The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

There's been speculation that Haynesworth would not be happy playing in a 3-4. I've repeatedly stated I believe he'll be played at end, almost exclusively, because NT is a special position. It's not about size necessarily, it's about intelligence, unselfishness, technique and strength. Haynesworth is too much of a me-me guy to ever be productive at NT. Seems obvious to me anyway. But the article below, mentions Haslett intends to move him back and forth from NT to end.

I am hoping the speculation about Hayensworth's unhappiness started before we signed Kemo and that the reason we signed Kemo was to insure we have a NT capable of allowing Haynesworth to stay at end. but with Haynesworth's antics last season, complaining when Blache dared to use him in a way he didn't approve of (for parts of a couple games ) I wouldn't be surprised if he whines again this year. if he does, I say trade him while you still can. If he shuts up and plays well, then maybe we can call him a team player and be happy with him for years to come.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redski ... st-st.html

Some of Haynesworth's attitude may have been related to a personality clash with Blache... whom we know can be very stubborn (remember his adamant refusal to adapt to Jason Taylor's strengths)...

from the Redskins Insider...

Despite all the criticism of Haynesworth last season, there is no denying the impact he had on the defense. His presence in the middle of the line helped to elevate the level of play of the entire defense, said assistant coaches on other teams who have studied film of the Redskins.

Eyebrows were raised in the coaching offices at the complex early last season when former defensive coordinator Gregg Blache said Haynesworth didn't help to make his teammates better. Two former Redskins assistants told me they strongly disagreed with Blache, who feuded with Haynesworth during the season.

All emphasis is mine, not Jason Reid's.

I don't know what to think of this divergence of opinion... even among Redskins coaching staff... but clearly, there was more here than meets the eye... and perhaps it wasn't all on Haynesworth...

I am very grateful for Blache's services while he was with us. I am equally happy to see him retired.

The jury is out on this one. On one hand, I hate whining players, and it's Haynesworth's job to do what he's told. On the other hand, the coaching staff would be nuts not to work out a scheme that makes the best use of his abilities.

He hasn't said a word, to my knowledge, since the new staff were hired. I'm sure he's waiting to see what they have planned for him. I'm hopeful that it will be good for everybody.

But a whining Haynesworth would not only reflect badly on him - I think the coaches would have to take some blame if they just use him a big immovable lump.

Redskin in Canada wrote:I am very grateful for Blache's services while he was with us. I am equally happy to see him retired.

I think Blache was a very good DC. Was he stubborn and set in his ways? Sure. But how many coaches welcome change with open arms? MOst of them have to drill technique and discipline endlessly to get the team on the same page. So I don't fault him for daring to use Haynesworth differently in a game or two. NFL teams watch tape every week and scout opponents endlessly. I am sure Blache worked up a scheme to simply catch some opponents off guard. But Haynesworth has not shown he is a guy who will sacrifice his own personal success for the team very often.

Back to the present day. We have a new coaching staff and new defense. Coaches probably want to put together a multi-faceted attack where they can move players around and create mismatches. Some of those packages may call for Haynesworth to occasionally move to NT to force the offense to adjust. Let's see what happens as this plays out. It would not surprise me to hear Haynesworth complaining that he is "not being used properly" again. I hope I am wrong. I really do.

I don't really think Blache ever "worked up" any scheme that would catch any opposing team off guard. I'm sick and tired of passive defence in DC, and I'm hoping that the new scheme involves Haynesworth and Orakpo pushing opposing QB's and running backs into the dirt on a regular basis.

UK Skins Fan wrote:I don't really think Blache ever "worked up" any scheme that would catch any opposing team off guard. I'm sick and tired of passive defence in DC, and I'm hoping that the new scheme involves Haynesworth and Orakpo pushing opposing QB's and running backs into the dirt on a regular basis.

Carter and Orakpo both got double digit sacks last season? Passive? and they racked up those numbers with a defensive backfield that was torched weekly. I'm not saying Blache was DC of the year, but Blache's defense did a pretty respectable job considering all things.

As an example, look at Carter. He publicly stated he really enjoyed playing for Blache and respected Blache's defensive schemes. Carter, like Haynesworth, is put in a position where he may not like the changes coming with the 3-4 defense. But Carter has already stated that he will do whatever they ask of him and he is planning to report for all the off season workouts and mini-camps as an OLB. Skins may trade him, but it won't be because he is whining. He will play as OLB if that is what the coaches ask him to do. That's a professional.

Attacking defences create turnovers, and we haven't done that since 1945 (a slight exaggeration? )

UK Skins Fan wrote:Attacking defences create turnovers, and we haven't done that since 1945 (a slight exaggeration? )

They were 8th in the NFL in sacks. But to get INT's, you need someone other than "stone hands" Rogers and Laron "Whiplash" Landry playing the back four. But I will agree Blache's defenses were not the best turnover creators in the league. But they were solid generally.

Irregardless, Blache is gone and we will see if Haynesworth will complain with a whole new coaching staff.

fleetus wrote:If he shuts up and plays well, then maybe we can call him a team player and be happy with him for years to come

There's nothing in this new about Haynesworth. If he doesn't get his way he doesn't play well and he pouts. So you give him his way so he plays well...and pouts.

fleetus wrote:I think Blache was a very good DC. Was he stubborn and set in his ways? Sure.

He was good. He was not great.

I hated his prevent defensive schemes.

I hated his CBs seating 10 to 15 yards from the line watching short passes completed before them.

I hated his lack of courage to design an attack defense.

I am not impressed with the progress made by the defense under his guidance and most importantly, he did not fully take advantage of the players that he had. So, yes, we agree: He was stubborn.

It bares repeating: I am glad we had him. I am glad he has retired.

I think Blache was a very good DC.

No, he wasn't. He was a mediocre DC in Chicago and he was mediocre here.

Count me in the group that thinks we'll be a better defense without Blache - as far as I can see the only thing good with his defensive units is that we rated well on the defensive stat sheet - his defenses just did not help the franchise and they certainly did not mean that we could consistently get the ball back in our offenses hands in the 4th quarter

good stats disapointing results = Blache

I'm willing to let Haynesworth and Haslett work things out - I think Haynesworth might enjoy playing defense for this group this year

Haslett was an aggressive player... and is an aggressive coach. He will want results... in turnovers... in field position... and in points scored. I don't see him doing anything to restrain a potential wrecking ball in Haynesworth, whom will do far more damage to an offense if permitted to penetrate than if used to occupy blockers.

He'll turn em loose... if he trusts them. With Fletch on the field, leading the front 7, what's not to trust?

Blache... apparently trusted NO ONE... was stubborn to the point of spite, and (IMO) coached to not loose. I don't think his departure qualifies as a significant loss.

Haslett was an aggressive player... and is an aggressive coach. He will want results... in turnovers... in field position... and in points scored. I don't see him doing anything to restrain a potential wrecking ball in Haynesworth, whom will do far more damage to an offense if permitted to penetrate than if used to occupy blockers.

He'll turn em loose... if he trusts them. With Fletch on the field, leading the front 7, what's not to trust?

Blache... apparently trusted NO ONE... was stubborn to the point of spite, and (IMO) coached to not loose. I don't think his departure qualifies as a significant loss.

fleetus wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Attacking defences create turnovers, and we haven't done that since 1945 (a slight exaggeration? )

They were 8th in the NFL in sacks. But to get INT's, you need someone other than "stone hands" Rogers and Laron "Whiplash" Landry playing the back four. But I will agree Blache's defenses were not the best turnover creators in the league. But they were solid generally.

Irregardless, Blache is gone and we will see if Haynesworth will complain with a whole new coaching staff.

Stone Hands and Whiplash... I mean you couldn't have said it any better than that!

langleyparkjoe wrote:

fleetus wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Attacking defences create turnovers, and we haven't done that since 1945 (a slight exaggeration? )

They were 8th in the NFL in sacks. But to get INT's, you need someone other than "stone hands" Rogers and Laron "Whiplash" Landry playing the back four. But I will agree Blache's defenses were not the best turnover creators in the league. But they were solid generally.

Irregardless, Blache is gone and we will see if Haynesworth will complain with a whole new coaching staff.

Stone Hands and Whiplash... I mean you couldn't have said it any better than that!

Rogers I have no excuse for...Landry needs to play in his natural position before I criticize. Until then, I criticize the coaching staff...

VetSkinsFan wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

fleetus wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Attacking defences create turnovers, and we haven't done that since 1945 (a slight exaggeration? )

They were 8th in the NFL in sacks. But to get INT's, you need someone other than "stone hands" Rogers and Laron "Whiplash" Landry playing the back four. But I will agree Blache's defenses were not the best turnover creators in the league. But they were solid generally.

Irregardless, Blache is gone and we will see if Haynesworth will complain with a whole new coaching staff.

Stone Hands and Whiplash... I mean you couldn't have said it any better than that!

Rogers I have no excuse for...Landry needs to play in his natural position before I criticize. Until then, I criticize the coaching staff...

Watching your own game footage and realizing your getting creamed on double moves should be a player's problem. The coach putting in the DVD and hitting play should be the coach's priority.

The one defense of Blache's conservative defense has to take into account an offense that routinely failed to score 17 points. And his defensive scheme of bend but not break kept the games close.

It's a lot easier to play aggressive defense and come up with turnovers when playing with a lead ... something the Redskins rarely had the luxury.

At the same time, I didn't care for Blache's arrogance and stubbornness. When you are 3-6 ... play aggressive ... what do you have to lose? I especially couldn't fathom playing DBs 10 yards off the line on 3rd and 4 as was routine for that bunch.

As for Haynesworth, I think it's a good sign that he wants to be in situations that better suits his skills and offers the most success. That tells me that he isn't satisfied with just collecting the big check, and going through the motions. He wants to make a big impact ... and for what he's being paid, the Redskins need him to make a big impact.

My concern with the new regime resides in the fact that the biggest weakness last year was IMHO, Landry and Rogers, and perhaps an under utilization of the skills of Orakpo playing LB. Now, it seems the defense is being turned inside out ... and I think the 3-4 isn't the best fit for the personnel in place.

Given our shortage of LBs, and the inexperience of the ones we have in a 3-4, and blowing up the D-line that just had a solid season ... I'm not liking the overall approach we see right now, given the lack of solid moves on the offensive side, where the focus should have been concentrated.

2010 could be a very long season.

I don't really understand the point of your thread. Has anybody else heard something to indicate that Haynesworth is "already becoming a problem"? I keep seeing this sort of speculation, but Haynesworth is at voluntary workouts this week doing his job.

I was never a Blache fan myself. The defense last year was OK, but was I alone in expecting that defense to be a little more special last year? I think Gregg Williams fielded better defenses with less talent.

RayNAustin wrote:The one defense of Blache's conservative defense has to take into account an offense that routinely failed to score 17 points. And his defensive scheme of bend but not break kept the games close.

It's a lot easier to play aggressive defense and come up with turnovers when playing with a lead ... something the Redskins rarely had the luxury.

At the same time, I didn't care for Blache's arrogance and stubbornness. When you are 3-6 ... play aggressive ... what do you have to lose? I especially couldn't fathom playing DBs 10 yards off the line on 3rd and 4 as was routine for that bunch.

Geeez, I do not believe it. I AGREE

As for Haynesworth, I think it's a good sign that he wants to be in situations that better suits his skills and offers the most success. That tells me that he isn't satisfied with just collecting the big check, and going through the motions. He wants to make a big impact ... and for what he's being paid, the Redskins need him to make a big impact.

AH wants to win. He is my kind of player. Theone who understands the value of a TEAM but wants to make the best contribution HE can make.

My concern with the new regime resides in the fact that the biggest weakness last year was IMHO, Landry and Rogers, and perhaps an under utilization of the skills of Orakpo playing LB. Now, it seems the defense is being turned inside out ... and I think the 3-4 isn't the best fit for the personnel in place.

You and about everybody else has a great amount of misgivings about this transiton. There is no question in my mind that a drop in defense might result next year as an investment for better performance in 2011.

Given our shortage of LBs, and the inexperience of the ones we have in a 3-4, and blowing up the D-line that just had a solid season ... I'm not liking the overall approach we see right now, given the lack of solid moves on the offensive side, where the focus should have been concentrated.

For the life of me, please let us focus on our OL and offense. I do not feel that the DL is a higher priority than our OL. We still need a good ILB but if we have good scouts and a good Draft, he may come our way. FA is not over either. So, I am hopeful. BUT, there is no question OL is the highest priority ... Okung, Okung, Okung

2010 could be a very long season.

Not necessarily ... PROVIDED that significant improvement takes place at offense. It is the OVERALL balance on offense and defense that matters.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Not necessarily ... PROVIDED that significant improvement takes place at offense. It is the OVERALL balance on offense and defense that matters.

Man, I'm not expecting overnight miracles, but the offense HAS to be at least a little bit better than last year.

Didn't Haynesworth play in a 3-4 in Tennessee? I don't know because I really didn't pay Tennessee much attention, but I thought I heard that somewhere.

I'm equally shocked to see the people that I agree with in this thread. Blache was a decent DC for us, but he had the same flaws that Williams had; It was more about the system than the players in it.

Like RiC, I also found myself screaming at the TV watching our corners sit 10 yards off the line, and safties somewhere in another zip-code for coverage. I know the idea is to keep the play in front of you, but die the death of a thousand paper-cuts letting teams gains 4-yards at a time.

"Bend; don't break" has the flaw of bending so much that the opponent has an easier chance of scoring. I say don't bend or break. Focus on getting that "three-and-out" more than "well, at least they didn't score on THAT play."

Bob 0119 wrote:Didn't Haynesworth play in a 3-4 in Tennessee? I don't know because I really didn't pay Tennessee much attention, but I thought I heard that somewhere.

I'm equally shocked to see the people that I agree with in this thread. Blache was a decent DC for us, but he had the same flaws that Williams had; It was more about the system than the players in it.

Like RiC, I also found myself screaming at the TV watching our corners sit 10 yards off the line, and safties somewhere in another zip-code for coverage. I know the idea is to keep the play in front of you, but die the death of a thousand paper-cuts letting teams gains 4-yards at a time.

"Bend; don't break" has the flaw of bending so much that the opponent has an easier chance of scoring. I say don't bend or break. Focus on getting that "three-and-out" more than "well, at least they didn't score on THAT play."

Titans run a 4-3.

I feel like Williams created the defense to suit our players, namely Taylor who could play 30 yards off the ball and get to any spot on the field in a matter of seconds. When he died, Blache put LL in that role. Didn't work and he didn't adjust.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Not necessarily ... PROVIDED that significant improvement takes place at offense. It is the OVERALL balance on offense and defense that matters.

And why should we anticipate a significant improvement on offense? We have the same QB who now has a new system to learn, and has proven to be a rather slow learner as well as mediocre, coupled with a new offensive line (hopefully) that has to learn not only a new offense, but also a zone blocking scheme that is significantly different than conventional ...

As much as it was a welcomed event to finally get a GM running the team, so far, I see no sign of actions that would support an optimistic view of 2010. The way they are working, this looks more like a multi-year rebuilding with a potential lockout in 2011.

Maybe some blockbuster trades are on the horizon ... and a great plan for the draft ... but I expected a bit more activity given an uncapped year ahead and an owner that is willing to spend.