here is one plan to fix the defense

[skinsdad62]

Building Greg Manusky a Defense

i like the options the poster puts forth

 

[skinsdad62]

RJF has a $4M cap number in '17 ($1M dead cap if cut). Pretty clear he doesn't mesh w| Manusky. Even w| DL problems, wonder if he's gone.

interesting

 

[SoCalWizFan]

RJF has a $4M cap number in '17 ($1M dead cap if cut). Pretty clear he doesn't mesh w| Manusky. Even w| DL problems, wonder if he's gone.

interesting

His stats look pretty pathetic. Now I know that folks will say that in this defense he isn't supposed to accumulate stats - just engage the O-line & make it easier for the LBs & others. Well - I didn't see much evidence of that in terms of run stopping nor pass rush. Honestly of the true D lineman on the team other than perhaps Baker would you feel bad if they got rid of any of them? Go ahead & get rid of him.

 

[Sharkinva]

RJF has a $4M cap number in '17 ($1M dead cap if cut). Pretty clear he doesn't mesh w| Manusky. Even w| DL problems, wonder if he's gone.

interesting

IN his defense, he should be no more than a backup/rotation player in a 3-4 base. I could see him starting in a 4-3, but thats not us. I like his fire, and he seems to give all he got. But I could see him being released based on his cap number and our need to find a true 3-4 DE to play opposite Baker. But I would not be upset if they reworked him a little and kept him as a backup/rotation guy.

 

[chillerdab]

The redskins who should definitely, without question, remain starters on defense:

Kerrigan
Norman
Breeland
Baker (if he's back)
Cravens (preferably at safety)

Is there really anybody else that SHOULD DEFINITELY be a starter? DEFINITELY?

Compton, Foster, Fuller, RJF, Murphy, Smith, - none particularly scream "STARTER!"

That's a pretty bare cupboard.

 

[Sharkinva]

The redskins who should definitely, without question, remain starters on defense:

Kerrigan
Norman
Breeland
Baker (if he's back)
Cravens (preferably at safety)

Is there really anybody else that SHOULD DEFINITELY be a starter? DEFINITELY?

Compton, Foster, Fuller, RJF, Murphy, Smith, - none particularly scream "STARTER!"

That's a pretty bare cupboard.

Slightly disagree... Murphy SHOULD remain a starter until such time as some one takes his job. 9 sacks has earned him the role.

Compton should keep his job(if resigned) unless and until we get some one who can both make the defensive calls and out perform him.

Foster, RJF and Smith are backups until proven otherwise. And Fuller... I think he is still trying to recover form after the microfracture surgery, and he is at best in competition for the #3 CB slot until proven otherwise.... But he should have a role on this team.

 

[skinsdad62]

Slightly disagree... Murphy SHOULD remain a starter until such time as some one takes his job. 9 sacks has earned him the role.

Compton should keep his job(if resigned) unless and until we get some one who can both make the defensive calls and out perform him.

Foster, RJF and Smith are backups until proven otherwise. And Fuller... I think he is still trying to recover form after the microfracture surgery, and he is at best in competition for the #3 CB slot until proven otherwise.... But he should have a role on this team.

i agree

 

[j_y19]

The redskins who should definitely, without question, remain starters on defense:

Kerrigan
Norman
Breeland
Baker (if he's back)
Cravens (preferably at safety)

Is there really anybody else that SHOULD DEFINITELY be a starter? DEFINITELY?

Compton, Foster, Fuller, RJF, Murphy, Smith, - none particularly scream "STARTER!"

That's a pretty bare cupboard.

I, for one, am not sold on the Cravens move to SS. This will not be natural for him. He might be able to make the transition, but it is by no means a given. I would much rather see us draft or sign a natural SS and use Cravens as an all around athlete that we can put on the field at LB, SS, rover, Blitzer, TE cover man, etc. If he does end up playing exclusively S, expect some significant growing pains. I guess I would feel more comfortable if we have a proven FS back there with him, but we don't.

 

[chillerdab]

Slightly disagree... Murphy SHOULD remain a starter until such time as some one takes his job. 9 sacks has earned him the role.

Compton should keep his job(if resigned) unless and until we get some one who can both make the defensive calls and out perform him.

Foster, RJF and Smith are backups until proven otherwise. And Fuller... I think he is still trying to recover form after the microfracture surgery, and he is at best in competition for the #3 CB slot until proven otherwise.... But he should have a role on this team.

Compton is just "a guy." He may line everybody up correctly, but he's slow, makes no impact plays, and can't cover te's or slot wr's. Hindsight is 20/20 but a better move would have been to resign robinson to play ILB alongside Compton.

Murphy would be an excellent DE. He's strong at the point of attack, and has a high motor. He's not a great OLB, but he's better than Smith (more consistent). There's a reason why Galette got two chances, and may get a third. The Redskins need more pass rush opposite kerrigan, and up the middle.

 

[chillerdab]

I, for one, am not sold on the Cravens move to SS. This will not be natural for him. He might be able to make the transition, but it is by no means a given. I would much rather see us draft or sign a natural SS and use Cravens as an all around athlete that we can put on the field at LB, SS, rover, Blitzer, TE cover man, etc. If he does end up playing exclusively S, expect some significant growing pains. I guess I would feel more comfortable if we have a proven FS back there with him, but we don't.

I think he would excel close to the line. I don't think he's fast enough to be a rover, blitzer, or TE cover man. He made most of his outstanding plays when he played close to the LOS. The Manning int to seal the giants game? That was covering either the slot wr or te on a 5 yard in-route.

The truth is that on a defense with so few playmakers, Cravens is definitely a playmaker. If the redskins are going to have a defense that dictates games, then he belongs on the field close to the line. Otherwise, teams will expose him due to his size (sweeps, inside runs, etc).

 

[Sharkinva]

Compton is just "a guy." He may line everybody up correctly, but he's slow, makes no impact plays, and can't cover te's or slot wr's. Hindsight is 20/20 but a better move would have been to resign robinson to play ILB alongside Compton.

Murphy would be an excellent DE. He's strong at the point of attack, and has a high motor. He's not a great OLB, but he's better than Smith (more consistent). There's a reason why Galette got two chances, and may get a third. The Redskins need more pass rush opposite kerrigan, and up the middle.

Compton may only be Just a guy, but until such time as we have a guy that is better, or at least not worse, the job should be his to lose. Build off of what you have and get better. The just throw guys in and hope for the best hasnt really served us well. And Robinson couldnt stay healthy to save his arse when he as with us.

Murphy has been better than people want to give him credit for. And Gallett got as many chances as he did because of past performance on another team. Yes if he ever lines up for us he should be an improvement. But until such time as Gallett comes in and actually plays in a game for us, its still Murphy's gig to lose.

 

[Sportster 72]

I, for one, am not sold on the Cravens move to SS. This will not be natural for him. He might be able to make the transition, but it is by no means a given. I would much rather see us draft or sign a natural SS and use Cravens as an all around athlete that we can put on the field at LB, SS, rover, Blitzer, TE cover man, etc. If he does end up playing exclusively S, expect some significant growing pains. I guess I would feel more comfortable if we have a proven FS back there with him, but we don't.

My take is he is a hybrid player. Time will tell. He does seem to be an impact player.

 

[skinsdad62]

next year will be like a rookie year for him at SS . i think he can play it in time

 

[skinsdad62]

• 
  John KeimESPN Staff Writer

• 
  

The Atlanta Falcons were just like the Washington Redskins before 2015 -- a team in need of a defensive overhaul. The Falcons underwent one, restocking their defense with young talent. Suddenly, a dominant offense was paired with an improving defense, which is why they’re in the Super Bowl.

It allows teams such as the Redskins, who could use such a transformation, to envision the possibilities.

Two years ago, the Falcons ended the season ranked 32nd in yards allowed per game and 31st in points given up per game.

This season, it’s not as if Atlanta was great defensively. In the first 13 games, the Falcons ranked 29th in points allowed, 27th in yards allowed and 26th on third downs.

However, with high draft picks comes a chance for improvement.

Sure enough, in the last four regular season games the Falcons defense was 17th in yards allowed, seventh in points and 15th on third downs. In two playoff games, the Falcons have allowed 338 yards (sixth out of 12 teams) and 20.5 points per game (third best).

The Redskins already made some changes, naming Greg Manusky defensive coordinator and Jim Tomsula line coach. It’s just a start. They’re expected to attack the defense harder this offseason, especially in the draft (they’ve signed seven key defensive free agents the last two offseasons; only end Ricky Jean Francois and corner Josh Norman remain).

Here’s what the Redskins can take from Atlanta:

New York Giants, they had one starter in their first or second season. They did have five others who are in their sixth season or less. But the big point is that the Falcons have a huge base of young players to build around.

The Redskins do have safety Su'a Cravens, who will be part of that rebuilding, and corner Kendall Fuller will be in their second seasons. Corner Quinton Dunbar continues to develop, which is a good sign. However, there’s little doubt the Redskins need more youth. With youth comes added speed and energy. Defense is about playing fast and with passion. Washington has coaches who coach that way. They need more players who fit that description.

They focused on the draft. Of Atlanta’s 13 draft picks in the last two years, seven were on defense. That percentage isn’t that much higher than Washington, which selected eight defensive players among 17 picks. However, the big difference is the Falcons selected four defensive players with their top four picks; the Redskins took two (and none in the first round). Keep in mind that offensive lineman Brandon Scherff, their 2015 first-round pick, was named to the Pro Bowl. It’s not as if the pick was bad. However, it just means the Redskins need to focus hard on defense this spring.

The Redskins have the 17th pick and then eight additional choices. General manager Scot McCloughan is a proponent of taking the best available player. My hunch: That guy taken 17th will play defense.

They have speed. Playing fast doesn’t just come from a good 40-yard dash time. It’s also about playing with confidence and understanding the defense. But when you combine that with speed? You have a fast defense. That’s Atlanta.

Here are two of Atlanta's draft picks in the last two years and their 40-yard dash time at the combine: End/linebacker Vic Beasley (4.53 seconds) and middle linebacker Deion Jones (4.53 at the combine, 4.38 at his pro day). Safety Keanu Neal is not a blazer (4.62 at the combine, 4.59 at his pro day), but he plays fast and aggressive. The Falcons have clearly played fast in the postseason.

The Falcons needed two years for their defense to reach this point. The Redskins are better defensively than what the Falcons were two years ago (at least statistically). But they have work to do to reach where the Falcons are now.

this is exactly how we should look at building our defense . it wont happens with one draft but we should look to this as the blue print

 

[Sportster 72]

Don't forget that Dan Quinn was the DC in Seattle during the Super Bowl years, not Gus Bradley.

On a local note he went to Salisbury University in Salisbury, MD.

 

[Stymietee]

I, for one, am not sold on the Cravens move to SS. This will not be natural for him. He might be able to make the transition, but it is by no means a given. I would much rather see us draft or sign a natural SS and use Cravens as an all around athlete that we can put on the field at LB, SS, rover, Blitzer, TE cover man, etc. If he does end up playing exclusively S, expect some significant growing pains. I guess I would feel more comfortable if we have a proven FS back there with him, but we don't.

So glad that you wrote this @j_y19, so here's my question to you. What are your feeling on this team and it's drafting of players and attempting to transition them into new spots. It's been going on for a very long time with wildly mixed results. I appreciate your feed back.

 

[j_y19]

So glad that you wrote this @j_y19, so here's my question to you. What are your feeling on this team and it's drafting of players and attempting to transition them into new spots. It's been going on for a very long time with wildly mixed results. I appreciate your feed back.

Well, my first thought is I'd rather they draft players to play the positions they played in college. I understand that they will always be some movement such as college T moving to G in the NFL, etc. I also understand that a player like Cravens is a hybrid so he doesn't fit the mold of any one NFL position. He is an athlete and can be used all over the field. That's ok, we need athletes/play makers on defense. My bigger concern is the trend of late in trying to turn CBs into S, with mostly failures. Just draft/sign S. Spend the fricking money and get a FS that can cover sideline to sideline and can tackle. Stop trying to turn over the hill CBs into FSs. A FS needs speed and instinct for the position. A 32 year old CB no longer has speed nor any instinct at this particular position.

 

[Stymietee]

Well, my first thought is I'd rather they draft players to play the positions they played in college. I understand that they will always be some movement such as college T moving to G in the NFL, etc. I also understand that a player like Cravens is a hybrid so he doesn't fit the mold of any one NFL position. He is an athlete and can be used all over the field. That's ok, we need athletes/play makers on defense. My bigger concern is the trend of late in trying to turn CBs into S, with mostly failures. Just draft/sign S. Spend the fricking money and get a FS that can cover sideline to sideline and can tackle. Stop trying to turn over the hill CBs into FSs. A FS needs speed and instinct for the position. A 32 year old CB no longer has speed nor any instinct at this particular position.

TOTALLY Agree, we also have experimented on the defensive line and LB'er in that regard. I'm with you when you write that for the most part, and I'm rephrasing here, if you need a DE, draft a DE, linebacker? draft a linebacker, etc. etc.

 

[skinsdad62]

a slow CB can be a great candidate to be a FS it isnt a given that cravens will work out as a SS but he has the tools to do it . olbs RK TM and smith have done pretty well at olb

now if it were me calling the shots i like cravens at ILB . he can cover TE's make tackles and blitz

perhaps if we get a couple of safeties , who can play perhaps they dont move cravens