PDA

View Full Version : Claytons remarks on the Skins


chrisbcbu
08-27-2006, 11:41 AM
did anyone else here Clayton say this on ESPN GameDay? He actually had a positive spin on our game.

no worries, Joe Gibbs will will not like it, but after the injury to Portis, they have really scaled back everything not wanting to show or really do a thing, especially on offense"

"the defense will still be really good and the offense will wake up come regular season"

"Gibbs has never really had a record for winning preseason games, they are just more worried about injuries right now than anything else... they are a different team without Portis' presense"

The Skinsinator
08-27-2006, 11:47 AM
One of the few unbiased accurate reporters for ESPN. Good to hear and Clayton is sharp as a whistle. We will be fine but man we need to our big guns healthy soon.

Syllable
08-27-2006, 11:48 AM
Clayton sounds like hes got some money on the skins or something, or maybe its just the fact that every year they look horrible and the emails come in with badmouth comments when our defense dominates every year.

bgforever
08-27-2006, 11:52 AM
Thanks on the comments Mr. Clayton. Matches exactly the temperament of Joe Gibbs. Not worried and using a sound approach to what is going on. Joe Gibbs stated that if its tough times with a team, its these guys he likes being with and let Wilbon know he doesn't dwell on past preseasons ( www.redskins.com ) - see postgame interview with Joe Gibbs for more on that.

shally
08-27-2006, 11:57 AM
Thanks on the comments Mr. Clayton. Matches exactly the temperament of Joe Gibbs. Not worried and using a sound approach to what is going on. Joe Gibbs stated that if its tough times with a team, its these guys he likes being with and let Wilbon know he doesn't dwell on past preseasons ( www.redskins.com ) - see postgame interview with Joe Gibbs for more on that.

i was surprised and pleased by the clayton comments.. he at least did not pile on.. that will likely come from sally the hag this week in her poison pen column

bgforever
08-27-2006, 12:04 PM
i was surprised and pleased by the clayton comments.. he at least did not pile on.. that will likely come from sally the hag this week in her poison pen column


Ah yes, the writer from the "Bowels of the Abyss" is surely grinding on NY sirloin and specially induced salad, sipping on a very rouge Sav or Merlot to wet her palet and spew forth those infamous words, that are evil speak.....

The Skinsinator
08-27-2006, 12:07 PM
i was surprised and pleased by the clayton comments.. he at least did not pile on.. that will likely come from sally the hag this week in her poison pen columnVery good prediction. She typically loves to write her wretched crap when we are ailing the most.

shally
08-27-2006, 12:25 PM
Very good prediction. She typically loves to write her wretched crap when we are ailing the most.

sally is totally predictable..it will be interesting to see what wilbon has to say.. my guess is it somewhere closer to what clayton wrote, with a side of how great the bears are going to be... (not to wander too far afield, but da bears have qb issues of their own.. grossman was booed from what i read somewhere)

chrisbcbu
08-27-2006, 12:27 PM
sally is totally predictable..it will be interesting to see what wilbon has to say.. my guess is it somewhere closer to what clayton wrote, with a side of how great the bears are going to be... (not to wander too far afield, but da bears have qb issues of their own.. grossman was booed from what i read somewhere)

Sally usually doesnt comment until we play the Giants.

The Skinsinator
08-27-2006, 12:29 PM
Sally usually doesnt comment until we play the Giants.Homerism at it's finest. She makes Wilbon look like the anti Bear.

danny's stogie
08-27-2006, 12:29 PM
sally is totally predictable..it will be interesting to see what wilbon has to say.. my guess is it somewhere closer to what clayton wrote, with a side of how great the bears are going to be... (not to wander too far afield, but da bears have qb issues of their own.. grossman was booed from what i read somewhere)

I don't understand why the Bears are beholden to Grossman, he hasn't proven anything. Griese is a decent QB especially when he isn't asked to win games on his own. I mentioned a while ago that Griese might quitely end up being the best signing of the offseason and i would expect to see him starting before too long.

LATrueRedskin
08-27-2006, 12:30 PM
I can understand what Clayton's saying, especially since we've already had injuries to Clinton, Shawn, Cornelius, and Phillip. Those are all impact starters on this team.

bgforever
08-27-2006, 12:40 PM
I can understand what Clayton's saying, especially since we've already had injuries to Clinton, Shawn, Cornelius, and Phillip. Those are all impact starters on this team.

Uh yeah, I think so :) . I think the Holdman, Rocky thing is going to be fine too!

Posey cuts down on the need for grooming yet another rookie. He had some moments, but his learning curve is short. Its good when you can mention a rookie THIS year with the vets (Rocky) :) .

Fathead
08-27-2006, 12:41 PM
Clayton is generally one of the few voices of reason in espnland.
I repeat what I said last night:
It is not panic mode time.



yet.

smoak
08-27-2006, 01:53 PM
There is a difference between "worried" and "concerned".

I'm, concerned.

IowaSkinsFan
08-27-2006, 01:58 PM
I'm not worried about the offense per se becaues I know Saunders and Gibbs don't want to show anything, being very vanilla, but I can't remember any of our players beating an opponent 1 on 1. Certainly not any of our D lineman. Where is the speed from Andre Carter? Is he holding something back? What about our receivers? Where is the separation from the DB's?

Our blitzes were also very easily picked up. Nothing Brady couldn't handle. We should be very concerned.

shally
08-27-2006, 02:10 PM
I'm not worried about the offense per se becaues I know Saunders and Gibbs don't want to show anything, being very vanilla, but I can't remember any of our players beating an opponent 1 on 1. Certainly not any of our D lineman. Where is the speed from Andre Carter? Is he holding something back? What about our receivers? Where is the separation from the DB's?

Our blitzes were also very easily picked up. Nothing Brady couldn't handle. We should be very concerned.

there was an article written last year by someone who analyzed the success of the skins defense under GW.. and the gist of it was that despite the rep as a blitzing defense, the maximim success was when GW did not blitz and dropped players into the zones for coverage.

might have a lot to do with signing carter and re signing d evans.. for certain when GW blitzes it is a high risk/high reward situation as we have seen this preseason

smoak
08-27-2006, 02:13 PM
there was an article written last year by someone who analyzed the success of the skins defense under GW.. and the gist of it was that despite the rep as a blitzing defense, the maximim success was when GW did not blitz and dropped players into the zones for coverage.

might have a lot to do with signing carter and re signing d evans.. for certain when GW blitzes it is a high risk/high reward situation as we have seen this preseason

I'd love to read that article if you can find it shally. The reason is b/c I was LIVID with GW after he kept ineffectively blitzing aggainst the Bucs las season (regular season game). It shouldn't have come down to Alstott, and it was the second most infuriating loss on the year (the debacle against the Giants was worse IMO).

shally
08-27-2006, 02:15 PM
I'd love to read that article if you can find it shally. The reason is b/c I was LIVID with GW after he kept ineffectively blitzing aggainst the Bucs las season (regular season game). It shouldn't have come down to Alstott, and it was the second most infuriating loss on the year (the debacle against the Giants was worse IMO).

i will think about and see if i can clear the cobwebs and find it.. it think it was around the time the skins were really having problems.. perhaps after kc or san diego or oakland... in that stretch of debacles..

chrisbcbu
08-27-2006, 02:30 PM
I'd love to read that article if you can find it shally. The reason is b/c I was LIVID with GW after he kept ineffectively blitzing aggainst the Bucs las season (regular season game). It shouldn't have come down to Alstott, and it was the second most infuriating loss on the year (the debacle against the Giants was worse IMO).

here is something i found about that. I did remember reading that article also. I dont remember if this is the exact article but its similar.

http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/9156476

Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! (Annual Stats Edition): Didn't mean to pick on you, Jaws; many sportscasters and sportswriters overstate the degree of blitzing. Consider the four games this weekend. There were 463 offensive snaps and 57 blitzes -- 12 percent blitzing. That's probably a little lower than the league average, which I'd guess at around 15 percent. But then the wild-card entrants, being winning teams, are better than the league average. Winning teams blitz less than losing teams. The chicken-or-egg question I'll leave to you.

Washington has been blitzing less in the second half of the season, and here's an instance where injuries may actually have helped a team. The Redskins suffered cornerback injuries in November. As pointed out by James Collins, football coach at my kids' high school, cornerback injuries meant the tastefully named Gregg Williams had to provide safety help for the corners, which in turn meant Williams began calling few blitzes. Washington's defensive performance immediately improved. In their first 11 games, the Redskins allowed 20.3 points per game; during the team's six-game winning streak, which coincided with dinged-up cornerbacks and few blitzes, Washington has allowed 13.1 points per game. Elite corner Shawn Springs is expected back for the upcoming Washington at Seattle contest. For heaven's sake, tastefully named Gregg, don't use that as an excuse to go blitz-wacky.

Now to my incredibly scientifically advanced methodology. When I run items noting blitzes that backfired, readers protest that some blitzes do work and that down-and-distance must be factored in. To accommodate these concerns, when I chart the entire weekend my blitz calculation centers on long-yardage downs -- those plays when defenses are likely to blitz, and the offense knows that. I define long-yardage downs as first and more than 10, second and 8 or more, and third or fourth and four or more. I calculate average yards per play, first downs achieved, touchdowns, turnovers committed and kicks forced. When the defense gains yardage on a turnover, I count that as negative offensive yards; a stop on fourth down is counted as a takeaway. I also track blitzes that occur when not expected, on downs other than long yardage downs.

Here are the blitz numbers for the last two years; now the numbers for this weekend. On 158 long-yardage downs, there were 113 instances of conventional defense and 45 blitzes. Offenses averaged 4.3 yards gained per play against conventional defense and 8.7 yards per play against the blitz. Offenses scored three touchdowns against conventional defenses, a 2.6 percent touchdown rate, and three touchdowns against the blitz, a 6.7 percent touchdown rate. Offenses gained 19 first downs against conventional defense, a 16.8 percent first-down rate, and 15 first downs against the blitz, a 33.3 percent first-down rate. Conventional defense forced 27 kicks, a 23.8 percent forced-kick rate; blitzing forced four kicks, a 8.9 percent forced-kick rate. Conventional defense achieved five takeaways, a 4.4 percent turnover rate by the offense. Blitzing achieved two takeaways, an identical 4.4 percent turnover rate by the offense. Conventional defense scored one touchdown for the defense, while blitzing produced no defensive touchdowns.

This is pretty much a slam-dunk for conventional defense over the blitz. Sure, blitzing is effective sometimes, but on the whole blitzing allowed twice as many yards per offensive play, twice as many first downs per play and three times as many touchdowns per play. Blitzing forced the offense to kick less than half as often per play as conventional defense, while producing turnovers only at the same rate.

Offensive touchdown rates are especially revealing. This season the NFL touchdown rate for all offensive plays was 3.7 percent, 1,172 touchdowns on 32,021 offensive snaps. On expected-blitz downs, conventional defense allowed touchdowns at a rate of 2.6 percent while blitzing allowed touchdowns at a rate of 6.7 percent. This suggests blitzing on expected-blitz downs is to blame for a disproportionate share of NFL offensive touchdowns. Consider the decisive play of the Jacksonville-New England contest. The Patriots led 14-3 in the third quarter, and faced third-and-13 on their 37 yard line. Had Jax played straight defense, a forced kick was statistically likely. Instead Jaguars' coaches called for a six-blitz that included a blitzing safety. This left only middle linebacker Mike Peterson to cover Pats' tight end Ben Watson -- who broke Peterson's tackle and ran 63 yards for the touchdown that ended Jacksonville's season. Want to generate a touchdown for the opposition's offense? Call a big blitz on a down when the offense expects you to blitz.

Blitzing when it's not expected? Blitzes not on long-yardage downs resulted in 2.7 yards gained per play, no offensive or defensive touchdowns, forced kicks at a 8.3 percent rate and turnovers at a 16.7 percent rate. That is, surprise blitzing (on first-and-10, for example) works quite well.

Finally, just as announcers and sportswriters overstate the degree of blitzing, they also overstate the degree of big-blitzing. It's common to hear sportscasters bellow, "They were blitzing eight men!" Most blitzes are five-man; six-man blitzes are invitations for an offensive touchdown, seven- or eight-man blitzes exceedingly rare. Counting all blitzes (on long yardage downs and surprise downs), in this weekend's games there were 49 five-man blitzes, seven six-man blitzes, one seven-man blitz and no eight-man blitz. But then, the teams that played this weekend were winning teams, so they know to use the big blitz sparingly. My guess is if you broke it down you'd find losing teams are much more likely to big-blitz than winning teams.

Dept_of_Defense
08-27-2006, 04:05 PM
There is a difference between "worried" and "concerned".

I'm, concerned.
Worried, and you're doing a #2 in your pants. Concerned, just a #1.

smoak
08-27-2006, 07:30 PM
i will think about and see if i can clear the cobwebs and find it.. it think it was around the time the skins were really having problems.. perhaps after kc or san diego or oakland... in that stretch of debacles..

Oh, don't worry if it is that old... Just seems like an intersting topic to discuss.

here is something i found about that. I did remember reading that article also. I dont remember if this is the exact article but its similar.

http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/9156476
Ahhh Easterbrook (or whateveer his name is). What a goofball. Although I agree that you can easily "die by the blitz" (game against the Bucs), you can also force turnovers and make game changing plays by getting to the QB. Plus, setting an aggressive mindset is important for an defense...

So in summary, blitz away Mr. Williams. :)

whistleandthumb
08-28-2006, 12:08 PM
There is a difference between "worried" and "concerned".

I'm, concerned.
I'm a little concerned, as well.


That being said, we have Joe Gibbs, which is more than any other team can say. I don't know if the plan is just to show up for these preseason games, do as little as possible to keep from getting injured, and then actually open everything up come 9/11, or what he's thinking. But I do know that whatever his plan is, it'll work. He's Joe Gibbs.

GWBlitzST
08-28-2006, 01:37 PM
He's a good reporter because he's not sme ex-jock a la Salisbury Steak and Golic.

BurgundyNGold
08-28-2006, 01:39 PM
He's a good reporter because he's not sme ex-jock a la Salisbury Steak and Golic.
Yeah, but he is a smarmy little ****. :D

smoak
08-28-2006, 01:58 PM
Count me in the monority but, I like Golic. I can't explain it b/c he isn't kind to the Skins, but I like the fact that he seems like a big manly oaf. He plays well opposite from the prissy snooty Greenburg, but they lay it on too thinck at times...

Now Tony Siragusa is a guy I can't stand one bit.

smittyskin
08-28-2006, 02:08 PM
I also think it is good for us to blitz but I don't think it is a good idea when you are playing QB's such as Brady, Manning (Peyton), ...The Pats O-line has played together for some time now and they are on the same page. It only makes things worse when the O-line picks up the blitz and you have a guy like Brady to pick the defense apart. Just sayin' that with a team like the Pats, it may be more wise to blitz less.

BurgundyNGold
08-28-2006, 02:09 PM
Count me in the monority but, I like Golic. I can't explain it b/c he isn't kind to the Skins, but I like the fact that he seems like a big manly oaf. He plays well opposite from the prissy snooty Greenburg, but they lay it on too thinck at times...

Now Tony Siragusa is a guy I can't stand one bit.
Do you have a freakin' man crush on Golic? Aside from how disturbing that thought is, he was an Iggle, man!

smittyskin
08-28-2006, 02:11 PM
Another thing I noticed is that G. Williams is known for his ability to disguise his blitzes. To me, so far this preseason, when we blitz you can usually tell because guys start sneaking up to the line of scrimmage. It seems like we could do a better job of disguising our blitzes. I can think of a few instances when Brady changed the play at the line because he saw the blitz coming and sure enough, it did.

BurgundyNGold
08-28-2006, 02:13 PM
Another thing I noticed is that G. Williams is known for his ability to disguise his blitzes. To me, so far this preseason, when we blitz you can usually tell because guys start sneaking up to the line of scrimmage. It seems like we could do a better job of disguising our blitzes. I can think of a few instances when Brady changed the play at the line because he saw the blitz coming and sure enough, it did.
I haven't seen many blitzes before this week, but when we do use them, they seem to be straight up do blitzes. They're not making any attempt to be sneaky. If anything, it seems they're trying to put the DBs out on an island and evaluate how they'll do mano a mano. I would say that "poorly" is a good description.

smittyskin
08-28-2006, 02:16 PM
I haven't seen many blitzes before this week, but when we do use them, they seem to be straight up do blitzes. They're not making any attempt to be sneaky. If anything, it seems they're trying to put the DBs out on an island and evaluate how they'll do mano a mano. I would say that "poorly" is a good description.


May provide yet another reason why the Pats moved the ball on us at will. I am reaching for any excuse I can think of. :rolleyes:

BurgundyNGold
08-28-2006, 02:18 PM
May provide yet another reason why the Pats moved the ball on us at will. I am reaching for any excuse I can think of. :rolleyes:
Well, that and they called about 20 audibles. Even the backup was calling audibles. If I never hear "Omaha!" again it will be to soon, lol.

smittyskin
08-28-2006, 02:19 PM
I haven't seen many blitzes before this week, but when we do use them, they seem to be straight up do blitzes. They're not making any attempt to be sneaky. If anything, it seems they're trying to put the DBs out on an island and evaluate how they'll do mano a mano. I would say that "poorly" is a good description.


I think that if you don't get pressure on the QB in the NFL, you are gonna pay for it. I don't care who your corners are, if you put them on an island and give the QB time to throw, the corners are going to get beat more times than not.

BurgundyNGold
08-28-2006, 02:21 PM
I think that if you don't get pressure on the QB in the NFL, you are gonna pay for it. I don't care who your corners are, if you put them on an island and give the QB time to throw, the corners are going to get beat more times than not.
When you're corners are Kenny Wright and Mike Rumph, that doesn't work out too well. I don't suspect that we'll see GW do that in the regular season. He'll play zone to cover for those guys if they're ever in the game.

smittyskin
08-28-2006, 02:25 PM
When you're corners are Kenny Wright and Mike Rumph, that doesn't work out too well. I don't suspect that we'll see GW do that in the regular season. He'll play zone to cover for those guys if they're ever in the game.


I honestly don't see how Kenny Wright started as many games as he did for the Jags. They have an outstanding defense. He must be having trouble digesting GW's system. He looks like a deer in headlights out there.

bwparker
08-28-2006, 02:40 PM
here is something i found about that. I did remember reading that article also. I dont remember if this is the exact article but its similar.

http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/9156476
This might be going a step or two over board, but this article doesn't seem to factor in the effect of the "threat of blitz" on plays when teams didn't blitz. This is, of course, probably an unmeasurable metric; but it shouldn't be ignored.

That is, he claims that teams are prepared for the blitz in high percentage blitzing situations(long yardage for down), that preparation tends to be an extra blocker left behind. Now in a situation where the team doesn't blitz, that blocker is simply an offensive player who has been taken out of the play. If the offense knew they were facing a team that never(or very rarely) blitzes then they don't leave that blocker behind and they have an extra option and greater chance for success. So blitzing helped to create a boost for the defense merely by threat. So even if a team just blitzes enough to keep the offense constantly on the look out for the blitz; the success of the actual blitzes themselves may not be as important. Which is why I like that GW blitzes so much(especially in the pre-season), to build up a reputation as a blitzing defense and force teams to play more max protection packages which you can take advantage of by not blitzing.

That being said, a team must ALWAYS avoid giving up the big plays on blitzes. Which we have not been doing this pre-season.

HanburgerBum
08-28-2006, 03:17 PM
i was surprised and pleased by the clayton comments.. he at least did not pile on.. that will likely come from sally the hag this week in her poison pen column


I think Sally is too smart to show her cards this early. She learned (or should have learned) her lesson last year by declaring the Skins demise prematurely. She is waiting for the losing to continue into the regular season. That's when she will vent her venom.

As for Wilbon, he is usually more conservative in these matters. He won't jump on Gibbs quickly. What bugs me about MW is his Bear-shaded glasses. He is always extolling the might Chicago defense. The Bears are perhaps the most over-rated team in the NFL. If it weren't for that absurdly bad division they are in, they would have no shot at the playoffs.

redwolf1218
08-28-2006, 03:25 PM
This might be going a step or two over board, but this article doesn't seem to factor in the effect of the "threat of blitz" on plays when teams didn't blitz. This is, of course, probably an unmeasurable metric; but it shouldn't be ignored.

That is, he claims that teams are prepared for the blitz in high percentage blitzing situations(long yardage for down), that preparation tends to be an extra blocker left behind. Now in a situation where the team doesn't blitz, that blocker is simply an offensive player who has been taken out of the play. If the offense knew they were facing a team that never(or very rarely) blitzes then they don't leave that blocker behind and they have an extra option and greater chance for success. So blitzing helped to create a boost for the defense merely by threat. So even if a team just blitzes enough to keep the offense constantly on the look out for the blitz; the success of the actual blitzes themselves may not be as important. Which is why I like that GW blitzes so much(especially in the pre-season), to build up a reputation as a blitzing defense and force teams to play more max protection packages which you can take advantage of by not blitzing.

That being said, a team must ALWAYS avoid giving up the big plays on blitzes. Which we have not been doing this pre-season.
that's a good point. the threat of the blitz, or the reputation of a blitzing team, may cause other indirect problems, like false starts, timeouts, holding calls, who knows what else.

same with special teams. i always thought the threat of rushing the punter can cause bad snaps, rushed punts or bobbled snaps, or just bad punts where the punter felt rushed.