Chalk Talk Discussion Topic: What's the issue with our defense?

[Saqs]

Are you planning to do a defensive break down for the Vikings game LL? It looked like we did some different things out there that didn't look as basic as they have been.

[artmonkforHOF]

Fixing the D is simple: find a guy like RG3 who plays defense, RG4. Problem solved.

I would like to take credit for that idea, but I stole it from Mike Shannahan's scouting notes for 2013. After I stole his notebook, I planned to copy it for an hour or so, to make sure I didn't miss anything, but it turned out that was the only note in it, followed by page after page of stylized RG4 logos, sketches of 3 Lombardi trophies and few crudely scribbled "Suck it Al Davis"'s thrown in for good measure.

to be honest, I haven't seen a game since the opener in New Orleans (caught part of the last drive vs TB when they gave bonus coverage from a game that ended early), I have no idea what is wrong with the Defense, all I ever see is the RG3 highlight reel and man does that look good! I did not expect much from the D this year, and then expected even less when Rak went down, but do agree man to man coverage has been a problem for a while now. I dont think much can be done in season, unless the corners jsut all of a sudden decide to improve their play, so put cover corner on the list of draft & FA needs for next year.

[Brotherz]

Kdawg,

Always love your analysis. I have actually been meaning to ask you a question about something similar - Is there any intention to any of this? What I mean is do you think that there is actually a plan in place here to be more of a scoring defense, a defense with high risk'/reward so get turnovers and short fields for our new offense?

We are scoring more on defense and we are getting some turnovers. At the same time we are maddeningly unable to really stop anyone. We have slowed some teams down like Atlanta and NO however. Is it possible we aren't really trying to be a 3 n out defense? It may sound silly but is there a style of play that is intended to allow a team a lot of plays, to move down the field to limi big plays and to "bait" opponents into a costly turnover or two per game?

It seems like there is a style of defense around the NFL (think New Orleans during their superbowl year for example and even New England last year) that corresponds to the new offensive philosophy and rules where defense isn't pitching shutouts or limiting teams to under 200 total yards etc like back in the day and instead they are focusing on big plays on defense and trying to score an extra possession of two for their potent offense. Do you see anything that appears to be intentionally different over the past few years like this?

[Lavarleap56]

Are you planning to do a defensive break down for the Vikings game LL? It looked like we did some different things out there that didn't look as basic as they have been.

Yeah I will do some.. I saw some changes like I was calling for last week with was encouraging.

[Mahons21]

Brothers, I agree with your notion whole heartedly. In a previous post, I describe it as an aggressive version of bend don't break defense.

[KCClybun]

Brothers, I agree with your notion whole heartedly. In a previous post, I describe it as an aggressive version of bend don't break defense.

An "aggressive version of the bend don't break defense" is an oxymoron.

Either you're aggressive, or you're bend don't break. Usually, you're "bend don't break" because you're not aggressive and you're just hoping to keep everything in front of you and prevent the big play. When you play an aggressive defense you risk giving up the big play by sending the blitz and hoping it gets there.

I'll give you this; for the first few weeks, Jim Haslett was trying to run an "aggressive bend-don't break" defense, and he got smoked because the two philosophies don't fit one another.

[Shabby]

You know, before last sunday, I would have said it was London Fletcher is beginning to show his age, and that we absolutely have no secondary whatsoever. But after last week I cant say Fletcher is showing age, dude came out to play and was all over the field. hopefully he can keep that up. The secondary is still garbage. But our biggest problem is our pass rush. I watch other teams who send 3, 4 or 5 guys, and get tremendous amount of pressure, and im like okay cool, we can do that too. But then when i see our team send 6, 7 or 8 guys, and get NO pressure AT ALL, im just like seriously?? RK91 is a beast, i like him a lot, but the other dudes cant seem to get any pressure, they seem to run towards the block rather than getting around it.

[Airyx]

I agree with most of this:

Here are my reasons the D gives up too many long passes.

1. Except for Doughty, neither of the guys at the safety position plays smart. They have gotten better, but they are the primary problem. Most offenses have the QB read the reaction of the safeties, and ours give away too much...or, in the case of Doughty, he's too slow to make a difference.

2. Perhaps because he has so much speed in the secondary, Haslett calls too many zone rotations. He's trying to disguise the coverages, and it DOES produce turnovers (the Williams pick is a perfect example), but it also has your guys start the play out of position. For example, he runs a lot of cover-1 man, which is easy for a QB to read pre-snap, and that's fine. Then he uses that established tendency to try to create QB errors post snap. He does this by running cover-2 or 3 zone out of a pre-snap alignment that LOOKS like a Cover-1. Consider that, you have one or two guys that have to sprint back to deep zone coverages as the ball snaps. If the QB recognizes it quickly, you have big holes for him to hit, but if he's still thinking cover-1, then you have a good chance at a pick.

3. The OLBs are not good in coverage.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:05 PM ----------

You know, before last sunday, I would have said it was London Fletcher is beginning to show his age, and that we absolutely have no secondary whatsoever. But after last week I cant say Fletcher is showing age, dude came out to play and was all over the field. hopefully he can keep that up. The secondary is still garbage. But our biggest problem is our pass rush. I watch other teams who send 3, 4 or 5 guys, and get tremendous amount of pressure, and im like okay cool, we can do that too. But then when i see our team send 6, 7 or 8 guys, and get NO pressure AT ALL, im just like seriously?? RK91 is a beast, i like him a lot, but the other dudes cant seem to get any pressure, they seem to run towards the block rather than getting around it.

They are moving Kerrigan around, but he is doubled wherever he lines up.

Jackson doesn't keep his feet moving. As soon as he makes contact, he stands still. Not a good pass rusher.

Without Orakpo drawing attention also, the inside guys, who are fine pass rushers for 3-4 D-Linemen, aren't able to get space.

They need to delay Kerrigan, and bring him around on stunts to keep him away from double teams.

[Mahons21]

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/redskins-defensive-troubles-mitigated-by-turnovers/article/2510843

Good article from John keim concerning the defense.

[Lavarleap56]

about to poke massive holes in this "debate"...

[KDawg]

Kdawg,

Always love your analysis. I have actually been meaning to ask you a question about something similar - Is there any intention to any of this? What I mean is do you think that there is actually a plan in place here to be more of a scoring defense, a defense with high risk'/reward so get turnovers and short fields for our new offense?

If there is intention, it's been a flawed strategy. We've lost three of the games that we've scored defensive touchdowns in.

We are scoring more on defense and we are getting some turnovers. At the same time we are maddeningly unable to really stop anyone. We have slowed some teams down like Atlanta and NO however. Is it possible we aren't really trying to be a 3 n out defense? It may sound silly but is there a style of play that is intended to allow a team a lot of plays, to move down the field to limi big plays and to "bait" opponents into a costly turnover or two per game?

It's a fairly natural assumption that the more plays you run, the more prone to turnovers you are. That said, if we intentionally went in to the season saying, "hey, they're going to move the ball, but lets limit the huge plays and just let them chunk the ball down the field" then it's a pretty poor plan. We're decent in third down conversions allowed, but still not good. Regardless of the defense you run I think you need to be very sound on third downs and in the red zone.

It seems like there is a style of defense around the NFL (think New Orleans during their superbowl year for example and even New England last year) that corresponds to the new offensive philosophy and rules where defense isn't pitching shutouts or limiting teams to under 200 total yards etc like back in the day and instead they are focusing on big plays on defense and trying to score an extra possession of two for their potent offense. Do you see anything that appears to be intentionally different over the past few years like this?

There could be some sort of trend, but I'm not sure it's a smart one. Creating a turnover isn't creating an extra possession for the offense. It's simply giving the ball back to them at an unwanted time for the opposition and eliminating the possibility to score points on their end.

If we're talking a perfect world, I'd like a 2000 Baltimore Ravens defense to pair with our offense. I don't think we're a quick strike offense in a nutshell. I think we're a take it as they give it kind of offense. It's a potent unit, for sure. But other than Garcon vs. New Orleans and RG3 vs. Minnesota, I'd say we move the ball very methodically. And they're certainly always a threat. But I'd just assume get a good amount of turnovers and a great 3rd down and red zone defense and limit opponent yards.

To answer your question, I think there could be intention, but I don't think that's the case here. LeBeau's Steelers defenses were never based on that premise and he had some phenomenal defenses in his career, even in terms of yards and points while still getting a good amount of turnovers.

[darrelgreenie]

CB Chad Scott

I raced Chad Scott and Exree Hipp when I was in college and beat them both, true story.

Haslett is an average DC.

[Darth Tater]

If there is intention, it's been a flawed strategy. We've lost three of the games that we've scored defensive touchdowns in.

When Williams was headed to end zone I was screaming for someone to stop him!

[Lavarleap56]

Working on the defensive film and write ups for tomorrow. I think some people would like to know the secondary comes out looking good, film does not lie..I will also be going over some other reasons why you cant sit at home watching TV and judge secondary play accurately. A lot more is in play on a per down basis than the normal fan probably even realizes.

[Mahons21]

LeBeau was the DC until the end of the 96 season. In 1997 he became the defensive coordinator for the Cincinnati Bengals.

In the year 2000, Haslett moved on to New Orleans.

Keep in mind, the numbers you credited to Haslett in 1996 were really LeBeau's. As was 1995.

I see, my mistake.

Looking at statistics it looks like the majority of his starters played 15 or 16 games in 1999. Chad Scott played in 13 and Joel Steed played in 14. So it doesn't look like there were any significant injuries. Just a drop in production.

I think the large fall was indicative of Haslett's finger print.

Haha, I know you do. While I agree that it's possible, I just don't find it plausible. A man comes in, improves the defense DVOA year 1, regresses his 2nd year, but only the the 6th overall ranking, and then the next year he drops to 22nd? It just doesn't seem likely that a.) it would take the league over 2 years to figure out Haslett if he's so simplistic b.) he'd get a head coaching gig (albeit a shabby one), if the league perception of him was so poor.

I believe there has to be some other explanation what it is, I don't know, but I just can't buy that Haslett is THAT bad. The team regressed back to the mean the year after Haslett left, ranking 8th overall in DVOA, which supports your point, but a DC would have to be historically bad to be the cause of a dominant defense regressing to below average. Furthermore, said coach likely would be fired, not promoted.

[KDawg]

A man comes in, improves the defense DVOA year 1, regresses his 2nd year, but only the the 6th overall ranking, and then the next year he drops to 22nd?

Year prior to Haslett: 1996 Steelers D DVOA: -14.6

Year of his arrival: 1997 Steelers D DVOA: -13.2

That was not an improvement.

It just doesn't seem likely that a.) it would take the league over 2 years to figure out Haslett if he's so simplistic b.) he'd get a head coaching gig (albeit a shabby one), if the league perception of him was so poor.

Teams are able to adjust quite easily. Tendencies are pretty easy to find, sometimes only needing at max a season. And if they are very tendency oriented less than that. I don't know if that's the case with Haslett, but it doesn't take long to figure out what a tendency oriented coordinator is doing.

People make wrong hires for head coaches all the time. The Saints took a flyer on the guy.

He was the Saints DC in 1996 and then he left for Pittsburgh. He had two great seasons (in my opinion, and through hindsight) due to LeBeau's presence and blueprint in Pittsburgh.

In 1996 as DC of the Saints he posted a DVOA of 3.2%. Which was a TON better than the 7.3% they posted the year prior to his arrival. In New Orleans he ran a 4-3 defense. Pittsburgh saw that and figured he was the new "hot coordinator". At that time, Haslett was a shade over 40 years old. The Steelers plugged him in and saw success. Until year three.

At that point, the Saints saw the two years prior and the improvement they saw under his watch in 1996 and he was brought in to New Orleans once again to be the head coach.

Saints DVOAs:

1999 (Year Prior to Haslett's arrival as head coach): 8.8%

2000: -4.6% He saw immediate improvement improving the DOA tenfold

2001: 3.0%

2002: 1.7%

2003: 6.1%

2004: 12.2%

2005: 8.6%

I'm not impressed in the least by those numbers. He saw immediate improvement in New Orleans and then dropped like a ton of bricks off a very tall building.

After 2005 he was fired by the Saints and went to the Rams and was their DC from 2006-2008 (he was also their interim head coach in '08).

Rams DVOAs:

2005 (year before Haslett arrived): 12.7%

2006: 12.4%

2007: 8.2%

2008: 18.3%

With that abysmal performance, he was looking for work again. But no NFL team came calling. He went to the Florida Tuskers of the UFL before the Washington Redskins SWOOPED him up.

Redskin DVOAs:

2009 (year prior to Haslett's arrival): -2.1%

2010: 5.8%

2011: -1.2%

He has never, once, in his entire coaching career sustained success for a long period of time. And he has WAY more negative tendencies than positive ones.

To me, and again, I know this is just my opinion, it's obvious why his rank dropped so far in 1999 in Pittsburgh... him.

Furthermore, said coach likely would be fired, not promoted.

He wasn't promoted in Pittsburgh though. He was promoted in New Orleans. Who very likely saw that season as a outlier in performance.

It's also worth noting he never actually worked WITH LeBeau in Pittsburgh.

[Lavarleap56]

Year prior to Haslett: 1996 Steelers D DVOA: -14.6

Year of his arrival: 1997 Steelers D DVOA: -13.2

That was not an improvement.

Teams are able to adjust quite easily. Tendencies are pretty easy to find, sometimes only needing at max a season. And if they are very tendency oriented less than that. I don't know if that's the case with Haslett, but it doesn't take long to figure out what a tendency oriented coordinator is doing.

People make wrong hires for head coaches all the time. The Saints took a flyer on the guy.

He was the Saints DC in 1996 and then he left for Pittsburgh. He had two great seasons (in my opinion, and through hindsight) due to LeBeau's presence and blueprint in Pittsburgh.

In 1996 as DC of the Saints he posted a DVOA of 3.2%. Which was a TON better than the 7.3% they posted the year prior to his arrival. In New Orleans he ran a 4-3 defense. Pittsburgh saw that and figured he was the new "hot coordinator". At that time, Haslett was a shade over 40 years old. The Steelers plugged him in and saw success. Until year three.

At that point, the Saints saw the two years prior and the improvement they saw under his watch in 1996 and he was brought in to New Orleans once again to be the head coach.

Saints DVOAs:

1999 (Year Prior to Haslett's arrival as head coach): 8.8%

2000: -4.6% He saw immediate improvement improving the DOA tenfold

2001: 3.0%

2002: 1.7%

2003: 6.1%

2004: 12.2%

2005: 8.6%

I'm not impressed in the least by those numbers. He saw immediate improvement in New Orleans and then dropped like a ton of bricks off a very tall building.

After 2005 he was fired by the Saints and went to the Rams and was their DC from 2006-2008 (he was also their interim head coach in '08).

Rams DVOAs:

2005 (year before Haslett arrived): 12.7%

2006: 12.4%

2007: 8.2%

2008: 18.3%

With that abysmal performance, he was looking for work again. But no NFL team came calling. He went to the Florida Tuskers of the UFL before the Washington Redskins SWOOPED him up.

Redskin DVOAs:

2009 (year prior to Haslett's arrival): -2.1%

2010: 5.8%

2011: -1.2%

He has never, once, in his entire coaching career sustained success for a long period of time. And he has WAY more negative tendencies than positive ones.

To me, and again, I know this is just my opinion, it's obvious why his rank dropped so far in 1999 in Pittsburgh... him.

He wasn't promoted in Pittsburgh though. He was promoted in New Orleans. Who very likely saw that season as a outlier in performance.

It's also worth noting he never actually worked WITH LeBeau in Pittsburgh.

Agree with you on a lot of this KDawg. I'm really starting to think that Haslett is a very tendency oriented coach. I'm going over this film all the time and I noticed that most of the teams we have faced this year find a way to get Haslett to play the defense they want. The teams then attack and go to their formation of choice in critical moments. Could be a coincidence but every game this year it looks like teams dictate or defense and hit for big plays. The Vikings game film I'm going to put up later is no different. Every time we saw a specific Vikings formation we played the exact same defense and got hit with chunk yardage each time. Blew my mind.

[Mahons21]

Year prior to Haslett: 1996 Steelers D DVOA: -14.6

Year of his arrival: 1997 Steelers D DVOA: -13.2

That was not an improvement.

DVOA metric changes year to year, it's largely based on other performances of teams that specific season. Thus, in my opinion, a ranking is a more accurate depiction of where the team stands.

For example in 1996, -14.6 was good for 4th overall ranking, but in 1997 -13.2 is good for second

So in my opinion, yes it was an improvement.

Teams are able to adjust quite easily. Tendencies are pretty easy to find, sometimes only needing at max a season. And if they are very tendency oriented less than that. I don't know if that's the case with Haslett, but it doesn't take long to figure out what a tendency oriented coordinator is doing.

This plays into my point. I asserted that the NFL would have figure Haslett out before year three had he been so tendency oriented. However their isn't a large drop off, his defense still ranks 6th overall in Haslett's second season.

Had it been such simple tendencies that you and others are suggesting, why did it take the entire NFL three yeras to find them.

People make wrong hires for head coaches all the time. The Saints took a flyer on the guy.

I don't disagree, but I find it very unlikely that someone, as historically bad as you're suggesting Haslett is, would get a HC job head their performance been as absymal as you portray it.

He was the Saints DC in 1996 and then he left for Pittsburgh. He had two great seasons (in my opinion, and through hindsight) due to LeBeau's presence and blueprint in Pittsburgh.

But LeBeau wasn't there when he was as you pointed out, and the specific problem everyone has with Haslett is not the schem he runs (which would be the only thing effected by the blueprint of LeBeau) rather it's Haslett's play-calling which was not effected at all by LeBeau.

As people have pointed out in the other thread regarding defense, two people can have the same playbook and have two defenses that look entirely different.

In 1996 as DC of the Saints he posted a DVOA of 3.2%. Which was a TON better than the 7.3% they posted the year prior to his arrival. In New Orleans he ran a 4-3 defense. Pittsburgh saw that and figured he was the new "hot coordinator". At that time, Haslett was a shade over 40 years old. The Steelers plugged him in and saw success. Until year three.

At that point, the Saints saw the two years prior and the improvement they saw under his watch in 1996 and he was brought in to New Orleans once again to be the head coach.

Saints DVOAs:

1999 (Year Prior to Haslett's arrival as head coach): 8.8%

2000: -4.6% He saw immediate improvement improving the DOA tenfold

2001: 3.0%

2002: 1.7%

2003: 6.1%

2004: 12.2%

2005: 8.6%

I'm not impressed in the least by those numbers. He saw immediate improvement in New Orleans and then dropped like a ton of bricks off a very tall building.

I don't think defensive DVOA is a good metric to measure a HC. BB is a HC, I wouldn't use the offensive or defensive DVOA to as a metritc to measure his success.

After 2005 he was fired by the Saints and went to the Rams and was their DC from 2006-2008 (he was also their interim head coach in '08).

Rams DVOAs:

2005 (year before Haslett arrived): 12.7%

2006: 12.4%

2007: 8.2%

2008: 18.3%

With that abysmal performance, he was looking for work again. But no NFL team came calling. He went to the Florida Tuskers of the UFL before the Washington Redskins SWOOPED him up.

As defenisve coordinator the team saw gradual improvement, which is in complete contradiction with the point you made earlier that he steadily declines everywhere he goes.

Furthermore, I do not use DVOA as a metric to measure HCs. Are you going to measure Shannahan on our defensive DVOA this year?

Redskin DVOAs:

2009 (year prior to Haslett's arrival): -2.1%

2010: 5.8%

2011: -1.2%

He has never, once, in his entire coaching career sustained success for a long period of time. And he has WAY more negative tendencies than positive ones.

You're leaving at the crucial fact that his HC wanted to changed schemes when he came to the Redskins leave Haslett a 43 roster and a 34 scheme, of course their was expected to be a drop off when he arrives. Furthermore, he improved upon it again the next season, which is odd because in your opinion he's so tendency oriented.

He's never once in his career been anywhere long enough to achieve sustained success (other than NO which was devoid of talent at the time), and it has been due to factors outside of his control. In PIT he gets promoted, there's simply no way to know whether or not the team would have regressed back to the mean with him as DC as they did. Had he remained there and that been the case, the 1999 year clearly shows as an outlier.

In STL, he showed stready progression, and was again promoted to HC. I know he didn't retain the HC job, but I would venture to say that teams often times give the most respected/coach they view in the most positive light.

To me, and again, I know this is just my opinion, it's obvious why his rank dropped so far in 1999 in Pittsburgh... him.

Yes, I know you feel that way. I just don't think he's that bad. As you say below, he was never their with LeBeau, and as LL and others have pointed out, two coaches can run the same playbook with the same players entirely differently. Haslett did so his way, and was able to achieve the #2 overall DVOA, in his first year running a new scheme.

He wasn't promoted in Pittsburgh though. He was promoted in New Orleans. Who very likely saw that season as a outlier in performance.

So football minds, that have forgotten more than any of us will ever know, who actually followed Haslett closely at the time, promoted him to HC.

And, yes I know teams make mistakes hiring HCs all the time, but who's to say Haslett just isn't a good HC? And that he's actually a fine DC

It's also worth noting he never actually worked WITH LeBeau in Pittsburgh.

Yes I know. Which is why I find it so odd, you credit LeBeau and his "presence" for Haslett's success in Pittsburgh early on.

For clarification sake, I'm not trying to argue Haslett is a good DC, I honestly don't know. However, I don't think any of you do either. He's never been a DC on a team without being promoted, so it's hard to tell whether or not he'd be a successful DC over a sustained period of time.

Lastly, I have a question for you. I posed this in the other thread, but only heard *crickets* as a response. If there's any part of this post you reply to, please make it this.

Who is currently getting more out of less talent that Haslett? If he's as bad as you suggest, it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a few names.

[Oldfan]

DVOA metric changes year to year, it's largely based on other performances of teams that specific season. Thus, in my opinion, a ranking is a more accurate depiction of where the team stands.

For example in 1996, -14.6 was good for 4th overall ranking, but in 1997 -13.2 is good for second

Suggestion:

Most readers are going to blank out when you quote the DVOA percentage. But if you quote the ranking, they will understand. I'd quote the ranking -- or the ranking and the percentage.

[NoVaSkins21]

Two Numbers: 3-4. Invert that and it will make a world of difference.

[Mahons21]

Suggestion:

Most readers are going to blank out when you quote the DVOA percentage. But if you quote the ranking, they will understand. I'd quote the ranking -- or the ranking and the percentage.

I agree whole heartedly, appreciate the advice. We actually started this debate a few pages back, and initially I cited, both the ranking and the DVOA #.

In my opinion the ranking is usually more accurate, due to how the metric is generated. What about you?

[Oldfan]

I agree whole heartedly, appreciate the advice. We actually started this debate a few pages back, and initially I cited, both the ranking and the DVOA #.

In my opinion the ranking is usually more accurate, due to how the metric is generated. What about you?

Better than the NFL rankings? Absolutely.

[Mahons21]

Better than the NFL rankings? Absolutely.

No, do you believe comparing rankings of DVOA from year to year is more accurate or do you believe comparing the DVOA number is more accurate?

I believe it's ranking due to the fact that, the stat is largely dependent on other teams performances for that given season.

[Oldfan]

No, do you believe comparing rankings of DVOA from year to year is more accurate or do you believe comparing the DVOA number is more accurate?

I believe it's ranking due to the fact that, the stat is largely dependent on other teams performances for that given season.

That's a much tougher question. I compare the rankings, but only because it's easier and I don't have a clear-cut reason to do otherwise.

[KDawg]

DVOA metric changes year to year, it's largely based on other performances of teams that specific season. Thus, in my opinion, a ranking is a more accurate depiction of where the team stands.

For example in 1996, -14.6 was good for 4th overall ranking, but in 1997 -13.2 is good for second

You're probably right that it needs to be more of a combination. But stillm -14.6 is better than -13.2.

I don't disagree, but I find it very unlikely that someone, as historically bad as you're suggesting Haslett is, would get a HC job head their performance been as absymal as you portray it.

Again, he looked pretty good with the Pittsburgh teams, despite a steady decline. Aside from his last year. The Saints may have figured that to be an outlier and went after him regardless, especially due to the effect he had on their defense in 1996.

But LeBeau wasn't there when he was as you pointed out, and the specific problem everyone has with Haslett is not the schem he runs (which would be the only thing effected by the blueprint of LeBeau) rather it's Haslett's play-calling which was not effected at all by LeBeau.

That is 100% my point. Haslett is to blame for the collapse. LeBeau is the reason that they were good for a couple years, despite not physically being there.

I don't think defensive DVOA is a good metric to measure a HC. BB is a HC, I wouldn't use the offensive or defensive DVOA to as a metritc to measure his success.

Disagree. Very strongly. If a defensive guy is brought in as head coach, he needs to have his finger print on the defense. That's his specialty. If an offensive guy is brought in as the head coach, he needs to have his finger print on the offense. If a special teams guy is brought in as the head coach, he needs to have his finger print on teams.

As defenisve coordinator the team saw gradual improvement, which is in complete contradiction with the point you made earlier that he steadily declines everywhere he goes.

No he didn't. 12.7% > 12.4%: Improvement

12.4% > 8.2%: Improvement

8.2% > 18.3%: HUGE dropoff.

That's not steady improvement. It was bits of improvement followed by walking off of a cliff. It in no way shatters my assertion that he doesn't show consistent improvement.

Furthermore, I do not use DVOA as a metric to measure HCs. Are you going to measure Shannahan on our defensive DVOA this year?

No. But I'll measure him on the offense's DVOA.

You're leaving at the crucial fact that his HC wanted to changed schemes when he came to the Redskins leave Haslett a 43 roster and a 34 scheme, of course their was expected to be a drop off when he arrives. Furthermore, he improved upon it again the next season, which is odd because in your opinion he's so tendency oriented.

I'm not leaving that off. You're right. But he accepted the job. So as much as the onus is on Shanahan, it's also on Haslett.

Offenses know what they get with Haslett. For instance look at the Bengals game and the opening pass from Sanu to Green for a touchdown. How was that possible? Through knowing a coordinator's tendency? Want proof?

Here: http://smartfootball.com/grab-bag/self-scouting-and-how-the-bengals-jay-gruden-fooled-the-redskins-jim-haslett

He's never once in his career been anywhere long enough to achieve sustained success (other than NO which was devoid of talent at the time), and it has been due to factors outside of his control.

Outside of his control? He was the head coach. How is talent outside his control? Perhaps talent evaluation is a problem with Haslett?

In PIT he gets promoted

He did not get promoted in Pittsburgh. I don't know why you keep insisting that he did. He was a DC there for three years. He held no other position there. That's not a promotion within that organization.

there's simply no way to know whether or not the team would have regressed back to the mean with him as DC as they did. Had he remained there and that been the case, the 1999 year clearly shows as an outlier.

We disagree on this point. Haslett has never had a "good" defense aside from the first two years he was the coordinator in Pittsburgh.

In STL, he showed stready progression, and was again promoted to HC. I know he didn't retain the HC job, but I would venture to say that teams often times give the most respected/coach they view in the most positive light.

When your team is that bad, does that necessarily mean anything?

So football minds, that have forgotten more than any of us will ever know, who actually followed Haslett closely at the time, promoted him to HC.

Even the best make mistakes. And he was, twice, a mistake to hire as a head coach.

And, yes I know teams make mistakes hiring HCs all the time, but who's to say Haslett just isn't a good HC? And that he's actually a fine DC

I think that's why we're having this debate. Because people think he stinks as a DC... So we're using numbers, stats and trends to find out if its accurate. I believe it to be. You don't. We're allowed to disagree

Yes I know. Which is why I find it so odd, you credit LeBeau and his "presence" for Haslett's success in Pittsburgh early on.

How is that odd? Did the Raiders not get credited as Gruden's achievement the year they went on the face Gruden (who's achievement is often credited to Dungy) in the Super Bowl? Presence can be felt passed the time you leave.

For clarification sake, I'm not trying to argue Haslett is a good DC, I honestly don't know. However, I don't think any of you do either. He's never been a DC on a team without being promoted, so it's hard to tell whether or not he'd be a successful DC over a sustained period of time.

He was never promoted to HC of Pittsburgh. So there's one. And thus far, he hasn't been promoted to HC in DC. So he's 2/4 (so far) and 2/3 if you don't include this Washington stint. That's a little different than "never".

And we're on a message board, Mahons. Resorting to we don't know and neither do you is kind of a admission to not having much ammo in the cannon. What we know, via watching games, film, and statistics, is Haslett has not been a great coordinator. Or even a good one. But again, people can look at that stuff and see different things.

Who is currently getting more out of less talent that Haslett? If he's as bad as you suggest, it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a few names.

I can't speak for everyone, but I was never a fan of the Haslett hire to begin with. I think it stunk from the moment it happened.

As to who I think we could hire?

Lou Spanos, DC, UCLA - former Linebacker's coach. The defense seems to have taken a nose dive without him around. At UCLA, his numbers aren't great, but he makes terrific halftime adjustments and shuts down opponents in the second half. Has intimate knowledge of LeBeau's style of 3-4.

Mike Singletary, LB Coach, Minnesota - He was the linebacker's coach in San Francisco before becoming the interim and then eventually the head coach. Has yet to be a coordinator in the NFL, and he followed an odd career path. Extremely smart football mind that has opinions and is tough. Issue with him is his outward religious affiliation may turn off some players, but then again, Joe Gibbs won the hearts of many. Singletary is a bit of a hard ass, which Shanahan would like, as would Fletch, but could have a few distractions with other players.

Perhaps a Steelers assistant, with intimate knowledge of LeBeau's scheme such as current LB coach Keith Butler and DL Coach John Mitchell.

Mitchell was with the Steelers in LeBeau's first stint with the team, and was also on Haslett's defensive staff. That said, there is something to be said for a guy who has never been a coordinator when they've been an assistant for as long as he has.

Butler is known as a great defensive mind. He's responsible for a lot of the success of their linebacking corps and would be worth a major look.

4-3 guy worth talking about: John Marshall. Drastically improved a poor Raiders defense. Was dismissed with Cable, through no fault of his own. Not sure if he could transition to the 3-4. But he's a very sound defensive mind so he's worth the mention.

3-4 guy: Romeo Crennel. He's probably going to be fired by Kansas City and is a great defensive mind. He runs a 3-4 scheme.