|
|
hurrykaine 10-20-2004, 02:23 PM I came across this aspect in a Greg Blache interview and wanted to get your thoughts on this.
We need a lot of work on blocking after we create a turnover on defense. All good defenses (Ravens, Pats, etc.) have showcased the ability to return a fumble or INT for a score on numerous occasions. Except for this year, it seems that the skins D hasn't had a culture of creating many turnovers for the last many years. This shows in their blocking after a turnover - mostly, they're just elated that a TO was created. There was no reason why Smootie shouldn't have returned his INT for a TD against the Ravens. Taylor could've scored a TD against the bears with some better blocking.
Similarly, after an offensive TO, we rarely see plays where our players prevent a score. Ladell Betts' feeble attempt on Ed Reed was pathetic. To be fair, we do have people like Coles who never give up - his play against Seattle last year, where he knocked the ball out of the interceptor's hands was memorable. We missed two tackles on Azuma in the Bears game. Part of the problem this year has also been that our TOs have been caused in the backfield deep in our own territory. Any thoughts?
d151b 10-20-2004, 03:21 PM ladell's attempt, or lack there of against azumah last week was pretty awful as well!
SmootSmack 10-20-2004, 04:20 PM Do you have the whole interview? Blache is one of the best assistant coaches to interview in the league. He's extremely candid
JWsleep 10-20-2004, 04:31 PM Very interesting.
Imagine if those TOs by our offense don't get returned for TDs. Given the way our D has been playing (and given our relatively lame opponents) we'd probably be 4-2, even with the same turnover ratio and passing woes.
Lost in a lot of this week's analysis is that Blache went back into Chicago, took a no name beat up D-line, and basically won the game. Of course, he did it with Williams, the rest of the staff, and the players (!!), but it's still a nice personal victory.
memphisskin 10-20-2004, 04:34 PM I agree I thought Taylor was going to score but all I saw were Chicago lineman in his way, where were the defenders?
I think his argument about the culture here is on point, glad to see it changed. How long has it been since we've had a score on a return, punt, kickoff, fumble or pick? I can think of Lavar's season changing score on Carolina three years ago, but we always seem to be on the short end of that stick.
It would seem to be the natural progression of our defense, first and foremost be solid against the run, then force turnovers and only then can we try to score with those turnovers. I love that Blache is making it a point of emphasis, clearly it was something he did in Chicago I mean Mike Brown won two games in a row with interception returns. God knows we've given up enough tds on picks and fumbles and punts, I'd be shocked if we go the entire year w/o a couple of our own.
That Guy 10-20-2004, 05:14 PM hmm... ST blocking sucks and TO (offensive and defensive) blocking sucks... think they could be linked? ST coverage is also not great, though its a bit ahead of the blocking...
surprised to hear blache be so open after hearing so much gushing and spin by gibbs and bugel... glad we got him.
Skins4SB 10-20-2004, 05:21 PM ST coverage is horrible too. I was pissed off when Chicago tried to fool us with the handoff that the Ravens did to us.
That Guy 10-20-2004, 05:42 PM they wouldn't have tried it if it didn't work... luckily they didn't get a TD off it though.
memphisskin 10-20-2004, 06:01 PM I'm still having nightmares about the fake to Deion. Maybe we should try that, although with the problems we're having blocking in the return game I can see that blowing up in our faces.
hurrykaine 10-20-2004, 06:14 PM Do you have the whole interview? Blache is one of the best assistant coaches to interview in the league. He's extremely candid
My bad...it was in Wilbon's chat house in response to one of the questions and in his article on the Bears game. Here's the transcript below.
Lexington Park, Md.: Good column today, but one that made me worry. Is the Skin defense getting to the point where they feel that they have to win the game? It seems that when you get to that point the defense is going to take some bigger risks, be it going for more interceptions instead of deflecting the ball, and trying to strip it instead of making the tackle. That means there's more of a chance for a big play to go against the defense. Too much aggressiveness will cause this.
Are the coaches worried about this? Or will they be able to keep the defense aggressive, but not to the point of making huge mistakes looking for the big play?
Michael Wilbon: Hey everybody...Sorry we had to delay for an hour but I'm just getting in from Chicago..And this first question is a really good one. How much should a defense be responsible for? That's what I was asking Gregg Williams, Greg Blache, Shawn Springs and Fred Smoot yesterday after the game. Of course, having played between a 7 and 9 1/2 every week for six weeks, they think they can do more and should do more. I don't believe they think they are going to start gambling for interceptions and that sort of thing.
What Blache talked to me about was blocking after turnovers, after recovering fumbles and picking off passes. Tampa Bay made an art of it for five or six seasons. We'll see how the Redskins do. But aggression in a defense is rarely bad. And remember, when LaVar comes back and Phillip Daniels comes back and Andre Lott comes back they should be able to rotate guys a little more, keeping them fresh, and they should be more aggressive if Williams wants to do that in the fourth quarter.
But I'm a firm believer in building a team defense-first. The Patriots defense gets little credit, but that defense was better than the offense in both Super Bowl seasons. We know about the Ravens defense, and the Tampa Bay defense...The offense ain't good, so you go with your strength, right?
|