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

[KDawg]

If you were to check the stats, I'll bet you will find that Zorn's offense did a much better job of ball control and TOP than our current offense. That's what his offense was designed to do. This year's offense is getting its yardage with big passing plays, but has not done well in third-down conversions and moving the chains.

This year our ToP is 29:26

In 2009 it was: 29:00

In 2008 it was: 31:30

[Oldfan]

This year our ToP is 29:26

In 2009 it was: 29:00

In 2008 it was: 31:30

Because of OT games, we need to compare TOP to the opponent's for a clear picture:

This year so far: 29.26 for us 33.38 for opponents

Zorn's two years average: 30.15 for us 29.76 for opponents

Remember also, Blache's defense wasn't helping with takeaways

[KDawg]

This is, as you mentioned, due to the symbiotic relationship between the offense and the defense. Our defense can't get off the field and our offense can't stay on it. Pretty bad combination

[Hubbs]

Keep in mind that this is the NFL, not college football. It's also the year 2010, kickers have gotten better each and every year that this league has existed. Statistically speaking, Shaun Suisham was better than Mark Moseley. 52 yarders are routinely made in this league. Kickers this season have made 60% of 50+ yard field goals. Crosby was 2/2 before he missed that one. I'd prefer they didn't even get the chance to kick it, to be honest. Had that been the first time they broke down at the end of a game I'd be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt. However, we were a bad call (if they didn't call that hold on Rak, like they haven't several times this year) from losing the Dallas game and we couldn't stop Houston from driving... Or Philly. But we held against Indy and gave our offense a shot, and Landry stopped Green Bay on the second play of their final drive in OT. That's a 40% hit rate on stopping opponents on their final drive to win the game, and that's not counting the drive that set up the Crosby missed field goal. (That's holding a team to a 3 and out, or even less than 8 plays.) You're really okay with that?

A 40% hit rate? Um, yeah, if the alternative is a 70% hit rate.

I said as much. But it came pretty close in all three of those

Sure it did. Game of inches.

This is proving my point. We can't stop opposing quarterbacks, remember that yard stat that you deem unimportant? Yeah, they're gashing us in that department. 32nd in the league.

Yards! Not yards! Please, not yards! God forbid we beat the Texans if a series of miracles, all benefitting the Texans, doesn't happen!

Ironic because we've stopped opponents on their final drive 40% of the time. But I'd imagine your reply is going to be "better 40% of the time than 30% of the time" which my rebuttal will be, "Yes, and 30 is better than 20, that doesn't make it a good rate".

So what would you suggest we do to get 30 instead of 20?

If you want to say that we should bring back Gregg Williams without Greg Blache, I'll listen. He seems to be quite good at confusing opposing quarterbacks with the 4-3. And oh look, his defense last year did things like this:

The results continued in doubt for the Saints until Vilma came up with another defensive fourth-down hit on RB Jason Snelling. Stopping him a yard short of the marker with just over a minute remaining, the Saints' defense came up big but gave up 392 yards.

No yards. No points. When it matters.

That would be ideal. I don't think you've been following this thread closely, the offense is an issue. I've posted numbers that prove that in this very thread. But this offense is better than the offense we've had the last two seasons, but not necessarily in the 4th quarter. We're allowing 4.5 points per game in the fourth quarter and scoring just 2.1 points. Neither is the sign of a juggernaut in the fourth.

Yeah, we've been bad on offense in later periods of games I really have no idea why. I don't think it's the system, though. Maybe it's a byproduct of the fact that we have an old team.

[KDawg]

A 40% hit rate? Um, yeah, if the alternative is a 70% hit rate.

True. And I'd take a 50% hit rate if the alternative was a 100% hit rate. You're throwing nonsensical numbers out there.

Sure it did. Game of inches.

A quote that other teams don't take quite as literally as we do, apparently.

Yards! Not yards! Please, not yards! God forbid we beat the Texans if a series of miracles, all benefitting the Texans, doesn't happen!

Miracles? Or football? You seem to jump with empirical data when it benefits your point but ignore it when it doesn't. Although, I wouldn't call the use of the word "miracles" empirical at all.

So what would you suggest we do to get 30 instead of 20?

I can't answer that. I'm not at practice. However one thing I'd do is play much more of a man scheme without the cushion in the zone, for sure. If you're going to be an aggressive defense, be an aggressive defense. You can't have an identity crisis.

If you want to say that we should bring back Gregg Williams without Greg Blache, I'll listen. He seems to be quite good at confusing opposing quarterbacks with the 4-3. And oh look, his defense last year did things

I don't want Blache back. I think I've said that numerous times in this thread, and nor was that the point of the thread. Looks like you've only skimmed through.

Oh and by the way, his defense last year? Not good in the least. They won games due to an elite level offense and a defense that created turnovers. We have that style of defense with a mediocre/averageish offense. Doesn't work quite as well like that.

Yards. Not points. When it matters.

And what did their offensive production look like? 391 yards gained and 8/12 on 3rd down converstions and an offense that held the ball for over 36 minutes. The defense was on the field for 23 minutes and change and gave up 392 yards. You don't think that if they were out there longer they wouldn't have broken? Thank the offense for that win. And are you trying to argue that a defense that gives up 392 yards in a game is a good defense?

[Hubbs]

True. And I'd take a 50% hit rate if the alternative was a 100% hit rate. You're throwing nonsensical numbers out there.

Huh? You'd take 50% over 100%? Erm... why?

They have to be nonsensical. I'm trying to describe how often we'd succeed if we ran this scheme, with these players, this year, as compared to another scheme. If you've got a better method, I'm all ears.

A quote that other teams don't take quite as literally as we do, apparently.

Maybe they should start.

Miracles? Or football? You seem to jump with empirical data when it benefits your point but ignore it when it doesn't. Although, I wouldn't call the use of the word "miracles" empirical at all.

It isn't a miracle when you can score a touchdown on 4th and 10 from the 40? When our kicker misses a chip shot field goal, just like our kicker did against the Saints last year, which I would add, was its own series of miracles for the Saints? Like when the Saints scored when we intercepted the ball? You wouldn't find that play miraculous as a Saints fan? Should the Texans start building their gameplan on giving us the ball in overtime, only to have McNabb miss a long ball on 3rd and 5 to keep us out of reasonable field goal position? I wouldn't be happy with that gameplan if I were a Texans fan, I'll tell you that much.

I can't answer that. I'm not at practice. However one thing I'd do is play much more of a man scheme without the cushion in the zone, for sure. If you're going to be an aggressive defense, be an aggressive defense. You can't have an identity crisis.

Oh, sure. I'd agree with that, with the caveat that you can still be aggressive with a zone via the zone blitz. I'm not sure if you're saying that playing man coverage inherently allows you to be more aggressive than you can be with a zone blitz, but if you are, how do you reconcile that with the fact that when we blitz everyone but three or four guys, we generally tell those guys to play zone, because man would allow a back to be wide open on a safety route much more easily?

I don't want Blache back. I think I've said that numerous times in this thread, and nor was that the point of the thread. Looks like you've only skimmed through.

You wouldn't want Blache back even though he'd run a 4-3, and you think a 4-3 would be best with these personnel? Why? You like Haslett's version of the 3-4 better than Blache's version of the 4-3? Blache's 4-3 sure seemed to be good at giving up both points and yards when it really mattered, but it came with a lovely defensive ranking. Would you sacrifice the ranking or not?

Oh and by the way, his defense last year? Not good in the least. They won games due to an elite level offense and a defense that created turnovers. We have that style of defense with a mediocre/averageish offense. Doesn't work quite as well like that.

Turnovers, eh? Those seem important. Maybe we should try them.

If you really think Gregg Williams' defense last year wasn't good, I really have no idea what to tell you. His defense was amazing. It's the biggest reason, other than Drew Brees, why the Saints won double-digit games and won the Super Bowl.

And what did their offensive production look like? 391 yards gained and 8/12 on 3rd down converstions and an offense that held the ball for over 36 minutes. The defense was on the field for 23 minutes and change and gave up 392 yards. You don't think that if they were out there longer they wouldn't have broken? Thank the offense for that win. And are you trying to argue that a defense that gives up 392 yards in a game is a good defense?

Hold on. You just said that you don't want Blache back. His defenses were great at not giving up yards. He wouldn't pitch many 392-yard games. So which is it? Would you want him or not?

I'm trying to argue that a defense that gives up 392 yards can be a good defense, if it generates things like turnovers. We should have picked off Peyton Manning four times. Peyton ****ing Manning. Yeah, I'll sacrifice yards for that.

Your argument against the 392-yard defense says Greg Blache is great, and Gregg Williams is bad. Well, unless there's an absolutely enormous divide between the calibers of the offenses and special teams units they have, Gregg will beat Greg 9 times out of ten, and he'll give up yards to do it.

Did the Saints defense make a stop when it really, really needed to or not?

[Tom10Y]

I think Blatche's defense, tweaked a bit would be better. Maybe put LaRon back to the SS instead of FS when he got burned all the time. Also been more aggressive, better blitz package and play-calling would have gone a long way. Also a crash course on tackling and stripping balls. But other than that, I was happy with Blatche's defense.

[kubstix]

I have the only stats that I need. Until we have more data, this thread is pointless.

4-12

3-3

We have been "in it" in every game so far. Even against Peyton Manning.

Get back to me in 9 weeks.

We lost 8 games in 2009 by less than a touchdown. We were also "in it" in games even against Drew Bree's. Your logic is fail.

[KDawg]

Huh? You'd take 50% over 100%? Erm... why?

Because if they score half of the time they're not scoring every time?

They have to be nonsensical.

To prove a nonsensical point, I'd guess you're correct.

It isn't a miracle when you can score a touchdown on 4th and 10 from the 40?

No, it's bad defense.

When our kicker misses a chip shot field goal, just like our kicker did against the Saints last year, which I would add, was its own series of miracles for the Saints?

No. It's bad kicking.

Should the Texans start building their gameplan on giving us the ball in overtime, only to have McNabb miss a long ball on 3rd and 5 to keep us out of reasonable field goal position?

You mean like how Kolb threw the ball to DeAngelo Hall at the end of the game? Oh, we're only allowing mistakes to count when it counts against the Redskins, eh?

Oh, sure. I'd agree with that, with the caveat that you can still be aggressive with a zone via the zone blitz. I'm not sure if you're saying that playing man coverage inherently allows you to be more aggressive than you can be with a zone blitz, but if you are, how do you reconcile that with the fact that when we blitz everyone but three or four guys, we generally tell those guys to play zone, because man would allow a back to be wide open on a safety route much more easily?

The zone blitz and the zone fire blitz are one thing. But you still don't need that cushion to employ a cover 4 or a cover 3. You can play tight to the receiver and drop vertical as you diagnose threats coming into your zone. And man coverage, bumping specifically, throws off timing which not only leads to more picks, but also leads to more incompletions and more sacks.

You wouldn't want Blache back even though he'd run a 4-3, and you think a 4-3 would be best with these personnel?

Because I didn't like Blache's vanilla style defense.

Why? You like Haslett's version of the 3-4 better than Blache's version of the 4-3?

I like the attacking style of defense better than the vanilla style.

Blache's 4-3 sure seemed to be good at giving up both points and yards when it really mattered, but it came with a lovely defensive ranking. Would you sacrifice the ranking or not?

Seeing how this isn't true, and was the entire point of the thread, I don't know how to answer this. Blache's 4th quarter points allowed in 2009, the worse of his two years, was about a point higher than Haslett's is so far, but it's his second best per quarter points allowed stat, second only to his 3rd quarters where he allowed just 1.875 points per 3rd quarter. That's astonishing. His defenses didn't fold in the second half, they folded in the first half. Haslett's are pretty even across the board, but worse in the second half.

Turnovers, eh? Those seem important. Maybe we should try them.

I never said otherwise.

If you really think Gregg Williams' defense last year wasn't good, I really have no idea what to tell you. His defense was amazing. It's the biggest reason, other than Drew Brees, why the Saints won double-digit games and won the Super Bowl.

If you think so. I think it had something to do with their entire offense scoring a ton of points and not just Drew Brees, although he was a major contributor.

510 points on the season for their offense. 31.875 points per game. Ranked number one in the NFL in points AND yards.

Meanwhile, their defense allowed 341 points per game, an average of 21.31 points per game and ranked 20th in points and 25th in yards.

Their defense was helpful in them winning due to the turnovers coupled with the high octane offense that they employ, not in spite of it. Had they had a bottom of the league or even average offense those turnovers would not have won them games.

But hey, if you want to discount that the entire offense for the Saints was good, be my guest.

Hold on. You just said that you don't want Blache back.

Correct.

His defenses were great at not giving up yards. He wouldn't pitch many 392-yard games. So which is it? Would you want him or not?

You're once again showing me that you're not reading. I don't want either guy. I do like the 3-4, I don't like Haslett being the coach. I do like the 4-3. I don't like Blache as the coach. I don't believe we have the personnel for the 3-4, namely due to lacking a nose tackle. Hope that makes things a bit clearer.

I'm trying to argue that a defense that gives up 392 yards can be a good defense, if it generates things like turnovers. We should have picked off Peyton Manning four times. Peyton ****ing Manning. Yeah, I'll sacrifice yards for that.

Should of, but didn't. But I do agree that we should have. Bad that's personnel, which really can't be fully pinned on Haslett yet seeing how he just got here.

Your argument against the 392-yard defense says Greg Blache is great

Read the thread. I don't think Blache is great. But again, it seems like you didn't even read it.

and Gregg Williams is bad.

Certainly never said that. His defense last year wasn't very good, but it worked for the Saints. Why? The highest scoring/producing offense in the NFL was a part of it. Williams was great here other than one season where he pooped the bed, but his turnover stats in Washington weren't stellar.

Well, unless there's an absolutely enormous divide between the calibers of the offenses and special teams units they have, Gregg will beat Greg 9 times out of ten, and he'll give up yards to do it.

Last I checked defenses didn't face defenses on the field.

Did the Saints defense make a stop when it really, really needed to or not?

Not quite sure I understand this logic. A football game is 60 minutes long, correct? Why do the only stops that matter come at the end of the game? *shrug*

[bigricky3469]

Last season we played 5 of the worse teams in the league and lost to most of them. this topic sucks.

[KDawg]

Last season we played 5 of the worse teams in the league and lost to most of them. this topic sucks.

Is that specifically due to the defense, or does the offense have something to do with that?

But nevermind critical thinking. At least Hubbs is capable of having a real discussion. We don't agree on most of it, but he knows how to carry a conversation

[Dan T.]

Has anyone mentioned that so far we've played the number 2, 3, 4, and 5th ranked offenses in the NFL so far this season (in addition to the 13th and 20th ranked).

Colts = 2nd

Cowboys = 3rd

Eagles = 4th

Texans = 5th

Packers = 13th

Rams = 20th

That bodes well for upcoming success against the Bears (29th) and the Lions (14th).

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=TM&season=2010&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1

[VRIEL1]

Agree with both of the above points. However, trends seem to hold true throughout a coordinators career. I think that's where you see a better indicator of who that coordinator is independent of "stats" in a season or two.

and because of Haslett's stats with the Saints and Rams I didn't want him to even get looked at or even get the job, however I'm kinda glad he did now. A side from the stats the defense "looks" to be having fun and creating turn overs. Before they looked like they were always afraid of getting the whip from the DC under either G.Williams or Blache.

[JustAfan47]

Nice write up KDawg.... To early to really say anything tho for me but still a good read.

[KDawg]

Has anyone mentioned that so far we've played the number 2, 3, 4, and 5th ranked offenses in the NFL so far this season (in addition to the 13th and 20th ranked).

Colts = 2nd

Cowboys = 3rd

Eagles = 4th

Texans = 5th

Packers = 13th

Rams = 20th

That bodes well for upcoming success against the Bears (29th) and the Lions (14th).

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=TM&season=2010&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1

Oh, absolutely. This is why it may be early. Again, the purpose of the thread was to combat the notion that Blache's defenses would have given up points where Haslett's hasn't. The rest of the conversation is just great conversation.

But, just for conversation sake... It could be argued that those offenses are partially up there on the list due to having played us, could it not? *shrug*

[Tin Man]

I think that we should've stayed with the 4-3 simply because the personnel were all recruited with the 4-3 in mind; and that what was wrong was Blache's philosophy. And... since Rodgers WILL NOT make an interception, he should be the designated every-play, bump-and-run corner. At least he should be able to disrupt some routes.

[Beans]

Additionally, Blache’s secondary proved to be the strength of the defense despite the fact that his defensive backfield had 10 different starting lineups in 16 games in 2008. The Redskins defense limited opponents to just 193.4 yards per game and helped force the highest percentage of three-and-outs in the NFL.

That's the Redskin's football I'm used to. Haslett needs to take his ass back to the UFL. His hiring is the worst mistake thus far from the new regime. Switching to the 3-4 comes in at a very, very, and I mean very close second.

[Dan T.]

But, just for conversation sake... It could be argued that those offenses are partially up there on the list due to having played us, could it not? *shrug*

I think six games is enough to shake out that anomaly.

[MusicCitySkin]

Well, I'm convinced. Let's go dig up Greg Blache, who's so good that no other team has hired him(I know he retired, but everyone has a price). I miss watching the Giants torch us for 45 points.

[Hubbs]

I think Blatche's defense, tweaked a bit would be better. Maybe put LaRon back to the SS instead of FS when he got burned all the time. Also been more aggressive, better blitz package and play-calling would have gone a long way. Also a crash course on tackling and stripping balls. But other than that, I was happy with Blatche's defense.

So, other than, well, damn near everything, Blache was great.

We lost 8 games in 2009 by less than a touchdown. We were also "in it" in games even against Drew Bree's. Your logic is fail.

Yes, I'd much rather lose more close games than win more close games.

[Hubbs]

I think six games is enough to shake out that anomaly.

But some of them have only played five games! What now, smug guy who I'm arguing with even though it cancels out my other arguments and renders me unable to make any argument whatsoever? Ha-HA, I say!

[Chachie]

Greg Blache's defense suffered from horrible offense syndrome. If we'd had any O whatsoever, he'd still be here. I'm not a Haslett believer.

[Oldfan]

Greg Blache's defense suffered from horrible offense syndrome. If we'd had any O whatsoever, he'd still be here. I'm not a Haslett believer.

You're mistaken. Zorn's offense played the ball control game better than our current offense which helped the defense. Greg's passive defense, on the other hand, allowed our opponents to control the ball in long drives and didn't create takeaways and give the offense many short field advantages.

[KDawg]

Well, I'm convinced. Let's go dig up Greg Blache, who's so good that no other team has hired him(I know he retired, but everyone has a price). I miss watching the Giants torch us for 45 points.

Not sure how you could be convinced when you didn't bother to read the OP . The intent of the thread was posted clearly in the OP. It was to prove that people saying, "Blache's defenses would have allowed scores when Haslett's hasn't" wasn't a true statement.

You're mistaken. Zorn's offense played the ball control game better than our current offense which helped the defense. Greg's passive defense, on the other hand, allowed our opponents to control the ball in long drives and didn't create takeaways and give the offense many short field advantages.

In that regard, you're correct. But Zorn's offenses failed to put up points. Blache's defenses did a decent job at shutting the opposing offense down, but our offense did the team no favors.

Again, I'd rather not have Blache or Haslett as our coordinator, but I prefer Haslett's style better, not necessarily his scheme.

EDIT: I think it's becoming pretty clear that a passive offense + passive defense will get you no where in this league. I can only think of two passive offenses + aggressive defenses that went to the Super Bowl this decade off the top of my head (Chicago and Baltimore). I think an aggressive offense + aggressive defense works wonders. This is why New Orleans was successful. Their offense was MUCH better than their defense, but due to the defenses ability to get takeaways, the two worked pretty well together. If New Orleans had an offense that was a middle tier offense I don't think anyone would think their defense was any good. They worked well together.

Zorns West Coast Offense, a ball control offense, coupled with Blache's vanilla D did this team no favors whatsoever. I think Blache's D would have fared better with Shanahan's offense, as we're taking more shots, but it still wouldn't be great because the offense has failed to really establish that aggressive identity. If our offense can manage to be more aggressive and start connecting on more of those long balls, coupled with the defense we have I think they can work pretty well in harmony together. I think the same could be said in reverse as well. If our defense could get off the field a bit easier, I think the offense would look a bit better as they won't be sitting on the sidelines for as long. I guess this is all discourse, but it seems to be a trend that we seem to mostly all agree with (I could be mistaken, there).

Personally, I believe in being aggressive. The last three years I called an offense and I was as aggressive as you can get. This year I called the defense and I'm as aggressive as I can get.

[TotalRecall]

Sorry, but Greg Blache had the overall better defense. Zorn's offense couldn't get first downs or score. Blache's defense stayed on the field a long time because of the ineffective offense and his defense was still a top 10 defense.

Now, we have an offense that can move the ball and score. And Haslett's defense is ranked last in the NFL! His only accomplishment is more turnovers.