and young defense with depth would minimize the effect that other units of the team have on it.

True but when your D is injury riddle, winded and just got off the field they are doomed when it's a 3 and out and they are right back out there. On the regular bases

Skinsfan55 wrote:Now, the 1991 Redskins are possibly the best Redskins team ever (I am on this big 1991 kick because I bought a yearbook and video on ebay the other day) and while they had an excellent offense that scored often... they also had big strike ability, and put the defense back on the field pretty quickly as well.

Scoring quickly allows the defense to be more aggressive and able to take chances, this also allows the coaching staff to insert players to build depth. The Redskins played from behind more often than not in 2006 so taking chances was a limited option even if everyone had been healthy.

Skinsfan55 wrote:There's a certain energizing effect from scoring points, but a tired defense is still a tired defense... but that 1991 squad had the right depth, along with a perfect mix of youth and veterans to pull through.

That 1991 Defense was a scoring defense and a scoring defense will give you a short field when it is short of it's goals. When you have a offense that isn't moving the chains (at any pace) regardless of what you want you D to be it will undoubtly become a "bend but don't break"/"prevent" unit. While continuing to get hurt.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Other defenses go through worse than what the Skins saw in 2006

Name one that started the year with a new DE still learning scheme and the players around him, a rookie LB taken in the first round that wasn't ready to play teams at the start of the season forcing a LB that you signed to Vet min contract to start most of the year, and you top and only cover corner limping not knowing when his season will start.

Should you happen to come up with a team (Iknow there aren't more than one) did they lose their starting saftey on the first play of the season?

I agree you can't put it all on the offense and you have to lighten that load too, because they started the season without their #1 RB

I'm not going to compare the 91 team to last year's team because that is like comparing USC football with pop warner. Richie Pettibone has forgotten more about deffense than GW will ever know.

The point Skinsfan 55 was making, is the best D the Skins have had under GW was the 2004 unit. He pointed out that the 2004 O was just pittiful compared to the 2006 O. So that blows the idea of the O causing the woes of the D.

No one can tell me that Prioleau was going to be the starting SS, because that is a load of horse hockey. Clark was that starting SS and they brought in AA to be an "upgrade". Prioleau may have been in the plans for a nickel or dime D, but was never, ever, never in the plans to start!!!

Rocky was not a first round pick and was never in the plans to start opening day or even the first half of the season. For that you can thank GW's idiotic pollicy of not starting rookies.

The D just sucked! There are many reason: poor personel moves, injuries to key players (no Prioleau wasn't going to start!), no depth, but most of all GW failed to adjust his sceam to fit his players or the teams he was facing. Most of the D's failing could have been prevented by GW!

Blame GW for the D, not the O!

skinsfan#33 wrote:The point Skinsfan 55 was making, is the best D the Skins have had under GW was the 2004 unit. He pointed out that the 2004 O was just pittiful compared to the 2006 O. So that blows the idea of the O causing the woes of the D.

Nobody is saying that the offense is 100% at fault for the defense's faults. We know it has to do with player loss, chemistry loss, coaching and a ton of other factors. What we are saying is that the offense DID NOT HELP the situation. Everyone looks at the defense to be the saviour and NOT ONCE has the offense been held to that same standard.

skinsfan#33 wrote:No one can tell me that Prioleau was going to be the starting SS, because that is a load of horse hockey. Clark was that starting SS and they brought in AA to be an "upgrade". Prioleau may have been in the plans for a nickel or dime D, but was never, ever, never in the plans to start!!!

But he had an assignment that nobody else could complete. GW had a bunch of cogs and lost them. He had to try to fit square pegs in round holes and it didn't work.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Blame GW for the D, not the O!

Impossible. Last time I checked, this was a team sport. If our offense puts up 0 points on the board, is it still the defense fault? They might as well have scored 0 points because 10-14 isn't going to cut it in todays offense happy NFL.