Page 1 of 2
In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:01 am
by UK Skins Fan
I'm not a fan of Haslett staying in DC, but this is food for thought. The man has been crippled by a switch in systems, poor drafting, the cap hit and bad luck.
Trouble is, his defences never seem to have been better than average, anywhere.
http://redskins.espn980.com/bloggers/ch ... tts-future
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:10 am
by DarthMonk
UK Skins Fan wrote:I'm not a fan of Haslett staying in DC, but this is food for thought. The man has been crippled by a switch in systems, poor drafting, the cap hit and bad luck.
Trouble is, his defences never seem to have been better than average, anywhere.
http://redskins.espn980.com/bloggers/ch ... tts-future
A good read with lots of good info.
Thanks.
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:14 pm
by DarthMonk
Kyle Shanahan, now 34, has bristled at the suggestion that his rise has come because of his father; in fact, he joined his dad in Washington only after making a name as an offensive innovator with other teams. Still, Shanahan has mostly allowed his son to craft the offense as he saw fit, watching offensive meetings sometimes on a closed-circuit video feed and approving Kyle’s game plan but rarely making broad changes.
This wasn’t the case for the defense. Shanahan, in his second year into the job, began sitting in on coaches’ defensive meetings. According to a former coach, staff members stormed out several times, furious after Shanahan had changed that week’s defensive game plan.
Haslett, the defensive coordinator and a former NFL head coach, also had part of his play-calling duties on the defense usurped by Shanahan, according to two coaches and a veteran player.
One of Shanahan’s first calls came in September 2011, during a game at Dallas. With the Cowboys on their own 30 with 2 minutes 20 seconds to play, Shanahan called an all-out blitz — “Cover-0,” as it is known — and it backfired, resulting in Dallas quarterback Tony Romo finding wide receiver Dez Bryant for a 30-yard gain. Dallas eventually kicked a field goal for an 18-16 victory, and Haslett was left to shoulder the blame.
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 4:00 pm
by Smithian
DarthMonk wrote:Kyle Shanahan, now 34, has bristled at the suggestion that his rise has come because of his father; in fact, he joined his dad in Washington only after making a name as an offensive innovator with other teams. Still, Shanahan has mostly allowed his son to craft the offense as he saw fit, watching offensive meetings sometimes on a closed-circuit video feed and approving Kyle’s game plan but rarely making broad changes.
This wasn’t the case for the defense. Shanahan, in his second year into the job, began sitting in on coaches’ defensive meetings. According to a former coach, staff members stormed out several times, furious after Shanahan had changed that week’s defensive game plan.
Haslett, the defensive coordinator and a former NFL head coach, also had part of his play-calling duties on the defense usurped by Shanahan, according to two coaches and a veteran player.
One of Shanahan’s first calls came in September 2011, during a game at Dallas. With the Cowboys on their own 30 with 2 minutes 20 seconds to play, Shanahan called an all-out blitz — “Cover-0,” as it is known — and it backfired, resulting in Dallas quarterback Tony Romo finding wide receiver Dez Bryant for a 30-yard gain. Dallas eventually kicked a field goal for an 18-16 victory, and Haslett was left to shoulder the blame.
Very damning article. Haslett is a bad defensive coordinator, but a lot of issues can be put on personnel and a highly flawed head coach.
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:32 am
by StorminMormon86
Smithian wrote:DarthMonk wrote:Kyle Shanahan, now 34, has bristled at the suggestion that his rise has come because of his father; in fact, he joined his dad in Washington only after making a name as an offensive innovator with other teams. Still, Shanahan has mostly allowed his son to craft the offense as he saw fit, watching offensive meetings sometimes on a closed-circuit video feed and approving Kyle’s game plan but rarely making broad changes.
This wasn’t the case for the defense. Shanahan, in his second year into the job, began sitting in on coaches’ defensive meetings. According to a former coach, staff members stormed out several times, furious after Shanahan had changed that week’s defensive game plan.
Haslett, the defensive coordinator and a former NFL head coach, also had part of his play-calling duties on the defense usurped by Shanahan, according to two coaches and a veteran player.
One of Shanahan’s first calls came in September 2011, during a game at Dallas. With the Cowboys on their own 30 with 2 minutes 20 seconds to play, Shanahan called an all-out blitz — “Cover-0,” as it is known — and it backfired, resulting in Dallas quarterback Tony Romo finding wide receiver Dez Bryant for a 30-yard gain. Dallas eventually kicked a field goal for an 18-16 victory, and Haslett was left to shoulder the blame.
Very damning article. Haslett is a bad defensive coordinator, but a lot of issues can be put on personnel and a highly flawed head coach.
+1
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:46 am
by SkinsJock
Haslett is not a bad DC - he may not be a really good DC but a lot of the issues here defensively were not entirely due to him ...
Mike has to take some of the blame for this as well as other things he messed up here ...
IMO the guys that really need to be replaced at the top are Mike, Kyle and Keith ...
Haslett is most likely gone as well but I would not be surprised to see him do well somewhere else
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:54 am
by UK Skins Fan
SkinsJock wrote:Haslett is not a bad DC - he may not be a really good DC but a lot of the issues here defensively were not entirely due to him ...
Mike has to take some of the blame for this as well as other things he messed up here ...
IMO the guys that really need to be replaced at the top are Mike, Kyle and Keith ...
Haslett is most likely gone as well but I would not be surprised to see him do well somewhere else
He's not done well anywhere else before, apart from getting a decent performance out of the wealth of talent he had in Pittsburgh for a year. I WOULD be surprised to see him do well elsewhere!
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:32 pm
by RayNAustin
I think we'll be hearing more inside dirt, as things clear out, but this bit of news is REMARKABLE if less than surprising.
I've been a consistent defender of Haslett out of fairness, based on the tough spot he was in, without even knowing about Shanahan undermining his authority and interferring in both game plans and ingame decisions. That info just makes it more difficult to legitimately put the blame on him.
#1 - it was Shanahan who insisted on a switch to 34 defense when the roster didn't support that scheme. We had a solid 43 roster, and a very decent defence when Shanahan arrived.. That was the ultimate cause of the Hanesworth soap opera, and of course, Hanesworth was a total azz, but truthfully, he did sign here to be 43 DT, and a switch to NT was not in his best interests or best utilization of his abilities to dominate inside. So he did have a legit gripe, and Shanahan did basically make the relationship unworkable.
#2 Aside from DHall, Haz had NOTHING reliable in the secondary, and what he had was injured much of the time. No DC can make a defense work with 3/4 of your DB's poor performers. And the cap penalty(Hanesworth being a big part of that) prevented a free agent fix ... so haz gets Rambo? Who scouted this guy who can't cover or tackle? Everybody knew going into this season (two rookies starting) that this secondary was a big weakness, and in a passing league, that is a recipe for exactly what happened .... a disaster.
I think Haz did a good job down the stretch last year, but this year, I don't think anyone could have done much with the lack of talent, combined with an offense and putrid special teams constantly puting the defense behind a huge 8 Ball.
They played decent against the run, but with no backfield talent that could cover, or tackle, or make plays .... what the hell did anyone expect the DC to do? The old saying comes to mind ... "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sht."
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:36 pm
by UK Skins Fan
RayNAustin wrote:The old saying comes to mind ... "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sht."
You obviously go to better restaurants than me.
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:12 pm
by RayNAustin
UK Skins Fan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:The old saying comes to mind ... "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sht."
You obviously go to better restaurants than me.
For you fellows on the other side of the pond .... "you can't make Yorkshire Pudding out of poo"
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:15 pm
by UK Skins Fan
RayNAustin wrote:UK Skins Fan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:The old saying comes to mind ... "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sht."
You obviously go to better restaurants than me.
For you fellows on the other side of the pond .... "you can't make Yorkshire Pudding out of poo"
Nicely done
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:52 pm
by Irn-Bru
RayNAustin wrote:I've been a consistent defender of Haslett out of fairness, based on the tough spot he was in, without even knowing about Shanahan undermining his authority and interferring in both game plans and ingame decisions. That info just makes it more difficult to legitimately put the blame on him.
I think that's where it goes, ultimately: to Shanahan. Haslett did an OK job here, IMHO. But it's also not that risky to roll the dice with someone else and hope they prove better.
#1 - it was Shanahan who insisted on a switch to 34 defense when the roster didn't support that scheme. We had a solid 43 roster, and a very decent defence when Shanahan arrived.. That was the ultimate cause of the Hanesworth soap opera, and of course, Hanesworth was a total azz, but truthfully, he did sign here to be 43 DT, and a switch to NT was not in his best interests or best utilization of his abilities to dominate inside. So he did have a legit gripe, and Shanahan did basically make the relationship unworkable.
I think this gets a couple of things wrong:
(1) Haynesworth underperformed in his first year here, big-time. He was barely a starting-quality player and clearly had attitude issues already. His 2012 year was a disaster waiting to happen.
(2) In the rare moments where Haynesworth did put a little effort into his scarce playing time, he showed that he still had the ability to blow things up. A switch in scheme was not going to be something that sunk his career, even from the selfish point of view that we should have been running an entire defense around the concept of meeting Haynesworth's "best interests" and "best utilization."
(3) What Shanahan did was absolutely the right way to handle a diva. He gave Haynesworth the exact same treatment that he gave lesser-known disappointments like Josh LeRiebus: show me that you are here to work and then you can earn opportunities. It doesn't go the other way around. Haynesworth budged only after testing Mike to see if he could be pushed around a bit.
(4) If anything I'm saying is untrue, then more than likely Haynesworth would have had at least some success with either the two teams he played for following the Redskins OR some other team that picked him up once Tampa realized they couldn't use him. He was only 30-31 at that point and still relatively low-mileage. If you try a light bulb in three different sockets and it doesn't turn on, the chances are that the problem is with your light bulb and not your wiring.
#2 Aside from DHall, Haz had NOTHING reliable in the secondary, and what he had was injured much of the time. No DC can make a defense work with 3/4 of your DB's poor performers. And the cap penalty(Hanesworth being a big part of that) prevented a free agent fix ... so haz gets Rambo? Who scouted this guy who can't cover or tackle? Everybody knew going into this season (two rookies starting) that this secondary was a big weakness, and in a passing league, that is a recipe for exactly what happened .... a disaster.
Agreed on the safeties. With Merriweather actually staying healthy, we didn't have as bad a year in our secondary as 2012, but it was close. However, I actually think Wilson played OK this year and Amerson was even getting good by the end of the season. (I'm expecting big things from him going forward.)
I think Haz did a good job down the stretch last year, but this year, I don't think anyone could have done much with the lack of talent, combined with an offense and putrid special teams constantly puting the defense behind a huge 8 Ball.
Agreed. To me, the thing that hurt our defense the most, consistently, was poor field position from horrifically bad special teams and an offense that tended to sputter early in games. Turnovers and punts from deep in our own territory practically handed other teams 3 points with the opportunity to take 7.
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:54 pm
by Irn-Bru
RayNAustin wrote:UK Skins Fan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:The old saying comes to mind ... "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sht."
You obviously go to better restaurants than me.
For you fellows on the other side of the pond .... "you can't make Yorkshire Pudding out of poo"
But what about
spotted dick?
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:56 pm
by Kilmer72
Lol..... Thanks for that Irn. Really funny
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:09 pm
by StorminMormon86
Over at redskins.com, they have a list of 8 other coaches who were fired besides Mike. Haslett is not on that list. Why?
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:14 pm
by Kilmer72
StorminMormon86 wrote:Over at redskins.com, they have a list of 8 other coaches who were fired besides Mike. Haslett is not on that list. Why?
He is not gone yet. Good stuff right here
http://streema.com/radios/ESPN_980_WWXX
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:34 pm
by UK Skins Fan
A classic of English cuisine
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:38 pm
by Kilmer72
UK Skins Fan wrote:A classic of English cuisine
As a chef I want to know how often Beef Wellington is eaten there?
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:45 pm
by UK Skins Fan
Kilmer72 wrote:UK Skins Fan wrote:A classic of English cuisine
As a chef I want to know how often Beef Wellington is eaten there?
That's just about my favourite dish. It's not eaten anywhere near as much as it should be, but that's probably related to price. For less money, people can get a lot more steak with chips (fries to you). Also, it's not available in enough places. Beef Wellington, followed by Spotted Dick - magic
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:47 pm
by Countertrey
This has taken an unfortunate turn...
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:08 am
by UK Skins Fan
Countertrey wrote:This has taken an unfortunate turn...
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:35 am
by DaSkinz Baby
This seems to me or any other person with any type of Football understanding that if someone doesn't have a good defense in New Orleans and get's fired, then goes to St. Louis and get's fired, and that is with a 4-3, then comes to another team and changes what he did AND FAILED AT IT, and then for 4 years has a 3-4 defense that consistently ranked at the bottom, for me, that alone is enough to warrant dismissal, I don't know too many employers that keep employee's that have consistent decreased production, I can only think at Dysfunction Alley, AKA Redskins Park, I believe Haslett went to Allen and or Snyder and told them he was against the 3-4 switch, and that it was told to switch and even when it wasn't working Shanahan didn't care. I mean to me when has Shanahan ever been known to be a defensive guru? Besides he only switched to a 3-4 because Belicheat told him too and told him to hire Haslett!! At this point since nothing can be done I don't mind Haslett still being here. His days are numbered, my greatest issue with all who are still left hired is the Forrester. WTF is that bum still here, the way Chester and Polumbus played and he couldn't coach no other lineman up to take the starting positions away from them two sap suckers, he should have been sent packing along with Mike and Kyle, I also think Bobby Turner should have been retained. He did do good work with Helu and Morris IMHO.......
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:01 am
by Countertrey
UK Skins Fan wrote:A classic of English cuisine
Should the words "classic", "English", and "cuisine" ever be seen in the same sentence?
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:43 am
by DarthMonk
Countertrey wrote:Should the words "classic", "English", and "cuisine" ever be seen in the same sentence?
Only when asking ... or perhaps when answering.
Re: In defence of Haslett's defence
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:28 pm
by UK Skins Fan
Countertrey wrote:UK Skins Fan wrote:A classic of English cuisine
Should the words "classic", "English", and "cuisine" ever be seen in the same sentence?
Absolutely. Over here, we invented some foods that don't involve relish.