Page 3 of 4
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:40 am
by UK Skins Fan
Deadskins wrote:rskin72 wrote:Also...Guenther is the LB coach of the bungles now....so a DC job would be a promotion. Wouldn't he be able to accept that if offered?
They can only break the contract for a HC position, if the team does not give permission.
Is that a new regulation, or has it always been the case? Maybe my wires are crossed, but I thought that an offer of an enhanced position meant that the existing team could not refuse permission?
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:42 am
by UK Skins Fan
What would be more puzzling about pursuing Guenther is that he's worked in the 4-3 rather than the 3-4. We already have a defensive coordinator trying to coach a scheme he isn't expert in - why go after another?
Unless (please let it be so) we are going to change to a 4-3?
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:04 am
by DarthMonk
tribeofjudah wrote:DarthMonk wrote:Countertrey wrote:I'm OK with Haslett staying.
Yo tambien.
I was agin it a few weeks ago but have done a lot of research and have changed my mind.
wow....tell us about your research?
I started the "Don't Look Now" thread. Then the "In Defense of Haz' Defense" thread had an article that helped me reconsider my position along with the Maske article outlining Shanny's meddling.
Things like us playing top 8 after the first 3 games and our offense and special teams constantly putting us behind the 8 ball and guys blaming themselves for doing things like missing tackles after being put in perfect position.
So yeah, yo tambien. I too am
OK with Haz staying.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:51 pm
by SkinsJock
I really don't have a preference for DC ... I think that whomever is here has a lot of work to do - our defense needs a lot of help
I'd love for Haslett to get the job but ONLY to show a lot of the 'doubters' how mistaken they are in their thinking
I also think our special Teams play will improve with better depth from having more cap money available and a good FO/scouting department
The DC is a fairly important hire as the offense will be fine under what I think will be Jay Gruden and Sean McVay - the offense has some good to great players to build around
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:58 pm
by Countertrey
DarthMonk wrote:tribeofjudah wrote:DarthMonk wrote:Yo tambien.
I was agin it a few weeks ago but have done a lot of research and have changed my mind.
wow....tell us about your research?
I started the "Don't Look Now" thread. Then the "In Defense of Haz' Defense" thread had an article that helped me reconsider my position along with the Maske article outlining Shanny's meddling.
Things like us playing top 8 after the first 3 games and our offense and special teams constantly putting us behind the 8 ball and guys blaming themselves for doing things like missing tackles after being put in perfect position.
So yeah, yo tambien. I too am
OK with Haz staying.
... and, for those of you who are actually paying attention, this means exactly what it says... we are "OK" with Haz staying. Neither of us will complain if a clear upgrade is obtained... but, speaking for myself and not DM, I think Haslett is not the catastrophe that others have portrayed.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:02 pm
by UK Skins Fan
Watching the NFC playoff games, it's clear that one of the best ways to help RG3 in future would be to build an outstanding defence. I suspect that mediocre is the best we could ever hope for under Haslett.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:20 pm
by Countertrey
UK Skins Fan wrote:Watching the NFC playoff games, it's clear that one of the best ways to help RG3 in future would be to build an outstanding defence. I suspect that mediocre is the best we could ever hope for under Haslett.
Reviewing the scores... multiple games with points totals in the 60's and 70's tells me that defense is not currently in vogue...
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:28 pm
by UK Skins Fan
Countertrey wrote:UK Skins Fan wrote:Watching the NFC playoff games, it's clear that one of the best ways to help RG3 in future would be to build an outstanding defence. I suspect that mediocre is the best we could ever hope for under Haslett.
Reviewing the scores... multiple games with points totals in the 60's and 70's tells me that defense is not currently in vogue...
Maybe in the AFC - but in the NFC?
Brady and Manning (P) don't need so much help. But Wilson, Kaepernick and Newton get a lot of help from their respective defences. I still think RG3 can be the best young QB in the NFC, but he gets less help from the rest of the team (and particularly the defence) than those guys.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:49 pm
by DarthMonk
UK Skins Fan wrote:Brady and Manning (P) don't need so much help. But Wilson, Kaepernick and Newton get a lot of help from their respective defences. I still think RG3 can be the best young QB in the NFC, but he gets less help from the rest of the team (and particularly the defence) than those guys.
No question. Good specials help too.
Is the "c" in defense a British/English thing?
Just found this:
Defence vs. defense
Defence and defense are different spellings of the same word. Defense is preferred in American English, and defence is preferred in all other main varieties of English, including Australian, British, and Canadian English. The spelling distinction extends to most derivatives of defence/defense, including defences/defenses and defenceless/defenseless. But the words defensive, defensiveness, and defensively have an s everywhere.
Though defense is now the American spelling, it is not American in origin. The OED and Google Books reveal examples of the spelling from as long ago as the 1300s, many centuries before the United States existed. That spelling continued to appear a fraction of the time through the 19th century, when it was taken up by American writers. Today, to the chagrin of those who dislike American English, the spelling is gaining ground throughout the English-speaking world.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:54 pm
by UK Skins Fan
DarthMonk wrote:Is the "c" in defense a British/English thing?
In short: yes! (or should that be yec? Lol)
It's a crazy and wonderful language
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:35 am
by riggofan
UK Skins Fan wrote:What would be more puzzling about pursuing Guenther is that he's worked in the 4-3 rather than the 3-4. We already have a defensive coordinator trying to coach a scheme he isn't expert in - why go after another?
Unless (please let it be so) we are going to change to a 4-3?
Good coaches are good coaches.
I coach the other football, and I'm just as comfortable with the 4-4-2 as I am the 4-3-3.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:40 am
by SkinsJock
Having a good defense will help and having some decent depth will help the special teams' play ...
a combination of a number of things will see a change for the better in the product on the field this season
the biggest hurdle to overcome is on the defensive side - we have to add some players and make some adjustments on offense but we have such a good QB and other players to work with ... on defense there are some good players but there are just a lot of areas that require major help and the depth is also critical
we have our HC ... now we need a 'leader' as DC - and this guy is a critical ingredient
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:54 am
by SkinsJock
riggofan wrote:UK Skins Fan wrote:What would be more puzzling about pursuing Guenther is that he's worked in the 4-3 rather than the 3-4. We already have a defensive coordinator trying to coach a scheme he isn't expert in - why go after another? Unless (please let it be so) we are going to change to a 4-3?
Good coaches are good coaches. I coach the other football, and I'm just as comfortable with the 4-4-2 as I am the 4-3-3.
I presume you mean soccer and I agree with your point - good coaches are good coaches
the fact is that the 4-3 or 3-4 is not as important as having the athletes and coach be on the same page and executing what you have practiced together
IN ANY SPORT - no defense works well if all the players are not executing the basics and playing with great desire
this is a team game and everyone (coaches and players) need to just do their jobs together
not tackling or not being in the right place are all a much more important ingredient for success than having a 'bad' base defense
I'm not a 'fan' of the 3-4 or the 4-3 ... I just want to see players playing to their capabilities, in the right place on the field and making tackles
a good coach will get his players to be accountable for the mistakes - minimizing the mistakes (& learning from them) is critical to success
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:39 pm
by UK Skins Fan
SkinsJock wrote:I presume you mean soccer
No, he means football. Everybody else is talking about Gridiron
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:14 pm
by Deadskins
riggofan wrote:UK Skins Fan wrote:What would be more puzzling about pursuing Guenther is that he's worked in the 4-3 rather than the 3-4. We already have a defensive coordinator trying to coach a scheme he isn't expert in - why go after another?
Unless (please let it be so) we are going to change to a 4-3?
Good coaches are good coaches.
I coach the other football, and I'm just as comfortable with the 4-4-2 as I am the 4-3-3.
I do to and we actually went to a 4-2-1-2-1 for the last game of the season.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:16 pm
by Irn-Bru
If Haslett stays, one positive side is that he's older and more experienced, which is something the rest of our coaching staff will lack to greater and lesser degrees. Jay Gruden is relatively young for a HC. We've got one of the youngest OC's in NFL history. Raheem Morris is younger than London Fletcher.
With all of the turnover, it's not necessarily bad to keep someone as well established as Haslett is — yes, despite what some are claiming in this thread, the man is well known and respected as a coaching veteran. That kind of presence can help stabilize things in a changing environment.
I'm not saying he's a genius or that we wouldn't be better with an upgrade, but personally I don't see ejecting Haslett and promoting Morris as the answer.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:32 pm
by riggofan
Deadskins wrote:riggofan wrote:UK Skins Fan wrote:What would be more puzzling about pursuing Guenther is that he's worked in the 4-3 rather than the 3-4. We already have a defensive coordinator trying to coach a scheme he isn't expert in - why go after another?
Unless (please let it be so) we are going to change to a 4-3?
Good coaches are good coaches.
I coach the other football, and I'm just as comfortable with the 4-4-2 as I am the 4-3-3.
I do to and we actually went to a 4-2-1-2-1 for the last game of the season.
ha! Sounds like a Klinsmann formation.
Not having coached American football, I don't know if its an exact comparison. I would just expect that professional coaches are capable of coaching different schemes, know the strengths and weaknesses of those schemes, etc; We're just talking about lining up the linebackers and d-linemen differently, right?
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:44 pm
by Deadskins
riggofan wrote:Not having coached American football, I don't know if its an exact comparison. I would just expect that professional coaches are capable of coaching different schemes, know the strengths and weaknesses of those schemes, etc; We're just talking about lining up the linebackers and d-linemen differently, right?
Yes, the soccer formation is back to front, but football is front to back. So a 4-3 is 4 DL and 3 LB, while a 3-4 is 3 DL and 4 LB.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:35 am
by SkinsJock
A 4-3 or a 3-4 is just a base defense - there are many variations that are involved to try and confuse the opposing offense
no matter what base scheme we use if the players do not execute and tackle it is not the fault of the scheme
I do agree that Mike made an error in deciding to change to a 3-4 - it seems that Bill Belicheat persuaded Mike to consider this here ..
whatever ...
the biggest issue we had defensively was a big combination of factors: players not executing what they had practiced, players not making tackles, players not playing with much intensity and coaches making some bad play calls
a huge change is needed but whether Haslett is here or not is not as important as the players making the plays as well as they are capable
the players will play hard given stability above them - they did not have that the past four years
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:55 am
by riggofan
SkinsJock wrote:the biggest issue we had defensively was a big combination of factors: players not executing what they had practiced, players not making tackles, players not playing with much intensity and coaches making some bad play calls
I'm going to disagree just a bit. I think the biggest issue we had defensively was a lack of talent. No offense to those guys, but they can play with all the intensity in the world, they can practice hard and execute the game plan, we still need a few more play makers with the talent to consistently stop a guy like Shady McCoy.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:04 pm
by StorminMormon86
riggofan wrote:I'm going to disagree just a bit. I think the biggest issue we had defensively was a lack of talent. No offense to those guys, but they can play with all the intensity in the world, they can practice hard and execute the game plan, we still need a few more play makers with the talent to consistently stop a guy like Shady McCoy.
This is another reason why I think Haslett was unjustly criticized.
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:36 pm
by SkinsJock
riggofan wrote:SkinsJock wrote:the biggest issue we had defensively was a big combination of factors: players not executing what they had practiced, players not making tackles, players not playing with much intensity and coaches making some bad play calls
I'm going to disagree just a bit. I think the biggest issue we had defensively was a lack of talent. No offense to those guys, but they can play with all the intensity in the world, they can practice hard and execute the game plan, we still need a few more play makers with the talent to consistently stop a guy like Shady McCoy.
ABSOLUTELY - no question that our defense was hurt by a lack of talented players and by the lack of depth ...
this was exacerbated by the players not completely buying into what they were doing - this can be blamed on coaching but I would not put all that "on" Haslett
the team, as a whole, was not as intense as some of the teams we came up against ... or, it did not seem to play with much enthusiasm - this is on Mike
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:17 pm
by riggofan
Funny, just saw this post from Mike Jones on the Insider Mailbag today with the same comments about talent on the d side of the ball:
Shanahan did handcuff Haslett in some areas, but a lot of the problems on defense have been talent-related. If you go through his lineups, how many of those players would have started for other teams? The front seven hasn’t been terrible. But on the back end, the Redskins have lacked stability since before Haslett got here. LaRon Landry, Kareem Moore, Chris Horton, O.J. Atogwe, Madieu Williams, Jordan Pugh, Brandon Meriweather, DeJon Gomes, Bacarri Rambo (and Phillip Thomas and Tanard Jackson in the preseason) have lined up at safety for Haslett in the past four years. The Redskins also have gone through some cornerbacks. DeAngelo Hall and Josh Wilson have been here the longest under Haslett, but we’ve seen Carlos Rogers, Kevin Barnes, Byron Westbrook, Phillip Buchanon and Cedric Griffin all come and go. The second-round pick spent on David Amerson was the highest pick on a defensive back in these past four years. The Redskins this offseason need to make serious investments in their secondary if Haslett is to have a chance to succeed. In years past, they would’ve liked to have added Cortland Finnegan, Aqib Talib and Antoine Winfield, among others. But the salary-cap penalties prevented them from being able to meet those players’ asking prices. You know the saying, “You get what you pay for?” You could argue that outside of Ryan Kerrigan (first-round pick), Jarvis Jenkins (second-rounder), and free agents Barry Cofield, Stephen Bowen and Wilson, Washington has taken the clearance-rack approach to their shopping needs on defense the past four years. The Redskins faced little to no competition in their pursuits of many of those names above.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... -more-jay/
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:31 pm
by SkinsJock
We have 2 areas of great importance - the secondary and the O line ...
The offensive line players we have are not bad per se but they all don't 'fit' the style of offense these guys will play & some are just not good enough
The secondary needs major help and the front 7 needs to be better and have better depth
all in all the FO & scouting department need to have a stellar offseason with both free agents and the draft
same old story - it's like a broken record - 'we're hoping to see some improvement next season'
"let's forget about tomorrow, let's forget about tomorrow, let's forget about tomorrow for, tomorrow never comes ....."
Re: Sources: Jim Haslett to Continue as DC
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:47 pm
by DarthMonk
My brother sent me a sarcastic metaphor concerning Haslett to point out why he should go. Here is the metaphor and my reply:
Me: So this is funny and on point but just for kicks I want to play devil's advocate and add to your sarcastic metaphor.
His sarcastic metaphor followed by my addendum:
I have a mechanic that fixes my car 23% of the time, I think I will tell other people how great he is and I will keep going to him. Why should I look for a new mechanic? I will give him another year and hope my friends will drive me to work.
Of course, before he became my mechanic the only experience he had with my particular car was 15 years ago when he changed the oil. Then a few years ago he became my mechanic but one of the big problems was all his boss did was give him broken tools and parts that really belonged on other cars. Plus his boss kept interfering whenever he was in the middle of a job. There is a new boss now who is likely to stop interfering so I think I want to keep this mechanic for one more year, give him good parts and good tools and see what happens. In hindsight it's actually a miracle he was able to fix my car 23% of the time.