Washington Redskins: With Gregg Williams Gone, Defense Faces Uphill Battle

[NamVet4]

The Washington Redskins have experienced a great deal of success on the defensive side of the football for the past several. The defense ranked in the top ten three out of the last four years (the exception being the disastrous '06 campaign).

Much of this success can be attributed to the former Defensive Coordinator, Greg Williams. Williams has departed, and his assistant Greg Blache has remained to coach this stellar unit.

With this change comes a new test. It is imperative that the Skins prove early on this season that they were not a product of Williams' ingenuity, but a unit that can succeed under any coach's guidance.


Your thoughts?

Read the whole article here! (http://www.bleacherreport.com/articles/25372-Washington-Redskins-With-Williams-Gone-Defense-Faces-Uphill-Battle)

[Keino]

I only read the Quoted text and I would tend to disagree with the premise that the success of the unit (in terms of yardage stats) was due to some ingenuity of G Williams. In fact, I would argue it was likely a collective effort (hence the firing of Dale Lindsey after 06) and that Blache had as much to do with our "success" as a unit as Williams did. Blache has had after all, the least talented unit on the team and his boss refused to address it with talent infusion.

I expect that the defense won't have much drop-off, and it is likely that they may fall a few spots in the yardage rankings. However, if they generate more sacks and turnovers, then they will have a better defense, rankings not withstanding.

[SkinsKY]

I only read the Quoted text and I would tend to disagree with the premise that the success of the unit (in terms of yardage stats) was due to some ingenuity of G Williams. In fact, I would argue it was likely a collective effort (hence the firing of Dale Lindsey after 06) and that Blache had as much to do with our "success" as a unit as Williams did. Blache has had after all, the least talented unit on the team and his boss refused to address it with talent infusion.

I expect that the defense won't have much drop-off, and it is likely that they may fall a few spots in the yardage rankings. However, if they generate more sacks and turnovers, then they will have a better defense, rankings not withstanding.
Exactly. Our yardage might have been great, but the top defenses, in my book, generate turnovers. I'd give up a lot more yards if I new I would increase my interceptions or fumbles. Yards allowed is really a poor measure of overall defensive performance. As far as Williams being a genious, I'm not buying it. After 2004, he traded his thinking cap for a dunce cap.

[Hrabanmaur]

I think the writer of this article doesn't know what he wants to say. He starts with the question of whether or not this defense will thrive without Williams, but aside from cursorily mentioning the transition to Blache, he doesn't address the question. Instead, he launches into the argument that we have an aging defense...which relates to Williams how? So if the defense falters this year, will it be because Williams left, or because we have an aging defense prone to injury?

My sense is that the players and coaches respect Blache a great deal. He's got the experience of being a defensive coordinator, and he's done a good job coaching the very raw, young prospects we've gotten on the D-line the last few years. The only real question is how he will call the games.

[dj_stouty]

Exactly. Our yardage might have been great, but the top defenses, in my book, generate turnovers. I'd give up a lot more yards if I new I would increase my interceptions or fumbles. Yards allowed is really a poor measure of overall defensive performance. As far as Williams being a genious, I'm not buying it. After 2004, he traded his thinking cap for a dunce cap.

Yes...great defeneses turn over the ball AND they play solid defense in the final 2 minutes of football games. The Skins had neither the past few years.

If Blatch can find a way to generate a pass rush, I think that is half the battle. Of course, we haven't upgraded Phillip Daniels yet, so who knows if that is capable of happening. This year's defense is really an enigma to me.

[IH Brave]

I'd like to add that defenses don't give up many long yardage plays that change the momentum of the game. The first game that immediately comes to mind is the second meeting vs. the E-girls. The Redskins had Philly in a 3rd and 21 situation and GW decided to play off. I don't even recall a Redskins DB lined up on the TV screen. Anyways, Philly completed a 20 yard pass and then converted on 4th and 1 on the next play. To me that was a momentum changer.

I also want to point out the Bills game. I didn't see the game since I was at work that day (drill weekend for the Air National Guard). I did catch the last few minutes on the radio on my way home from work. Most people (including myself) want to give Joe Gibbs grief for calling consecutive timeouts. But the defense gave up a long passing play to put the Bills in position to attempt a 52 yd FG. Like I said before, I didn't see the game, but I'm guessing GW played a soft zone and gave rookie QB Trent Edwards enough time to find a WR deep.

[dj_stouty]

I also want to point out the Bills game. I didn't see the game since I was at work that day (drill weekend for the Air National Guard). I did catch the last few minutes on the radio on my way home from work. Most people (including myself) want to give Joe Gibbs grief for calling consecutive timeouts. But the defense gave up a long passing play to put the Bills in position to attempt a 52 yd FG. Like I said before, I didn't see the game, but I'm guessing GW played a soft zone and gave rookie QB Trent Edwards enough time to find a WR deep.

This is the game that mainly comes to mind when talking about late 4th quarter defensive breakdowns. The Defense looked uninspired, of course they probably had a good reason to be. Regardless, I thought the game was basically over when the defense gave up that long play.

[IH Brave]

This is the game that mainly comes to mind when talking about late 4th quarter defensive breakdowns. The Defense looked uninspired, of course they probably had a good reason to be. Regardless, I thought the game was basically over when the defense gave up that long play.


I think that's a testament to GW's playcalling. It also seems to me that whenever the Redskins offense finally put some points on the board, the defense would give up points. The J-ville game in '05. We scored 30+ points but had to go into overtime to win. The 2nd Philly game in '07. It seemed like whenever the offense scored, the defense gave up a score on the following possession. Didn't Philly score 20 pts in the 4th qtr?

[Cutter]

It says we're playing the same as last year - not converting to a cover2.

[Keino]

It says we're playing the same as last year - not converting to a cover2.

We played a ton of cover 2 last year, especially in those games you'd rather not discuss.

[CNYSkinFan]

We played a ton of cover 2 last year, especially in those games you'd rather not discuss.
Every year we say we are not going to play the cover 2 and every year we go back to it like it was crack. It is simply a lazy man's defense and it fir GW's tenure here. He lived off the talenmt of his players, not his schemes, which despite the press love were horrible and unimaginative.

More and more I believe GW lived off Taylor's talent and without him GW is a fraud, and we will see that as Jacksonville gives up third and long on a regular basis this year

[Cutter]

Everyone plays some, but we weren't a cover 2 as our base.

[akhhorus]

Everyone plays some, but we weren't a cover 2 as our base.

We were until Taylor died. We then switched to a cover-1 to hide Doughty in pass coverage, only to go right back to it in the playoffs.

Blache is a cover-2 guy. I'm 99.9999999999% sure we're going to play the cover-2 as our entire defense next year.

[CNYSkinFan]

Everyone plays some, but we weren't a cover 2 as our base.
uhm...yes we were...almost every game we played a base cover 2 over 50% of the time. It was our standard third and long defense and cost us the giants game and possibly the Bills game

[Keino]

Everyone plays some, but we weren't a cover 2 as our base.

Define Base.

I'd argue we used it in at least 50% of the defensive snaps.

[JoeJacksonTaylor28]

I only read the Quoted text and I would tend to disagree with the premise that the success of the unit (in terms of yardage stats) was due to some ingenuity of G Williams. In fact, I would argue it was likely a collective effort (hence the firing of Dale Lindsey after 06) and that Blache had as much to do with our "success" as a unit as Williams did. Blache has had after all, the least talented unit on the team and his boss refused to address it with talent infusion.
I expect that the defense won't have much drop-off, and it is likely that they may fall a few spots in the yardage rankings. However, if they generate more sacks and turnovers, then they will have a better defense, rankings not withstanding.

By his boss you mean GW? If so, GW isn't here anymore and we still didn't get DL help, I really wonder who is really to blame for this. Blache? The FO?

[Cutter]

I think we played a lot of cover1 when Taylor was around. They sent Landry on the blitz a LOT. There was that time in between before they moved Landry to the center field spot where I saw a lot of cover 2. We also played C2 a lot on 3rd down and long. It makes sense because it's a bend but don't break defense. The idea was to force the punt.

I'm not really a fan of the c2 when there's a lot of field to cover. I'm okay with it in the red zone when there's not as much space to work with. Added to that we don't really have the guys up front to rush the passer and you are just asking for trouble. So I really hope we don't see any more than we did last year.

[Keino]

I think we played a lot of cover1 when Taylor was around. They sent Landry on the blitz a LOT. There was that time in between before they moved Landry to the center field spot where I saw a lot of cover 2. We also played C2 a lot on 3rd down and long. It makes sense because it's a bend but don't break defense. The idea was to force the punt.


It's worthless without pressure from the front 4. The idea is to force the QB to throw the ball before the pockets open up. The pockets are the area of release between CB and over the top Safety and the Middle of the Field over the MLB. We played more C-2 than we should have even with Taylor on the field. He was much more effective as C-1 Ball hawk.

[akhhorus]

I think we played a lot of cover1 when Taylor was around. They sent Landry on the blitz a LOT. There was that time in between before they moved Landry to the center field spot where I saw a lot of cover 2. We also played C2 a lot on 3rd down and long. It makes sense because it's a bend but don't break defense. The idea was to force the punt.

Too bad we broke a lot. We didn't play much cover 1 before Taylor passed. It quickly became our base defense in 2007 like it was in 2006.

I'm not really a fan of the c2 when there's a lot of field to cover. I'm okay with it in the red zone when there's not as much space to work with. Added to that we don't really have the guys up front to rush the passer and you are just asking for trouble. So I really hope we don't see any more than we did last year.

There's no point in running it if your Dline can't get pressure. Running in the Goal Set set doesn't make much sense since you're vulnerable to draws pretty badly. And again: Blache is a cover 2 guy, we're running it.

[Cutter]

Keino and Akh, yes: We need a real pass rush from the front 4 or the C2 doesn't work. We don't have that - clearly and obviously we're not built for C2. I'm not saying we should NEVER run it, but we shouldn't be a C2 team.

We know Blache has been a C2 guy in the past, but if that's the only reasoning you've got for us turning to the C2, than you're pretty much calling him stupid. We've got all the same guys from our C1 team that ran it well. We've got the same terminology. We've got the same coaching tree. Is there anything besides Blache's history as a DC that would lead you to believe we're gonig to be a C2 team this year?

[akhhorus]

Keino and Akh, yes: We need a real pass rush from the front 4 or the C2 doesn't work. We don't have that - clearly and obviously we're not built for C2. I'm not saying we should NEVER run it, but we shouldn't be a C2 team.

Exactly. Its totally mystifying why they play it as their base defense without a critical component.

We know Blache has been a C2 guy in the past, but if that's the only reasoning you've got for us turning to the C2, than you're pretty much calling him stupid

Huh? Blache also pushed Williams-a 46 guy-into playing a cover2 defense here.

And I don't think Blache is very bright.

We've got all the same guys from our C1 team that ran it well. We've got the same terminology. We've got the same coaching tree.

And we're missing the coordinator who was known as a cover-1 DC and have a cover-2 DC in his place.

Is there anything besides Blache's history as a DC that would lead you to believe we're gonig to be a C2 team this year?

Blache saying that he wanted a pass rushing UT improvement in the offseason. You don't need that in the cover-1. Its critical in the cover 2.


Whether you like it or not, the Skins are going to run a cover-2 with Blache. He's not a cover-1 coach and the skins have done nothing to move towards anything different than the cover-2 they've played primarily over the last 2 seasons.

[CNYSkinFan]

man I thought the cult of GW was over with...guess i was wrong

[Keino]

God I hope Akhhorus is wrong and that Blache is more flexible than he he appears.

[akhhorus]

man I thought the cult of GW was over with...guess i was wrong

Imhotep....imhotep...imhotep....

[WarEagle]

The article reminds me of the air of uncertainty surrounding our Skins this season. New coaches, etc. But I have a weird elation and confidence in the future, so I'm not too upset. I'm not all gloom and doom for some reason.

[Cutter]

So just to verify, this move from our cover1 to cover2 is based entirely on conjecture?

[Keino]

So just to verify, this move from our cover1 to cover2 is based entirely on conjecture?

If you want to call visual evidence "conjecture" knock yourself out. At least 50% of the defensive snaps last year were in some form of Cover 2.

[akhhorus]

So just to verify, this move from our cover1 to cover2 is based entirely on conjecture?

What evidence do you have that we're going to play a cover 1? Blache is a cover 2 guy.

[Cutter]

I took it to the other thread.

[colkurtz]

GW benefited from having top draft picks for his entire tenure. And top FA picks also.

Now Gregg has gone to another team and suddenly decided that their "DL wasn't fine". Maybe he re-evaluated his time here and realized it was a critical piece and the reason our C-2 didn't work.

[sinskin]

More and more I believe GW lived off Taylor's talent and without him GW is a fraud

isn't this what coaches do?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

God I hope Akhhorus is wrong and that Blache is more flexible than he he appears.

Nope. Just ask some Bears fans about good ol' Greg.

[skinsfan36]

i think blanche will will adjust fine,but if we are playing c2 all the time we may need to get a better ss in coverage

[Hr fan]

isn't this what coaches do?

Sort of. Good coaches modify their schemes to fit the talent available, an example being playing a C1 with Taylor available. But coaches make their mark not for drafts or for schemes, but for results. In a league at the highest level this means developing an approach in extreme detail. Hence coaches tend to become wedded to a scheme that may not maximize the talent available. When they have the results it's good, when there is a fall-off (ala 2006) it's bad.

Remember GW came here as a blitz happy coach with results. He changed in 2006 to a soft cover guy, maybe because he lacked the personnel to blitz effectively, maybe because the league had caught up to his scheme. He had results in 2007 sticking with the C2 (health of the starters bad in 2006 and relatively good in 2007) played a large part in this. GW has little to prove after Buffalo and DC. Blache has yet to prove Chicago wasn't just the players. Now he has his chance. The measure is results, not scheme.

[NCskinsfanatic]

Imhotep....imhotep...imhotep....

Where's Brendan Frazier when you need him lol...