Jump to content

Washburn Tell All Interview


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There was a part where he said the players weren't trying to read the defense they just played and attacked and that sparked a lot of big plays.

I agree that if coaches get to analytical and technical the players will be thinking too much and not making many plays but nowhere is that more true than with offenses. That can cause a lot of miscommunication and broken plays between QB and WR because they aren't on the same page.

Loved the part about him having dinner with Suh and Haynesworth. I knew as soon as Detroit drafted Suh that they were about to be competitive again and make postseason appearances.

To be honest as much as folks talk about teams like Cleveland and Detroit having hard luck from 2007 through 2010 Detroit had some really good first round draft picks 2007--WR Calvin Johnson,2008--T Gosder Cherilus,2009--QB Matt Stafford,2010--DT Ndamukong Suh.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always had a feeling him & Starks didn't see eye to eye. Something just didn't click with Starks here. Dude looked like he was going to be a monster his rookie year & then regressed & played like a pro bowler as soon as he left.

But other than Starks Washburn got awesome results out of almost everybody, he was a great coach. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the more football I watch as I get older, the more convinced I am  that the system of defense we used under Fisher, Schwartz, and Washburn is best, all things being equal. 

It may be bland, and like most other fans I remember screaming for more blitzing back in those days, especially with all the exotic offshoots of the 3-4 around the league. But after seeing how much better Schwartz's defenses have been before & after Buffalo & now Philly, which played heavy blitzing 3-4's & what Rod Marinelli is getting out of an average at absolute best Dallas defensive roster, more than ever I'm convinced that simple, 1 gap, 4-3, heavy zone defenses are the way to go. 

Bill Polian had a chapter about this in his book, he claims cover 2 type D's are cheaper & easier to field. You can find late rd defensive ends & move them to DT, LB's to DE, corners to safety, etc. It's easier to find players. Plus the simplicity of the scheme allows rookies to contribute early. 

Also, when you run a complex, exotic scheme you need to devote a lot of practice to getting the system down, reducing time spent  on the basics like tackling, getting off blocks, etc. The complexity of the playbook leads to a lot of breakdowns, leading to easy scores. Lastly, the quickest way to blow up a play is pressure up the middle, those DT's are closest to the QB. If they get thru, plays over.   Unfortunately in these complex schemes these guys are usually 2 gapping, tying up blockers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Face said:

Also, the more football I watch as I get older, the more convinced I am  that the system of defense we used under Fisher, Schwartz, and Washburn is best, all things being equal. 

It may be bland, and like most other fans I remember screaming for more blitzing back in those days, especially with all the exotic offshoots of the 3-4 around the league. But after seeing how much better Schwartz's defenses have been before & after Buffalo & now Philly, which played heavy blitzing 3-4's & what Rod Marinelli is getting out of an average at absolute best Dallas defensive roster, more than ever I'm convinced that simple, 1 gap, 4-3, heavy zone defenses are the way to go. 

Bill Polian had a chapter about this in his book, he claims cover 2 type D's are cheaper & easier to field. You can find late rd defensive ends & move them to DT, LB's to DE, corners to safety, etc. It's easier to find players. Plus the simplicity of the scheme allows rookies to contribute early. 

Also, when you run a complex, exotic scheme you need to devote a lot of practice to getting the system down, reducing time spent  on the basics like tackling, getting off blocks, etc. The complexity of the playbook leads to a lot of breakdowns, leading to easy scores. Lastly, the quickest way to blow up a play is pressure up the middle, those DT's are closest to the QB. If they get thru, plays over.   Unfortunately in these complex schemes these guys are usually 2 gapping, tying up blockers.

I miss 4-3

Orakpo, Casey, Dodd, Morgan would be a beast of a DL

we would have a speedy WLB in Brown, solid ILB in Williamson and a need at SLB

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Face said:

Also, the more football I watch as I get older, the more convinced I am  that the system of defense we used under Fisher, Schwartz, and Washburn is best, all things being equal. 

It may be bland, and like most other fans I remember screaming for more blitzing back in those days, especially with all the exotic offshoots of the 3-4 around the league. But after seeing how much better Schwartz's defenses have been before & after Buffalo & now Philly, which played heavy blitzing 3-4's & what Rod Marinelli is getting out of an average at absolute best Dallas defensive roster, more than ever I'm convinced that simple, 1 gap, 4-3, heavy zone defenses are the way to go. 

 

I've been saying it for years. Nothing beats getting pressure with 4 people. You have to stop big plays and when the defenders can face the QB they get more turnovers

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Face said:

I always had a feeling him & Starks didn't see eye to eye.

His talk about Kearse wasn't too flattering either, wasted career

Link to post
Share on other sites

have been reports quite a few teams switching to more man concepts and away from zone defense, the thought is it is better against the dink/dunk quick release offenses who run short routes and feast on the holes in zone defenses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, AussieTitanFan08 said:

have been reports quite a few teams switching to more man concepts and away from zone defense, the thought is it is better against the dink/dunk quick release offenses who run short routes and feast on the holes in zone defenses. 

While this is true, you also make them work their way up the field.  A lot of good zone CB's key on these short routes and later make a jump on the ball.  There are weaknesses in every defensive scheme. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, AussieTitanFan08 said:

have been reports quite a few teams switching to more man concepts and away from zone defense, the thought is it is better against the dink/dunk quick release offenses who run short routes and feast on the holes in zone defenses. 

Exactly.... I was going to post this. Offenses, more specifically QBs like Brady are getting the ball out do fast that you almost have to run some kind of man concept to disrupt the WRs/passing game. But the defenses are so complex now they can actually run some man concepts with zone behind them.

A good example is the Denver AFC title win over the Pats 2 years ago. Phillips only rushed 3 and 4 but he played man in the short areas and disrupted Brady's quick passing attack.

But that all started with their ability to pressure Brady with 3 and 4 people. This with Phillips who typically blitzed more than anyone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...