D-Lineman??? We Dont Need No Stinkin D-Lineman

Two years ago we had one of the best defenses in the league because we had a solid secondary allowing GW to blitz more times than not. Now for the upcoming season we got Smoot back, Springs(as of now), Rogers, Macklin, ST, Pierson, Stoutmire and the newly drafted Landry.

I'm thinking Greg will start blitzing ST and Landry like crazy......hell blitz whoever's fresh like crazy........and our D-Line is wayyyyyyyyyyyy better with the addition of Carter and the emergence of Golston.


Thoughts?

Well, that is exactly what I am thinking.. But don't forget the aging process, our d-line is getting older which means some of them lost a step or so.. But I have pretty good feelings about our defense, I think it will definitely be better than last year..

I was going to start my own thread on this, but it fits well here. Check out this guest blog analysis (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2007/05/another_great_guest_blog.html#more)on JLC's Redskins Insider blog.

It basically says that if you add up sacks, interceptions, and forced fumbles, you get a number that the author calls "Defensive Impact Plays." Makes sense, those are the types of plays that end a drive and heavily impact the game. As you'd imagine, our team saw a big decline in Defensive Impact Plays in 2006. But what's funny, DIPs made by the defensive line really didn't decline all that much, the biggest drop occurred amongst the LBs and secondary.

Now I'd argue that the fact that we gave up 4.5 yards per carry last year instead of 4.1 in 2005 and 3.1 in 2004 had a lot to do with that. Our defensive line gave up more yards on the ground, meaning there was less opportunity to blitz and hence the secondary and LB's didn't have the same shots at sacks and INTs. But another argument could be made that GW couldn't attack with his defensive line all that much because the deep coverage was so poor and he needed to compensate with more zones.

It was a great analysis by this kid (UVA student), and it's starting to sway me into thinking that secondary was a bigger need than defensive line. I think we still have things to address with our run defense up front, but here's hoping the additions of Landry, Smoot, and Fletcher lead to greater flexibility in coverage and a more attack-oriented defense.

In the end, I think this type of analysis really highlights exactly how much of a team sport football really is. Bolstering the defensive line takes pressure off the secondary, and bolstering the secondary can take pressure off the defensive line.

Each unit operates in lockstep with one another. Given that, getting the best overall defensive player on the board probably made a lot of sense.

A DT like Okoye probably would make a big impact for us just as Landry will. But often in our narrow view, we tend to focus on the production of an individual unit (this year, we zeroed in on the defensive line). But the d-line's performance can't be examined in a vacuum very easily, there are too many codependencies in football. The improvement in the secondary could improve the play of the defensive line. In the end, Landry's presence (along with Fletcher, Smoot, and Macklin) should make everyone better.

Admittedly, I've been one that has downplayed the decline in the linebackers last year, attributing most of our run stopping problems to the front four.

But just to show I'm not completely close-minded, I've come to the realization that no matter how bad the defensive line is, (and I still think they need major upgrades) you cannot discount the role linebackers play in rushing defense. While I don't expect our success in that area to skyrocket, I do believe there will be improvement thanks to the additions of Fletcher and maybe even a couple of the rookie draftees judging by all the accolades from Peter King and SI.

I'm also counting on Rocky to prove to the world he was worth this year's second round pick -- and trust me, we REALLY could have used it. He's had a year to ride the bench, mentally prepare himself for the pro game, so now it's time for him grow up, wise up, and be real damn impressive.

There's no question the improvement of the secondary and LBs will help the overall defense. Hell, if Rogers had just held on to all those dropped picks last year we may have won a few more games. The improvements in the defensive backfield are significant (on paper anyway), and I can't wait to see Fletcher as the QB of the D. He's a huge upgrade from converted safety Lemar Marshall. I'm really concerned about Rocky and Marcus' health. Anyone know how their rehabs are going? Better pass coverage will take less pressure off the D-line and hopefully create some coverage sacks as well. I like that DIP (defensive impact plays) analysis. I do think we could use another solid body or two up front, but even if we stand pat I think we'll improve a lot. Of course, when you're 31st overall you can't get much worse.

So are we, as Coach Joe said on draft day, okay at DL or are we still shopping? Gibbs publicly said he's confident we're just fine up front on defense, but in this article John Clayton said we're still actively seeking help....

ESPN.com - NFL - Clayton: NFC big questions (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2858916)

I was going to start my own thread on this, but it fits well here. Check out this guest blog analysis (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2007/05/another_great_guest_blog.html#more)on JLC's Redskins Insider blog.

It basically says that if you add up sacks, interceptions, and forced fumbles, you get a number that the author calls "Defensive Impact Plays." Makes sense, those are the types of plays that end a drive and heavily impact the game. As you'd imagine, our team saw a big decline in Defensive Impact Plays in 2006. But what's funny, DIPs made by the defensive line really didn't decline all that much, the biggest drop occurred amongst the LBs and secondary.

Now I'd argue that the fact that we gave up 4.5 yards per carry last year instead of 4.1 in 2005 and 3.1 in 2004 had a lot to do with that. Our defensive line gave up more yards on the ground, meaning there was less opportunity to blitz and hence the secondary and LB's didn't have the same shots at sacks and INTs. But another argument could be made that GW couldn't attack with his defensive line all that much because the deep coverage was so poor and he needed to compensate with more zones.

It was a great analysis by this kid (UVA student), and it's starting to sway me into thinking that secondary was a bigger need than defensive line. I think we still have things to address with our run defense up front, but here's hoping the additions of Landry, Smoot, and Fletcher lead to greater flexibility in coverage and a more attack-oriented defense.With Barber gone from the Gmen we can almost knock 3/4 of a yard average off.

will our D be better next year? i really hope so with the additions of fletcher, smoot, landry, pierson back and getting holdman out and marshall to a more suited role . . . . but will we be able to produce a decent pass rush when we dont blitz? probaly not looking at last year

the nfc east looks ripe for the picking this year (i think that every year thoo)

So are we, as Coach Joe said on draft day, okay at DL or are we still shopping? Gibbs publicly said he's confident we're just fine up front on defense, but in this article John Clayton said we're still actively seeking help....

ESPN.com - NFL - Clayton: NFC big questions (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2858916)


gibbs has always said that even if he is comfortable with a particular part of the team , he, along with his other coaches, are always looking for players to improve the team.