Week 10 MNF: Eagles @ Redskins

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Senator Palmer

I don't think the Redskins' defense sucks because of last night. I just don't see them doing anything on the field that they couldn't be doing in a 4-3 that better fits their personel. If the turnovers are up then I think that's more due to the coaching, not the scheme. I don't think guys rally to the ball and hit harder just because they're in a 3-4. Haslett is simply a more aggressive coach than Blache. And you can create just as many turnovers with a 4-3. Look no further than your 2000 Ravens, who took the ball away 49 times in 16 games with the simplest of 4-3 schemes. Haslett's 4-3 in New Orleans, his first year, took the ball away 35 times, and led the league with an incredible 66 sacks. I think the switch has more to do with Shanahan sitting back that year out of coaching and getting swept up in the 3-4 zeitgeist and Haslett's affinity for Pittsburgh where he cut his teeth. Haslett has always wanted to get back his 3-4 roots and Shanahan has given him carte blanche to run the show. But I like I said, I don't see them doing anything special that they couldn't be doing in a 4-3. My issue isn't just with the Skins it's also with teams like the Bills (another good 4-3 team last year) who switch because they think it's the magic bullet instead of developing and bringing in better players. Guys like Orakpo are just as much a threat in a 4-3 as a 3-4. He was a hybrid last year who played LB on downs 1 and 2 then could drop to a DE on passing downs, same with Lavar Arrington before him.

There are few teams that have had the personnel that the 2000 Ravens had. That's actually against your argument bc if the Skins had the perfect personnel for the 3-4 like that team had for the 4-3, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

I'm not saying you're wrong about these things being possible in the 4-3. What I'm saying is the Skins D has been top 5(ish at least) for years but it's meant nothing bc they couldn't get turnovers. They decided to try something different to fix that and it's been working. Nine games in the new scheme and many positions needed to really fit the scheme, and they're already 100 times better at creating turnovers than they have been in years. It's noteworthy. Add that besides this last game and the game against Houston, they've been pretty good at keeping points off the board against what was expected to be some high powered offenses. It just doesn't make much sense to me to be complaining about the 3-4 at this point.

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

It was time for them to change that Defense and the 3 main reasons why it was done: -Landry(ever since Sean Taylor died, the dude had sucked there but that was mainly due to him playing out of position. -Orakpo-Get him back at his natural position instead of having him with his hand on the ground 75% of the time which in turn makes him a bigger threat and gives him more opportunities to rush the QB. -Lack of Turnovers. Even under Gregg Williams they weren't getting many TOs like they are now which means if he was sending 7-8 dudes at the QB and wasn't getting there, that D wasn't getting off the field. This year they ARE getting Turnovers but once again people here(in DC)are quick to get rid of the 3-4 even though it has shown that if you stick with it, it will work. Look at the 09 Packers D which consisted of the SAME players that played on the 4-3 the previous 4 years and they adjusted to it just fine.

QFT

Quote: Originally Posted by Chrisksaint

Some people are getting way too lost in the moment imo when they are saying Vick had the greatest QB peformance ever, lol it was amazing yes but umm he's not the first person to have 6 TD's in a game. If I had to choose a QB to play for my team i'd still rather choose Manning,Brady,Rivers,Brees,Rodgers over Vick. He's only played what like 6 games?

I personally never said it was the greatest performance ever, I said it's the greatest performance by a QB that I personally have ever seen. My guess is many others meant the same thing and are getting killed bc of semantics.

Also, whether or not it was the greatest ever or the greatest I've ever seen, it has nothing to do with who I'd choose to play QB for my team. Are you just trying to think of reasons to discredit Vick and/or this game, bc none of this stuff is relevant here.

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

I'm not entirely sure who this Chad Dukes guy is, but he is very angry at his Redskins' performance last night. http://1067thefandc.cbslocal.com/201...ns-59-28-loss/

I just heard that earlier today. Man that was hilarious. He straight up lost it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

People seriously gotta listen to this. ****. I love the guy in the background goin "Get Em." "GET EM!" "GETTTTT EMMMMMM!!!!!!"

That's Lavar Arrington, which makes it all even better. Like I said, I didn't hear it live but that may have been during the portion of the show when Cooley's on. I'm not sure, but that would've made it even funnier.

[Fresh Tendrils]

I miss LaVar.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[elgreazy1]

Quote: Originally Posted by WazzuRC

LOL, what the hell is Haynesworth doing?!

Earning that $100 mil contract. What a piece of TOS violation.