Should the Redskins follow the Peyton Manning Colts' Blueprint

[thebluefood]

Not having first round picks completely changes the landscape.

Our priorities at the moment go like this;

#1 Safety
#2 MLB (to replace Fletch when he retires)
#3 CB

Agreed. I think we have enough, from an offensive standpoint, to win (though maybe not enough to completely dominate). Right now, we need to concentrate on our defense. It was a miracle that the Giants only scored 16 points on Monday and we can't depend on miracles to win the NFC East. With a strong defense, we can rule the division with an iron fist.

[Warpath11]

People seem to be neglecting the need for a classic 3-4 nose. That would allow Cofield to shift to an end, and have a decent rotation with Cofield between nose (to spell the new guy), Carriker, Bowen, Jenkins and Golston (who has played fairly well, from what I've seen). Or, if Neild is healthy and shows growth, Cofield could become a full time end in rotations with the others. That will take care of how plodding and slow the DL looks from time to time. They're on the field way too long.

IMO the classic NT is slowly disappearing in todays game. Im all for shifting Cofield to end but I dont think you can spend a value draft pick on a player that is only good for 2 downs (your classic mountain man NT). Now-a-days NT have to be able to stay on the field on all 3 downs which is what Cofield does. Getting the run stuffing mountain of a man NT can be found in the later rounds or as UDFAs (Chris Baker/Nelid). I want to have an impact NT that can stop the run and still be a presence in nickle situations (i.e. Haoli Ngata). Again if a classic NT is available and he happens to have great athleticism and ability to push the pocket on passing downs I am all for drafting said guy (generally those guys are picked very early)

Stevemcqueen1 (from the draft thread) puts in much better but my feelings are the same:

My thought is that the 2 down nose is going the way of the dinosaur. Teams throw on first and second down more than they run now. Teams will throw the ball 50+ times a game and run it less than 20. If a defensive lineman wants to see the field often, he needs to have value against the pass and he needs to be able to play multiple techniques.

You see it in the proliferation of 2 man lines in the 3-4. Some would almost be better called a 2-5-4 or a 2-4-5. There is no 0 or 1 technique in those alignments.

It's one of the reasons I think John Jenkins is wildly overrated when he's talked about as a first rounder. A smart team doesn't take a player whose only going to play 20 to 25 snaps a game in the first round.

So unless Geathers has value against the pass, I don't see any point in taking him. We're find with Cofield/Jenkins/Baker/Neild in the mix at the nose on running plays. We've been a really good run defense this year.

But if you're wonder who the best interior style tackles are, I think the list goes

1.) Lotuleilei
2.) Hankins
3.) Short

Short would be a good pick because he might make it to us in the second round, he fits the scheme well, he can play each spot on the DL, and he has value against the pass.

[KDawg]

IMO the classic NT is slowly disappearing in todays game. Im all for shifting Cofield to end but I dont think you can spend a value draft pick on a player that is only good for 2 downs (your classic mountain man NT). Now-a-days NT have to be able to stay on the field on all 3 downs which is what Cofield does. Getting the run stuffing mountain of a man NT can be found in the later rounds or as UDFAs (Chris Baker/Nelid). I want to have an impact NT that can stop the run and still be a presence in nickle situations (i.e. Haoli Ngata). Again if a classic NT is available and he happens to have great athleticism and ability to push the pocket on passing downs I am all for drafting said guy (generally those guys are picked very early)

Wholeheartedly disagree with almost all of this post.

The classic nose isn't disappearing from the game any time soon. There's a reason why they are so valued. A nose who can demand a double team and establish the LOS in the backfield is nearly invaluable. No player has to be able to stay on the field for all three downs. That's why you have depth, and other options. The traditional nose wouldn't have to be used in a Psycho set. Haloti Ngata is a traditional nose. But he's also an elite, elite, elite player. We need a guy who can demand a double and establish the LOS in the opponent backfield on every down that our coordinator deems necessary.

Cofield can play the nickel/Psycho role inside just fine. So he can keep that role.

You can and should spend a "value draft pick" (What does this mean? Aren't all draft picks valuable?) on a nose tackle if he gives you an opportunity to improve and he's the BPA on your board.

[Warpath11]

Wholeheartedly disagree with almost all of this post.

The classic nose isn't disappearing from the game any time soon. There's a reason why they are so valued. A nose who can demand a double team and establish the LOS in the backfield is nearly invaluable. No player has to be able to stay on the field for all three downs. That's why you have depth, and other options. The traditional nose wouldn't have to be used in a Psycho set. Haloti Ngata is a traditional nose. But he's also an elite, elite, elite player. We need a guy who can demand a double and establish the LOS in the opponent backfield on every down that our coordinator deems necessary.

Cofield can play the nickel/Psycho role inside just fine. So he can keep that role.

You can and should spend a "value draft pick" (What does this mean? Aren't all draft picks valuable?) on a nose tackle if he gives you an opportunity to improve and he's the BPA on your board.

By high value draft pick i mean a first or second round draft pick. Not sure if you saw the edit above but I would never spend a 1st or 2nd round pick on a player that does not have the ability to play all 3 downs and various postions/techniques along the DL (ala Haoli Ngata). Like you said he does not have to play all 3 downs but it is smart to grab a player that can with those early high value draft picks.

[Wildbunny]

Not having first round picks completely changes the landscape.

Our priorities at the moment go like this;

#1 Safety
#2 MLB (to replace Fletch when he retires)
#3 CB

I would add a NT to that list. I like Cofield and Neild, but we could upgrade the situation we have right now.

[CTskins]

Wholeheartedly disagree with almost all of this post.

The classic nose isn't disappearing from the game any time soon. There's a reason why they are so valued. A nose who can demand a double team and establish the LOS in the backfield is nearly invaluable. No player has to be able to stay on the field for all three downs. That's why you have depth, and other options. The traditional nose wouldn't have to be used in a Psycho set. Haloti Ngata is a traditional nose. But he's also an elite, elite, elite player. We need a guy who can demand a double and establish the LOS in the opponent backfield on every down that our coordinator deems necessary.

Cofield can play the nickel/Psycho role inside just fine. So he can keep that role.

You can and should spend a "value draft pick" (What does this mean? Aren't all draft picks valuable?) on a nose tackle if he gives you an opportunity to improve and he's the BPA on your board.

Is it fair to posit that as many high end BCS offenses go to the spread and/or read option, opposing defenses must adapt as well. As a result, BCS defenses feeding the NFL with talent go to more 3-3-5 (4-2-5, 4-2-5, 2-5-4, 2-4-5. 4-1-6, 3-2-6, whatever) base alignments and require leaner, faster linemen. As a result the classic 340 lb behemoths aren't being drafted, but developed in the NFL. Unfortunately, the NTs development isn't complete until about year 3, when they are either A) locked up for years to come, or B) to expensive.

[KDawg]

By high value draft pick i mean a first or second round draft pick. Not sure if you saw the edit above but I would never spend a 1st or 2nd round pick on a player that does not have the ability to play all 3 downs and various postions/techniques along the DL. Like you said he does not have to play all 3 downs but it is smart to grab a player that can with those early high value draft picks.

Stevemcqueen1 (from the draft thread) puts in much better but my feelings are the same:

My thought is that the 2 down nose is going the way of the dinosaur. Teams throw on first and second down more than they run now. Teams will throw the ball 50+ times a game and run it less than 20. If a defensive lineman wants to see the field often, he needs to have value against the pass and he needs to be able to play multiple techniques.

I don't disagree with the tail end of steve's point. A lineman needs to have value vs. the run or the pass. Even if that value is simply collapsing the pocket from the inside (which a quality nose could do). But I think the key part to this statement is the phrase, "teams throw on first and second down more than they run now". I'm not sure that there is any evidence to show that they do, in fact, throw on first and second down more. But, all trends are cyclical. And while they may be throwing more now, once defenses start to get smaller and lighter teams are going to attempt to run on them. What do you do then? Join the mad rush for team's looking for a big run stuffer and hope that by chance they fall to you? Or do you have the guy in place that can establish the line of scrimmage, all the while having used him in various packages throughout his tenure? I'd opt for the latter. Especially in a 3-4 at the nose position.

You see it in the proliferation of 2 man lines in the 3-4. Some would almost be better called a 2-5-4 or a 2-4-5. There is no 0 or 1 technique in those alignments.

Absolutely true. In these "Psycho" packages you see two 2 techniques or two 3 techniques, or a combination of the two more often than not.

It's one of the reasons I think John Jenkins is wildly overrated when he's talked about as a first rounder. A smart team doesn't take a player whose only going to play 20 to 25 snaps a game in the first round.

I'll bite: Why? If you can shut down the line of scrimmage on first and second down and cause 3rd and long situations, isn't that value through the roof? I don't care about number of snaps played, I care about impact on the snaps played. A player that's good enough to own the line of scrimmage while taking on doubles is worth his weight in gold. I don't care if he only plays 20-25 plays a game, as long as he's helping me to establish second and longs and third and longs.

So unless Geathers has value against the pass, I don't see any point in taking him. We're find with Cofield/Jenkins/Baker/Neild in the mix at the nose on running plays. We've been a really good run defense this year.

At times, certainly. At others we've been completely gashed. I don't agree that we're fine with those four at the nose. The least of which would be Jenkins.

---------- Post added December-5th-2012 at 11:12 AM ----------

Is it fair to posit that as many high end BCS offenses go to the spread and/or read option, opposing defenses must adapt as well. As a result, BCS defenses feeding the NFL with talent go to more 3-3-5 (4-2-5, 4-2-5, 2-5-4, 2-4-5. 4-1-6, 3-2-6, whatever) base alignments and require leaner, faster linemen. As a result the classic 340 lb behemoths aren't being drafted, but developed in the NFL. Unfortunately, the NTs development isn't complete until about year 3, when they are either A) locked up for years to come, or B) to expensive.

See my response to Warpath.

It's absolutely fair to say that more teams are going to the spread or read option.

I don't think that should be the cause of eliminating the space eater nose tackle from the game. Football is a cyclical animal. And teams still need to utilize interior runs. As offenses get smaller, that provides more opportunity for a large bodied monster of a man to dominate a front. I don't care what system you run, if you consistently get penetration through the A-Gaps you have a problem on your hands.

[Warpath11]

I'll bite: Why? If you can shut down the line of scrimmage on first and second down and cause 3rd and long situations, isn't that value through the roof? I don't care about number of snaps played, I care about impact on the snaps played. A player that's good enough to own the line of scrimmage while taking on doubles is worth his weight in gold. I don't care if he only plays 20-25 plays a game, as long as he's helping me to establish second and longs and third and longs..

I cant speak for Steve, but I would imagine a team would scheme to pass when a limited pass rusher is in the game? even if it is on 1st or 2nd down. For example, a team led by Brady/P. Manning/Brees might use run looking packages to pass from on those early downs. The Saints do alot of this with Sproles they put him in with a jumbo package (2TE/2WR) but can quickly split Sproles wide and make it a 3 WR set then the defense is really against it becuase they may have countered the Saints run package with thier base d. If the defense stays nickle Brees can call a run to Sproles for chunk plays.

I do see you point that a player making huge impact on a large majority of the plays he is in is worht its weight in gold, but I also see scheming around a more limited player. I also get your point on the cyclical nature of the game but how far ahead do you go in drafting a player that may not be as useful in his first 3-4 years?

edit: cool discussion!

[Pick6]

Just ponder this thought for a second. If the Skins had a top 10 defense right now, we would probably be close to undefeated. The offense is there and we need to defense to keep teams from scoring on the Skins.

[KDawg]

I cant speak for Steve, but I would imagine a team would scheme to pass when a limited pass rusher is in the game?

Don't disagree with the point here. But I disagree with the phrase, "Limited pass rusher". What does that mean exactly? That the player isn't fast or elusive? From the interior, who cares? I want him to collapse the pocket from the inside the prevent the quarterback from climbing the ladder. Once that's done it allows the ends/OLBs to do their job and collapse it from the intermediate and outside levels. If that happens, the quarterback is swallowed and has no where to go.

I don't get the fascination with speedy shifty guys all of a sudden. Especially with more of an offensive line shift to speedier, shiftier guys. A power guy could dominate.

The Saints do alot of this with Sproles they put him in with a jumbo package (2TE/2WR) but can quickly split Sproles wide and make it a 3 WR set then the defense is really against it becuase they may have countered the Saints run package with thier base d.

So if you see Sproles entering the game as a nickel, you counter personnel wise.

Seeing how you said you counter with base, I'll ask a question: Why base? Because they're in 22 personnel with Sproles in the game? I think coming out with base there is foolish. How about thinking outside the box and adjusting personnel? If it's 22 and Sproles is in, you take out a pass rusher OLB and move a dynamic safety into the game aligned as a ILB. Keep your best pass rusher ILB in the game and put him in the OLBs role (Riley). If Sproles splits out, the safety flops to his side. If Sproles stays in, he stays in the same place. Leave the nose in. You kinda put the offense in a bad position by mixing personnel packages up. Your interior DL is in, so running the ball is a tough decision to make. But splitting Sproles out becomes an issue because you put a safety in the game, so your matchup isn't as stellar as it could have been.

[rm1369]

Speaking of Manning and the Colts...

I'm surprised I haven't heard many people comment on the style of our offense being similar to the Colts with Manning. No it's not the same offense but lining up in the shot gun to run the ball was always a very effective staple in their offense. The pistol is similar giving Griff the run, or pass option. Once we develop a hurry up similar to Manning it's going to be lethal. Our offensive weapons should come from free agency and our defensive weapons from the draft.

running from shotgun was never a "staple" of the Indy offense. Like every team they ran the occasional draw, but that was it. The running staple of the Indy offence was the stretch play from under center. The Colts ran the stretch very effectively - especially during the Edge years. The play action off of it was killer for defenses. But it was ran from under center - not shotgun.

[Warpath11]

Don't disagree with the point here. But I disagree with the phrase, "Limited pass rusher". What does that mean exactly? That the player isn't fast or elusive? From the interior, who cares? I want him to collapse the pocket from the inside the prevent the quarterback from climbing the ladder. Once that's done it allows the ends/OLBs to do their job and collapse it from the intermediate and outside levels. If that happens, the quarterback is swallowed and has no where to go.

I don't get the fascination with speedy shifty guys all of a sudden. Especially with more of an offensive line shift to speedier, shiftier guys. A power guy could dominate.



So if you see Sproles entering the game as a nickel, you counter personnel wise.

Seeing how you said you counter with base, I'll ask a question: Why base? Because they're in 22 personnel with Sproles in the game? I think coming out with base there is foolish. How about thinking outside the box and adjusting personnel? If it's 22 and Sproles is in, you take out a pass rusher OLB and move a dynamic safety into the game aligned as a ILB. Keep your best pass rusher ILB in the game and put him in the OLBs role (Riley). If Sproles splits out, the safety flops to his side. If Sproles stays in, he stays in the same place. Leave the nose in. You kinda put the offense in a bad position by mixing personnel packages up. Your interior DL is in, so running the ball is a tough decision to make. But splitting Sproles out becomes an issue because you put a safety in the game, so your matchup isn't as stellar as it could have been.

Yeah that is an idea to counter but then who covers Jimmy Graham? The only team to have really successfully stopped this saints package was the 49ers in last year playoff, but they accomplished that becuase they have insane ILBs that can cover Sproles and account for Jimmy Graham (kind of). Anyway we can go back and forth with this all day I just tend to think that the stereotypical NT is not as useful right now with the proliferation of the spread and the athletic QB. As you said, the league will counter and move back to running the ball but the question is when does that happen? The coach that can predict that would be ahead of the curve (im looking at you Bill Belichik).

[KDawg]

Yeah that is an idea to counter but then who covers Jimmy Graham?

The same guy you normally have cover Jimmy Graham.

[rm1369]

Remember when Peyton Manning was drafted by the Colts? The next few years of drafts were dedicated to getting all of the offensive weapons Peyton needed to be successful. they did this almost ignoring the defense. should the redskins do the same and build the defense through free agency?

As a Colts fan, I can tell you that no one in Indy wants the Colts to repeat that building model. While most grudgingly accepted the offense heavy draft this year for the Colts, there will be some truly unhappy fans if Grigson doesnt work to build the D (and O line) next year in the draft. Polian constantly was drafting offensive skill positions - and they often looked good because of Manning. But the D and O line were ****. Manning masked it all. Great QBs will make the talent around them appear better than it is. There was very little drop off for the Colts when Manning was throwing to Blair White, a young Garcon (late round pick), and Jacob Tamme instead of Harrison, Wayne, and Clark. However, when Freeney was hurt the D was **** - and was often **** with Freeney in unless Manning had built a 14+ lead and forced the opponent to throw. IMO, if you have an elite QB you should work to give him a D and a run game. The passing game will take care of its self.

[ncr2h]

I cant speak for Steve, but I would imagine a team would scheme to pass when a limited pass rusher is in the game? even if it is on 1st or 2nd down. For example, a team led by Brady/P. Manning/Brees might use run looking packages to pass from on those early downs. The Saints do alot of this with Sproles they put him in with a jumbo package (2TE/2WR) but can quickly split Sproles wide and make it a 3 WR set then the defense is really against it becuase they may have countered the Saints run package with thier base d. If the defense stays nickle Brees can call a run to Sproles for chunk plays.

I do see you point that a player making huge impact on a large majority of the plays he is in is worht its weight in gold, but I also see scheming around a more limited player. I also get your point on the cyclical nature of the game but how far ahead do you go in drafting a player that may not be as useful in his first 3-4 years?

edit: cool discussion!

I think you're on to something, but it doesn't really apply in this situation. People are basically saying that if it's a position of need on your team, then you there's no reason to not draft that position in the first round. I think that's baloney. Let's take an extreme example. Suppose punter is a big-time need for us, and as we're sitting there in the first round our BPA is a punter. Do we draft a punter in the first? No. Because good front offices don't spend #1 picks to acquire punters. Similarly, do we have evidence that good front offices actually spend #1s on nose tackles? Yes, we do.

The Ravens spent a #1 on Ngata
The Steelers spent a #1 on Hampton
The Packers spent a #1 on Raji
The Patriots spent a #1 on Wilfork

I think if you studied other sucessful FOs' drafting history, you'd find patterns about which positions they would select in which rounds. For example, it might be consensus among these teams that elite defensive tackles can pretty much only be found in the first round and that in any other round it's almost a complete crapshoot. I think you'd find, generally, that elite pass rushers (defensive linemen and 3-4 OLBs) and defensive backs are typically found in the first round, while elite talent on offense can be found in most rounds of the draft. Front offices that typically ignore those positions in the first round and instead target positions like RB, WR, OT, etc. might be inadvertantly setting their franchises back by wasting valuable draft picks on positions that don't typically require valuable draft picks to acquire.

That being said, seeing as we're looking at a mid-2nd rounder at worst, I don't know if spending it on a DT is actually a good idea. I think there's a lot of precedent for finding good talent on the interior offensive line and at WR in the 2nd round. I think if you look at the elite front offices around the league, they usually don't target DT in the 2nd round.