#WeFiredBruceAllen!!!

[Woz]

2 hours ago, e16bball said:

And on the overall argument, my position has always been “just stick with what you’re doing.” That was the biggest mistake of all by Shanahan, messing with a decent little group of 4-3 defenders that they had in place before he came aboard. 

AND THIS!!

(which is why I have slowed down on beating the "switch back!!" drum ... we're committed(*) now)

 

2 hours ago, e16bball said:

The worst thing you can do as a franchise is just keep changing your mind and reversing course. It wastes all the work you’ve done building to that point. Talent is hard to acquire in the NFL — it’s crippling to just knowingly and willingly render useless the talent you do have in order to chase the newest craze (or head coach’s obsession).

THIS TOO!!

It's one reason when I have called for Allen's ouster to have the next GM free reign to clear the entire table and build for three to four years out. That HAS to be one of the (if not the) question asked of the next GM: what is your plan/identity for this team?

From there: who do you see leading it? How will you get that person? How will the two of you get the players to get to that plan? Who is on the roster that fits that plan? What is your transition for those that don't so we don't waste money/talent?

 

 

(*) both from a "pot committed" and "asylum committed" sense

[turtle28]

On 2/22/2019 at 9:07 AM, Thaiphoon said:

Correct. But again Turtle, the damage had been done. Belicheck was able to grab more high impact tweener players (who got overlooked by 4-3 teams) early on when very few teams were running the 3-4. By the time we started doing it, we weren't getting the same value out of it because quite a bit more teams were also snatching up the tweeners. Which hindered our progress. 

Bill bought at the low point of the market. We bought at the high point

Damage? I guess I don’t understand that point.

In every draft there are tweeners and we actually drafted two to be our OLBs and, they were/are good pass rushers (Orakpo & Kerrigan.) The issue Shanahan had was that he mostly only focused on building the offense through the draft and free agency when he was here and had control over football operations.

He pretty much ignored building the defense through the draft with early picks except in 2011.

Then, of course injuries killed our defense in 2012 and the cap hit too. In 2011 we had an average to above average defense and were going to have the same in 2012 but then we lost Carriker to his torn quad (he never played again) Orakpo to his torn pec, Bowen injured his knee and Josh Wilson injured his neck?

If Carriker, Bowen, Orakpo and Wilson stay healthy in 2012/2013 then, our 3-4 D would’ve probably hovered around 10th in the league that year and in 2013.

We shouldn’t forget that the injuries to those 4 main and highly priced players and the salary cap hit were the biggest reason our 3-4 defense wasn’t good in 2012-2013, and possibly a few more years after that.

[turtle28]

19 hours ago, Woz said:

Maybe, maybe not. It would be an open question whether those guys could convert to standing up. It's why Andre Carter fell into our laps; he couldn't adjust to the 3-4 so the 49ers (I think?) cut him. We put him back with his hand in the dirt, and he excelled ... until we converted.

Oh please! This is where your arguments lose any weight. 

First of all, Andre Carter didn’t exactly “fall into our lap,” we arguably over paid to get him to come to DC. He had two great seasons and 2 average seasons in the 4-3.

Lavar Arrington and Marcus Washington were already stand up line backers, they were both 250 pound 4-3 OLBs that we had together in 04 and 05. Lavar was 6’3, 257 and Marcus was 6’3, 247. They both were also good pass rushers. They were both better at playing the run and rushing the passer than they were in coverage. That’s exactly why it would’ve made more sense to be in the 3-4 in those years.

Also, we had Joe Salave’a as a 330 pound NT and two big DEs with Daniels (6’5, 290) and Wynn (6’3, 290) who both had the size and length to play in the 3-4 as two gaping DEs.

Edited February 23, 2019 by turtle28

[Thaiphoon]

2 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Damage? I guess I don’t understand that point.

@Woz and I were talking about the tweeners. They used to drop a few rounds because they didn't quite fit in a 4-3. This is something you already know. 

Belicheck realized that and when they went to the 3-4, he was able to grab those tweeners that were being overlooked by the 4-3 teams (which most of the league was) a few rounds lower than what they would go for now. Now, since quite alot of the league runs a 3-4, those tweeners are now more accurately represented in the 1st round picks. For example, Kerrigan would've been a 2nd or 3rd rounder back in 2000. But by the time he was drafted, more teams were needing players who could play the 3-4 and the value went up as demand went up.

Supply and Demand.

What we did by jettisoning a Top-10 4-3 defense was switch at a time where more teams had already switched. By then the value for the tweeners had already gotten higher. This was different than when Belicheck had first started in NE. 

So when Belicheck first started, he bought when the market was low.

When we did it, we bought when the market was high. 

Damage

[turtle28]

52 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

@Woz and I were talking about the tweeners. They used to drop a few rounds because they didn't quite fit in a 4-3. This is something you already know. 

Belicheck realized that and when they went to the 3-4, he was able to grab those tweeners that were being overlooked by the 4-3 teams (which most of the league was) a few rounds lower than what they would go for now. Now, since quite alot of the league runs a 3-4, those tweeners are now more accurately represented in the 1st round picks. For example, Kerrigan would've been a 2nd or 3rd rounder back in 2000. But by the time he was drafted, more teams were needing players who could play the 3-4 and the value went up as demand went up.

Supply and Demand.

What we did by jettisoning a Top-10 4-3 defense was switch at a time where more teams had already switched. By then the value for the tweeners had already gotten higher. This was different than when Belicheck had first started in NE. 

So when Belicheck first started, he bought when the market was low.

When we did it, we bought when the market was high. 

Damage

I don’t really think this was strategy by Belichick, Parcells, Wade Phillips or the Steelers for example. Belichick learned under Parcells in the 80s. They had been running a 3-4 defense since then, that’s the defense both Bill’s knew so, that’s the scheme they used.

Personnel made Belichick switch this decade. He didn’t have the personnel he needed one year to run the 3-4 properly so he started mixing up his schemes.

Kerrigan would’ve never been a 2nd or 3rd round pick, his talent level said otherwise. He was also 10 pounds heavier during the combine than he is today. As a 4-3 LDE at Purdue he played at 6’3, 267 pounds and would’ve played at that weight in the pros as a 4-3 DE or even 5-10 pounds heavier. Most people in this forum didn’t even want Kerrigan drafted by the Redskins because they saw him only as a 4-3 DE, and not athletic enough to play in the 3-4. I was one of the few who said before the 2011 draft that I thought he could do either.

Also, by 2010 let’s not forget that the Redskins defense - and team in general - had gotten old and most of those players were getting ready to retire/needed replaced anyways.

The Redskins 2007 & 2008 defenses may have been top 10 but, their 2009 defense was ranked 18th overall. So, it’s not exactly true that Shanahan took a top-10 2009 4-3 defense and ruined it, the 2009 Redskins defense was already below average and soon would need several new starters at every level.

Edited February 23, 2019 by turtle28

[Woz]

On 2/23/2019 at 4:34 PM, turtle28 said:

I don’t really think this was strategy by Belichick, Parcells, Wade Phillips or the Steelers for example. Belichick learned under Parcells in the 80s. They had been running a 3-4 defense since then, that’s the defense both Bill’s knew so, that’s the scheme they used.

Except that per pro-football-reference.com, the Patriots didn't switch to a 3-4 until 2004, Belichick's fifth year in New England.

On 2/23/2019 at 4:34 PM, turtle28 said:

Personnel made Belichick switch this decade. He didn’t have the personnel he needed one year to run the 3-4 properly so he started mixing up his schemes.

And why didn't they have the personnel? Because more teams were using the 3-4. When Washington switched in 2010, at that point, about half the league ran a three man front. Care to guess when pro-football-reference.com says that New England switched back to a primarily four man front? Yeah, 2011.

On 2/23/2019 at 4:34 PM, turtle28 said:

Also, by 2010 let’s not forget that the Redskins defense - and team in general - had gotten old and most of those players were getting ready to retire/needed replaced anyways.

However, by making the switch in 2010, they essentially discarded the talent they did have. Guys like Jeremy Jarmon suddenly were extraneous, even though he was drafted the year before. There's a reason why the defense's ranking plummeted. And it wasn't solely due to talent.

On 2/23/2019 at 4:34 PM, turtle28 said:

The Redskins 2007 & 2008 defenses may have been top 10 but, their 2009 defense was ranked 18th overall. So, it’s not exactly true that Shanahan took a top-10 2009 4-3 defense and ruined it, the 2009 Redskins defense was already below average and soon would need several new starters at every level.

18th in terms of yards. That's not a great metric to evaluate a defense by. DVOA rank of defense by coach under Snyder

• Turner
  • 1999 = 24th
  • 2000 = 10th
• Schottenheimer
  • 2001 = 7th
• Spurrier
  • 2002 = 8th
  • 2003 = 24th
• Gibbs
  • 2004 = 4th
  • 2005 = 4th
  • 2006 = 32nd
  • 2007 = 7th
• Zorn
  • 2008 = 10th
  • 2009 = 12th
• Shanahan
  • 2010 = 26th
  • 2011 = 14th
  • 2012 = 17th
  • 2013 = 21st
• Gruden
  • 2014 = 27th
  • 2015 = 21st
  • 2016 = 25th
  • 2017 = 11th
  • 2018 = 20th  

 

From 1999-2009 (11 seasons), Washington had a top ten defense seven times and an eighth where they were just outside of the top ten.

From 2010-2018 (9 seasons), Washington has never had a top ten defense, and been only close twice (and that's being extremely generous in calling 14th as "close").

 

Yes, there was going to be some talent turnover/aging out in 2010 and 2011, but not enough to have the defense collapse like that.

 

Given that the team has paid the price for the 3-4 and now has the defensive linemen that could actually run it, they might as well stick with it. As @e16bball wisely pointed out awhile back, they've invested in it so you might as well run it. At the same time, it always seems like the team is two or three pieces away from "being a really good defense." They never seem to have all of them.

[MikeT14]

Damn @Woz

[turtle28]

That’s not true. The Patriots used a 3-4 when Parcells was there. Willie McGinist was a 3-4 OLB and talks about it on NFLN. I guess they switched back and forth from what I see, not sure it was something that was planned based on the draft or if it was based on what personnel they had those years.

Edited February 26, 2019 by turtle28

[e16bball]

I didn’t really know where to put this, but it’s just too rich not to post:

https://www.redskins.com/news/redskins-training-staff-earns-ed-block-training-staff-of-the-year-award 

[Thaiphoon]

1 hour ago, e16bball said:

I didn’t really know where to put this, but it’s just too rich not to post:

https://www.redskins.com/news/redskins-training-staff-earns-ed-block-training-staff-of-the-year-award 

This literally blows my mind considering we're in the dumpster for injuries almost every year.

[bigdog44]

2 hours ago, e16bball said:

I didn’t really know where to put this, but it’s just too rich not to post:

https://www.redskins.com/news/redskins-training-staff-earns-ed-block-training-staff-of-the-year-award 

They’re so great I hope this award leads to them getting hired away

[Woz]

17 hours ago, turtle28 said:

That’s not true. The Patriots used a 3-4 when Parcells was there. Willie McGinist was a 3-4 OLB and talks about it on NFLN. I guess they switched back and forth from what I see, not sure it was something that was planned based on the draft or if it was based on what personnel they had those years.

1. Relevance for Parcells' usage of a 3-4 when we're talking about Belichick changing to a 3-4 in his fifth year is ... ?
2. Parcells' last season with the Patriots was 1996. Belichick's first season was 2000. There happened to be a guy between them named Pete Carroll who was in charge of the team for those three years. PFR lists all three seasons under Carroll as running a 4-3.
3. More importantly, at the time Washington was changing to a 3-4, New England went the other way and went with a 4-3 because that is where the advantage was.

 

Simpler version: New England gets ahead of trends and benefits from the first/early mover advantage. Washington lags behind trends and deals with the fallout of being yet another "us too!" franchise.

Even simpler version: New England zags when everyone else zigs. Washington zigs when everyone else zigs.

Which do you think is a better general strategy? Which has been more successful over the past 20 years?

[Thaiphoon]

8 hours ago, Woz said:

1. Relevance for Parcells' usage of a 3-4 when we're talking about Belichick changing to a 3-4 in his fifth year is ... ?
2. Parcells' last season with the Patriots was 1996. Belichick's first season was 2000. There happened to be a guy between them named Pete Carroll who was in charge of the team for those three years. PFR lists all three seasons under Carroll as running a 4-3.
3. More importantly, at the time Washington was changing to a 3-4, New England went the other way and went with a 4-3 because that is where the advantage was.

 

Simpler version: New England gets ahead of trends and benefits from the first/early mover advantage. Washington lags behind trends and deals with the fallout of being yet another "us too!" franchise.

Even simpler version: New England zags when everyone else zigs. Washington zigs when AFTER everyone else zigs.

Which do you think is a better general strategy? Which has been more successful over the past 20 years?

Bolded is 100% (with one fix)

[Woz]

44 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

Bolded is 100% (with one fix)

Good catch.

[PARROTHEAD]