I'm looking for a good answer to this question

[Chief Seeway]

Before the broncos game I felt that whatever the coaches decided was good enough for me. Not any more. If our defense was running as best it can without Lavar in then why did it give up two long game winning runs? Would Lavar have stopped these runs if he was playing? Maybe, maybe not but having an athlete of his caliber in the lineup forces an OC to plan accordingly. Lavar playing will only make our QB pressure better, it can't get worse.

[Wild Bore]

Originally Posted by seeway

Before the broncos game I felt that whatever the coaches decided was good enough for me. Not any more. If our defense was running as best it can without Lavar in then why did it give up two long game winning runs? Would Lavar have stopped these runs if he was playing? Maybe, maybe not but having an athlete of his caliber in the lineup forces an OC to plan accordingly. Lavar playing will only make our QB pressure better, it can't get worse.

Maybe the fact that we had 75% of our starting defensive backs out might have had something to do with it.

[Chief Seeway]

Originally Posted by Wild Bore

Maybe the fact that we had 75% of our starting defensive backs out might have had something to do with it.

My concern is the lack of pass rush. Lavar in the game will open up the "creative" blitzes. I don't think our defense is at 100% without Lavar; losing db's against the broncos just amplified that.

[Axegrinder]

We need a speed rusher.
We do a good job of clogging the middle in run defense,but we need the heat on the edges.
Say what you want,but Bruce was always close,if not there.
The same with Marco Coleman.
Who do we have now?
That just leaves one guy that I can think of.

[Wild Bore]

Originally Posted by rskinsfan10

So it's your contention that the lack of a pass rush/turnovers isn't a concern and/or something that is worthy of discussion?

I don't believe I ever said that.

I was commenting on those who believe that Lavar is the panacea. I don't. Many go as far as to say it is some sort of conspiracy, that the coaches are purposely doing it to punish Lavar. That they are doing something which is knowingly hurting the team. BS. A big BS.

Whatever their reasons, I believe coaches are doing the RIGHT thing. And even, supposing that it might, just might, be hurting the team short term, it is probably the right thing to do long term for the team. To have a team, a true team, everyone must be treated equal, super star (or apparent super star?) or not. If you don't chaos will prevail. That is partly what we have been lacking recently, IMO.

I think people are way over reacting. Let's not forget, our D is #3 in the NFC and # 5 in the entire NFL. And we have played some pretty tough teams. Seattle's offense was number 1!! People are acting as if it is at the bottom.

[redskin_rich]

Originally Posted by YoungSkin26

um, i dont wanna seem nagging, but i wanted to know other peoples thoughts

Let me start with your question about turnovers and such. I think we will start to get more big plays, int's, fumbles, sacks, when we get all our players healthy. Last week, we were down to 2 Corners, one a rookie and the other was (gulp) Jimoh, yet we still held Denver to 92 yds passing. They were playing with a lead for most of the game but still, lead or no lead, nobody wants 5 consecutive 3 and outs. It seemed that GW wasn't blitzing much to keep the Corners out of man-up situations. I'd guess we only blitzed on 10% of the plays at most.
The week before against Seattle, Sean Taylor was noticeably hurting throughout the game and missed a lot of the 4th quarter, as did Springs.

Our linebackers aren't as good as they could be for 2 reasons.
1. LaVar is light years more talented than Holdman. Discipline or not, he is a presense that the offense has to acknowledge on each and every play. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, we are not going to see LaVar playing at WLB anytime soon, unless Holdman gets hurt.
2. Lemar Marshall is not executing the Defense as well as Pierce did last year. I'm not knocking Marshall, he is doing good but not as good as AP did. Hopefully, it's because Lamar is still learning, this is his 1st year at MLB.

The Defensive line does not seem to be getting the rotation of fresh players it did last year. This is actually systematic of the whole Defense, it seems we are staying with our base defense a lot more this year as opposed to last. As with the whole Defense, I think GW has been using a more conservative approach and I think it will get more aggressive as we get healthy, get our playmaker in there and the newer players get acclimated.

[Wild Bore]

Originally Posted by seeway

My concern is the lack of pass rush. Lavar in the game will open up the "creative" blitzes. I don't think our defense is at 100% without Lavar; losing db's against the broncos just amplified that.

But your concern was not with the pass rush, it was with the two long runs we gave up. Our starting corners are both very solid open field tacklers, as is Prioleou (sp), who as strong saftey, would be the one who is comes up to force the run.

[redwolf1218]

Originally Posted by rskinsfan10

So it's your contention that the lack of a pass rush/turnovers isn't a concern and/or something that is worthy of discussion?

my son wants to know why the Martian's X15 Space Modulator disintigrates Buggs Bunny, but not the tree?

i think our defense has held up admirably under considerable duress, and Williams has been masterful in making "playmakers" out of virtual no-names, but it seems to be wearing thin and catching up to us in the things discussed here...a lack of turnovers, lack of pass rush, giving up long drives with the game in the balance, and long breakaway TD runs...i sincerely hope we'll soon see Lavar making plays to help out the defense in these areas.

our offense has improved, with less 3-and-outs, and longer drives & time of possession, which should help the defense, yet our defense doesnt seem as strong as last year's. i keep thinking Lavar could be making the kind of plays he made in the last preseason game last year against the Falcons and in the first few games of the season before he got hurt. it's just hard to believe he's practically last on the entire defensive depth chart.

[redwolf1218]

Originally Posted by seeway

Before the broncos game I felt that whatever the coaches decided was good enough for me. Not any more. If our defense was running as best it can without Lavar in then why did it give up two long game winning runs? Would Lavar have stopped these runs if he was playing? Maybe, maybe not but having an athlete of his caliber in the lineup forces an OC to plan accordingly. Lavar playing will only make our QB pressure better, it can't get worse.

maybe with Lavar in there, Taylor could have been back to stop the breakaway runs.

[hail2skins]

Originally Posted by Wild Bore

Maybe the fact that we had 75% of our starting defensive backs out might have had something to do with it.

Well, last year we had 75% of our defense out. How do you explain last season?

[rskinsfan10]

Originally Posted by Wild Bore

I was commenting on those who believe that Lavar is the panacea. I don't. Many go as far as to say it is some sort of conspiracy, that the coaches are purposely doing it to punish Lavar. That they are doing something which is knowingly hurting the team. BS. A big BS.

At this point I don't believe the conspiracy theory is that far fetched. I have been reluctant to buy into it, but not any longer. Where I would differ in what you are saying in relation to it is I believe that at this point the coaches don't see this move as "knowingly" hurting the team. I believe they feel that they will be just fine without LaVar, despite how much this defense may bend but not break. When I see Holdman be as ineffective as he has been, then I'm inclined to believe that LaVar is being punished. It is my contention that we will not remain this lucky throughout the entire season.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally Posted by redwolf1218

my son wants to know why the Martian's X15 Space Modulator disintigrates Buggs Bunny, but not the tree?

Tell him that because it had to go through Bugs, it lost a bit of it's "zing". Therefore, it only had enough energy to create the hole in the tree. Also, the tree is alot thicker then Bugs, so that is a contributing factor as well.

[Wild Bore]

Originally Posted by rskinsfan10

At this point I don't believe the conspiracy theory is that far fetched. I have been reluctant to buy into it, but not any longer.

Uh. OK. Then there is not much more I can say about that then, except that I don't believe coaches can be involved in a conspiracy, per se. All coaches actions are the result of discussions between themselves about players, situations, etc, etc. So then, by definiton, all actions they take would be "conspiracies". Given that, then that means you don't have faith in the decisions, er, conspiracies of our coaches. I guess a number 3 defense is not good enough. We should get new coaches.

Originally Posted by rskinsfan10

Where I would differ in what you are saying in relation to it is I believe that at this point the coaches don't see this move as "knowingly" hurting the team. I believe they feel that they will be just fine without LaVar, despite how much this defense may bend but not break.

Again, my earlier point exactly, you feel the coaches can't see that they are hurting this team. Only we can see that. And that is because we are in the locker room, and we break down tape, and are just plain more insightful than they are about these kinds of things, kinda like sportswriters, we are.

Originally Posted by rskinsfan10

When I see Holdman be as ineffective as he has been, then I'm inclined to believe that LaVar is being punished. It is my contention that we will not remain this lucky throughout the entire season.

How do you know that it is Holdman that is ineffective? Were you briefed on the schemes they were running on each particular play? We all had our opinions on the ineffectiveness of the offense last year too. Everyone said Brunell. Gibbs said no. Maybe it was the receivers, just like he said.

Maybe Lavar is being punished. Good. I believe there is a good team reason for it, and I am satisfied the coaches are doing what they feel is best for the team. To believe otherwise is beyond absurd in my opinion.

[tmac19]

i honestly just think that GW is teaching LA a lesson and it is just a matter of time before LA gets back in i think it will be this game i mean this is the second time this season where we didnt get a sack and Holdman performance might just open up GW eyes that maybe he should give him a chance and see what happens

[rskinsfan10]

Originally Posted by Wild Bore

Uh. OK. Then there is not much more I can say about that then, except that I don't believe coaches can be involved in a conspiracy, per se. All coaches actions are the result of discussions between themselves about players, situations, etc, etc. So then, by definiton, all actions they take would be "conspiracies". Given that, then that means you don't have faith in the decisions, er, conspiracies of our coaches. I guess a number 3 defense is not good enough. We should get new coaches.

You can twist it around all you want to act as though it is simply unfathomable that LaVar is being punished for whatever reason. That is your right. It is also your right to act as though the lack of a pass rush and the person that is currently on your roster that offers you the best chance at providing that missing rush not getting on ONE snap is not a big deal. Good for you. I choose not to be so gullable.

Again, my earlier point exactly, you feel the coaches can't see that they are hurting this team. Only we can see that. And that is because we are in the locker room, and we break down tape, and are just plain more insightful than they are about these kinds of things, kinda like sportswriters, we are.

Apparently you missed my point where I stated that in their eyes they aren't hurting this team. They are comfortable with the status quo. I and others aren't, but hell, it doesn't matter what we think, right?

How do you know that it is Holdman that is ineffective? Were you briefed on the schemes they were running on each particular play? We all had our opinions on the ineffectiveness of the offense last year too. Everyone said Brunell. Gibbs said no. Maybe it was the receivers, just like he said.

Maybe Lavar is being punished. Good. I believe there is a good team reason for it, and I am satisfied the coaches are doing what they feel is best for the team. To believe otherwise is beyond absurd in my opinion.

How do I know Holdman is ineffective? Lets see:

Washington- 28 tackles
Lemar Marshall- 24
Warrick Holdman- 10

Ryan Clark, who has been hampered by injuries, and Walt Harris, who hasn't played the last two games have 9 tackles.

That's what I was briefed on, but I'm sure to you that's no big deal. 10 tackles by your weakside LB is up to par with where he should be after 4 games I suppose.