Chalk Talk Discussion: The Fragile Ecosystem that is a Football Organization

[PeterMP]

And none of that worked.

So nobody in the NFL should ever change schemes that requires them to change the players?

[authentic]

Great stuff KDawg...

We really should switch to the 4-3 though - like yesterday

I don't think scheme is the issue. I believe we lack top end talent at key positions. Shaanny has done a pretty decent job of aquiring depth players. But you won't win anything of signifigance until you get legit, playmaking talent. On offense we've made strides with Garcon, RG3, and Morris, even Trent. Freddy has the potential to be that, but he still needs a full season to prove that he can be relied upon as a dependable #1 TE. Most of my questions are with defense. Orakpo is there (injuries not withstanding), Kerrigan is there, I could even make a case for Carriker. Otherwise what do we really have? but when you couple the lack of defensive playmakers with an inadequate coach (Haz), then this is what you get - at or near the bottom of the league in almost every defensive category.

[Ghost of]

Great addition. Thanks.

No problem, thanks for noticing. Your contributions through Chalk Talk have been fantastic and thoughtful (I'm coming to dig some of our members insights, it's restoring the board to how it used to be, I think. Though maybe with more technical expertise.)

[KDawg]

So nobody in the NFL should ever change schemes that requires them to change the players?

I never said that, nor implied it. I am saying, however, that wholesale change rarely works. Read through the replies. I've noted that a change of scheme is okay when you feel you have the players to do so effectively. You don't make wholesale changes in order to change scheme. It's a recipe for disaster and no head coach is going to be willing to do that with today's NFL landscape where a couple losing seasons means your job is gone. Continuity is more important than many realize.

[PeterMP]

I never said that, nor implied it. I am saying, however, that wholesale change rarely works. Read through the replies. I've noted that a change of scheme is okay when you feel you have the players to do so effectively. You don't make wholesale changes in order to change scheme. It's a recipe for disaster and no head coach is going to be willing to do that with today's NFL landscape where a couple losing seasons means your job is gone. Continuity is more important than many realize.

The question becomes what constitutes wholesale changes.

The Colts have pretty dramatically changed their defensive scheme. There were real questions about weather the likes of Freeny and Mathis could transition to that scheme.

But for the most part its worked (at least the coaches aren't worried about losing their jobs and likely will continue the transition in the future).

The Broncos last year changed their offensive scheme pretty dramatically last year DURING the season- essentially based on one player. Even the coaches weren't really prepared (i.e. didn't have a strong background in it) to run that scheme.

And at least on the team level it worked pretty well (made the playoffs and even won a game).

And then they've gone in another direction this year.

And again, it is working again.

I think it is hard to judge how much of an overhaul a change in scheme is and how well the players will transition BEFORE you undertaken it.

I do think changing both the D and the O at the same time has been part of our problem.

But I also wouldn't be dead set against somebody taking over and changing the O and going back to the a 4-3 because I think we have some pieces that would work well in a 4-3, and I'm not sure we're closer to having a good 3-4 than a good 4-3.

[Bishop Hammer]

Great post K-Dawg! Everytime I see one of your threads its a must read.

After reading your post now I think Kelly could succeed in the NFL with the right team. of course that could be said of anycoach. But, unfortunately, not in Wash. :-(

[Oldfan]

...

The Broncos last year changed their offensive scheme pretty dramatically last year DURING the season- essentially based on one player. Even the coaches weren't really prepared (i.e. didn't have a strong background in it) to run that scheme.

And at least on the team level it worked pretty well (made the playoffs and even won a game).

And then they've gone in another direction this year.

And again, it is working again.

The Broncos went from an extremely simple scheme, with just a handful of plays, to one only a little more complex with a QB who has been running it for years.

If the scheme is the problem, then continuity doesn't make sense. But, more often, a lack of talent or poor coaching is the problem, then continuity with the scheme makes sense. If you have some good players who learned their assignments, then stick with it. It comes down to someone with a brain analyzing the problem.

[PeterMP]

The Broncos went from an extremely simple scheme, with just a handful of plays, to one only a little more complex with a QB who has been running it for years.

If the scheme is the problem, then continuity doesn't make sense. But, more often, a lack of talent or poor coaching is the problem, then continuity with the scheme makes sense. If you have some good players who learned their assignments, then stick with it. It comes down to someone with a brain analyzing the problem.

1. I think some schemes require more high value talent than others. For example, a scheme that says I can win w/o a really great QB and therefore do not need to get lucky or a top 5 draft pick to get a QB is going to be advantageous over other schemes (all other things being equal). Samething with a LT. If I can trade Williams, use that to get a young top line safety for the defense and get a "good" LT (in the context of the new scheme) for the equavalent of a 4th round pick and not hurt the production of the offense, then that's going to be a big advantage.

Issues related to flexibility are also important (i.e. how exacting are my requirements for each position?)

2. If you have poor coaching, then you should replace the coach. At that point in time, you should pick the best possible person. If there is essentially a tie or the distinctions are very small, then I would bias towards picking somebody that is going to run the same/similar schemes. But realistically, I don't think there are a lot of "good" NFL coaches out there so I wouldn't shrink the pool by mandating to myself it has to be somebody that is going to coach the same scheme I have now, if I were picking coaches.

3. If the problem is with talent, then you have to look at the talent evaluators and determine if they are doing their job. If they are not, then I think all of the same issues apply as w/ a coach.

[Oldfan]

1. I think some schemes require more high value talent than others. For example, a scheme that says I can win w/o a really great QB and therefore do not need to get lucky or a top 5 draft pick to get a QB is going to be advantageous over other schemes (all other things being equal).

On the other hand, if you can get a QB who can move like RG3 , then you don't need a really great O-line to protect him. But, there are lots of tradeoffs. It's not an easy design question.

2. If you have poor coaching, then you should replace the coach.

3. If the problem is with talent, then you have to look at the talent evaluators and determine if they are doing their job.

In most losing organizations, the problem isn't so easily identified. Example: Vinny thought he gave Zorn playoff caliber talent. He blamed the offense's struggles mainly on bad playcalling not on execution. Meanwhile, Blache was playing a full-time, passive, bend but don't break defense which made it easy for opponent's to play ball control and keep our offense on the sideline -- but most people thought he was doing a good job.

[PeterMP]

On the other hand, if you can get a QB who can move like RG3 , then you don't need a really great O-line to protect him. But, there are lots of tradeoffs. It's not an easy design question.

In most losing organizations, the problem isn't so easily identified. Example: Vinny thought he gave Zorn playoff caliber talent. He blamed the offense's struggles mainly on bad playcalling not on execution. Meanwhile, Blache was playing a full-time, passive, bend but don't break defense which made it easy for opponent's to play ball control and keep our offense on the sideline -- but most people thought he was doing a good job.

1. I think that's one of the major problems w/ having an organization dominated by one person. Realistically, I was running a football team I'd have 3 somewhat independent positions, a head GM that did hire the other two people w/ my approval, a head of scouting (including the NFL and college), and the coach.

Then you could talk to all 3 and get opinions on what was going on, and in time, you could build an idea of who was right and wrong (either of the 3 that supported trading for McNabb would have had gotten negative marks for being wrong and if somebody didn't support trading for McNabb they get a bonus IMO).

If we assume that Allen's football knowledge is limited in terms of scheme and players, you have limited the diversity of the opinions you can get.

In 2008, our defense only had 933 plays run agaisnt it, which makes it the 5th least.

[KDawg]

The question becomes what constitutes wholesale changes.

First off, thank you for the interesting engaging conversation. I love having good football talk and I think its good for ES. Good on you for delving into things!!!

The Colts have pretty dramatically changed their defensive scheme. There were real questions about weather the likes of Freeny and Mathis could transition to that scheme.

But for the most part its worked (at least the coaches aren't worried about losing their jobs and likely will continue the transition in the future).

The questions were for the most part were media driven. I don't think Pagano ever believed that they didn't have the ability to smoothly transition. Their primary job is the same as it always was: pass rush. They have coverage responsbilities from time to time, but I think the "transition" that everyone makes a big deal about is a bit overblown. It's a very similar position, and when those guys are in coverage they generally won't be asked to do too much.

Furthermore, the Colts have a ton of pieces on that roster that fit the 3-4 transition.

Their starting nose is Antonio Johnson, who is a bit on the small side at 310 pounds. But they have a rookie, Josh Chapman who was just activated who is 316 pounds. Rookies can put on pounds fairly quickly, so my guess is he'll be playing around 320-325 next year. That's a key piece to running a 3-4. They have two premiere pass rushing outside backers as well and Jerry Hughes is there to spell them. Their defensive ends are Cory Redding who is a 315 pound man and Fili Moala, a 303 pound man.

They were able to transition relatively effectively (middle of the road in a statistical sense) because they made the transition with key pieces in place. That's one of those situations where I've stated that I believe you can be successful in transition.

The Broncos last year changed their offensive scheme pretty dramatically last year DURING the season- essentially based on one player. Even the coaches weren't really prepared (i.e. didn't have a strong background in it) to run that scheme.

That scheme isn't anything fancy. They simply put in running plays for the quarterback and "slowed down" on some of the passing plays and reads. It's not difficult to do what the Broncos did, but it was incredibly smart for them to do it.

And then they've gone in another direction this year.

While I 100% agree here, having Peyton Manning is a major help in making that transition. He's not only one of the best quarterbacks of all time, but he's a coach on the field and he spends countless hours watching film alone and with his teammates working on reads. He makes things a lot easier. He's very rare. But you're right, this transition for the Broncos has been remarkable, but I feel like its an outlier and not the rule.

I think it is hard to judge how much of an overhaul a change in scheme is and how well the players will transition BEFORE you undertaken it.

I don't. Coaches and GMs know players. From time to time there will be players that they thought would work well not making the transition and players who they thought wouldn't transition that will. But with the amount of film study and scouting the teams do on every player in the NFL, they know what they can and can't do. You don't make the switch if you don't have confidence in it.

I do think changing both the D and the O at the same time has been part of our problem.

A large part of it.

[darrelgreenie]

I like the ecosystem analogy for a football team, I prefer a more hierarchy or organizational analogy but I digress. A football team is a system with several symbiotic relationships.

Imho there are several critical situations or mindset or vibes that can guide team and the lack there of can sink a team. I think the its the ability to create 'buy in'. Imho creating 'buy in' is a critical factor in changing scheme's mid -stream or changes scheme at all or even in create a scheme from the start. Its part of the reason I leary of FA for a building team. I think its much easier to create buy-in form people intrinsic to the program especially young players as opposed to mercenary players used to doing things differently. Imo lack of buy-in is a factor in the failure of some FA. I also think lack of buy-in was a factor in the mediocrity of our 34 beginning with Haynesworth. People like to bang on Haynesworth and for good reason, but people forget or have some revisionism about how he actually played in the 43 prior to the change to the 34. But to create 'buy-in' a coach must now what they selling. And I speculate that lack of knowledge may have limited Haslett's ability to create buy-in for Haynesworth. You can't sell a player when you don't know what you're selling. But I digress. Its is critial for a coach, any coach (HC/coordinator/position coach) to be able to create 'buy in' if they want/hope to evoke change.

I think Pagano/Arians were able to sell their defense/ofense system to their players. And there team had veterans in their prime who bought in and were able to sell a winning mentality to the young players on their team. From the outset their were playing that vocally said~ 'we're not rebuilding, we're going to win' And I don't mean to be callous because cancer is a serious matter, but I believe Pagano adversity helped their team to bond and gel.

[KDawg]

Imho there are several critical situations or mindset or vibes that can guide team and the lack there of can sink a team. I think the its the ability to create 'buy in'. Imho creating 'buy in' is a critical factor in changing scheme's mid -stream or changes scheme at all or even in create a scheme from the start.

Holy good God that's an awesome addition. It's so true, too. There are many factors to switching scheme. Personnel, vision, plan, salary cap room (either way), "buy in", coaching, teaching. It's nearly endless. If you're going to switch all of your ducks need to be in a row. I think when we switched to the 3-4 we had three or four ducks standing around in a drunken walk of a line and the rest were still swimming. That's a huge part of the issue. And I think "buy in" was a large factor (among others)

I think Pagano/Arians were able to sell their defense/ofense system to their players. And there team had veterans in their prime who bought in and were able to sell a winning mentality to the young players on their team. From the outset their were playing that vocally said~ 'we're not rebuilding, we're going to win' And I don't mean to be callous because cancer is a serious matter, but I believe Pagano adversity helped their team to bond and gel.

Agreed. Sean Taylor's death had a similar effect on our team. Strong bonds can help eliminate some of the more minute issues within a football ecosystem because players and coaches will sacrifice their own beliefs in order to succeed for the team. In our case, the team wanted to desperately succeed for their fallen teammate. For the Colts, they wanted to succeed for their head coach. I don't discount Arians involvement, either. He had a large impact, likely in the name of Pagano.

That said, there are much, much, much more happy and ideal situations where strong bonds form with teams. Those are the ones you want, obviously

---------- Post added November-13th-2012 at 10:08 AM ----------

Great post K-Dawg! Everytime I see one of your threads its a must read.

After reading your post now I think Kelly could succeed in the NFL with the right team. of course that could be said of anycoach. But, unfortunately, not in Wash. :-(

Thanks for the kudos, I appreciate it.

Kelly could absolutely succeed in the NFL. Maybe even in Washington. But I don't think his "Duck" offense can make the full transition. But there are certainly pieces of it that could be used quite effectively, in my honest opinion

[PeterMP]

First off, thank you for the interesting engaging conversation. I love having good football talk and I think its good for ES. Good on you for delving into things!!!

No problem, and you too even though I don't normally comment in your threads, I always try to read a thread where you are the OP.

But I have to ask then where do you think things went "wrong".

These are the possibilities that I see:

1. That it hasn't really gone wrong. Shanahan undertook changing both systems with the knowledge that it was going to be difficult to do and because of his prior success and relationships in the organization, he believes/d that he'll be given more time than a normal coach. And we are progressing in a realistic manner given the work to do (if this is your answer, I am curious as to how the McNabb trade fits into that line of thinking).

2. That Shanahan didn't recognize the limitations to the roster w/ respect to his scheme. He didn't realize that Carter couldn't play a 3-4 OLB well, that Dockerty wouldn't be good in a ZBS scheme, and potentially even his additions were misevaluated in terms of their contribution (i.e. McNabb couldn't run scheme). And therefore what he thought would be easier transitions have turned out to be much harder.

3. Shanahan doesn't/didn't appreciate how hard it is to change 2 schemes at once.

[KDawg]

1. That it hasn't really gone wrong. Shanahan undertook changing both systems with the knowledge that it was going to be difficult to do and because of his prior success and relationships in the organization, he believes/d that he'll be given more time than a normal coach. And we are progressing in a realistic manner given the work to do (if this is your answer, I am curious as to how the McNabb trade fits into that line of thinking).

Something has gone wrong. In year one, we experimented with too many older vets and wasted draft picks on useless trades for Donovan McNabb and Jammal Brown. Mike quickly learned from that and really began the true rebuild. I think we have gambled on our defensive talent entirely too much, though, and I don't believe we have a coach that can turn a mediocre personnel grouping into a passable one. Injuries wrecked us defensively, but we hedged our bets on that side of the ball, and we really have for the entire Shanahan tenure. What key pickups have we made in years 2 and 3 that have made an impact? Aside from drafting Ryan Kerrigan I'm having a hard time figuring out what else has really changed defensively. Another key issue is special teams and Danny Smith. That unit has, for years now, performed underpar. And we're sticking by it.

2. That Shanahan didn't recognize the limitations to the roster w/ respect to his scheme. He didn't realize that Carter couldn't play a 3-4 OLB well, that Dockerty wouldn't be good in a ZBS scheme, and potentially even his additions were misevaluated in terms of their contribution (i.e. McNabb couldn't run scheme). And therefore what he thought would be easier transitions have turned out to be much harder.

I don't think Shanahan is, well, dumb enough, to realize that he didn't have severe limitations. I think he thought he could hide those limitations by signing veterans to play in roles. But the problem is that if those veterans are a slightly rounded shape and you're trying to put it in a round hole, it still may not fit. I think McNabb could have run the scheme, but McNabb and Mike are both heavy on the ego and them together was a disaster waiting to happen, especially considering what we gave up for McNabb and his age. I think we actually made a mistake by moving on from Campbell when we did. He never would have been "the answer" but he could have served in a managing role while we waited for our franchise quarterback and began to shape our defense.

3. Shanahan doesn't/didn't appreciate how hard it is to change 2 schemes at once.

I think this is more along the lines of accurate, but not entirely. I would have to bet that Shanahan is aware of the challenges in doing that. I just think his ego told him, "we're going to do it and be fine!". And he actually did come quite close. Had our starters all been healthy I can't help but think our defense would at least be slightly better, just due to sheer talent. Our offense has been playing decently aside from a game or two. In year three we're in okay standing, but the issue is that our defense and special teams coaching and schemes need to be realigned. How we go about doing that is the real test to Shanahan's tenure.

PS: Comment more in my threads.

[pjfootballer]

Regarding the Colts switch to the 3-4. Just taking Freeney and Mathis, they were already undersized 4-3 ends in their old scheme that would rush the passer. The Colts old 4-3 was essentially a 3-4 without the huge NT. Remember when Booger McFarland was holding down the middle for the Colts? He was essentially their NT. The Colts for years would sacrifice the run for QB sacks, Freeney and Mathis coming around the end in almost a wide 9. So it was easier for those two to transition to OLBers in the 3-4. Like KDawg said, they already had their NTs and DEs on the roster. We were essentially starting from scratch with maybe 1 or 2 pieces in place.

[darrelgreenie]

Andre Carter actually went on to have 10 sack w/ Patriots in their 34.

Haslett & Co just couldn't find a way to make it work.

I thought like Mike Shanahan meant the positive things he said about JC and still wanted him on the team even after Mike fell for Holmgren's QB pump and dump scheme with McNabb. I felt he did Jason a solid by allowing him to seek a trade.

[KCClybun]

I thought like Mike Shanahan meant the positive things he said about JC and still wanted him on the team even after Mike fell for Holmgren's QB pump and dump scheme with McNabb. I felt he did Jason a solid by allowing him to seek a trade.

Same here. I think everyone sort of knew Jason Campbell's time on the team was coming to an end. Mike knew Jason wasn't going to be his guy, and Jason needed a new start. So he found Jason a team where he could better succeed, and Campbell did well for himself for a little while.

The weirdest thing to me about this whole organization...like, I feel like we've got a solid general manager in Bruce Allen. He's not a personnel guy, but I don't think he pretends to be; I think he leaves that to Scott Campbell and Morocco Brown (and ultimately up to Mike.)

I think we've got a really solid offensive coaching staff. The jury is still out on whether Ike Hilliard will succeed as wide receivers coach, but I don't think he's done as bad a job as others may. Kyle Shanahan I think is finally proving himself to be the talented offensive mind he was in Houston separate of any relationship he has with his father. Sean McVay really helped grow Fred Davis and now Logan Paulsen looks like he can be a legit factor, and coming from Tampa Bay he was thought to be a great offensive mind. Matt LaFleur in a lot of ways was going to be the next Kyle Shanahan and was though highly of in Houston. Chris Foerster doesn't get enough credit for developing Trent Williams and he's really turned this o-line around; Monty was a straight up liability last year but he's play outstanding football, and Chester is the same way. And then you've got the godfather of running back coaches in Bobby Turner.

The whole offensive coaching staff is just built better, with a better long view, along with solid veteran guys and a burgeoning core of young offensive minds. You can tell that Mike's still got the offensive mind.

Meanwhile, our defensive staff is a friggin' mess. Jim Haslett is basically a lame duck coordinator. And now you have the whole defensive staff jockeying for position. Raheem's supposed to get his shot, but you've got the defensive staff thinking we should look outside. Bob Slowik is actually jockeying for position so HE can be d-coordinator. Jacob Burney's whole d-line went backwards, and you've got Phillip Daniels jockeying to be the new d-line coach.

On the top, you've got a front office trying to work towards a common goal. On the offense you've got everyone working towards a common goal. Hell, I'll even give Danny Smith some props and say he hasn't been totally godawful this season.

On the defensive side of the ball people are fighting over jobs next year instead of gameplanning for this year. And you can see how that translate on game day.

A fragile ecosystem indeed.

[darrelgreenie]

I feel the same way I've always felt. Mike Shanahan is a great offensive mind that is unfortunately burdened by Mike Shanahan the GM.

I have divergent thoughts on Kyle. The high number of penalties this year bothers me, and over the course of his tenure and including this season the weird hurry-up/2-minute practices, burning time-outs on playcalling issues and low 3rd down conversion rate all gives me pause. But I like the explosiveness on 1st down, I love the production (if not the design) of this RGIII Pistol, Read Option, stretch zone scheme. But at the same time I feel Griff is being underdeveloped underused as a passer.

I think Hilliard has been good with the WRs all considered i.e. Garcon. Bobby Turner is still the running back whisper. Forester's more then holding his end.

Ahhh, the defense. I wouldn't be upset if we tore it all apart and started fresh with a true 34 coach.

[KCClybun]

I feel the same way I've always felt. Mike Shanahan is a great offensive mind that is unfortunately burdened by Mike Shanahan the GM.

I have divergent thoughts on Kyle. The high number of penalties this year bothers me, and over the course of his tenure and including this season the weird hurry-up/2-minute practices, burning time-outs on playcalling issues and low 3rd down conversion rate all gives me pause. But I like the explosiveness on 1st down, I love the production (if not the design) of this RGIII Pistol, Read Option, stretch zone scheme. But at the same time I feel Griff is being underdeveloped underused as a passer.

I think Hilliard has been good with the WRs all considered i.e. Garcon. Bobby Turner is still the running back whisper. Forester's more then holding his end.

Ahhh, the defense. I wouldn't be upset if we tore it all apart and started fresh with a true 34 coach.

For what it's worth, Robert apparently went to the coaches and asked to not run as much of the option and zone-read stuff, so we'll see if Mike and Kyle start to take the handcuffs off a bit and let the kid throw. You know me, I like Kyle, but I agree he's kind of keeping him on a leash.

As for the defense, not just blow it up, but blow it up and allow a defensive coordinator to do things his own way and build his own defensive staff. I feel like half the problems we have with the in-fighting on defense is that Haslett didn't hire any of his coaches. Slowik basically came in a package deal with Mike, and he was notorious for being a policitian in the defensive meeting rooms in Denver. Raheem Morris is Bruce Allen's guy, Jacob Burney didn't work with Haz before. So you have all these difference coaches with conflicting personalities all trying to play the alpha dog, where as if you bring in a defensive coordinator and allow him to bring in guys he knows and has worked with or feels might be a great defensive mind, you get a much better unit.

Instead we've got a bunch of guys with no cohesion fighting with each other. And you can see that show up on game day when the d-line, linebackers and defensive backs all seem to be doing different things operating independently. There's no sense that these guys sit down and hammer out a game plan together.

Just weird man.

[Isifhan]

Instead we've got a bunch of guys with no cohesion fighting with each other. And you can see that show up on game day when the d-line, linebackers and defensive backs all seem to be doing different things operating independently. There's no sense that these guys sit down and hammer out a game plan together.

Just weird man.

See this is what I don't get. Mike by all accounts is mainly concerning himself with the overall operation of the team and not specifically game planning any more on the offensive side of the ball, thus freeing him up to get more of a long view, big picture. Does he not see this cluster**** on defense? Any objective outsider can look at the situation and see it's not working, and the insiders with the downlow on what's going on definitely know it's not working with all of the infighting. I can't remember who said it, I think it was one of the insiders a long time ago when Mike first started who basically said nothing will get in the way of Mike winning again. That he wanted to prove himself. So can't he see that this situation with Haz, Slowick etc is just getting in the way of winning? That if we had even an average defense we'd have at least two to three more wins right now? It boggles my mind that someone with a "big picture" mentality simply can't or won't see what is right in front of his face. If what the insider folks are saying is true and really there's no reason to think it's not, it's completely dysfunctional on the defensive side of the ball. If Shanny values winning above all, why not cut ties with all this dead weight, like immediately? So frustrating.

[KDawg]

As for the defense, not just blow it up, but blow it up and allow a defensive coordinator to do things his own way and build his own defensive staff. I feel like half the problems we have with the in-fighting on defense is that Haslett didn't hire any of his coaches. Slowik basically came in a package deal with Mike, and he was notorious for being a policitian in the defensive meeting rooms in Denver. Raheem Morris is Bruce Allen's guy, Jacob Burney didn't work with Haz before. So you have all these difference coaches with conflicting personalities all trying to play the alpha dog, where as if you bring in a defensive coordinator and allow him to bring in guys he knows and has worked with or feels might be a great defensive mind, you get a much better unit.

Bob Slowik is a major concern to me. He's got a good football mind, but would any other staff remove him from one assistant coaching position and hire him in another? There's one reason he's still here, and it's Mike Shanahan. He did a mediocre job with the secondary and then he was brought over to the linebackers and we expected him to get the job done there? Things like that make my head spin...

And to tie that in to the OP: You don't think the players said: "Uhhh... He was a DB coach last year and now he's a linebacker coach? And he wasn't even that good at being a DB coach?"

If there was even the slightest hint of that thought in a players mind, you've already begun to lose respect and that "buy in" factor that dg referenced. Now, couple that thought with the rampent rumors that Morris was brought in to replace Haslett. You don't think the team knew that, too? Or heard that? No matter what any coach tells them, they're not dumb. He turned down a defensive coordinator position to be an assistant coach with the Washington Redskins? There's more to that then him being a DB coach.

Our players are not dumb. They can read between the lines as well. And even if they aren't accurate, hell, even if we aren't accurate... That doesn't particularly matter. If the thought is there and there is a visible lack of cohesion amongst the staff, you begin to lose the team.

You simply can't have that kind of cluster**** and expect to be successful.