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

I can just see it now -

Daniels at RE and Wynn/Upshaw at LE until the third down or passing situation... then

Arrington at LE, Washington at RE with three more LBs behind them, or two more and a nickle back....

This could have interesting ramifications - especially considering that LA had 11 sacks when Lewis had him playing as a DE...

Thats the beauty to the defense we are creating. Several different people will have versatile roles while others just have the key roles. Williams is kind of like Bellichek when it comes down to moving people around. Both do it kind of out of the blue and are generally very successful. Lewis is notorious for it and sometimes it burns him....Lovie Smith is another one. Im sure Gibbs and Williams are gonna try several diffferent schemes and stick with the ones that they think will make the biggest impact or fool certain qb's or offenses in general.

Rich, I have said this all along. I do see this happening. I think it may very well be the reason we didn't go all out for Kearse. I can see Lavar having a huge year under Williams

Wynn and Daniels are more run stoppers than pass rushers - with all the line backers coming in now, I am just wondering if this isn't their solution. It wouldn't be a 3-4, it would still be a 4-3, 4-2-5 or whatever.

Could prove to be a heck of a speed rush...

I'm back on the Sean Taylor Bandwagon.

portis26 wrote:I'm back on the Sean Taylor Bandwagon.

We need to trade down to say tenth and get Udeze or Wilfork. We get improvement on dline and extra picks. We are going to need the cheap labor when we have to start cutting people in 2006.

see my post on cap figures - we wont have to start cutting people.

Besides, with gibbs and co giving unsigned rookies a proper shot, we can get cheap labor and we'll have plenty of picks next year and 2006 to fill in spots.

We got no problems this year and next and with the cap as it is, if you constantly plan 3 years ahead, you won't have any trouble.

The teams that got into trouble so far are those which have only planned for "this year or next". All of a sudden the values sore and can't be trimmed unless to the detriment of the team.

Our values are fine. Most peak at 2006 then drop off, others continue the slow rise. Slow rise isn't a problem and neither is a 1 off peak as long as their a start. I don't think anyone would cut LaVar despite an 11m value in 2006 (back to 6m range the following year.)

washington is only 247 lbs. he's a little on the light side for an every down DE.if we are going to try to use him or lavar rushing off the line, we'd probably be better suited to run a 3-4 in those situations.
remeber, when lewis used lavar like that, he kept getting hurt, and re-injured facing 300 lb tackles.

yeah lavar really did not like being a de either.. he even came out and said it frequently, plus lavar injured = me i see us not just blatantly putting lavar's hand in the dirt every down, probably more hidden and delayed blitzes and all sorts of crazy stuuufff.. and three words that i like hearing in the same sentence are "defense" and "crazy stuff"

Shameless plug time - check out the article on the home page http://www.thehogs.net/content/main.php

I hope this helps a bit... LA might not have liked being a DE, but that year he had 11 sacks... Wouldn't it be interesting to see him and Washington both with 8-9 sacks and Trotter with 6-7?

i think the fear for offenses is 'is lavar coming from over here, or is washignton coming from over there?' if i'm a 220 pound halfback, i'm not very comfortable knowing that i have to pick either one of those guys up on the blitz. throw in a safety or corner every once in awhile, and it might be enough to disrupt even the best offense.

i read a gibbs quote somewhere that went something like this.... "we feel if we can get lavar matched up against a RB, thats a battle we'll win a majority of the time."
sounds good to me.

ferryrich wrote:see my post on cap figures - we wont have to start cutting people.

Besides, with gibbs and co giving unsigned rookies a proper shot, we can get cheap labor and we'll have plenty of picks next year and 2006 to fill in spots.

We got no problems this year and next and with the cap as it is, if you constantly plan 3 years ahead, you won't have any trouble.

The teams that got into trouble so far are those which have only planned for "this year or next". All of a sudden the values sore and can't be trimmed unless to the detriment of the team.

Our values are fine. Most peak at 2006 then drop off, others continue the slow rise. Slow rise isn't a problem and neither is a 1 off peak as long as their a start. I don't think anyone would cut LaVar despite an 11m value in 2006 (back to 6m range the following year.)

LA, Coles, and Samuels account for roughly 30 million in cap space in 2006. Not to mention Jansen, Thomas, Wynn, and Trotter comprising another 20 million. You better believe there will be cuts. What do you think Portis and Brunell will be counting towards the cap? That is not even ten players.

i agree kk.

hailskins666 wrote:i agree kk.

Chris will be gone because I cant see anyway we keep him unless all of these guys renegotiate and then the problem becomes the later years of their contracts become more expensive. If I am running the ship, I cut Wynn, Trotter first and then comes Samuels and Brunell. We really need to keep the core group of guys together. We will continue to win if we can plug draft players in when we cut the high priced vets!!

hailskins666 wrote:i read a gibbs quote somewhere that went something like this.... "we feel if we can get lavar matched up against a RB, thats a battle we'll win a majority of the time."
sounds good to me.