Rocky Returns

Although I would expect to re-sign Fletcher for another 2 years after his contract's up at the end of the year or bring in a free agent or early draft pick at ILB, still I wonder if anybody believes Rocky and Riley could be our two starting ILBs next year. If I had to pick one position battle outcome that I most want to happen it would be for Riley to beat out Rocky.

Ugh...and to think we could've used that 2007 2nd round pick (37th overall) from the Rocky trade to select John Beck (40th overall) and would probably have a couple Super Bowls by now.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuu. I make an amazingly insightful post and it gets stuck on the last post of the previous page.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuu. I make an amazingly insightful post and it gets stuck on the last post of the previous page.

Dirt, "amazing insightful post" read, your genius is not in vain. Even read it prior to your Fuuuuuu post at that!

Dirt, "amazing insightful post" read, your genius is not in vain. Even read it prior to your Fuuuuuu post at that!

Thank you. See when I'm king of the world, last post will be reserved for the bottom of the barrel posters. Not the jenius's like me.

i see 40 posts per page...

Judging snaps between a 3-4 and 4-3 is unreliable without inside knowledge of the actual play call. For example, there could be a call based on a 3-4 scheme but Rak chooses to put his hand down for disguise. In this case, what is really a 3-4 play call in terms of schematic responsibilities would look from the outside like a 4-3.

Rocky didnt impress me last season, hopefully hes adjusted to playin the 3-4 defense.

Judging snaps between a 3-4 and 4-3 is unreliable without inside knowledge of the actual play call. For example, there could be a call based on a 3-4 scheme but Rak chooses to put his hand down for disguise. In this case, what is really a 3-4 play call in terms of schematic responsibilities would look from the outside like a 4-3.

Using this logic, you can't tell when they are in a 3-4 so maybe the Skins only played a 'Real 3-4" 10% of the time last year and all that talk about switching defensive schemes was a smoke screen...

Maybe this year they will normally be in a 2-6-3 most of the time but will disguise it so well that people watching will think it is a "3-4" just like last year's "3-4 mirage".

Hey, it could happen - - one of these days you might find another talking horse just like Mr. Ed too.

Using this logic, you can't tell when they are in a 3-4 so maybe the Skins only played a 'Real 3-4" 10% of the time last year and all that talk about switching defensive schemes was a smoke screen...

Maybe this year they will normally be in a 2-6-3 most of the time but will disguise it so well that people watching will think it is a "3-4" just like last year's "3-4 mirage".

Hey, it could happen - - one of these days you might find another talking horse just like Mr. Ed too.

You took my words too far. My point was more subtle than you perceived. I wasn't saying that you can NEVER tell a 3-4 from a 4-3, I just said that sometimes looks can be deceiving.

And if "looks can be deceiving" as YOU said, then when you saw what you thought was a 3-4 may not have been a 3-4 and so your "count" as to the number of thimes the Skins were "REALLY" in a 3-4 is nothing more than a guess. If you assert that I cannot tell a 3-4 from a 4-3 without knowing what was called in the defensive huddle, then neither can you - - unless you are ready to demonstrate your mind reading abilities.

What I said originally - - and what Smootsmack took to a higher level than I had guessed - - was that the Redskins were not always a 3-4 defense last year. Using the "switch to that scheme" provided a couple of convenient "covers" for the coaching staff so that excuse was carried on; but what I saw with my eyes - - and what Smootsmack confirmed - - was that the Skins played a ton of 4-3 fronts too maybe about HALF the time.

Why was it convenient for the Skins to maintain that they had made this momentous change?


1. Well, the players were not "right" for the 3-4 defense so the defensive coaches could not be totally blamed for the horrible showing last year. Sometimes, that is called CYA...

2. How better to explain the continued intransigence of Albert Haynesworth who the coaches and the GM handed a $21M check in April only to find out that he was an uncoachable toad in August? He and the coaches disagreed on "the scheme" and it wasn't that he and the coaches simply could not get along... It would not behoove the coaches to point out that half the time they called exactly the defensive front that Fat Albert preferred to be in - - but he still dogged it. Looking at it that way MIGHT call into question the level of control the coaches had in the locker room and/or their motivational talents.

3. The focus on the "defensive changes" took some of the scrutiny off the fiasco happening on the offensive side of the ball where the coach and the offensive coordinator could not work with the QB that the team traded for in April.

Those two "trobulemaking" guys are gone now. If there are going to be excuses/diversions this year, new ones will need to be manufactured

So, this year, do you think the Skins will be a 3-4 team for 80% of the defensive snaps? I don't. I think Jim Haslett's defensive concept is to mix up the fronts - - as it has been in other of his stops in the league. The success or failure of the defense will be due to the competency of the players to make the defense work. Haslett is NOT one of the top defensive coordinators in the league but he is not a stumblebum either.

It's the players that matter more... And this year, the only "distraction" for the moment is the question as to whether or not this is the dawning of the John Beck Era or the sunset of Mike Shanahan's reputation as a shrewd judge/developer of QB talent.