(09-28-2020, 11:04 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(09-28-2020, 10:49 AM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: In the "Wash's innovative defense" thread where we were discussing it, you talk about it as "an obsolete scheme".  And my comments about it there seemed to have irked you in some way.  That's why.  So if you don't understand that play call being discussed there was strong in that situation, you clearly do not comprehend it.  And you have been quick on criticizing generalities of the defense, but have been very light on specifics of what you don't like or how you would fix things.  That's why.

---

I 100% agree.  And the flip side of that same coin is a roster full of scrubs makes a scheme look worse than it is.  Glad we are in agreement.

I think I've been pretty consistent saying I'm not a Wash fan.  But I am also saying, the talent is so bad right now that whatever he calls isn't going to matter much.

Ah ok, I see that you got into an argument with some other posters about that play call because of the Taven dropping out thing. You'll notice that I didn't say anything about that one particular play that you keep harping on. What I've said, continually, is that Wash isn't a particularly good coach and his philosophy and scheme aren't going to be successful without a boat load of talent who can overcome his deficiencies. You seem to think that this year's talent is particularly bad whereas I see the same results we had all last year and most of the year before with all the "talented" players we don't have any more.

I reread it now... I assumed because we were discussing the specifics of that play, that your comments were pertaining to that.  I see this year's defense as much worse than last year.  We are giving up 4 more points per game already on average, but last year's defense was not very talented either.  Stats notwithstanding, this defense appears worse to the eye test (particularly pass rush) than last years... would you agree?  And "most of the year before", meaning 2018, we were the #5 ranked defense in the League, so I strongly disagree with your statement comparing our D now to then.

---