QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?

clever way of making our offense seem awesome, but i agree with you in that rushing TDs are just as important. a real offense is both. how do we fare in combined TDs?



again, what's 'efficiency'? sounds fishy for 'completion ratio'



thanks for the link. yes, i'm well aware we have a YAC based offense. god knows. it puts the onus on the WR and not the QB, thats the reason Brunell wasn't a serious pro-bowl consideration.

i consider expecting YAC to get us a first down on 3rd and long an extremely bad offensive strategy (especially when the defense knows its coming and encourages it) as do most of the fans, and published NFL pundits and commentators everywhere. don't you wonder WHY our offense is YAC based? it wasn't a staple of Gibbs era offense, it seems like an offense directly tailored to the limitations of our starting QB.Our scoring offense is 10th in the NFL. Not bad, but you have teams like Dallas above us, and look at their efficiency rating. It's not even close. In a sport where points are scored 7 at a time, its tough to use total points at this point in the season to evaluate an offense. But we have scored 14 TDs through 7 games, and that I assume is good for league average, at least, despite some hard luck.

No...that's the Al Saunders way of offense. It has been the entire time in Kansas City. Do you ever remember seeing Larry Johnson catch a check down and going for 15-25 yards on a highlight last year? Thats Saunders saying "If you are going to blitz, and take away the intended target, the check down will be open." That's like a golden rule of his blitz philosophy, and its why Brunell performs the way he does. You aren't forced to like it, but once again, we rank top 1/4 in efficiency, and anytime you don't get the first down on third or fourth, you hurt your efficiency statistic. So despite all of Al and Mark's "shortcomings", 25 teams are less efficient on offense than the Washington Redskins.

it's still a check down correct? the non-primary read. the "covered" argument starkly remains.

does this elusive 'efficiency' stat reflect combined TDs, redzone scoring and W-Ls? (i know that last one is heavily defense dependent)

GTripp,

I just wanted to say that, although we differ in our evaluations of the offense, you make some good points. It's also nice to see someone actually articulate reasonable bases for their opinions instead of simply saying, "you're an idiot," "you're ignorant," or "I'm right and you're wrong."

I do not think that Brunell is a bad QB; he's pretty accurate in his short-game, he doesn't throw a lot of picks, he's smart, he's classy, and he's done relatively well considering the constant turnover in the coaching staff and offensive personnel. So, unlike some others, I do not believe that Brunell is the worst quarterback we've seen or the cause of all of our offensive struggles. Moreover, I also agree that our defense is playing worse than our offense and shares a lot of the blame for our record.

If we had a reasonable chance of making the playoffs, I would say that we should stick with Brunell as he gives us a better chance of winning than Campbell. However, because our post-season hopes are all but mathematically over and Brunell isn't getting any younger, it's time for JC to see the field. Campbell will probably throw more picks, make poor drive-killing plays, and struggle more than Brunell, but he's our future and now's a good time to start working towards next season.First off, thanks for the kind words. After two days of the me vs the world treatment (which I knew I was getting into), it means a lot.

The basis of my desire to argue my point over and over stems from the fact that the Redskins have a QB who should have been a probowler in 2005, that's tough to dispute without defending disappointing seasons from both Delhomme and Vick. This man came under scrutiny in the offseason for seemingly no reason, and played average out of the gate, prompting the world to fall on his shoulders. Since then, hidden game's and FO's stats show that Al Saunders and Mark Brunell are doing their part for the Redskins to be a much better than 2-5 team.

I continue to press the arguement for this reason: We trail the first place Giants by 2.5 games. We have 9 games left. They have 10. One in FedEX. Not only are we not as out of it as we have been led to believe, but I think the Redskins have a better chance to catch the G Men than the Cowboys do, and maybe even Phili who still has to play that string of three road divisional games in a row which will be brutal. I don't expect the Giants to encounter clear sailing, so I believe the Redskins should start trying to accumulate victories with Dallas, and see if they can't string something toghether. Get back to 5-6 or even 6-5. They have a tough schedule, but all of the difficult games (save Phili) are at home. When was the last time they weren't at least IN a game at home. Maybe once or twice in 2004, maybe. We are competitive at home vs anyone. So why not string a few games toghether and make a playoff push? Winning will fix all of our problems, the key is to get the first one.

So I guess that's the ONLY place where I disagree with you Sheriff. You see it as Campbell time, and I see it as do or die time for this team. If the offense keeps doing what its doing, and the defense improves and gets healthy, why not the Skins in 2006?

it's still a check down correct? the non-primary read. the "covered" argument starkly remains.

does this elusive 'efficiency' stat reflect combined TDs, redzone scoring and W-Ls? (i know that last one is heavily defense dependent)It's a play by play breakdown of offensive production compared to the league average in a certain situation. It's point based, and has been refined over the years. Basically if the Redskins are in a 3rd and 10 (adjusted for the team they are playing), there is a certain league expectation for an offense on 3rd and 10. They are to convert a certain percentage of the time, and they are supposed to average a certain number of yards on the play. Over the course of a game, if they convert a number of first downs thats above league expectation and average more yards per play than league expectation, their DVOA stat for the game will be positive.

W-L is not a factor. The idea is to go beyond the game and see why teams are winning and losing.

Qb mark Brunell Sucks

enough Said

Qb mark Brunell Sucks

enough SaidThanks for your two cents.

Did you see how the Colts defense played the check down in the 2nd half?

A bet the remaining teams on the schedule will play it the same way.I hope your right. Then there won't be enough guys to bracket the intended reciever in blitz situations. First down, Redskins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenandSix:Unacceptable http://www.thewarpath.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/15165-qb-defense-whats-bigger-problem-post233291.html#post233291)
ANYONE WHO SAYS DEFENSE IS WRONG.
DEAD WRONG!

Have you been paying any attention to the missed tackles? The blown coverages? The injuries?



Have you been paying attention to football teams with good QB´s?

Essentially because of Joe Gibbs and Trent Dilfer, some people actually try to win without a franchise QB. Let´s look back at the last 20 years or so, shall we? Who wins superbowls?

Ben Rothlisberger
Brady times three
Brad Johnson
Trent Dilfer
Kurt Warner
John Elway times two
Brett Favre
Troy Aikman times three
Steve Young
Mark Rypien
Jeff Hostetler
Joe Montana times two
Doug Williams
Phil Simms

Now, my point is, that out of the last twenty SB winners, 15 were won with franchise QB´s. That´s 75%. It´s no coincidence that the teams with franchise QB´s are consistantly in it, year after year. The Redskins QB´s, Rypien and Williams, had solid if not spectacular careers, but had incredible SB performances. Dilfer is another QB on the list who had done very little else in his career. Hostetler and Johnson had solid careers but weren´t franchise QB´s. Warner is the lowest rated in my opinion out of the Franchise group. But he went again two years later and lost in an upset to a young guy named Brady. He bloomed late, and luckily for the Rams they cut him as soon as his skills had diminished. To me, what most of you are trying to say is that you´d rather take the Gibbsian approach to winning. Build the team around the QB first thinking that we can win it with a servicable QB who gets hot as the team around him peaks. Obviously, as Gibbs is our coach again, it makes sense to me and has the ring of foolishness to suggest otherwise. However, just imagine if we had a franchise QB? Would you trade that player for all the players and the members of the coaching staff of the #1 defense in the league? Do you trade Peyton Manning or Tom Brady for the Bears D? Absolutely not.

Let me repeat that: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

So, my point is that it all starts with a QB. Perhaps in other places the need is not quite as dire as it is here for us here in Skinsland. We haven´t had a franchise QB for decades and it is time to make that priority number one.



Dude your wrong.
Look at the facts:

Two of the greatest Franchise QB's of all time Dan Marino and Peyton Manning have ZERo Superbowl Wins between them. What do they have in common? They both played for teams with shitty defenses!
Another one, John Elway was crushed in every superbowl he was in, until late in his career when the Broncos developed a good defense and ran the ball with Terrell Davis who rushed for 158 yds and named MVP of Sb 32.
Defense wins championships and you do not win a super bowl with out a good defense. There has rarely, if ever been a super bowl winner that did not have at least a top five defense. Even the Greatest Show on Turf the St. Louis Rams super bowl teams had a top 5 defense statistically.

Regarding Frachise Qb's:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood Franchise QB by definition means (1) he was a high draft pick then (2) developed in to a great QB. John Elway Donovan McNabb, Peyton Manning,Steve Young and Ben Roethlisberger are or were franchise QB's.
Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Tom Brady, Brad Johnson are not what you would consider Franchise QB's early in their careers. They might have become one after they won a SB. But Tom Brady was 6th round pick 199th over all. He was not considered a Franchise QB until after they won their second SB.

Bottom Line:
There have been more teams that have had strong Defenses and mediocre QB's win the SB than Great QB's with mediocre defenses. FACT.

Thanks for your two cents.

that was worth about .5 cents

I hope your right. Then there won't be enough guys to bracket the intended reciever in blitz situations. First down, Redskins.

ah, but then we get back into what Brunell considers "open". his reflex so far has been to check down immediately, and defenses have done everything to encourage this, because they know how to stop it.

Brunell is well documented to avoid throwing to the middle of the field (BEFORE Saunders), so teams do the ideal defense against that tendency, the ubiquitous Cover-2. the safeties bracket the outside recievers toward the sidelines, where Brunell does throw often (to avoid INTs surely) and essentially double cover his number 1 and 2.

1 LB covers Cooley (or the Nickelback covers ARE in 3 WR sets), if Cooley stays in to max protect that LB becomes a pass rusher. the other LB goes on a blitz to make Brunell dump it off/and or occupy the dump off in a block, remember both his WRs are bracketed under and over already...

since Brunell won't throw to the middle of the field, the middle linebacker doesn't need to run up and cover the gap left by the safeties. instead he can stay on a spy near the line to stop the dump off, or the 'surprise' draw or double cover Cooley if need be.

it's what defenses have been doing to us like clockwork this whole season. i cant see if our WRs are taking middle of the field routes, but i definitely know Brunell isn't throwing there. defenses are taking advantage of Brunell's tendencies and dictating exactly what we get. while you can call him 'efficient' you can also call him dangerously predictable.