This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Lichtensteiger started and played the whole game.DCThunder said:
With Kory taking over for Dock, I would imagine that if there were a better C on the roster, he'd be playing. Which is depressing. Rabach was, yet again, getting blown back nearly every play.DCThunder said:
The emporer has no clothes.
The honeymoon should only be over for those that still think like Vinny Cerrato. Did Snider really expect that the team could just buy a bunch of FAs and be a winner? Has he learned nothing from the past decade? Has there ever been a great team that was built in one off season?
Either I misread the article or you did. I took Snider's point to be that using the "patch it and start winning right away" approach that has failed for so many years has been tried again by Shanahan and has failed, partly due to bad personnel choices and partly due to trying to make players do what they're not good at doing.
I didn't like the McNabb trade for this reason, however the issue of the 3-4 versus the 4-3 has nothing to do with that and everything to do with Haslett's ego and coaching malpractice. It's stupid.
I didn't click through the link, so unless you snipped a lot of the article out, I stand by my view of the article. How in the world do you acknowledge that this team is a "fixer-upper" and then declare it's already imploded? Either you believe you should give the guy time to fix it up, or you believe he should have bought a whole bunch of FAs and already had it all fixed.This whole section is a complete joke:
You may not like the players he's brought in, but the majority of starters on offense are "Shanahan guys", and the holdovers are generally decent players. 4/5 of the starting OL is now completely different than last year. McNabb, Carriker and potentially Brown were steals. Keamotu may not be working out to this point, but don't give me a line of crap about not trying to get the right personnel to run the system. Shanahan brought in whoever he could, at the right price.This team is bad and everyone knew it coming in to the season. This "the sky is falling" mentality because everything's not clicking yet is pretty ridiculous. Anyone who had grounded expectations for this season (some improvement on 4 wins, if only because of the coaching and QB change) should be shaking their collective heads at this finger pointing. Does the buck stop at Shanahan for this team being currently bad? Sure, that's his job. But to have expected anything other than "bad" at this point is pie in the sky thinking.
Then Shanny should have signed on to the rebuilding theory and not traded away valuable draft picks for an older QB that might not even re-sign with the team next year.The honeymoon should only be over for those that still think like Vinny Cerrato. Did Snider really expect that the team could just buy a bunch of FAs and be a winner? Has he learned nothing from the past decade? Has there ever been a great team that was built in one off season?
This is a horrible view of the team, and isn't worth the bandwidth it consumes. It's the same quick-fix mentality that got us the past couple seasons (if not the past decade) of complete dreck.
Oh really?Nate Allen, whom the Eagles drafted with the second-rounder from that deal, looks quite good, and will be on the Eagles far longer than McNabb will be on the Redskins. Plus there is another draft pick to come.
I think the trade was made under the assumption that QB play was holding the Redskins back. And in fact, McNabb has upgraded the QB play immeasurably (improved pass blocking has also helped). Unfortunately, the defense is every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the Redskins offense was last year. I'm not terribly worried about the offense. If they would have had more possessions in the second half, they would have moved the ball. The problem was that they couldn't afford a bad stretch of 2 or 3 short possessions when every Rams possession was eating up six minutes of clock.I suppose I'd rather have the draft pick in a vaccum, but it's not as if the Redskins had a great draft outside of Williams anyway.
Yes, of course Shanny can do it. He's elite. After all, he turned around Maurice Clarett.
I snipped a lot of the article out.
I think they intend on signing him to a multi-year deal, and are waiting to see what happens with the new CBA. I think it's more likely that, if no deal is reached near the end of the year and the team is horrible, that McNabb will want to leave. He was signed, I'm sure, thinking the offense was better than it was. The terrible state of the offensive line and WR's just were not understood by the front office, and I think they're figuring that out now. Jason Campbell on his greatest days approached "good" and usually was somewhat less than that. But it takes more than skill, confidence, and leadership at the QB position to fix an offense that I think the front office wrongly believed was bad mostly due to Campbell. I don't think the front office is as good at evaluating personnel as they think they are.
Carriker has a history of being hurt, and has played 3 games. Let's see if he makes it a whole season. Let's also see if we hear his name called during games. I only recall one game out of the 3 so far (I think it was the Houston game) where he was making plays that were noticably good. They basically traded dryer lint for him, so it was a good trade, but that doesn't mean he's a good starting DE for a whole season yet. If he went on IR right now it would have been a good trade (3 games started vs. dryer lint), but someone else would have to fill in those other 13 games and then we're back to the personnel issue again. Brown is still recovering from his injury. It was mentioned all through training camp and preseason, he's not back to what he used to be, and he may be later this year or next year or not at all. You're calling that trade a steal far too early.McNabb is a big plus for the team. So is the 2nd rounder the Eagles have playing right now. Kemoeatu was hurt, there was no reason not to think he'd take much of this year to recover if he completely recovered at all, yet they've banked on him since day 1 as their starting nose tackle. Trading for an injured guy, making him the starter --- that doesn't strike me as a good personnel move. You trade for injured guys and make them backups while they heal.
"Let's see." This is all I'm saying, and it's not what Snider said (I read the whole article; your snippets captured the tone of the article well). Nothing can be said definitively about the future of this team, or any individual player, yet Snider has no problem calling this a busted experiment just 3 games into year 1. I find that laughable.
What stats on the board show that anything about this defense is working? They've given up more big plays than any team in the league and they're not getting turnovers, which was the advertised feature of the 3-4.
Why haven't any homers commented on this? What was Shanahan thinking???
They couldn't get the ball in the second half. 95 of the 115 yards in the first half came on three carries, one of which was a McNabb scramble. I have me issues with them keeping Portis out (Torain whiffed on a protection on a key third down that Portis would never would have missed), but they weren't in down and distances to run and they were in complete catchup mode by halfway through the fourth quarter.
This. And the fact that the offense as a whole became completely ineffectual for basically everything except the first play of the 2nd half. In their first 2 drives of the 2nd half, the 'Skins ran the ball 5 times for 1 yard. After that, they were playing from behind and couldn't get anything out of the passing game either.
FWIW, this was being addressed by the coaches before Snider printed this. Carter got fewer snaps this week and Lorenzo Alexander has been getting more, mostly in his place. Alexander is showing to be much better in coverage and in space, and if he continues, could well fill that big LB role (like Pittsburgh's Harrison or Woodley) this 3-4 could use.
Which means that Carter, an above average pass rushing DE, simply goes to waste.
No one said the transition would be easy.Which means that Carter, an above average pass rushing DE, simply goes to waste.
Exactly. I don't have any reason to assume that the 'Skins could have traded Carter for something that would have improved the team, but chose not to. Carter is talented, and has been given a chance to use that talent to help the team in a 3-4. There happens to be another player on the team that appears like they can better fill the role that Carter has been tasked with.No one said the transition would be easy.Which means that Carter, an above average pass rushing DE, simply goes to waste.
Everyone keeps complaining about forcing square pegs in to round holes, as if it would be any different if the coaches decided to keep a 4-3 while acquiring 3-4 players now to make the switch later. This team is going to be a 3-4 defense team. Keomotu and Carriker were acquired because they fit a 3-4 scheme. I don't think Keamotu would be a good 4-3 DT, and Carriker has struggled playing DE and DT in a 4-3 in the past. So if they had decided to stay in a 4-3 until they had all the players they needed for a 3-4, you'd hear the complaints about players being miscast for what they're asked to do. Or having wasted talent on the roster that can't play the positions they would be asked to play.
The issue is not whether a switch to a 3-4 would involve some pain in the transition, the issue is whether the switch should be made at all. If you have the personnel to play the 4-3, why bother switching to a 3-4 at all? That's the issue here. They've made moves like they want to win now, and yet they insist upon an ill-fitting transition on defense that immediately renders a bunch of players ineffective, including the best two players they have in Haynesworth and Orakpo.Sidewinder16 said:Exactly. I don't have any reason to assume that the 'Skins could have traded Carter for something that would have improved the team, but chose not to. Carter is talented, and has been given a chance to use that talent to help the team in a 3-4. There happens to be another player on the team that appears like they can better fill the role that Carter has been tasked with.KnowledgeReignsSupreme said:No one said the transition would be easy.Nightly Mistake said:Which means that Carter, an above average pass rushing DE, simply goes to waste.
Because the head coach and vice president of football operations believes the 3-4 is better than the 4-3.Right now, that's good enough for me. We just finished week 3 of season 1 of Shanahan's tenure. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If I had to guess, Shanahan and Haslett probrably think the 3-4 is a superior defense and gives them a lot more flexiblity in change the defense and disguising what they are going to do.The issue is not whether a switch to a 3-4 would involve some pain in the transition, the issue is whether the switch should be made at all. If you have the personnel to play the 4-3, why bother switching to a 3-4 at all? That's the issue here. They've made moves like they want to win now, and yet they insist upon an ill-fitting transition on defense that immediately renders a bunch of players ineffective, including the best two players they have in Haynesworth and Orakpo.Sidewinder16 said:Exactly. I don't have any reason to assume that the 'Skins could have traded Carter for something that would have improved the team, but chose not to. Carter is talented, and has been given a chance to use that talent to help the team in a 3-4. There happens to be another player on the team that appears like they can better fill the role that Carter has been tasked with.KnowledgeReignsSupreme said:No one said the transition would be easy.Nightly Mistake said:Which means that Carter, an above average pass rushing DE, simply goes to waste.
In theory I agree with you. But once they started making trades with a "win now" mind set the 3-4 switch should have been put on the back burner.
That reminds me of that absurd "Eagle Defense" that John Robinson ran with the L.A. Rams in the late 80's, after they'd gotten all of those draft picks in the Dickerson trade and used them on LB's. It was a 2-5 defense, and was never very good.
1. Its quite possible that Shanny view this as a multi-year rebuilding plan2. LOL@ "here's nothing. Free agency was a bust in an uncapped year. How did that happen?" The Skins added a franchise QB and left tackle, the two most important positions in football. Thats very significant.
So we shouldn't be playing a 4-3 because it doesn't suit Kemo and Carriker? Give me a break. Kemo has proven he isn't very good in a 3-4 either, and Carriker was practically free. Those are the only new guys on D from the last year, and the D is A LOT worse. You really think we should play to Carriker and Kemo's strenghts as opposed to playing to the strengths of Carter, Haynesworth, and Fletcher?Mike Tomlin was a great 4-3 coach in Minnesota, but when he got to Pittsburgh he kept them at 3-4. Why because defense wasn't their problem. Guess what? Defense wasn't our problem either. It just needed a little tweaking. Not an overhaul. We have the players on D to be a top 5 D. They just need to be used properly. That is the bottom line.I'll give Shanny the benefit of the doubt all day when it comes to offense. His track record speaks for itself. On defense though? Not going to happen. His track record speaks for itself.Sidewinder16 said:Exactly. I don't have any reason to assume that the 'Skins could have traded Carter for something that would have improved the team, but chose not to. Carter is talented, and has been given a chance to use that talent to help the team in a 3-4. There happens to be another player on the team that appears like they can better fill the role that Carter has been tasked with.KnowledgeReignsSupreme said:Everyone keeps complaining about forcing square pegs in to round holes, as if it would be any different if the coaches decided to keep a 4-3 while acquiring 3-4 players now to make the switch later. This team is going to be a 3-4 defense team. Keomotu and Carriker were acquired because they fit a 3-4 scheme. I don't think Keamotu would be a good 4-3 DT, and Carriker has struggled playing DE and DT in a 4-3 in the past. So if they had decided to stay in a 4-3 until they had all the players they needed for a 3-4, you'd hear the complaints about players being miscast for what they're asked to do. Or having wasted talent on the roster that can't play the positions they would be asked to play.Either way you'll have some players that don't ideally fit the defensive scheme that's being played. At least the way they are doing it now, the scheme is in place. Give the team a reasonable amount of time to acquire the personnel needed (one offseason is not a reasonable amount of time).
Wrong. Shanny told players their goal was the Super Bowl. Multiple players have said this.And how does starting Joey Galloway make any sense if you are rebuilding? Why not let Thomas, Banks, or Armstrong sink or swim? See what you've got?
They shouldn't be playing a 4-3 because the head coach believes it's in the best long-term interest of the team to run a 3-4.
You really think this D has the personnel to be a Top 5 defense if they played a 4-3?So we shouldn't be playing a 4-3 because it doesn't suit Kemo and Carriker? Give me a break. Kemo has proven he isn't very good in a 3-4 either, and Carriker was practically free. Those are the only new guys on D from the last year, and the D is A LOT worse. You really think we should play to Carriker and Kemo's strenghts as opposed to playing to the strengths of Carter, Haynesworth, and Fletcher?Mike Tomlin was a great 4-3 coach in Minnesota, but when he got to Pittsburgh he kept them at 3-4. Why because defense wasn't their problem. Guess what? Defense wasn't our problem either. It just needed a little tweaking. Not an overhaul. We have the players on D to be a top 5 D. They just need to be used properly. That is the bottom line.Sidewinder16 said:Exactly. I don't have any reason to assume that the 'Skins could have traded Carter for something that would have improved the team, but chose not to. Carter is talented, and has been given a chance to use that talent to help the team in a 3-4. There happens to be another player on the team that appears like they can better fill the role that Carter has been tasked with.KnowledgeReignsSupreme said:
Either way you'll have some players that don't ideally fit the defensive scheme that's being played. At least the way they are doing it now, the scheme is in place. Give the team a reasonable amount of time to acquire the personnel needed (one offseason is not a reasonable amount of time).
I'll give Shanny the benefit of the doubt all day when it comes to offense. His track record speaks for itself. On defense though? Not going to happen. His track record speaks for itself.
muy 
If they played the defense they played last year, put Landry at strong safety and Moore at free safety, and let the defensive line go after the pocket instead of playing gap control like Blache had them doing, they'd certainly be a top 10 defense and with some luck, better than that.Right now they're a top 32 defense. And objecting to the change to a 3-4 isn't new, some of us have been doing it since Haslett was hired. It doesn't suit their personnel. An aggressive 4-3 suits their personnel.You really think this D has the personnel to be a Top 5 defense if they played a 4-3?
I hope you're right man.
If you aunt had cojones she'd be your uncle....fatness said:If they played the defense they played last year, put Landry at strong safety and Moore at free safety, and let the defensive line go after the pocket instead of playing gap control like Blache had them doing, they'd certainly be a top 10 defense and with some luck, better than that.Right now they're a top 32 defense. And objecting to the change to a 3-4 isn't new, some of us have been doing it since Haslett was hired. It doesn't suit their personnel. An aggressive 4-3 suits their personnel.DCThunder said:You really think this D has the personnel to be a Top 5 defense if they played a 4-3?muy
Sebowski said:So we shouldn't be playing a 4-3 because it doesn't suit Kemo and Carriker? Give me a break. Kemo has proven he isn't very good in a 3-4 either, and Carriker was practically free. Those are the only new guys on D from the last year, and the D is A LOT worse. You really think we should play to Carriker and Kemo's strenghts as opposed to playing to the strengths of Carter, Haynesworth, and Fletcher?Mike Tomlin was a great 4-3 coach in Minnesota, but when he got to Pittsburgh he kept them at 3-4. Why because defense wasn't their problem. Guess what? Defense wasn't our problem either. It just needed a little tweaking. Not an overhaul. We have the players on D to be a top 5 D. They just need to be used properly. That is the bottom line.I'll give Shanny the benefit of the doubt all day when it comes to offense. His track record speaks for itself. On defense though? Not going to happen. His track record speaks for itself.Sidewinder16 said:Exactly. I don't have any reason to assume that the 'Skins could have traded Carter for something that would have improved the team, but chose not to. Carter is talented, and has been given a chance to use that talent to help the team in a 3-4. There happens to be another player on the team that appears like they can better fill the role that Carter has been tasked with.KnowledgeReignsSupreme said:
Those aren't two guys you build/change a defense around. Regardless, Carriker is in my view another Phillip Daniels, who can be a run-stopping LDE and move inside on pass plays in a 4-3. Kemo can be a two-gap DT in the Pat Williams or Eric Ball mold, which is perfect next to a one-gap UT like Haynesworth. It's just so stupid.
So are the goals short term or long term? I get so confused with this team.Sidewinder16 said:
This team routinely had top-5 to top-10 defensive rankings under Williams up through Blache in 2008, and it had that with inferior personnel, and even with a usually inferior offense that would keep them on the field and put them into poor field position situations on an exchange of possession. Those defenses had nothing like Haynesworth or Orakpo up front, and therefore guys like Carter were wasted because they need a good compliment to be effective by and large. Defensive success has far more to do with coaching, scheme, discipline and attitude than talent. This team absolutely could get into that top-five defense range.If you aunt had cojones she'd be your uncle....fatness said:If they played the defense they played last year, put Landry at strong safety and Moore at free safety, and let the defensive line go after the pocket instead of playing gap control like Blache had them doing, they'd certainly be a top 10 defense and with some luck, better than that.Right now they're a top 32 defense. And objecting to the change to a 3-4 isn't new, some of us have been doing it since Haslett was hired. It doesn't suit their personnel. An aggressive 4-3 suits their personnel.DCThunder said:You really think this D has the personnel to be a Top 5 defense if they played a 4-3?
No amount of coaching will get MeAngelo Hall to make a tough tackle when it counts or Carlos Rogers to hold on to a pass that hits him in the hands. Coaches don't add speed to linebackers or size to small MLBs. Of the 11 starters on defense, how many could start for the Ravens or the Steelers? Two (Fletcher and Orakpo) maybe. Oh and Hainesworth if he's motivated.This team routinely had top-5 to top-10 defensive rankings under Williams up through Blache in 2008, and it had that with inferior personnel, and even with a usually inferior offense that would keep them on the field and put them into poor field position situations on an exchange of possession. Those defenses had nothing like Haynesworth or Orakpo up front, and therefore guys like Carter were wasted because they need a good compliment to be effective by and large. Defensive success has far more to do with coaching, scheme, discipline and attitude than talent. This team absolutely could get into that top-five defense range.If you aunt had cojones she'd be your uncle....fatness said:If they played the defense they played last year, put Landry at strong safety and Moore at free safety, and let the defensive line go after the pocket instead of playing gap control like Blache had them doing, they'd certainly be a top 10 defense and with some luck, better than that.Right now they're a top 32 defense. And objecting to the change to a 3-4 isn't new, some of us have been doing it since Haslett was hired. It doesn't suit their personnel. An aggressive 4-3 suits their personnel.DCThunder said:You really think this D has the personnel to be a Top 5 defense if they played a 4-3?muy
