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

The year before Greg Williams went to Buffalo, they were 18th in th NFL in interceptions. In his 3 years there they were 26th once and 30th twice.

In 2003, before he came to the Redskins, they were 11th in the NFL in interceptions. Since he got to D.C. they dropped to tied for 14th, then to tied for 19th, then to dead last, and so far tied for last again this year.

Is it a trend associated with GW's scheme? Is it 7 years of bad defensive lines? Does he teach corners to forget about the ball and just make the tackle? I always thought his "aggressive" style was supposed to force mistakes, but the numbers don't bare that out.

INTs are such a big momentum changer in the NFL... I miss seeing them in a 'Skins uniform...

I counted 2 maybe 3 dropped so far.. The opportunities are there, the guys just haven't come up with it. So far I'm liking what I'm seeing specially on #22 on last night's game. If they keep playing the way they did last night I think they will get some picks in the next few games. Andre Carter is looking good, he come close to getting more sacks in the last few games, he's actually touched the QB in some plays. If he keeps that up it will play into getting more int's or a sack for him.

Interceptions obviously happen more frequently when the quarterback is under pressure and/or the corners play in tight man coverage. Neither condition is present for the Redskins, although only the latter seems to be by design.

Ideally, the corners play tight to take away the quarterback's first read. And by the time he gets around to his second or third read, the pass rush has him. For better or worse, Williams seems to have no confidence his pass rush will ever get there, so he plays his corners 10 yards back.

Unfortunately, this just compounds the problem because with the receivers running essentially uncovered, you're not getting sacks OR interceptions.

Thus far, against two struggling offenses, it hasn't hurt us much. But as the season progresses, I'd like to see Williams mix in a lot more of that bump-and-run look we saw in certain situations last night.

Actually, the Skins played pretty tight man bump-and-run coverage for most of the game yesterday...

The Redskins gave up one passing play of 19 yards. McNubb averaged less than 10 yards per completion. I think the receivers were covered fairly well. When you have your safeties "in the box" you don't want the corners going for interceptions because if they miss, the receiver is in the end zone. We'd all like to see more sacks and hurries created by the front four but that will come. The defense has only given up 25 points in two games. There is little to be critical about. This is a marked improvement over last season.

Skeletor wrote:Actually, the Skins played pretty tight man bump-and-run coverage for most of the game yesterday...

I thought I saw that too. Carlos was actually running stride with his man most of the time, and he looked good with the bump and run. I have actually thought that he would be the weak point of the secondary but he showed he can hang last night. They hurried and flushed McNabb most of the night, even ST got in there in one play.

the corners played real tight last night. at least 2 of the sacks we collected were "coverage sacks".

our secondary is made up of head hunters, not ball hawks. they scare the receivers into playing with alligator arms and dropping passes. this causes frequent 3 and outs (as we all saw last night), allowing randle el to handle the field position and keeping the offense on the field to control the clock and put points on the board.

more INTs would be nice but we have a very underrated style of play that is very effective when done correctly

The DBs played great say the last few drives where they were ok... all night Tony K and Jaws were talking about how the D was like "velcro" on the WRs... dont complain about INTs... we got a W

Thanks LL for stickin Curtis on that last play...

We lack two things that generate turnovers, a pass rush and DB's that can catch.

I just think there's going to be times when the D needs to go out and get the ball back. And I think that GW's design is such that other things are just more imprtant (probably rightfully so) than forcing the turnover)... it's just hard to flip the switch and get out of the mindset that the most important thing is making the tackle as opposed to going for the ball (even when the ball is there to be taken)... they're just not in the habit of thinking "ball"... If that makes sense...

Don't get me wrong I like GW's defense. This is just an observation based on what I thought were some surprising statistics. I just think this can be a playoff team if they can get on the "plus" side of the turnover differential...

Here's a PSA. Dont trust the stats on NFL.com If you sort by team stats it is not uncommon to get an offensive team stat in place of a defensive team stat. An example: Sort for Ints and you will notice that the Skins defense has 3. Maybe I missed them but I can't remeber 3 Ints. I do remember 3 Ints that Campbell threw. That is only one example. I could give many more.

If you go to the Redskins section and then look up the stats they are correct. Since, the NFL revamped their website the stats have be gooned up.

Hmmmm, with only allowing 13 points in the first game and 12 in the second game this season, I am not too worried about always going for the INT. Yeah, it would be nice to give the offense better field position but I think the defense is playing great. I believe the INTs will start coming when we have a 14pt lead and the other team is forced to throw the ball and take more chances trying to catch up.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Here's a PSA. Dont trust the stats on NFL.com If you sort by team stats it is not uncommon to get an offensive team stat in place of a defensive team stat. An example: Sort for Ints and you will notice that the Skins defense has 3. Maybe I missed them but I can't remeber 3 Ints. I do remember 3 Ints that Campbell threw. That is only one example. I could give many more.

If you go to the Redskins section and then look up the stats they are correct. Since, the NFL revamped their website the stats have be gooned up.

You have to use more than one drop down box when sorting on NFL.com, It's a extra 2 or 3 mouse clicks but needed if you want the right info.

Cappster wrote:Hmmmm, with only allowing 13 points in the first game and 12 in the second game this season, I am not too worried about always going for the INT. Yeah, it would be nice to give the offense better field position but I think the defense is playing great. I believe the INTs will start coming when we have a 14pt lead and the other team is forced to throw the ball and take more chances trying to catch up.

Very true. Its a little known fact. That its a much safer to not go for the INT. Jus concentrate on stoping the play, knocking the ball down or seporating the receiver from the ball. If you go for the INT and miss,,, who's going to make the tackle???? That will be your man running down the field for the TD while you lay on the ground after diveing to make the INT.

And Im sure with all our droped INTs,,,,,,,,,GW don't have much confidence in them makeing the INT or maybe he would tell them to go for it more. With all the drops we've had I wouldn't trust them to make the catch either.

It would seem to me that the largest concern is NOT giving up the big play, which was our largest weakness last year IMO. If you tackle the receiver, then you stop the play. In Landry's case, if you tackle the player HARD, you might cause the drop

Chris Luva Luva wrote:We lack two things that generate turnovers, a pass rush and DB's that can catch.

I find it horribly sad that all of your Fred Smoot optimism is gone now

1niksder wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Here's a PSA. Dont trust the stats on NFL.com If you sort by team stats it is not uncommon to get an offensive team stat in place of a defensive team stat. An example: Sort for Ints and you will notice that the Skins defense has 3. Maybe I missed them but I can't remeber 3 Ints. I do remember 3 Ints that Campbell threw. That is only one example. I could give many more.

If you go to the Redskins section and then look up the stats they are correct. Since, the NFL revamped their website the stats have be gooned up.

You have to use more than one drop down box when sorting on NFL.com, It's a extra 2 or 3 mouse clicks but needed if you want the right info.

You can get the correct info, but you can also get the wrong info. If you sort for say INTs from the begining you get the right number (0), but it is listed in lowest to highest order (both sacks and INTs), which is dumb. If you click on the Int hyperlink to sort descending instead of ascending you get how many picks the Skins have thrown (3). The same works for sacks. Either way you shouldn't get an offensive stat in a defensive sort.

I don't trust it!

Regardless of what any website stats say, we know set a record for futility last year when it came to turnovers... if it doesn't get better this year, when we get to our last 10 game stretch, we'll be behind the eight ball...

Ok but the whole + and - thing is that the O needs not to give up the turnovers

skinsfan#33 wrote:

1niksder wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Here's a PSA. Dont trust the stats on NFL.com If you sort by team stats it is not uncommon to get an offensive team stat in place of a defensive team stat. An example: Sort for Ints and you will notice that the Skins defense has 3. Maybe I missed them but I can't remeber 3 Ints. I do remember 3 Ints that Campbell threw. That is only one example. I could give many more.

If you go to the Redskins section and then look up the stats they are correct. Since, the NFL revamped their website the stats have be gooned up.

You have to use more than one drop down box when sorting on NFL.com, It's a extra 2 or 3 mouse clicks but needed if you want the right info.

You can get the correct info, but you can also get the wrong info. If you sort for say INTs from the begining you get the right number (0), but it is listed in lowest to highest order (both sacks and INTs), which is dumb. If you click on the Int hyperlink to sort descending instead of ascending you get how many picks the Skins have thrown (3). The same works for sacks. Either way you shouldn't get an offensive stat in a defensive sort.

I don't trust it!

There are 3 categories you can search from Team, Player Pos, and Player regardless of how you sort it will come up offense because all 3 are set for offensive stats. Use the second drop down and select Defense if you want defensive stats when sorting by the Team Category and Sack, Tackles, or Int. when sorting by Player

All in all aslong as we win, I dont care if none of our guys plays in Hawaii or JC has 100.00 QB rating each game or what stats read... the only one that matters is Ws and Ls and then the lonely Ts

[quote="Jeff Rhodes"]Neither condition is present for the Redskins, although only the latter seems to be by design.


Thats not true at all ! We played really great man D against the eagles .

1niksder wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

1niksder wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Here's a PSA. Dont trust the stats on NFL.com If you sort by team stats it is not uncommon to get an offensive team stat in place of a defensive team stat. An example: Sort for Ints and you will notice that the Skins defense has 3. Maybe I missed them but I can't remeber 3 Ints. I do remember 3 Ints that Campbell threw. That is only one example. I could give many more.

If you go to the Redskins section and then look up the stats they are correct. Since, the NFL revamped their website the stats have be gooned up.

You have to use more than one drop down box when sorting on NFL.com, It's a extra 2 or 3 mouse clicks but needed if you want the right info.

You can get the correct info, but you can also get the wrong info. If you sort for say INTs from the begining you get the right number (0), but it is listed in lowest to highest order (both sacks and INTs), which is dumb. If you click on the Int hyperlink to sort descending instead of ascending you get how many picks the Skins have thrown (3). The same works for sacks. Either way you shouldn't get an offensive stat in a defensive sort.

I don't trust it!

There are 3 categories you can search from Team, Player Pos, and Player regardless of how you sort it will come up offense because all 3 are set for offensive stats. Use the second drop down and select Defense if you want defensive stats when sorting by the Team Category and Sack, Tackles, or Int. when sorting by Player

I'm not an idiot, I know that. You're not following me. Do this. Sort by team defense, then Interseption, and the stats are correct, but from lowest to highest. Then click on int at the top of the column to sort the ints in descending order and it will pull the offensive stats, even though you are in still in the defensive category!

USAFSkinFan wrote:I just think there's going to be times when the D needs to go out and get the ball back. And I think that GW's design is such that other things are just more imprtant (probably rightfully so) than forcing the turnover)... it's just hard to flip the switch and get out of the mindset that the most important thing is making the tackle as opposed to going for the ball (even when the ball is there to be taken)... they're just not in the habit of thinking "ball"... If that makes sense...

Don't get me wrong I like GW's defense. This is just an observation based on what I thought were some surprising statistics. I just think this can be a playoff team if they can get on the "plus" side of the turnover differential...

This Defense is evolving, they start off with a vanilla cover-3 in the first game, they mixed in some bump and run last week... I think GW is letting his guys get their feet wet before he throws "exotic" blitzes yes the ones imported from 2005.. He's got quite a few guys out there I think he's letting them gel as a unit. I do like the philosophy of let them catch and hit him hard and see if the ball spits out.