A Modest Proposal to Fire Jim Haslett

[Hubbs]

Oh, sorry. The fact that you were repeating many of the OP's points when they were initially clearly meant sarcastically really threw me for a loop. As for what you are saying here, I agree up to a point but I think that some of what you are saying is a bit of a stretch.

Yards is the most consistent measure of how good a defense is because it is in fact detirmine by the defense alone. On the flipside of this however, it is not a very important stat when it comes to the overall impact of the defense on the outcome of the game. First in that category is turnovers, then time of posession. A defense can give up under 300 yards and have a terrible game or give up over 400 and have a good game.

As for the point about knowing personnel, obviously a good coach will know the ability of their players. The Andre Johnston example is false, however, because it was Bucchannon who blew the coverage. Also worth pointing out is that Haslett is just getting to know these players, and there will be times when he makes mistakes about how well they can do certain things. That is always part of a coaching change.

As for your final point, the reason that elite teams are angry after a poor performance is because they have the kind of talent that should allow them to be much better. The Redskins, at this time do not have that talent level. Therefore as fans it would be insane for us to act as if they did have that tier of talent. Once they have made the playoffs 3 years in a row we can talk like that, for now I am just going to strap in and enjoy the ride.

I would only add that yards are not what defenses ultimately care about at all. They care about points. Caring about yards is a byproduct of caring about points, because they think that yards and points are correlated. As our defense this year shows, they're not, at least not directly. We'll happily let you gain all the yards between the 20's that you want. Ironically, our defense has managed to achieve what Greg Blache hoped for, but never could achieve himself: In crucial situations, its bends, but doesn't break. Go ahead and try your 52-yard field goal. We'll let you. And if you send us into overtime because of it, we'll make you kick another one.

Its not evil, it is just common sense. There are too many Irish children, and I am hungry.

Yes, it's common sense to eat children.

Oh wait...

This thread is brilliant. Also hope it has led to some people reading the original Modest Proposal, as I think it is something everyone should read.

Why thank you. That, my friends, is why I'm so very sarcastic.

I would also try and make a football point, as if this wasn't just a place for people to disregard the OP, it could be seem a reasonable place to try and discuss Haslett's D. I know a lot of people hated the amoeba that they ran, and it is true that it got gashed by the run (I personally think some terrible tackling and poor play had as much to do with that), and only returned 1 sack, although that was a sack/fumble. However, it did create some poor throws for dropped INTs that have been talked about ad nauseum. But the point I really want to make is that it seemed to cause confusion, at one point forcing Manning to take a time out to avoid a delay of game penalty. Now I don't watch loads of Saints games, but that doesn't happen to them so often does it?

I think you're talking about Colts games, but no, it doesn't. And it doesn't because when teams really, really need to score, they pass the ball. Which in turn happens because the clock forces them to. All our defense does is apply the best way to counter teams passing the ball, so that they won't score when they really, really need to. Unless they're down by 3 points, and can hit the 52-yard field goal, then hit it again.

Agreed.

Blache was infinitely more terrible than that.

And he was because he couldn't do what he wanted to do, which is bend but not break when it mattered most.

Jim Haslett can.

It's not just in comparison to Dick Lebeau. That defense tanked thanks to Haslett.

No, it didn't.

Look at the numbers. They dropped dramatically over his three year span, especially in the run defense department.

Yes, Haslett's defenses give up the run. What I'm trying to tell you is that the run doesn't matter in crucial situations because of the clock. You can give up the run all you want. Contrary to popular opinion, it won't make you lose. Teams that run the ball well don't succeed because they run the ball well. They run the ball well because they succeed. This is highlighted best, ironically enough, by last year's Indianapolis Colts, who were dead last in rushing yet somehow managed to win a whole lot of games. They didn't need to run to win. And that's true in all cases, because of the clock. It just so happens that most teams haven't figured this out, and most teams don't have Peyton Manning, who allows the Colts to pass to win. Most teams run to win. And they can because they're already ahead, because they already managed to run well. See: Ladainian Tomlinson on the Jets.

The year after Haslett left the Steeler D ranked 6th in points, 7th in yards, 9th in passing yards, 5th in passing TD, 13th in picks, 12th in rushing yards, 6th in rushing TD, 8th in turnovers.

After he left the Steelers improved in the passing defensive category (they were 4th in yards, 11th in TD, 23rd in picks with Haslett in 99), they improved significantly in rushing defense from Haslett's last year (26th in yards, 13th in TD) and dramatically improved in turnovers (20th under Haslett in 99).

So he was between a sandwhich of guys who did a much better job with the same teams he had. And the alarming trend is that this same stuff is occuring with us. Yes, it's early, but the trend looks like its continuing.

Perhaps the players changed? Are you trying to say that players don't matter?

By the way, I notice you didn't include points when you listed the statistics the Steelers put up after Haslett left. You only included touchdowns. There are other ways to score points.

I like that he's willing to make adjustments, he's not scared to blitz, he strongly encourages turnovers, and his ability to find interesting ways at attacking the QB with only four people rushing the passer.

Nothing matters more that these things. Not stopping the run, not stopping the run when it matters most. If you have to stop the run, you've already lost the game. You probably should have prevented the other team from scoring in the first quarter. When it matters most, you have to prevent passes by confusing and tackling the QB. Luckily enough, we've managed to both acquire a DC who's very good at that, and a QB who's very good at preventing other defenses from doing that.

Sure you can. There are trends with coordinators in their career. I can look at Lebeau's defenses and see that his defenses are almost always solid. Same can be said with Monte Kiffin. There are trends, and those trends stick with a coordinator, no matter who their staff is. Some years may be slightly different, but the coordinator is who they are.

That's probably why I'd take Lebeau over Haslett, and Haslett over Kiffin, even if Kiffin's defenses happened to perform well while he was in the league. They did so because opposing offenses couldn't figure them out, and the 3-4 is harder to figure out than the 4-3. How do you beat Kiffin? You get yourself a tight end who can outrun Kiffin's middle linebacker. Nowadays, it's very easy to do so. If you run the same defense that Kiffin did, your defense will give up a whole lot of points as soon as London Fletcher can't run with Brent Celek. (Luckily enough for us, because we happen to run Kiffin's defense on occasion, London can still run with Brent. The day that this is no longer true is the day when Brent will start scoring a lot of points.) All I want to do is explain why this is true. There's a reason that Shanahan wanted to get himself a coordinator who would run the 3-4. I want to tell you what that reason is. It has to do with confusing and sacking opposing quarterbacks.

A top ten defense coupled with anything that was better than Zorn ran would have been something we all loved and wanted. Of course, we'd complain about the lack of turnovers, and we certainly should. The turnovers under Blache were horrendous.

Under Williams were were 13th in picks, 22nd in turnovers in 04.

In 05 we were 14th in picks, 15th in turnovers.

In 06 we were 32nd in picks and 32nd in turnovers and quite honestly we were absolutely horrendous all the way around, the worst defense this team has had in quite some time, and that includes this year.

In 07 we were 11th in picks and 25th in turnovers.

I agree that the turnover aspect of Haslett's defense is refreshing. The physicality of the defense is outstanding. I love those things. But there are some misconceptions going on.

The lack of any real offense for Williams and Blache besides 05 is alarming, and in 05 the defensive stats coincidentally looked much better due to having an offense. But running the style of defense that they ran without an offense is a recipe for disaster that they should be held accountable for.

Gregg Williams was not the problem. Miraculously, his 2004 defense, which was run when Greg Blache wasn't in town and wasn't telling Gregg to not blitz so much that the Falcons would take Michael Vick out of a damn preseason game because they were afraid that he'd get hurt, and his New Orleans defenses have both been been very, very good. Gregg listened to Greg, for reasons I will never be able to explain. "I don't believe in sacks." Absolutely ****ing ridiculous. But that's what Gregg did. And then we got defenses that gave up both yards and points whenever we really, really didn't want them to. They only gave up yards when it didn't matter. So they got a good ranking, by the NFL's infinitely retarded defensive ranking system, which ranks defenses on yards, not points. Greg Blache looks like a genius under those ratings.

Personnel. You said not to reply with it, but it's a glaring problem and a big reason why a switch shouldn't have been made so hastily.

No, we should run the 4-3 until we have the personnel to run the 3-4. But that process will take years. So until the have the personnel to run the 3-4, we should run the 4-3. But that will take years. So we should keep running the 4-3. But then how will we switch to the 3-4? Whatthe****huh?

What?

Goddammit.

The first year under a new coaching staff and people are already calling for coach's to be fired. Didn't everyone want change from how the team handled it's business in the past? Weren't fans bringing signs to the games telling DS to change the way he does business?

DS politely allows his best buddy to resign, then brings in Allen, and Shanahan, then a whole new coaching staff is brought in and 6 games into the first season people are ready to start cutting bait with the coaching staff? lol you guys are funny.

Yes, it's very funny when people say these things.

But you just said... oh...

^ Yeah when I heard Jarmon was going to play NT my first thought was, WTF? He was drafted to be a DE and is extremely light to be a NT. He would have been better suited to be put at LB if anything. Kinda like Carter.

But as you stated the defense is coming up big when needed and getting better every week if you ask me. The Skins are actually running with the big dogs... Packers, and Colts.

Yeah, so Jim Haslett should be fired! Phil Davidson for country treasurer, Goddamnit! I'm mad, and nothing else matters! (If you're wondering why I keep referring to Phil Davidson, well, you might want to Google a certain name. That name is "Phil Davidson." Oh hell, I'll just give you the link to what you need to see, and nearly 2 million people have watched various versions of the video, which is about a ****ing county treasuring party nomination, so if 2 million people have watched it, you probably want to watch it too. His name is Phil Davidson, and damnit, he's mad! He won't apologize for his tone tonight, and neither will I! The Stark County Treasurer's Office is a mess! Randy Gonzalez's treasurin' is weak! We need some new treasurin'! Vote Phil Davidson!)

I do agree that firing anyone, at this juncture, or suggesting that someone should be fired is overboard in a big way. But, the OP was tongue in cheek and I don't know that I've seen anyone actually say "Fire Haslett".

Um, really? Have you read, I don't know, any ES threads at all? People are mad! Jim Haslett should be fired! Phil Davidson for county treasurer!

Son, why dont you go back and check then? I posted this twice already, in this thread. Apparantly I DID go too fast for you. I supposed Im not surprised. Never said you are a moron, but you're quite full of yourself.

You're right, um, "Dad." I'm just too gosh-darned slow. But you're mad because I keep claiming that I'm too quick. So which is it? I can't be both too slow and too quick ohheywaitaminute....

Ok. I understand. You REALLY dont get it, do you? Im not sure if saying we have the vast majority or our players out of position is enough, and that we are not setting the world on fire for points allowed. In fact we're not doing any better than we have in past years. So there hasnt been a improvement there. Do you understand that? Also, do you understand that if we look at the history of the NFL, that if we continue to give up yards like we are, we're going to start giving up alot more points?

Yep, I haven't addressed why having our players out of position doesn't matter. But this thread contains posts in which I address why having our players out of position doesn't matter, because quarterbacks can't tell why our players are out of position. So that means I... um... once again, ohheywaitaminute....

So, you dont think that if guy were playing in their natural positions, they might acutally do a BETTER job than they are now? No, that couldnt possibly happen could it?

No, it couldn't possibly happen. They'd give up fewer yards but more points. Then you'd rush in and say, "Hey, this defense is better because the NFL measures defenses by yards, and the NFL is right because I say so, damnit, so this defense is better! Jim Haslett should be fired! Also, Phil Davidson for country treasurer!"

The first question you need to answer is Should we switch? I saw no reason to, only the approch to the 4-3 we ran needed to change. The 2nd part is Do we have the crucial peices to make the switch? We dont. Certain positions are not affected much (DT/DE, secondary) and other positions are (NT, LBs) Either through the draft or FA you get the parts you need, and in your 2nd year you can address your secondary parts.And............other teams ran hybrid schemes during thier transition (Arizona, for instance) while making the switch. and no offense, I dont care how good the scheme is. You are not going to get Andre Carter to play well as a 3-4 OLB. Good coaches make the scheme to fit their players, not the other way around.

No, we should never switch. Because we'll never have enough players who fit the 3-4. Because we'll never switch, and acquire the players we need to run the 3-4. Hey, this seems awfully circular....

The problem is that you are looking at this way too simplisticlly. Not only are we giving up yards, we are also giving up yards in ways that hurt the defense in the long run (rushing). We are loosing ToP , our defense getting run all over just gets them worn down by the end of the game (and will get worse as the season progresses) and our offense gets less chances to score. Then you look at history. At the rate we are giving up yards, the points ARE going to come. They are starting to. Dont expect us to give up 13-14 points a game while giving up nearly 500 yards a game. Its not going to happen over a full season.

Yes, rushing yards are the only yards that matter! Conventional wisdom couldn't possibly be wrong in any circumstance! Our coaches don't realize this fact! I'm mad! Mad as hell! And I'm not gonna take it anymore!

You need to get the crucial peices first. We didnt do that very well. Kemo is doing nothing as a NT. London and Rocky (especially Rocky) are not ILB in a 3-4. Carter should have been moved in the off-season, we'll get nothing for him now, and its hopefully obvious now that he cant play in a 3-4. the DE/DT transition isnt as bad, and OLB's we're ok with. But we dont have the crucial elements.

And all of these things are why we lost to the Cowboys, and the Packers, and the Eagles. For ****'s sake, fire Jim Haslett! What is he doing to our team?

If only. Like running a hybrid scheme, or just actually putting the players where they are best suited. That would of course mean scrapping the 3-4 and running a 4-3. And we can have that, can we? It's apparently the Golden Goose around here, or something.......

I know, we shouldn't transition to the 3-4 until we can transition to the 3-4. Um... hold on... huh?

I agree, that announcers comments don't mean much, but to be honest I don't remember our top ranked defense of the past couple years, being respected that much.

That's what we need. Respect from commentators! Not wins due to things that commentators are too stupid to figure out, commentators such as Chris Collinsworth, who actually made the pants-****tingly horrible argument that when you defer, you're giving to the ball to Peyton Manning, even though you're not giving the ball to Peyton Manning in the second half! The second half is irrelevant! Nobody should defer when they're facing Peyton Manning! The first half is the only half that matters! Why can't our coaches realize the fact that everyone else knows? I'm mad that they can't!

We do seem to give up some longer drives, but I will credit them for their 3rd down performance so far this year. We're ranked in the top 10 according to 3rd down %, at the same % of teams like Miami and the Gmen.

Fire Jim Haslett! Third downs don't matter! Only first and second downs do! Unless the other team is on offense on fourth down, or the very-elusive fifth down!

[2cents]

I hear you, in fact I agree, but one thing I have learned watching sports is there is no real use in questioning the moves we make, because I can't do anything about it and in the 40 years I've been a Skins fan, they have never asked me for my input, so I don't lose sleep over it.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

How did you weigh them evenly? I'm not sure I can figure out how to way a sack for a 9 yard loss the same as a a completion for a nine yard gain. They're not actually even in any way but yards. A sack for a 9 yard loss is way more damaging to the offense than a completion for a nine yard gain is to the defense.

I weighed the rankings of the 5 categories evenly. Meaning I took our ranking in YPG, PPG, third-down percentage, turnovers, and sacks...added them together...and divided by 5. Like I said, it's crude and there's certainly a better way to do it, but even that weighted ranking is better than just going by yardage.

[Hubbs]

I weighed the rankings of the 5 categories evenly. Meaning I took our ranking in YPG, PPG, third-down percentage, turnovers, and sacks...added them together...and divided by 5. Like I said, it's crude and there's certainly a better way to do it, but even that weighted ranking is better than just going by yardage.

Yes, but dividing by 5 won't result in you coming to the conclusion that a sack for 9 yards is more important that a completion for 9 yards. And I'm pretty sure I can show you why that isn't so. And if I do, you won't weigh those two categories equally. So I would benefit from showing you those things. And you'd benefit from hearing them.

[ukvillaskin]

I'm happy with the stands the D is making, but the coverage is pretty bad, blowing coverages, biting on pump fakes and just playing too soft. Yes, we're not giving up many big plays, but we're giving up far too much yardage on short plays and the D can only make so many stands in the redzone. Still a work in progress thought I guess.

[KDawg]

Perhaps the players changed? Are you trying to say that players don't matter?

Read my posts before you say stuff like that.

By the way, I notice you didn't include points when you listed the statistics the Steelers put up after Haslett left. You only included touchdowns. There are other ways to score points.

Thanks. I'm aware. And I did put the points up, but apparently you glazed over that in order to make a non existant point

But just for fun, I'll post it again for you.

1997: 11th (307)

1998: 7th (303)

1999: 12th (320)

Records? Because as long as you're not giving up points, you're doing great, right?

1997: 11-5 + playoffs.

1998: 7-9

1999: 6-10

Each year the record got worse. Which is part of my issue with Haslett.

While I'm at it, here's he's Saints and Rams numbers as well:

2000: 10th (305), 11-5 + playoffs (funny, I thought it was said earlier that Haslett's record with the Saints should be thrown out because it was "the Saints", this season looks pretty good.)

2001: 27th (409), 7-9 (oh, maybe this is why that should have been thrown out)

2002: 26th (388), 9-7 (Doesn't look like they were the "Saints" here, either, but it does look like they allowed a ton of points.)

2003: 14th (326), 8-8

2004: 27th (405), 8-8 (Really too bad their defense stunk, their offense was being wasted as a middle of the road offense.)

2005: 28th (398), 3-13 (Ouch. Bang up job here, too.)

2006 (Rams): 28th (381), 8-8 (Their offense, by the way? Ranked 10th in points.)

2007 (Rams): 31st (438), 3-13 (I see a trend here. Seems to finish in the 20's and 30's a lot in points)

2008 (Rams): 31st (465), 2-14 (Sadly, one of those two wins was against the 'Skins, but that's besides the point. Another great showing.)

Career Average? 21st in points.

Showing the points here didn't do your argument any favors.

No, we should run the 4-3 until we have the personnel to run the 3-4. But that process will take years. So until the have the personnel to run the 3-4, we should run the 4-3. But that will take years. So we should keep running the 4-3. But then how will we switch to the 3-4? Whatthe****huh?

Or maybe we should have just held off until we had a nose tackle

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yes, but dividing by 5 won't result in you coming to the conclusion that a sack for 9 yards is more important that a completion for 9 yards. And I'm pretty sure I can show you why that isn't so. And if I do, you won't weigh those two categories equally. So I would benefit from showing you those things. And you'd benefit from hearing them.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. All I'm trying to say is that the current way of "ranking" NFL defenses is severely flawed and someone should come up with something similar to the QB rating to show a more accurate picture of how good NFL defenses are.

[Hubbs]

Read my posts before you say stuff like that.

I read them. I didn't see anything showing that you addressed the possibility that roster turnover can affect points.

Thanks. I'm aware. And I did put the points up, but apparently you glazed over that in order to make a non existant point

But just for fun, I'll post it again for you.

1997: 11th (307)

1998: 7th (303)

1999: 12th (320)

Records? Because as long as you're not giving up points, you're doing great, right?

1997: 11-5 + playoffs.

1998: 7-9

1999: 6-10

Each year the record got worse. Which is part of my issue with Haslett.

Hmmmm. I suppose we should do something about the fact that only defenses can affect records, even with player turnover. Seems like a bad idea.

While I'm at it, here's he's Saints and Rams numbers as well:

2000: 10th (305), 11-5 + playoffs (funny, I thought it was said earlier that Haslett's record with the Saints should be thrown out because it was "the Saints", this season looks pretty good.)

Yes, somehow this was achieved even though Haslett was working with Aaron Brooks at quarterback, who famously became so concerned with his own ability to stay upright that he tried to throw a pass to an offensive lineman. Backwards. And the offensive lineman had no capability whatsoever to avoid the same defense that was swarming Brooks. This is one of the few events in NFL history that caused me to laugh more than the Cowboys' disaster of an attempt to replay the Cal-Stanford play at the end of their last game.

2001: 27th (409), 7-9 (oh, maybe this is why that should have been thrown out)

2002: 26th (388), 9-7 (Doesn't look like they were the "Saints" here, either, but it does look like they allowed a ton of points.)

So, you're simultaneously arguing that Jim Haslett sucks, and that he seems to have done well in his first few years? Because... what, the same roster turnover affects that I described saved Haslett from his own ineptitude?

2003: 14th (326), 8-8

2004: 27th (405), 8-8 (Really too bad their defense stunk, their offense was being wasted as a middle of the road offense.)

Yes, they had a bad year. But they had a good year in 2000 and again in 2002. So which do we use to analyze Haslett?

2005: 28th (398), 3-13 (Ouch. Bang up job here, too.)

2006 (Rams): 28th (381), 8-8 (Their offense, by the way? Ranked 10th in points.)

2007 (Rams): 31st (438), 3-13 (I see a trend here. Seems to finish in the 20's and 30's a lot in points)

2008 (Rams): 31st (465), 2-14 (Sadly, one of those two wins was against the 'Skins, but that's besides the point. Another great showing.)

The Rams? The same people who drafted Adam Carriker, who everyone in the world knew was a 3-4 DE except, apparently, the Rams, to play on a 4-3 defensive line? Yeah, I'll happily tell you that if Haslett was involved with that, he's probably not a great personnel guy. But his scheme suffered because he had to try to make Adam Carriker fit in a 4-3, along with other personnel reasons.

Career Average? 21st in points.

Showing the points here didn't do your argument any favors.

Career average? Coaching bad players, or at least players who didn't fit his scheme. Maybe he should stop doing that.

Or maybe we should have just held off until we had a nose tackle

Sure. I'd go along with that. But we thought we had one, and I still think Ma'ake can be an effective one when his leg is right. I just don't think his leg is right yet.

[KDawg]

Hmmmm. I suppose we should do something about the fact that only defenses can affect records, even with player turnover. Seems like a bad idea.

Seems to be a trend with Haslett, though, and I'd say his defense is responsible for more than a few of their bad years, but, to be fair, not all.

Yes, somehow this was achieved even though Haslett was working with Aaron Brooks at quarterback, who famously became so concerned with his own ability to stay upright that he tried to throw a pass to an offensive lineman. Backwards. And the offensive lineman had no capability whatsoever to avoid the same defense that was swarming Brooks. This is one of the few events in NFL history that caused me to laugh more than the Cowboys' disaster of an attempt to replay the Cal-Stanford play at the end of their last game.

What's the saying about blind squirrels finding nuts?

So, you're simultaneously arguing that Jim Haslett sucks, and that he seems to have done well in his first few years? Because... what, the same roster turnover affects that I described saved Haslett from his own ineptitude?

Not at all. I'm arguing that those teams succeeded due to an offense that got the job done. The defense wasn't good in any of the years except for 2000 and 2003, where they ranked 10th and 14th in points. The stat you seem to believe is indicitive of a defenses performance.

Yes, they had a bad year. But they had a good year in 2000 and again in 2002. So which do we use to analyze Haslett?

They had a decent year in 2003 and a good year in 2000, defensively. What do you use to analyze Haslett? The defenses numbers.

2000: 10th (good year)

2001: 27th (horrible year)

2002: 26th (bad year)

2003: 14th (mediocre year)

2004: 27th (bad year)

2005: 28th (bad year)

The Rams? The same people who drafted Adam Carriker, who everyone in the world knew was a 3-4 DE except, apparently, the Rams, to play on a 4-3 defensive line?

Yeah, I'll happily tell you that if Haslett was involved with that, he's probably not a great personnel guy. But his scheme suffered because he had to try to make Adam Carriker fit in a 4-3, along with other personnel reasons.

Part of what makes you what you are as a coach is how you do everything. You are trying to tell me that Haslett didn't have say in the Carriker pick, someone who was playing on his defense? Come on. He almost certainly had some kind of say in it, and I'd guess he liked him quite a bit seeing how he brought him to Washington. But, admittedly, that's making an assumption.

Career average? Coaching bad players, or at least players who didn't fit his scheme. Maybe he should stop doing that.

Well, he should probably stop helping with signing people who don't fit his scheme, then, because he's not doing himself any favors.

Sure. I'd go along with that. But we thought we had one, and I still think Ma'ake can be an effective one when his leg is right. I just don't think his leg is right yet.

Who thought we had one? A guy coming off a major injury is the nose tackle to justify making the switch? And I know you're not talking about that other guy, because he was pissed from the jump, and besides that, isn't a typical nose.

[Hubbs]

Seems to be a trend with Haslett, though, and I'd say his defense is responsible for more than a few of their bad years, but, to be fair, not all.

I would agree with your analysis if Haslett hadn't happened to be coaching the Saints and the Rams.

What's the saying about blind squirrels finding nuts?

Yeah, when you're Adam Carriker in the 4-3, you're a pretty blind squirrel.

Not at all. I'm arguing that those teams succeeded due to an offense that got the job done. The defense wasn't good in any of the years except for 2000 and 2003, where they ranked 10th and 14th in points. The stat you seem to believe is indicitive of a defenses performance.

"Wasn't good."

Okay, are you willing to consider the possibility that they weren't good because of the players? If you are, I believe I can show you that it was, in fact, the players. Jim Haslett shouldn't be a GM for reasons like Adam Carriker. I don't dispute that. Most coaches, as it turns out, shouldn't be GMs.

They had a decent year in 2003 and a good year in 2000, defensively. What do you use to analyze Haslett? The defenses numbers.

2000: 10th (good year)

2001: 27th (horrible year)

2002: 26th (bad year)

2003: 14th (mediocre year)

2004: 27th (bad year)

2005: 28th (bad year)

Because of the players. Haslett shouldn't be allowed to so much as communicate with a competent GM.

Part of what makes you what you are as a coach is how you do everything. You are trying to tell me that Haslett didn't have say in the Carriker pick, someone who was playing on his defense? Come on. He almost certainly had some kind of say in it, and I'd guess he liked him quite a bit seeing how he brought him to Washington. But, admittedly, that's making an assumption.

Not at all. So we probably shouldn't let Haslett talk to Bruce Allen about personnel decisions, or Mike Shanahan, since Shanny is actually the one making some of these decisions.

Well, he should probably stop helping with signing people who don't fit his scheme, then, because he's not doing himself any favors.

Totally agree.

Who thought we had one? A guy coming off a major injury is the nose tackle to justify making the switch? And I know you're not talking about that other guy, because he was pissed from the jump, and besides that, isn't a typical nose.

It's not the only justification for making the jump. I'm saying that it's part of the justification for making the jump. I honestly thought Ma'ake (I do hope I'm spelling his name correctly) would be ready for the season. Maybe you didn't, and if you didn't, kudos to you, you're smarter than me on that one.

[NewCliche21]

I am siding with Hubbs here as I hate, hate, HATE Blache and feel his stats are not indicative of his level of incompetence and failure, and I happen to like what we're doing defensively (at least just in points).

However, KDawg and Hubbs are having one of the best debates that I've seen on this board in a long time. Major to you two!

[KDawg]

I would agree with your analysis if Haslett hadn't happened to be coaching the Saints and the Rams.

Yeah, when you're Adam Carriker in the 4-3, you're a pretty blind squirrel.

Okay, are you willing to consider the possibility that they weren't good because of the players? If you are, I believe I can show you that it was, in fact, the players. Jim Haslett shouldn't be a GM for reasons like Adam Carriker. I don't dispute that. Most coaches, as it turns out, shouldn't be GMs.

Because of the players. Haslett shouldn't be allowed to so much as communicate with a competent GM.

Not at all. So we probably shouldn't let Haslett talk to Bruce Allen about personnel decisions, or Mike Shanahan, since Shanny is actually the one making some of these decisions.

All of which are reasons to have not hired the guy in the first place. He runs schemes that don't fit his talent. A good coordinator adjusts to what they have. Not to what they want to have.

[Bang]

I agree with your points but to play devil's advocate, the skins d also makes very mediocre qbs look like Peyton Manning.

Like who?

The only one we've played without impeccable credentials is Sam Bradford, and who knows what he is yet. (Except that he's 3-3. Not bad for a rookie on a team that only won that many games over the last two seasons combined.)

You could say Kevin Kolb, but based on the numbers he's put up in every start he's had, I don't think he fits either.

We've faced Tony Romo sits to pee, Matt Schaub, Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning in 4 of our first 6 games. That's a murderer's row if there ever was one.

Good thread, Hubbs. The lack of vision among our fanbase is astounding. (although I thought Buchanan played pretty well Sunday, all things considered.)

~Bang

[Tin Man]

Firing is a bit knee-jerk for my taste.

But he needs to be called on the carpet for waiting until the Colts 3rd to last series to play press-man coverage across the board.

Criminally dumb mistake.

The flip side we dropped 4 picks.

That's my issue, no adjustments. I'm in favor of keeping stats on ERRORS like in baseball; and when you commit one, you receive a heavy team foul. Rodgers dropping that first interception is totally inexcusable! If Rodgers makes that catch, the colts don't make that touchdown - different game.

Every time he does that it potentially costs us the game. That's the third time this year, which is half of the games that potentially could've been lost.

[Hubbs]

I am siding with Hubbs here as I hate, hate, HATE Blache and feel his stats are not indicative of his level of incompetence and failure, and I happen to like what we're doing defensively (at least just in points).

However, KDawg and Hubbs are having one of the best debates that I've seen on this board in a long time. Major to you two!

Haha, why thank you. And I tip my cap to KDawg for being willing to disagree with me so passionately. I'd expect nothing less.

All of which are reasons to have not hired the guy in the first place. He runs schemes that don't fit his talent. A good coordinator adjusts to what they have. Not to what they want to have.

Hmmm. But we've already established that Haslett can't evaluate talent correctly. So he probably shouldn't be allowed to evaluate talent. We should have someone who can say, "Look, Jim, I know you want to run [X] because of your evaluation of talent, but I think you're evaluation of talent sucks, and I think you're a damn good coordinator when you can't evaluate talent, so I'm going to fire you if you do." I would bet that we would notch a lot of wins because of that system.

[KDawg]

Hmmm. But we've already established that Haslett can't evaluate talent correctly. So he probably shouldn't be allowed to evaluate talent. We should have someone who can say, "Look, Jim, I know you want to run [X] because of your evaluation of talent, but I think you're evaluation of talent sucks, and I think you're a damn good coordinator when you can't evaluate talent, so I'm going to fire you if you do." I would bet that we would notch a lot of wins because of that system.

I agree in principle, 100%. However, in reality the coordinator has to be able to say what he wants in each specific position. He has to be able to evaluate talent to some level, or he shouldn't be the coordinator. This is a big part of the reason why I don't like Haslett. He has failed in other places when he has failed to put the talent into place. He succeeded one year in a big way with the Steelers, but he had Lebeau's talent. No one knows the defense quite as well as the team's defensive coordinator. Not the GM, not the head coach (unless he is the DC). There are a lot of little nuances that go with the job. Ideally, I believe that each coordinator needs to have a set of qualities that they look for in each individual position and then they need to be able to evaluate talent at least to some level.

Now, gonna throw something out there that I don't necessarily believe, but I don't think is out of the question either... What if... Shanahan helped to install this defense with the mindset that he would be the talent evaluator, along with Haslett's input and what Haslett thinks fits into the system? So, in better wording... Haslett tells Shanahan what he needs (in terms of size, speed, ability), Shanahan/Allen go and find it. I'd be a bit more comfortable with Haslett in that regard, but part of me still feels like if you can't evaluate talent at all you have no business being a coordinator.

[Hubbs]

Damn you, DeAngelo Hall! Stop proving me wrong!

[Hubbs]

What, no response to DeAngelo Hall? Should he stop doing what he's doing?

[Rexrode21]

We're tied for 9th in scoring and 2nd in Turnover Margin... I think we're doing ok. And those rankings are against the likes of the Colts, Cowboys, Texans and Packers

[Seabee1973]

How much say has he had in the past as d coordinater as to what players he liked and acquired

[gaskinsfan]

The defense is a result of Mike Shanahan's directive to switch to a 3-4. You can't blame Haslett for that. Seeing that the skins have primarily 4-3 personnel, it is way too early to judge this move, it will be at least another year or so before they can fully transition with the correct parts and experience.

I like what I see so far regarding the hard hitting and turnovers. I think the yards will come down once our experience goes up.

All in all the defense is not the problem with this team. Whether we can get improved play from the offense is what will determine if we make the playoffs or not this year.

[Hubbs]

We're tied for 9th in scoring and 2nd in Turnover Margin... I think we're doing ok. And those rankings are against the likes of the Colts, Cowboys, Texans and Packers

By the way, the St. Louis Rams are 1st in the NFL's terrible defensive "rankings," 1st in their offensive "rankings," and they suck. That should tell you something about the rankings.

Without Haslett, we can be the Rams. With him, we won't be. Keep preachin', Ryman. We're gonna be last in yards and Top 10 in points, and that's against the best offenses in the league.

[JoeSkins]

Excellent post, you almost got me.

A tongue-in-cheek reference to the defense's additional OT yardage (which really adds up) would have been nice, mostly because that's my go-to talking point for defending the yardage that the defense has given up.

Edit: I went back and did some research, and the OT yards only add roughly 10 yards per game. Even removing those yards the defense remains in the same spot. I guess I learned something today.

[acuratl1984]

Yup, and we still got

Giants 2x - Who are #3 on total offense

Eagles 1x - #6 on total offense

Titans/Bucs who both have winning records

Except for the Jags, and the turn out of the Cowboys..our schedule look pretty hard. And to sit at 4-3 now and possibly 5-3 going into the bye is pretty good.

[Hubbs]

Excellent post, you almost got me.

A tongue-in-cheek reference to the defense's additional OT yardage (which really adds up) would have been nice, mostly because that's my go-to talking point for defending the yardage that the defense has given up.

Edit: I went back and did some research, and the OT yards only add roughly 10 yards per game. Even removing those yards the defense remains in the same spot. I guess I learned something today.

As you said, the OT yards don't matter to the rankings.

The Rams kick ass in yards because they suck ass in points. They've officially become the anti-Jim Haslett.

(Although I heard that the Skins have announced that they'll be moving away from the 3-4 and towards the 4-3. The Redskins have become the anti-Redskins. Isn't the universe supposed to blow up or something right about now?)