clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Why Briggs would not fit Gregg Williams defense

The Times has an excellent blurb about why, specifically, Lance Briggs might not be the best fit in our defensive scheme. Remember Adam Archuleta as the quintessential square peg skill set stuffed unsuccessfully into our round hole defense ([editor's note, by Skin Patrol] Ryan O'Halloran used the same analogy and probably wrote it long before this post was up, so he is due credit); he was a line of scrimmage guy who was strong against the run but weak against the pass. Though he might have a long and fruitful career in the NFL post-Washington, we utilized him ineffectively by foolishly thinking we could plug him into our defensive scheme.

Briggs is a two-time Pro Bowl player who is young (26), durable (he hasn't missed a game in four pro seasons) and productive (363 tackles the last three years). But a veteran NFL scout wondered why the Redskins coveted Briggs because of the different way he would be used in Gregg Williams' scheme.
    "I thought they were set at linebacker like everybody else," the scout said. "I'm a little confused as to why they want Lance as bad as they seem to want him."
    The scout said the Bears used Briggs regularly on third down. The Redskins' philosophy the last three seasons was to use two linebackers -- the middle and strong-side backers -- and three cornerbacks on third down.
    "He wouldn't be as productive in their defense," the scout said. "Chicago's defense is designed to have the weak-side linebacker never be blocked and make every kind of tackle and play known to man. In [the Redskins' defense], the weak-side linebacker is taking on offensive tackles. He's not going to be the player for them as he was or will be for the Bears."
So either we'd use Briggs less -- both effectively and in frequency -- defensively than the Bears did or else we'd change our entire defensive scheme to accomodate him? Lance Briggs is good, but he's not good enough to build an entire defensive philosophy around. This defaults to the former option; we'd simply be settling for less production from Briggs than the Bears would.

He would still make this defense better as he is a very talented LB, but he's not worth sacrificing picks, McIntosh's development, and a high priced contract to acquire. I still vote no on this and am pleased the Bears saved us from ourselves.

On a semi-related note, the Times reminded me of something I had forgotten from last year:

Warrick Holdman started every game last year, including 14 at weak-side linebacker, but remains unsigned and isn't expected to return.
Though I've said it took McIntosh 14 weeks to "supplant" Holdman, the truth was that Holdman was never removed from the starting lineup last year. Marcus Washington went down for the last two games of the season and Holdman was shifted to the strong side to back him up. For lack of anyone else, McIntosh finally got his shot (and did a great job). That Warrick Holdman was on our strong side for those two games might explain why St. Louis had 197 yards rushing and the Giants had 261. Youch.