The Haslett Files (Greg Blache vs. Jim Haslett, Historically bad defensive pace, etc.)

[KDawg]

Let me start off by saying I'm not a Greg Blache fan, either. But there seems to be a lot of people saying that our team would be allowing a lot more scores under Blache. For starters, let's look at both of their Redskin tenures.

I realize Haslett is only 6 games into his job as the defensive coordinator in Washington, and it's pretty unfair to compare his stats to those of Greg Blache after six games, but I hear time and time again that Blache's defenses allowed points but not yards. So here's how the two stack up in that regard:

Greg Blache, 2008

Points: 6th

Yards: 4th

Passing Yards: 7th

Passing TD: 6th

INT: 17th

Rush Yards: 8th

Rush TD: 11th

TO: 28th

Let's compare that to Haslett's rankings thus far (again, I realize these are subject to change, this is just a rebuttal to all of those who believe Blache's defenses were worse than they were)

Haslett

Points: 14th

Yards: 32nd

Pass Yards: 31st

Pass TD: 19th

INT: 21st

Rush Yards: 24th

Rush TD: 9th

Fumble Recoveries: 3rd (can't find a total TO stat thus far)

So let's examine... We're worse in total points, worse in total yards, worse in pass yards, worse in pass TD, worse in INT, worse in rush yards, better in rush TD, probably better in turnovers.

But this doesn't hold up with the misconception that "this defense is better than anything Blache ever had".

That argument does not hold weight.

For the sake of it, we'll compare Blache's 2009 campaign with Haslett's 2010...

Blache 2009

Points: 18th

Yards: 10th

Pass Yards: 8th

Pass TD: 10th

INT: 26th

Rush Yards: 16th

Rush TD: 7th

TO: 32nd

We're better in points now, worse in yards, worse in pass yards, worse in pass TD, better in picks, worse in rush yards, worse in rush TD, better in turnovers.

Again, this doesn't spell out what plenty here seem to believe. Our defense is not better this year than it was under Blache as a whole.

Total Analysis

One thing that this defense is MUCH better at this year than it was the last two years is our physicality and turnover production. It's ridiculous how much better the Haslett defense is in comparison when speaking about these things. This defense also seems to have heart, the Blache defenses seemed to lack that killer instinct. I can honestly say that Haslett has done a great job in bringing Captial Punishment to DC.

But on a statistical point, from a yards and points production we're worse at this juncture, not better as many here have said.

Now, let me make something clear, I realize Haslett can turn around. This thread is in response to all of those who continually say that Blache's defenses would have allowed many more points. I completely disagree, and on top of that, Blache's defenses had a much worse offense to work with than what we have now. At this point, and it is still early, Blache's defenses looked better than this Haslett defense.

I am by no means saying I want Blache back, I want to make that clear as well. I just don't think people realize exactly what it is they're saying.

To take it another step further, I went ahead and averaged their career NFL averages in each of the statistics that I've been looking at:

Haslett = bold numbers

Blache = italic numbers

Points: 21, 16

Yards: 18, 16.14

Passing Yards: 15, 18.14

Passing TD: 16.91, 14.14

INT: 16.33, 20.85

Rushing Yards: 20.58. 15.71

Rushing TD: 19.58, 12.28

Turnovers: 13, 21.28

Career Analysis:

Seems to be a pretty common trend to what we're seeing right now, at the moment. Haslett's D's are much better in the turnover department, while Blache's are better in the points and yards departments as a whole. These career numbers do not have Haslett's current Redskin numbers figured into them, either.

It seems obvious that Haslett is going to produce a much more aggressive, physical defense and Blache is going to produce a much better defense from a yards/points point of view, but not be as relentless.

I like the relentless defense. It's the way I coach and what I prefer to see on the field. But the production thus far has been sub standard and pretty much bad.

Now, looking at both sets of career numbers, I'll say it again, neither guy is who I'd want to be our defensive coordinator. I just did this research and thought that this would be shocking to some. I didn't realize just how crazy the differences were, either.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

How many turnovers do we have now compared to two full seasons under Blache... look at the whole picture and not just a snap shot.

I hated Blache and I am not too keen on Haslet, but let's keep it real and not just for the sake of argument!

Edit: Didn't bother reading the last part, but I just did in regards to the turnover ratio and also might I add that we still need players to fully implement this system.

[RyansRangers]

Our Current Defense is not good. Is it horrible No but its not good.. The mentality of the defense is far better and the turnovers are coming at better times but the defense is suspect. Even Fletcher is calling it Ridiculous thats from the leaders mouth........ But.. this will not be solved this year... it took dallas 3 years to make the full transition with the right players.

[KDawg]

How many turnovers do we have now compared to two full seasons under Blache... look at the whole picture and not just a snap shot.

I hated Blache and I am not too keen on Haslet, but let's keep it real and not just for the sake of argument!

Edit: Didn't bother reading the last part, but I just did in regards to the turnover ratio and also might I add that we still need players to fully implement this system.

Should probably read the entire post before responding. I said several times that Haslett's turnovers are better in the beginning of the post, in the middle of the post and at the end of the post.

I think I am keeping it real, by the way. I give credit to Haslett for some aspects of the defense, and show that Blache's defenses, despite the scrutiny of this forum were actually better as far as points allowed than Haslett's thus far. How is that not keeping it real?

As far as the player argument goes, yes, we need more of them. A lot more of them. We don't have near the personnel to be running a 3-4 defense, so why do it?

Our Current Defense is not good. Is it horrible No but its not good.. The mentality of the defense is far better and the turnovers are coming at better times but the defense is suspect. Even Fletcher is calling it Ridiculous thats from the leaders mouth........ But.. this will not be solved this year... it took dallas 3 years to make the full transition with the right players.

It can't be solved this year, and with all the holes on this team it won't be solved next year, either. Maybe by year three it will be, but we have a TON of issues that need to be addressed on BOTH sides of the football.

[Soup]

Should you factor in the schedule, because its obvious the skins have had to play some great offenses this season?

I don't remember the last time the skins have had such a stretch to the begin the season.

[chipwhich]

Or another analysis is we have a depressingly old d-line, and a real need for a linebacker or two. Couple this with a new scheme...and we get what we get.

Safety play has improved.

D Hall is really a mediocre corner.

[KDawg]

Should you factor in the schedule, because its obvious the skins have had to play some great offenses this season?

I don't remember the last time the skins have had such a stretch to the begin the season.

I don't necessarily disgree with this. But the reason this thread was started was due to the fact that people have been saying that "Blache's defenses would have been scored on", statistics show that that's not the case. It's the reverse. Tough stretch of the schedule for sure, and I noted several times that Haslett can turn it around. I don't believe that he will, but he certainly can and I cheer for this team, so I'm hoping Haslett succeeds.

Or another analysis is we have a depressingly old d-line, and a real need for a linebacker or two. Couple this with a new scheme...and we get what we get.

Safety play has improved.

D Hall is really a mediocre corner.

So we don't have the personnel. I agree. Why switch? Our corners aren't very good and our safety play hasn't improved much other than Landry. The FS position is still an issue.

We also have no nose tackle. So again, if the personnel doesn't fit, and isn't even close to fitting, why make the change? Thus far, the defense has been far worse, despite the claims that Blache's defenses were worse than Haslett's.

Haslett, to his credit, produces a much more aggressive defense and creates more turnovers. I like that. A lot.

[Duckus]

I love stats and think they can tell you a lot about a team. However, there is something about the good old "eye test" as well.

Under Blache our defense was outstanding for 3 quarters. Then in the 4th quarter we would fold like a deck chair. How many games did we watch as a team would drive all over the field in the 4th quarter and give up a tiny lead we had. It would drive us insane.

Under Haslett our defense for 3 quarters is below average. Teams drive on us, but we usually keep it close and hold them to FGs. But in the 4th quarter we dominate, create turnovers and put our offense in position to win the game.

It would be a ***** to pull, but one day I would love to see defensive stats comparing 1-3 quarters v 4th quarter with these coaches.

[KDawg]

I love stats and think they can tell you a lot about a team. However, there is something about the good old "eye test" as well.

Under Blache our defense was outstanding for 3 quarters. Then in the 4th quarter we would fold like a deck chair. How many games did we watch as a team would drive all over the field in the 4th quarter and give up a tiny lead we had. It would drive us insane.

Under Haslett our defense is horrible for 3 we are below average. Teams drive on us, but we usually keep it close. But in the 4th quarter we dominate, create turnovers and put of offense in position to win the game.

It would be a ***** to pull, but one day I would love to see defensive stats comparing 1-3 quarters v 4th quarter with these coaches.

How much does that also have to do with the offenses? Our offense this year hasn't been good, but it's much better than anything Blache had to work with.

We're a Crosby missed FG away from losing the Packer game, a holding penalty away from losing the Cowboy game and a touchdown pass away from losing the Eagle game. That's alarming, and fails the eye test. Sure we've missed opportunities, too, which speaks for our personnel. It's obviously not 100% on Jim Haslett. Our players aren't very good, either. Dropped interceptions are clearly not Haslett's fault.

[justice98]

I think the points per game is probably a direct correlation to the ineptitude of the previous offenses. Blache's defenses got next no help when it came to points scored for them or field position. Shanny's offense moves the ball which helps field position (and consequently allows more yards to be gained) and scores more points.

[Springfield]

I'll take Haslett's turnover creating defense over Greg Blache's low yardage defense. Turnovers create opportunities and short fields for our offense. Turnovers are better than holding the opponents offense to a three and out and letting them punt. You must get turnovers if you want to be a successful team. Blache's defense didn't create turnovers and our team suffered for it. Blache's defense was as "plain Jane" is it could possibly be and it afforded our offense no short fields, it afforded our fans nothing to cheer for. His defense never did anything to swing the momentum of a game.

Turnovers are king on defense.

[KDawg]

I'll take Haslett's turnover creating defense over Greg Blache's low yardage defense. Turnovers create opportunities and short fields for our offense. Turnovers are better than holding the opponents offense to a three and out and letting them punt. You must get turnovers if you want to be a successful team. Blache's defense didn't create turnovers and our team suffered for it. Blache's defense was as "plain Jane" is it could possibly be and it afforded our offense no short fields, it afforded our fans nothing to cheer for. His defense never did anything to swing the momentum of a game.

Turnovers are king on defense.

Turnovers are important, but so is not allowing points, which thus far is something that Haslett's defense failed to do, at least as good as Blache's. And people say that yards allowed doesn't matter, but that's incorrect. yards allowed keeps the defense on the field, more than likely a tired defense. It keeps our offense off the field, thus making it a bit more difficult to score and allowing yards is a sign of a team that bends but doesn't always but sometimes does break. When you allow that many yards you're playing with fire and will get burned.

As I said several times, I like Haslett's attacking style better. But he has a lot of schematic problems (cushion on the receivers and still getting beat?). Blache's defenses were extremely boring, but his lack of an offense really make people underappreciate what his defenses did. Again, I don't want Blache back, but his D's coupled with a decent offense would have been pretty good. Problem is that our offense was horrendous the last two years and did score points, so a low point/yard allowing defense was wasted.

It'll be fun to look back at this season at the end of it and see just how things compare.

One thing I can't and won't argue is how much better Haslett has been at getting turnovers. It's light years of a difference, and that difference is also reflected in their career numbers. And, as I've said, I love the physical play.

[justice98]

I'll take Haslett's turnover creating defense over Greg Blache's low yardage defense. Turnovers create opportunities and short fields for our offense. Turnovers are better than holding the opponents offense to a three and out and letting them punt. You must get turnovers if you want to be a successful team. Blache's defense didn't create turnovers and our team suffered for it. Blache's defense was as "plain Jane" is it could possibly be and it afforded our offense no short fields, it afforded our fans nothing to cheer for. His defense never did anything to swing the momentum of a game.

Turnovers are king on defense.

But what does the scheme have to do with dropping interceptions that hit you in the hands, hitting or stripping at the ball to separate the ball from the ball carrier, or falling on fumbles? Did you need to change the scheme for that? Would Brian Orakpo not have stripped at the ball Sunday night if they were in a 4-3?

[VRIEL1]

All you have to do to shut up the whinners is remind them that the Saints had one of the worst defenses last year and made it to the SB. Simply by creating turn overs and giving their offense more time with the ball to score points.

enough said.

[KDawg]

All you have to do to shut up the whinners is remind them that the Saints had one of the worst defenses last year and made it to the SB. Simply by creating turn overs and giving their offense more time with the ball to score points.

enough said.

Whiners? Welcome to Extremeskins, where having a coversation paints you as a whiner/moron.

Does that make the Saints D from last year good? Because I'd swear that people here were saying we have a good defense. We don't. We have an attacking, aggressive, relentless defense that wants the football, but that doesn't make them good. It makes them opportunistic, it helps us win games at times and it's going to help us lose games at times. That's the gamble you take when you play with this style of defense. Truth be told, I prefer this overall style, I just wish it wasn't Haslett running it. But then again, I don't know that there were any better alternatives, but I don't know every coach that's out there or that was available. That Saints defense from last year wasn't good, either. They made plays.

And I think I've said time and time again that I like that aspect of the defense. If we could meld Blache and Haslett together our defense would be disgusting

[Springfield]

Turnovers are important, but so is not allowing points, which thus far is something that Haslett's defense failed to do, at least as good as Blache's. And people say that yards allowed doesn't matter, but that's incorrect. yards allowed keeps the defense on the field, more than likely a tired defense. It keeps our offense off the field, thus making it a bit more difficult to score and allowing yards is a sign of a team that bends but doesn't always but sometimes does break. When you allow that many yards you're playing with fire and will get burned.

As I said several times, I like Haslett's attacking style better. But he has a lot of schematic problems (cushion on the receivers and still getting beat?). Blache's defenses were extremely boring, but his lack of an offense really make people underappreciate what his defenses did. Again, I don't want Blache back, but his D's coupled with a decent offense would have been pretty good. Problem is that our offense was horrendous the last two years and did score points, so a low point/yard allowing defense was wasted.

It'll be fun to look back at this season at the end of it and see just how things compare.

One thing I can't and won't argue is how much better Haslett has been at getting turnovers. It's light years of a difference, and that difference is also reflected in their career numbers. And, as I've said, I love the physical play.

It seems like there are two different lines of thinking, two different mindsets here.

#1 - Greg Blache: Keep the opposing team from scoring, hold them to as few yards as possible. Do not worry about creating turnovers.

#2 - Jim Haslett: Make creating turnovers a high priority, even if it means allowing yards and scores for the opponent.

You pointed out that Haslett's defense stays on the field longer and gets tired because it's giving up yards (and thus points). The bright side of Haslett's defense is that it does create turnovers. That gives a short field for the offense, allowing them to score much easier.

My main point about Blache's defense is that while it didn't give up as many yards (and thus points), it hardly ever afforded the offense a short field. Jim Zorn and Jason Campbell were always starting on our side of the field, often times inside the 20. Now neither of those two were offensive geniuses but given a short field or two during the game could have meant the difference between us scoring 17 points per game and 24 points per game last season.

You say Blache's defense helps by keeping everyone fresh. I say Haslett's defense helps by giving our offense a shorter field.

[Springfield]

But what does the scheme have to do with dropping interceptions that hit you in the hands, hitting or stripping at the ball to separate the ball from the ball carrier, or falling on fumbles? Did you need to change the scheme for that? Would Brian Orakpo not have stripped at the ball Sunday night if they were in a 4-3?

Apparently the scheme has a lot to do with it since our turnovers are up by leaps and bounds this season. Perhaps it's the pressure created on the QB, or the different looks of blitzes. Perhaps it's that our players believe in their coach. I don't know, but whatever it is, it's working.

[KDawg]

It seems like there are two different lines of thinking, two different mindsets here.

I don't think you're quite accurate with this assessment. But I'll take this point by point to show you what I mean.

#1 - Greg Blache: Keep the opposing team from scoring, hold them to as few yards as possible. Do not worry about creating turnovers.

#2 - Jim Haslett: Make creating turnovers a high priority, even if it means allowing yards and scores for the opponent.

Absolutely, as far as these two guys go there are different mindsets. I guess in the point above I thought you meant mindsets between yours and mine.

You pointed out that Haslett's defense stays on the field longer and gets tired because it's giving up yards (and thus points). The bright side of Haslett's defense is that it does create turnovers. That gives a short field for the offense, allowing them to score much easier.

Negative/Positive relationship. Agreed here.

My main point about Blache's defense is that while it didn't give up as many yards (and thus points), it hardly ever afforded the offense a short field. Jim Zorn and Jason Campbell were always starting on our side of the field, often times inside the 20. Now neither of those two were offensive geniuses but given a short field or two during the game could have meant the difference between us scoring 17 points per game and 24 points per game last season.

Disagree here, but only in part. Blache's defenses did a horrible job in giving the offense the ball in short field situations, but even when they did the Ineptitude Squad of Campbell/Zorn failed to get in the end zone anyways.

You say Blache's defense helps by keeping everyone fresh. I say Haslett's defense helps by giving our offense a shorter field.

This is where I don't quite think you understand what I'm saying. I agree with all of that stuff. But lets be honest, we don't have a good defense. I wouldn't say Blache's defenses were good either, to be quite honest. They were both good in a certain way, but completely negligent in others. I'd rather be a mid ranked defense across the board than have it be lopsided like these D's have been.

1st in yards/points but 32nd in turnovers is not a good D.

32nd in yards/points is horrendous, but 1st in turnovers is great... But that would still be a bad D.

We need to find a balance, here. And perhaps in the future, maybe even with Haslett we will. But the point is neither of these guys have run great defenses for us... to this point in time.

[Springfield]

We need to find a balance, here. And perhaps in the future, maybe even with Haslett we will. But the point is neither of these guys have run great defenses for us... to this point in time.

I'm hopeful that we can find a balance. We are still shaking the 4-3 off. People think that we changed to a 3-4 because it was the trendy thing to do. We did it because it's the right thing to do. The NFL is a passing league now and the 3-4 is perfect for defending against the pass. We may need some additional players for it, we may not. Only time will tell if Haslett can get everything running smoothly.

I'm hopeful. I get excited when the defense is on the field now. I used to get excited for our individual defensive players, now I get excited for the whole scheme.

[Duckus]

How much does that also have to do with the offenses? Our offense this year hasn't been good, but it's much better than anything Blache had to work with.

We're a Crosby missed FG away from losing the Packer game, a holding penalty away from losing the Cowboy game and a touchdown pass away from losing the Eagle game. That's alarming, and fails the eye test. Sure we've missed opportunities, too, which speaks for our personnel. It's obviously not 100% on Jim Haslett. Our players aren't very good, either. Dropped interceptions are clearly not Haslett's fault.

Actually, our points per game are not that much better than anything in the past. A stat that actually shocked me when I looked it up the other day.

I do agree that our defensive performance is alarming and we are a couple of bounces away from being 0-6 or 1-5. In fact, I don't think our defense is good (except we do seem to make key stops in the 4th quarter). Overall, I think our defense is fairly weak. However, I think our defense was weak under Blache as well.

My point is that our defense was over-valued under Blache and slightly under-valued under Haslett (so far). The truth is that both are pretty . . . "blah."

However, I think Haslett's defense has 1,000 times more potential than Blache's, and that is why I support him. We saw everything Blache had to offer. It was boring and stale. Haslett seems to be creative and seems to get his players to play an extremely physical brand of defense. His D forces TOs and plays with passion.

I am really interested to see what Haslett can do with new young talent over the next 2-3 years inside his creative scheme. With Blache, not so much.

That is the difference to me.

[Duckus]

We need to find a balance, here. And perhaps in the future, maybe even with Haslett we will. But the point is neither of these guys have run great defenses for us... to this point in time.

100% agree. I just posted something similar before I saw this. Both have been "blah" but its the potential for Haslett that is interesting. Blache had shown us everything he had.

[RandyHolt]

If you cant find total turnovers its a flawed analysis. The biggest problem with Blache was he didnt generate turnovers.

Regardless we dont have the personnel for the 3-4 but did it anyways. Judge Haslet with a grain of salt.

Hall is a stud and perfect fit for Haslet. Knocking out Vick and stripping Choice for a TD was very unblachelike. We are winning games with Haslet and if we had more consistency on offense or less stone hands, we maybe even knock off the Colts.

[KDawg]

If you cant find total turnovers its a flawed analysis. The biggest problem with Blache was he didnt generate turnovers.

It's not flawed analysis when you pretty much say that Haslett is better at creating turnovers. The stat becomes luxury at that point because it's obvious that's the case.

We are winning games with Haslet and if we had more consistency on offense or less stone hands, we maybe even knock off the Colts.

Can't the same be said for Blache? The offenses that complimented his defenses were even worse.

[nebster21]

Under Blatche - Redskins running the same system basically for eons.

Under Hasslett - REdskins runnign the same system for 6 months.

[Morneblade]

I honestly think that if Haslett had stuck with the 4-3 we'd be playing better defense than we are now. That is the part that irks me the most. Not so much Haslett (not that Im a fan either) but a switch that made the best part of out team worse.