Worst Defense in the NFL

It is all Brunell and Al Saunders......we should trade Portis and resign D.Green. SuperBowl or bust!!!1

While this is obviously a joke, I do like the idea of bringing in Darryl Green as a CB coach.
Look at Russ Grimm in Pittsburgh, they are talking about him being the new head coach should Cowher retire.
Green has a ton of knowledge that could really help us.

I don't think there's anything close to a consensus that the defense is the reason this team is 5-10. Yes, the play of the defense as been awful, but the offense doesn't finish drives and has suffered from questionable playcalling. Sometimes the other team is going to score 27 points, and you just have to find a way to score 28. This team is bad across the board. On the whole, they haven't been able to stop other teams when they've had to and they haven't scored touchdowns when they've needed to.

Ultimately, Gibbs is the one who is accountable fror everything.

How much worse would the D have to be for you to place the majority of the blame on them for this miserable season??

The D has hit rock bottom. They have been gashed by just about every back they've faced, and they've given up a ton of big plays in the passing game. Outside of about 2-3 solid performances they've been downright awful, the worst overall D we've seen here in years.

I have no problem saying they are the main reason we are 5-10. No problem at all.

So, after this showing against the Rams, doesn't it say that the performance we saw against the Saints was more due to the Saints having a bad day?

Our defense is horrible and lost us at least 4 games just by themselves. Anyone who can't see that isn't paying close enough attention. Just because the offense didn't go out and score 35 points every game doesn't make it their fault. The defense has to be able to maintain field position, stop teams on 3rd down, stop teams at the end of the game and create some turnovers. We basically didn't do any of those things. I think it is not a stretch to say that if our defense was even middle of the road this year our offense probably averages 4 or 5 more points a game simply because of field possession and time of possession.

Our offense was OK and our defense was horrid. That adds up to 5-10.

Plus this team is predicated on relying on our D based on the last 2 years. The whole offensive "tweaking" was made thinking that our D would keep us in games as we adjusted early on. Too bad that didn't work out.

This got me thinking about a specific play versus the Rams. Rocky was playing outside and I think someone motioned for him at the last minute to play the middle to stop the run. He got there just as the ball was snapped and dove forward stopping Stephen Jackson from getting the conversion. Nice play but it underlined the fact that a lot of our guys look like they don't know what they are supposed to be doing out there. Pierce was great at getting his guys into position and barking out his observations to his teammates to get them ready for the current play. Who does that for us now?

So, after this showing against the Rams, doesn't it say that the performance we saw against the Saints was more due to the Saints having a bad day?

I think it was a combo of the Saints being off that day and our D actually played well for a change. We seemed to have a great game plan that day and everyone was flying to the ball. But those days have been few and far between.

It is definitely due to the loss of such players as Pierce, Smoot, Ryan Clark, Arrington (hate to say). Despite being better players at their positions than what we have now, they also had fire, attitude and leadership qualities. We all have bitched and moaned about Lavar's attitude ad naseum, but I remember when he was the spirit of the team. When that fades and ultimately becomes acrimonious, the team will suffer and it has. The Redskins have absolutely NO identity on defense. On offense, we had Santana and Clinton. But with CP's injury, we lost the lynch pin and spirit of the O. There is more to the game than just physical talent. The Redskins have no IDENTITY. That's what needs to change in order to have success next year.
Dallas Sucks.


The defense played very well last year (9th overall) without Pierce, Smoot, and very little by way of contribution from LaVar for the last two seasons. Lemar Marshall was an overachiever at the MLB position, and this season played after having offseason shoulder surgery. The loss of Pierson Prioleau and Ryan Clark, coupled with the injuries to Shawn Springs really hurt the secondary, but not to the extent we go from 9th in the league to last. The defense this year did not play with the same disposition it did the past two seasons. They were not attacking the ball in the same fashion which in many ways explains their lack of take-a-way's. I'm inclined to agree with Phillip Daniels when he said he felt it was overconfidence. "We thought we could just roll our helmets out there and get a win".

We're 2nd best in the league for giveaways with 15 (1 more than San Diego). Unfortunately we're worst in the league in takeaways.

Means the offense has done an excellent job NOT turning it over, and that's with a young, inexperienced QB and a backup RB. The defense, on the other hand, can't force a turnover to save it's life.

That has to also prove that Betts is not the fumbler that people are saying that he is

That has to also prove that Betts is not the fumbler that people are saying that he is

He also didn't have very many carries in the first part of the year.

The term "fumbler" means different things to different people. Earnest Byner was not a "fumbler", but he is probably best known for fumbling in the 1987 AFC Championship game against Denver. He might have put the ball on the ground one or two other times for the rest of his career.

Stephen Davis on the other hand, and to a certain extent, Gerald Riggs were fumblers. I'd say if you fumble it two times or more in the same season, you've earned the label. Betts did it against Tampa Bay and against the Rams (that I can think of). That's not as agregious as say, Tiki Barber - who was also known as a notorious fumbler before Coughlin started coaching him - but it does start to raise the eyebrows.

Like it or not, in this league if you fumble it more than once in a season, and have demonstrated a history of it -- your a fumbler. Plain and simple.

He also didn't have very many carries in the first part of the year.

The term "fumbler" means different things to different people. Earnest Byner was not a "fumbler", but he is probably best known for fumbling in the 1987 AFC Championship game against Denver. He might have put the ball on the ground one or two other times for the rest of his career.

Stephen Davis on the other hand, and to a certain extent, Gerald Riggs were fumblers. I'd say if you fumble it two times or more in the same season, you've earned the label. Betts did it against Tampa Bay and against the Rams (that I can think of). That's not as agregious as say, Tiki Barber - who was also known as a notorious fumbler before Coughlin started coaching him - but it does start to raise the eyebrows.

Like it or not, in this league if you fumble it more than once in a season, and have demonstrated a history of it -- your a fumbler. Plain and simple.

MORE THAN ONCE IN A SEASON!!! ...You are kind of hard on a running back aren't you? I am sure that all or the majority of the starting running backs have more than one fumble therefore all have to be labled fumblers right?...I may be wrong but if you can give me a starter that has not fumbled more than once this year please do so and I will, gladly, eat my words.

LT and LJ and Steven Jackson has 2 so they are fumblers also right?... Tiki Barber 3..Shaun Alexander ....4...Willie Parker and Frank Gore 5 ...fumblers?

Why don't all these guys be benched they are awful backs!!!