Productivity from a Defensive Tackle Standpoint

[Forehead]

I think Haynesworth was successful. People can say all they want that he wasn't out there all the time and would sit out plays, blah blah blah. The dude was constantly going against 2 people every single play. Anyone would get worn down facing that. I agree his conditioning could've been better, but he still would've been taking breathers every so often.

His job was to help improve our pass rush. Considering we had 2 guys get double digit sacks, I'd say he did his job.

Not an excuse. Many D-Tackles have to deal with that. You think Kevin Williams or Haloti Ngata aren't double teamed? 4-3 or 3-4, unless a guard is specifically trying to get to the second level to take on a backer, D-Tackles are frequently going to be double teamed, or at the very least chipped by a second player on the way by. And even if they get a one on one matchup, there exists the possibility of the fullback taking them on one second later, so yet another double team.

I don't think Haynesworth is that special just because of taking on 2 guys. How does that separate him from a dozen other guys at his position? I don't see them falling down on the field and being carted off, only to make a miraculous re-entry into the game the next set of downs.

[MartinC]

I do not, mostly because of the contract. Haynesworth is a very good player, but for someone that has a 100 million (41 million guaranteed) dollar guaranteed contract, I expect better than to be collapsing from exhaustion every other game.

Haynesworth takes on double teams....great, a number of D-Tackles can do that. Haynesworth gets sacks....while I admit this is a nice luxury to have from the D-Tackle spot, I don't consider it a necessity.

I don't blame him for taking the money, but for that kind of cash, I'm basically expecting him to sprout wings and fly over the O-line at the snap. And I'm damn sure expecting him to show up in shape. Basically, he can't succeed from the D-Tackle spot at that amount of money. That kind of contract should be reserved for QB's only, maybe franchise Left Tackles, and even then I'm not so sure.

I don't think it a coincidence that with Haynesworth in the line up Cater went from 4 sacks the year before to 11 sacks and Orakpo was able to get 11 sacks as a rookie. Meanwhile Venden Bosch went from 12 sacks in 2007 his last full year (he was hurt in 2008) with Haynesworth to 3 sacks last year.

[KDawg]

I don't think it a coincidence that with Haynesworth in the line up Cater went from 4 sacks the year before to 11 sacks and Orakpo was able to get 11 sacks as a rookie. Meanwhile Venden Bosch went from 12 sacks in 2007 his last full year (he was hurt in 2008) with Haynesworth to 3 sacks last year.

I'm glad you posted that stat.

It's very telling in my mind. Carters productivity jumped up by almost ten sacks and VandenBosch's went down by almost ten sacks.

That seems extremely important to this conversation.

The next question, of course, is was that whole thing coincidence? My feeling is absolutely not, but, I'm sure there is some argument that can be made for that side of the fence. And if anyone has it, please bring it to light

[Forehead]

Okay, cool.

Next question for you, specifically, does the contract bother you as much now now that we're uncapped AND the reason for the overpaying (Vinny Cerrato) is gone? Does it seem like a better deal?

Not as much no, but counting on an uncapped year back when the deal was done I thought was foolish. But do you really want to frontload it now to get a substantial amount off the books? I could see that killing Haynesworth's motivation to do anything at all if he can swim in his money like Scrooge McDuck.

I look at it more as a "what could have been" thing. We already had Griffin, but we could never count on him being healthy. I conbine this deal with the DeAngelo Hall deal (another huge overpayment) and think that for 150 million dollars, we could have signed five or six good players instead of two. Two of them could have been D-Tackles, 1 Corner, and two other positions of need.

They might not have been Haynesworth level superstars, but I would have gladly paired Carlos Rogers with a slightly lesser CB than Hall, Griffin with another solid but unspectacular DTackle, and used the rest to do something else, such as giving Campbell a little extra time to throw. Maybe the OL investments are stopgap veterans, but we needed to do better than Stephon Heyer.

[Sellersfan]

I agree fully. His conditioning, quite frankly, sucked. He needs to be in MUCH better shape. But, he was constantly facing multiple offensive players which will wear someone down, especially someone not in great shape (like Haynesworth).

He absolutely did his job, in my opinion. Our sack totals sky rocketed (some of that, obviously in thanks to the pass rushing skills of Orakpo) and he was a large part of the reason why.

So, here's another question, ES, what can Haynesworth do to make himself viewed as being productive from the vast majority of our fanbase? What do you think? Get in better shape? Get more sacks/tackles? Anything you think, please post.

I really like the direction this thread is going, so let's keep pushing it

Haynesworth needs to be in more plays. Being winded on the sidelines concerned me about his conditioning.

I was also concerned about his ankle. I thought it was a weak excuse at first. I've sprained an ankle, and without state of the art training facilities healed faster. But, then I realized I'm not 350 pounds. Thats alot of weight for a skinny little ankle to bear.

I think Haynesworth's tirade about the defensive scheme at the end of the year is telling as well. Let him loose, and be disruptive. That is his strength. There is little finness on the Dline, it needs to be brutality.

[fansince62]

KDAWG...I know you don't think you're better than others. It's the tone I'm objecting to. I find myself responding to this more than anything else on this board. Let's take the painful JC arguments...the JC supporters have made some credible arguments....however incomplete at times. but, in their frustration with what they see as condescending negativity at the extreme...they adopt a similar tone. make a case and let the argument stand on its own merits. these folks too often fall into the very trap they claim others deliberately snare themselves in....and set themselves up for biting counters.

anywho...as suggested (and as one who acknowledges he lives by the sword too often): in my mind you are one of the more thoughtful posters on this board. you adopt a more positive tone as well - this is good but sets you up for hypocrisy charges when you go after groups of people. My rec is keep to your principled approach and leavce the caterwauling to low lifes like me! you are the better, mpore respectable person for it!

too much cyber print on this one! Good thread...keep it stashed so we can revisit it once Haslet's ideas become more visible on the field.

addendum: you might have said "We are in for some interesting changes in defensive scheme/philosophy. in the past, we ES'ers have argued at length about the quality/value of our DTs. I'd like to revisit these discussions and burrow down a bit to uncover some common attributes the community believes qualify a solid to superior DT. This can serve as a starting point for assessing one part of the defensive scheme/roster synchronizing that is going to have happen through free agency, the draft and role reassignments. we have already seen some role reassignmnets for the DEs. What about DT? we just shed the Griff-man. What do you think Haslet is looking for and where will he find it?"

[#98QBKiller]

So with all of that said, why, or why do you not view Albert Haynesworth a success in our system from last season.

I view Haynesworth a success here based on last season because of the dramatic increase in sack production. We went from #28 in sacks in 2008 to #8 in sacks in 2009.

Now, I'm sure that the presence of Brian Orakpo helped that stat out a lot, but for both Orakpo and Andre Carter to get 10+ sacks in a season, I think that says a lot about the value of Haynesworth. I don't think either rusher would've gotten that many sacks w/out Haynesworth.

And from most accounts it sounds like Blache wasn't allowing Haynesworth to rip upfield like he was allowed to do in Tennessee. That makes our much-improved pass-rush that much more impressive IMO.

[JGordon_3]

I think a DT's success is measured by how much time the opposing QB spends in the pocket and how much the other team can run between the tackles.

If the DT is collapsing the pocket regularly, that's a stud DE and I think that's 3-4 or 4-3.

[Forehead]

I don't think it a coincidence that with Haynesworth in the line up Carter went from 4 sacks the year before to 11 sacks and Orakpo was able to get 11 sacks as a rookie. Meanwhile Venden Bosch went from 12 sacks in 2007 his last full year (he was hurt in 2008) with Haynesworth to 3 sacks last year.

Hold on though, Andre Carter also had a 10.5 sack season the year before he had his 4 sack season. Who were our D-Tackles then? Griffin and Anthony Montgomery? Not to mention his 12.5 sack season earlier in his career with the 49ers. He's done it without Haynesworth in there.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I'm about to head out the door, so I can't look up the article (maybe someone can find it for me) but I read in a news article that Haynesworth played something like 10% more of the downs while he was with us than he ever did with Tennessee.

If this is true, then his conditioning should be (not excused) but understood and given some of a pass. We hired a guy who played somewhere in the 60s in terms of percent of plays, and asked him to play closer to 75% of them.

More on topic, I think Haynesworth was a huge success. People seem to have quickly forgotten the 06 and 08 seasons when we set records for sack ineptitude.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

as far as haynesworth is concerned, he did everything i think a DT should do. he stuffed run plays up the middle, he drew double teams, he was unblockable in short yardage situation, and he created pressure up the middle.

my problem with haynesworth is that he was out of shape, which goes to the heart of his character, and in turn hurt our defense when he wasnt on the field. contract aside, a guy that we all know is as good as he is shouldnt be wheezing every game and being carted off the field then returning.

was he a beast? surely. was he the unstoppable juggernaut we saw in tennesse in 07 and 08 that netted him all pro status? no. was that blaches fault? definitely some.

the real debate is was haynesworth not as productive because blache ran a crappy system, or was haynesworth to blame because he got lazy after signing on the dotted line for a kings ransom. an argument can be made for both sides of the story.

[KDawg]

KDAWG...I know you don't think you're better than others. It's the tone I'm objecting to. I find myself responding to this more than anything else on this board. Let's take the painful JC arguments...the JC supporters have made some credible arguments....however incomplete at times. but, in their frustration with what they see as condescending negativity at the extreme...they adopt a similar tone. make a case and let the argument stand on its own merits. these folks too often fall into the very trap they claim others deliberately snare themselves in....and set themselves up for biting counters.

anywho...as suggested (and as one who acknowledges he lives by the sword too often): in my mind you are one of the more thoughtful posters on this board. you adopt a more positive tone as well - this is good but sets you up for hypocrisy charges when you go after groups of people. My rec is keep to your principled approach and leavce the caterwauling to low lifes like me! you are the better, mpore respectable person for it!

It wasn't meant in that way at all, brother. It was meant in a "Geez, no one is afraid to voice their opinions about players in other threads, so why not come in here and voice them so we can have a quality topic". I respect your point that it may not have come out that way, but the tone you believed was there wasn't.

It's all good and water under the bridge.

I view Haynesworth a success here based on last season because of the dramatic increase in sack production. We went from #28 in sacks in 2008 to #8 in sacks in 2009.

Now, I'm sure that the presence of Brian Orakpo helped that stat out a lot, but for both Orakpo and Andre Carter to get 10+ sacks in a season, I think that says a lot about the value of Haynesworth. I don't think either rusher would've gotten that many sacks w/out Haynesworth.

And from most accounts it sounds like Blache wasn't allowing Haynesworth to rip upfield like he was allowed to do in Tennessee. That makes our much-improved pass-rush that much more impressive IMO.

Great post, 99 (98).

I think a DT's success is measured by how much time the opposing QB spends in the pocket and how much the other team can run between the tackles.

If the DT is collapsing the pocket regularly, that's a stud DE and I think that's 3-4 or 4-3.

Completely agree. You seem to be on the same page as I am. The system doesn't matter much so long as they are pressuring the QB (whether that be from freeing other players to pressure or their own QB pressures).

[Forehead]

I should mention, I do like having Haynesworth on the team. I won't deny for a second that he has helped us greatly. I just expect more from him based on the level of pay he's receiving, and the fact that I saw a lot more out of him in Tennessee.

Now I'm seen people blame Blatche's system, including Haynesworth himself. What the hell is going to happen to him in Haslett's 3-4 system? Is he going to play End or Tackle. If he's the Nose Tackle, he'd better get used to more double teams because his job isn't going to get any easier. If he's an end, maybe he can be more disruptive, I've read that Haslett wants to emphasize turnovers, so maybe he turns Haynesworth loose. Will he be more productive as a 3-4 end rather than a 4-3 tackle. Who knows. Who the hell else is going to play the NT if he doesn't? I don't trust Montgomery.

[fansince62]

addendum: you might have said "We are in for some interesting changes in defensive scheme/philosophy. in the past, we ES'ers have argued at length about the quality/value of our DTs. I'd like to revisit these discussions and burrow down a bit to uncover some common attributes the community believes qualify a solid to superior DT. This can serve as a starting point for assessing one part of the defensive scheme/roster synchronizing that is going to have to happen through free agency, the draft and role reassignments. we have already seen some role reassignmnets for the DEs. What about DT? we just shed the Griff-man. What do you think Haslet is looking for and where will he find it?"

yea...two ideas in this. but what the H. it's still a good idea you are probing.

[KDawg]

the real debate is was haynesworth not as productive because blache ran a crappy system, or was haynesworth to blame because he got lazy after signing on the dotted line for a kings ransom. an argument can be made for both sides of the story.

So let's run with that one. I like that thought, BLC.

I thought I heard that he played more snaps for us than he did Tennessee, as Vlad pointed out as well.

He certainly needs to get in better shape, but I wouldn't say he got lazy. If he was, in fact, lazy then I think that's been something he's been all along. I love his attitude, though, as far as being a good teammate. That Atlanta thing went down and he was one of the first ones over in the thick of it.

I also think Blache was too limiting on what Haynesworth was able to do. He's the type of player that can command attention and still get after the QB. He didn't do that, and since he seems to be slightly unhappy with the way he was used, one can venture a good educated guess that Blache was a big part of the reason.

[KDawg]

addendum: you might have said "We are in for some interesting changes in defensive scheme/philosophy. in the past, we ES'ers have argued at length about the quality/value of our DTs. I'd like to revisit these discussions and burrow down a bit to uncover some common attributes the community believes qualify a solid to superior DT. This can serve as a starting point for assessing one part of the defensive scheme/roster synchronizing that is going to have to happen through free agency, the draft and role reassignments. we have already seen some role reassignmnets for the DEs. What about DT? we just shed the Griff-man. What do you think Haslet is looking for and where will he find it?"

Well, that's just too long winded.

Although, I'm not really looking at all for what Haslett is doing. I'm more looking at what ES'ers view as being a productive DT, which I think has happened through this thread.

Point taken. No promises, though

[#98QBKiller]

Great post, 99 (98).

Thanks man...I had to tip my hat to that stud pass-rusher we drafted a year ago.

[TheREALJBird]

Not sure what the plans are yet regarding this hybrid 3-4 or what role Haynesworth will play in it, but from a DT standpoint I believe for the most part they are there to make everyone around them better, kind of like a security blanket. They open up things for the LB's and DE's to make plays, and if you're lucky, they'll rack up some stats as well.

[fansince62]

Well, that's just too long winded.

Although, I'm not really looking at all for what Haslett is doing. I'm more looking at what ES'ers view as being a productive DT, which I think has happened through this thread.

Point taken. No promises, though

oh yea? well you can stick it where the sun don't shine mister.

j/k. With all the talk lately about Bradford, JC, Okung, line play.....I have sort of been wondering "how the heck are they going to change a defensive roster built for a scheme (Blache's) that is so different from Haslett's? or will they be forced to stick with the 4-3 for longer than desired?" Whether this was your intent or not.....you have opened up a great line of discussion that hasn't received enough attention...IMO.

[TheREALJBird]

Adding to what I posted, Jay Ratliff on Dallas puts up very good numbers for being a NT and still does his job, I have no reason to believe Big Al cannot do the same, if we decide to use him in that sense.

[MartinC]

Hold on though, Andre Carter also had a 10.5 sack season the year before he had his 4 sack season. Who were our D-Tackles then? Griffin and Anthony Montgomery? Not to mention his 12.5 sack season earlier in his career with the 49ers. He's done it without Haynesworth in there.

Yes but in different and I would argue more attacking systems. Here he played in essentially the same systems in 2008 and 2009 and his sack total shot up as did the overall team ranking in sacks.

We added Orakpo who clearly helped but Haynesworth was also a big part of that jump IMO.

[KDawg]

Adding to what I posted, Jay Ratliff on Dallas puts up very good numbers for being a NT and still does his job, I have no reason to believe Big Al cannot do the same, if we decide to use him in that sense.

I don't think Al was used in that capacity, though. But, we've all seen that Blache seemed to have a tendency to plug players in to spots they don't fit in.

Ratliff IS a very good NT. No argument there, and Albert is capable of being much better, so no argument there. I just think you were on to something with the "if we decide to use him in that sense" post.

Although, I'm not entirely convinced he's going to be a nose... (But I do think we'll see him used there sometimes).

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

So let's run with that one. I like that thought, BLC.

I thought I heard that he played more snaps for us than he did Tennessee, as Vlad pointed out as well.

He certainly needs to get in better shape, but I wouldn't say he got lazy. If he was, in fact, lazy then I think that's been something he's been all along. I love his attitude, though, as far as being a good teammate. That Atlanta thing went down and he was one of the first ones over in the thick of it.

I also think Blache was too limiting on what Haynesworth was able to do. He's the type of player that can command attention and still get after the QB. He didn't do that, and since he seems to be slightly unhappy with the way he was used, one can venture a good educated guess that Blache was a big part of the reason.

i saw the breakdown on the snaps played for us vs tennessee. i dont remember reading it too in depth, but i do know that haynesworth missed 25% of our regular season games. and i think that his injuries stemmed from him not being in game shape, evidenced by his constant wheezing and flopping to the ground. he also (if i recall) rarely practiced with the team, doing his best clinton portis impression.

id agree, blache limited what haynesworth was allowed to do and was a big part of his problem, but i still say he needs to get in legit shape so he can get back to all pro form. he didnt forget how to play, but missing 25% of the season was a big blow for our defense.

[KDawg]

i saw the breakdown on the snaps played for us vs tennessee. i dont remember reading it too in depth, but i do know that haynesworth missed 25% of our regular season games. and i think that his injuries stemmed from him not being in game shape, evidenced by his constant wheezing and flopping to the ground. he also (if i recall) rarely practiced with the team, doing his best clinton portis impression.

id agree, blache limited what haynesworth was allowed to do and was a big part of his problem, but i still say he needs to get in legit shape so he can get back to all pro form. he didnt forget how to play, but missing 25% of the season was a big blow for our defense.

I agree, BLC. His conditioning, was at best, poor.

Remember, though, we have a new strength and conditioning staff and the switch from a HIT style training routine to what I gather is a conjugate system should absolutely help get Haynesworth in MUCH better shape.

[fansince62]

he didnt forget how to play, but missing 25% of the season was a big blow for our defense.

and our offense....