HTTR 24-7.com: Defensive Dysfunction: How Mike Shanahan Can Fix His Achillies Heel

[Lavarleap56]

No it's not. If you'd like to take the time to go back and find the post I mention that as HC, not DC, Raheem Morris did call the plays. However in my opinion[/B], a HC has so many other responsibilities that I didn't feel he could truly garner the experience of a DC while he was HC. Sure he called the plays and was in the meeting rooms, but the times when other DC are focuesed solely on defense Raheem had to be focused on the team as whole.

Regardless of how you feel Raheem was the HC/DC for Tampa Bay for two seasons and the defensive coordinator for kansas state for a season. Since your going off your feel and opinion, how does one "garner the expirience" to satisfy you?

A coordinator/HC dictates what he wants down for technique,game plans, and personnel etc but does rely on the assistants to do the basic teaching. Is the Head coach focused on the overall team, yes. Does that mean they can't focus on the defense and garner experience, no..

Furthermore you and others were quite condescening when I said I didn't think it was logical to assume Raheem was the DC in waiting. Since then it seems you've wained on your position a fair amount. I don't think your position stemmed from his performance in the NO game(as NLC asserted in his post), as I recall you made the assertion he was the DC in waiting far before the season started.

I have not "wained' on my position, I have not taken a position to wain on. I already replied to most of this in a precious post in this thread. Nobody expected the defense to fall off like it has and public perception means a lot..1. The team has taken hit after hit for having 4-3 coaches running a 3-4 2. Mike is going to have 1 more season to turn it around, might feel more secure with a 3-4 guy this time. 3. It's not the first time the Redskins intimated to a coach they were next up and reneged see Gregg Williams. Plans change sometimes and when you fall to the bottom 5 in almost all of the defensive categories who can blame them.

These back and forths with you are getting extremely exhausting/irritating. I respect your opinion, but at times I think you speak to factually about information which you yourself have in the past mentioned is "fluid", and then talk down to people who disagree with it.

Your tired of it but you make it a point to always post in a passive aggressive after TK or myself. You constantly like to add the "insiders" say blah blah.. O the " insiders" etc.. I don't talk down to you because you disagree, I talk down to you because of how you interact with me personally. I have disagreed with plenty of people on this board,twitter, the pod etc and don't talk down to them . I respect and admire Dgreenies posts and we disagreed a lot in the past and probably will in the future. You have to give respect to get respect, and frankly you instigate rather than debate.

That has been my problem with you. I don't think you should say "Banks is gone, Haslett is gone," and state in a matter of fact manner, because plenty of members on this sight do take what you say as fact unfortunately. When in actuality many times what you're saying is no more than your opinion.

Again your wrong and you do not know what is my opinion and what is not. I can say Banks is gone back then when you hear it from front office personnel and coaches.. thats why we said it not just I.. Hell even Keim,Tandler,Campbell etc said he was gone. D. Smith couldn't let him go and he saved him, it happens.. he's here and he still sucks <-- he sucks is my opinion

It's probably best for the sake of the board that from here on out with either a.) quit it with the childish/annoying/trolling posts we've both taken part in, b.) ignore one another.

Just talk football and stop baiting and instigating and you will be fine.. If you reply to me like you have been doing for months than you will get the same response. You are more than welcome to have normal adult convos if you wish. Keep it light and not personal..

[Laxpunk2006]

It seems like you guys over at HTTR get great insight. This article was an interesting read but it is full of typos/bad grammar. I don't want this to come off as negative because I think you do great work, you just need to edit more seriously if you want to go anywhere with this.

[Mahons21]

Regardless of how you feel Raheem was the HC/DC for Tampa Bay for two seasons and the defensive coordinator for kansas state for a season. Since your going off your feel and opinion, how does one "garner the expirience" to satisfy you?

They have multiple successful seasons as DC, or they're promoted within a staff that they've been working along side.

A coordinator/HC dictates what he wants down for technique,game plans, and personnel etc but does rely on the assistants to do the basic teaching. Is the Head coach focused on the overall team, yes. Does that mean they can't focus on the defense and garner experience, no..

You're inferring that my post stated he garnered no experience, but that was not implied. I did imply that he wouldn't gain the same experience as someone who's sole responsbility was the defense.

I have not "wained' on my position, I have not taken a position to wain on. I already replied to most of this in a precious post in this thread. Nobody expected the defense to fall off like it has and public perception means a lot..1. The team has taken hit after hit for having 4-3 coaches running a 3-4 2. Mike is going to have 1 more season to turn it around, might feel more secure with a 3-4 guy this time. 3. It's not the first time the Redskins intimated to a coach they were next up and reneged see Gregg Williams. Plans change sometimes and when you fall to the bottom 5 in almost all of the defensive categories who can blame them.

Earlier this year you said Morris was going to be the DC, you're now saying that he very well may not be. That is a change in stance.

I see that you're making the point that this was the position the Redskins held and not you, but I asssume you can imagine it's hard to decipher what's your stance and what's the Redskins stance since you tend to post for both.

Your tired of it but you make it a point to always post in a passive aggressive after TK or myself. You constantly like to add the "insiders" say blah blah.. O the " insiders" etc.. I don't talk down to you because you disagree, I talk down to you because of how you interact with me personally. I have disagreed with plenty of people on this board,twitter, the pod etc and don't talk down to them . I respect and admire Dgreenies posts and we disagreed a lot in the past and probably will in the future. You have to give respect to get respect, and frankly you instigate rather than debate.

You're referring to the OF question, and Jumbo had already responded to it mentioning it was the same posters I did.

If you're referring to my remark in the thread you titled "Haslett says the players suck and it's not his fault," I don't think you should be suprised that such a thread would receive flack. It was an over the top thread title that TK later fixed, it had nothing to do with me having the mysterious personal vendetta you seem to believe I possess. I post on a couple topics at a time, right now I like to post on a.) a sound plan for building a team , and b.) the defense. Since you seem to have a new thread weekly about why the blame falls on Haslet and how he has enough talent to have a successful defense (something I strongly disagree with), yes I am going to post in a lot of those threads, and for the most part I do my best to quote members other than you, because of these annoying back and forths.

Again your wrong and you do not know what is my opinion and what is not. I can say Banks is gone back then when you hear it from front office personnel and coaches.. thats why we said it not just I.. Hell even Keim,Tandler,Campbell etc said he was gone. D. Smith couldn't let him go and he saved him, it happens.. he's here and he still sucks <-- he sucks is my opinion

Beat reporters gave their opinion that Banks wouldn't make the roster, you spoke in your usual matter of fact tone that "banks is gone."

And again, even if that's what you hear at the park, you should say this is what they're saying at the park though it very well could change. However when it comes out as "Banks is gone," it implies something very different than, this is what's being said at the park and it could change.

Just talk football and stop baiting and instigating and you will be fine.. If you reply to me like you have been doing for months than you will get the same response. You are more than welcome to have normal adult convos if you wish. Keep it light and not personal..

It's reciprocal.

[KCClybun]

@GHH I wanted Gruden and if Dan sees the end the season tail spin out of control, we may yet get him. All he has to do is retain Allen who certainly has a red phone to Gruden.

If you hired Gruden, you'd have the same problem you have with Mike Shanahan; a head coach with unilateral control over the football team in terms of personnel and coaching hire decisions. Now I think Gruden has a bit of a better eye for coaches, but it's hard to look at what he did with the Bucs and say "I want that guy to take control of my football team."

The year after taking the team Tony Dungy and Rich McKay built to the team, Gruden's abrasive personality bumped McKay out of the building. McKay did a pretty damn good hoping repair the Falcons after that, then became team president of the Falcons where they continue to have success. Like Shanny, their first round draft picks initially knocked it out of the park, but their inability to effectively build dpeth screwed them anytime injuries hit. They screwed themselves in the draft further by trading draft picks for short-term, veteran players. Gruden had two seasons where he won more than 10 games, had two back-to-back losing seasons coming off the Super Bowl, cut veteran players who could still play like John Lynch and Warren Sapp.

The only thing Gruden would do better than Shanny is be a better interview.

[Jumbo]

To LL56 & Mahons 21--a friendly and well-intentioned suggestion.

Perhaps trying a "start from square one" approach would be useful. We can never have too much good football conversation. A basic "regroup" with a conscious effort to make sure exchanges are civil and respectful, even if "the other guy" seems to drop the ball in your view, may work for both of you. I also know that sometimes a certain level of irritation can remain when such efforts are made, but IME there can be a livable improvement. I realize that being civil often requires a feeling it's a mutual endeavor, and I also understand cases of really not wanting to bother with some people at all. But I propose this to you two, in this case, as an idea. Mutual ignoring is also on the table, if really necessary.

Back to topic.

[SkinsTillIDie]

Mike Shanahan is way to arrogant to ever admit that he was wrong. This is why I think he may be left out of the Hall of Fame when it's all said and done. Hall of Famers adapt, and win regardless of circumstance (See Gibbs, Joe and the strike year in 1982).

There is certainly no shame in admitting wrong, but Shanny will never do it.

He has. The whole McNabb fiasco, for one

---------- Post added November-17th-2012 at 10:57 AM ----------

Nevermind that Belichick is incredibly overrated as a coach. He struck gold with Brady and has been riding that the entire way. People that like to use him as the "shining example" conveniently seem to forget that he sucked as a HC in Cleveland and hasn't exactly made stellar personnel moves post-Brady.

Brady bought him a lot of leeway, so whoever he brings in (Haynesworth, Gaffney) or gets rid of (Seymour) it's viewed as "shrewd" and "a great move" no matter how bad it is.

OK.

Coached that team to an 11-win season with Matt Cassell at the help. A 7th rounder who didn't even play in college.

Given that the Patriots were picking at the bottom of the league each year, and winning teams always have trouble re-signing their own players (let alone other FAs) because players with a proven track record obviously demand more money -- he has shrewdly outmaneuvered the rest of the league to perpetually increase his stock of draft picks year in and year out.

He has raided the trash from other teams to find hugely important players for his winning teams. He is routinely one step ahead of the league, be it finding small, shifty slot receivers (Welker) to take advantage of the evolution of the game and rules, or versatile tight ends to do the same.

It's not like if Washington had drafted Tom Brady instead of the Patriots, we would've been the most successful team in the league in that time. Qualifying Belichick's HOF success with a simple argument "he only did it cause of Brady" is lazy and woefully ignorant.

Yes, he gets the benefit of the doubt more often than not. Yes, he makes mistakes, personnel mistakes, gameplanning mistakes, clock managament mistakes, as every coach or GM who has ever had a job in this game has. He's just done everything better than everyone else in his generation.

[Oldfan]

...Back to topic.

Okay, back to the topic.

The argument in the OP suggests that Shanahan doesn't have a grip on defensive strategy so he should fully delegate the responsibility. Let's set aside the special teams as a factor and simplify the game to 50% offense and 50% defense. Why should we keep a coach who is 50% incompetent? If we go back to Mike's Denver experience, NLC's premise of defensive incompetence is supported with more evidence. Why should we trust him to hire the right DC if he's incompetent in that area?

Is Mike only competent as an OC? If we want to stick with the offensive scheme, we could give Mike the boot and have a new GM hire Kyle or Rick Dennison as our HC, thus cutting back on Mike's areas of incompetence.

With Gregg Williams and Greg Blache this organization has a recent history of DCs who coached their units to a high ranking on the points against stat while giving the offense little help in takeaways and short field advantages.

During the stretch run of 2005, Gibbs must have asked for more from Williams because we temporarily got a much more aggressive defense. Brunell's stats looked great because he took advantage of several short field advantages to beef up his TD total. Allowed to take a wider split during that stretch run, and to forego his run first responsibility, Phil Daniels got four sacks in one game.

[KCClybun]

Okay, back to the topic.

The argument in the OP suggests that Shanahan doesn't have a grip on defensive strategy so he should fully delegate the responsibility. Let's set aside the special teams as a factor and simplify the game to 50% offense and 50% defense. Why should we keep a coach who is 50% incompetent? If we go back to Mike's Denver experience, NLC's premise of defensive incompetence is supported with more evidence. Why should we trust him to hire the right DC if he's incompetent in that area?.

So are you saying Joe Gibbs was 50% incompetent because he delegated the responsibility of his defense to Richie Pettibone? Because if incompetence wins you three Super Bowls we should have more trophies than we do.

[Jumbo]

Okay, back to the topic.

The argument in the OP suggests that Shanahan doesn't have a grip on defensive strategy so he should fully delegate the responsibility. Let's set aside the special teams as a factor and simplify the game to 50% offense and 50% defense. Why should we keep a coach who is 50% incompetent? If we go back to Mike's Denver experience, NLC's premise of defensive incompetence is supported with more evidence. Why should we trust him to hire the right DC if he's incompetent in that area?

Is Mike only competent as an OC? If we want to stick with the offensive scheme, we could give Mike the boot and have a new GM hire Kyle or Rick Dennison as our HC, thus cutting back on Mike's areas of incompetence.

Since you're asking me, I'd say MS hasn't earned any kind of trust in making sound judgments about the defense, and I suspect it will be more a matter of good fortune (especially as in who's available) than shrewd analysis if our next hiring is significantly better (assuming MS makes the call). And even then it will depend on how much MS lets the guy run his own show.

I'm very ambivalent about keeping MS at this point. In general, I think it's better than even money we've made another misstep at HC at this point (it was a dice roll from the beginning). And there's more to all that (keeping MS), involving Allen's and even Snyder's roles/competencies (quite prominently IMV).

Frankly, at the moment,the "MS situation" is one of the Redskins football topics I'm fatigued of discussing (sorry, amigo). I am in Dark Mode in general, team-wise (minus a few bright spots). I probably need a brief respite (and beating the iggles would help ).

[darrelgreenie]

I probably need a brief respite (and beating the iggles would help ).

Cheers to that

[Oldfan]

...Frankly, at the moment,the "MS situation" is one of the Redskins football topics I'm fatigued of discussing (sorry, amigo). I am in Dark Mode in general, team-wise (minus a few bright spots). I probably need a brief respite (and beating the iggles would help ).

Had I known about the Dark Mode, I wouldn't have pressed you. As for your analysis, we're pretty much on the same page.

[CoolHandLuke]

I am about to watch the USC vs UCLA game in a bit here. I am predicting that Lou Spanos will make Lane Kiffin his ***** with far less talent which he probably will. The question I have for the insiders and others is why Mike & Bruce aren't considering bringing him back as a DC? Especially since Mike realistically only has one more season to turn this defense around? Raheem is the only other coach that's familiar with our team, but he's not a 3-4 guy. Lou had two years with our squad, and a much better track record in Pitt. Not to mention he's turned UCLA's defense around in his first season alone.

I know I've brought this up in other threads before, but I just can't understand why we didn't give him the DC job and let him slide and take it somewhere else. I'm all about letting Mike finish his contract, but decisions like this make me seriously question his integrity. I still think it's not too late to bring him back, since we're making the coaching moves in the off season.

[KCClybun]

During the stretch run of 2005, Gibbs must have asked for more from Williams because we temporarily got a much more aggressive defense.

Or maybe Williams made some solid adjustments and players were put in the right positions to make plays.

[Lavarleap56]

To LL56 & Mahons 21--a friendly and well-intentioned suggestion.

Perhaps trying a "start from square one" approach would be useful. We can never have too much good football conversation. A basic "regroup" with a conscious effort to make sure exchanges are civil and respectful, even if "the other guy" seems to drop the ball in your view, may work for both of you. I also know that sometimes a certain level of irritation can remain when such efforts are made, but IME there can be a livable improvement. I realize that being civil often requires a feeling it's a mutual endeavor, and I also understand cases of really not wanting to bother with some people at all. But I propose this to you two, in this case, as an idea. Mutual ignoring is also on the table, if really necessary.

Back to topic.

Every post is a fresh start :grouphug:

[MartinC]

Every post is a fresh start :grouphug:

Let's hope Sunday after the bye is a fresh start for our defense.

[Skinsinparadise]

During the stretch run of 2005, Gibbs must have asked for more from Williams because we temporarily got a much more aggressive defense. Brunell's stats looked great because he took advantage of several short field advantages to beef up his TD total. Allowed to take a wider split during that stretch run, and to forego his run first responsibility, Phil Daniels got four sacks in one game.

Williams first year with the Saints they got a ton of turnovers. I think Williams' defense was more aggressive than Blache's though they both at times played bend don't break. Haslett is definitely an aggressive oriented defensive coach and Shanny along with Haslett have said its all about turnovers. But clearly, thus far they have been bad at getting the horses for the scheme -- am not a Haslett guy -- but i put more of the blame on Shanny than Haslett, its Shanny that put together the personnel for the secondary. I don't think the secondary has underachieved, I just don't think they got good players.

[Oldfan]

Williams first year with the Saints they got a ton of turnovers. I think Williams' defense was more aggressive than Blache's though they both at times played bend don't break. Haslett is definitely an aggressive oriented defensive coach and Shanny along with Haslett have said its all about turnovers. But clearly, thus far they have been bad at getting the horses for the scheme -- am not a Haslett guy -- but i put more of the blame on Shanny than Haslett, its Shanny that put together the personnel for the secondary. I don't think the secondary has underachieved, I just don't think they got good players.

I think we have been through this before.

Gregg Williams knows how to use his defense to create turnovers if he wants to. In his stint here, he didn't want to except for that six-game stretch in 2005. The reason he didn't want to is that a defense that plays a passive bend don't break will rank higher on the points against stat which many fans, media, and even NFL coaches think is a good way to grade defenses. The stat is deceptive.

Haslett is over-agressive. His unit will create takeaways, it will help the offense score more points, but they will look bad on the points against stat.

The best defense is passive or aggressive depending on the score. Neither approach works out well full-time.

[Lavarleap56]

I watched this quick video on "The secrets of Super Teams" thinking about the Washington Redskins. The team needs less dictatorship and less yes men to ever improve.. And yes it is sad that 70% of what I watch I associate and compare with the Redskins..

[RandyHolt]

If you hired Gruden, you'd have the same problem you have with Mike Shanahan; a head coach with unilateral control over the football team in terms of personnel and coaching hire decisions. ....

I dont mind full control when the team is run wisely.

Would Gruden have gone 34 with a mostly 43 guy to run it, and switched up the OL to be zone blockers? Those things take years to implement and here we are in year 3 at 3-6 yet have the ever elusive QB and LT in the fold.

I speculate that Gruden would have had selected linemen that can do more than run block, maybe gotten a proven 34 guy to run to teach a D in transition. And I bet he would have had more than 1 guy he trusts to run the ball.

While I am speculating I think those are somewhat reasonable assumptions

To say he is only a better interview rings a bit shallow.

[Lavarleap56]

I dont mind full control when the team is run wisely.

Would Gruden have gone 34 with a mostly 43 guy to run it, and switched up the OL to be zone blockers? Those things take years to implement and here we are in year 3 at 3-6 yet have the ever elusive QB and LT in the fold.

I speculate that Gruden would have had selected linemen that can do more than run block, maybe gotten a proven 34 guy to run to teach a D in transition. And I bet he would have had more than 1 guy he trusts to run the ball.

While I am speculating I think those are somewhat reasonable assumptions

To say he is only a better interview rings a bit shallow.

I personally do not want Gruden.. History shows Super Bowl winning coaches don't win in other cities.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Since you're asking me, I'd say MS hasn't earned any kind of trust in making sound judgments about the defense, and I suspect it will be more a matter of good fortune (especially as in who's available) than shrewd analysis if our next hiring is significantly better (assuming MS makes the call). And even then it will depend on how much MS lets the guy run his own show.

I'm very ambivalent about keeping MS at this point. In general, I think it's better than even money we've made another misstep at HC at this point (it was a dice roll from the beginning). And there's more to all that (keeping MS), involving Allen's and even Snyder's roles/competencies (quite prominently IMV).

Frankly, at the moment,the "MS situation" is one of the Redskins football topics I'm fatigued of discussing (sorry, amigo). I am in Dark Mode in general, team-wise (minus a few bright spots). I probably need a brief respite (and beating the iggles would help ).

My feeling has always leaned towards keeping Shanahan because I'm worried about what Snyder does if he fails. But right now, I'm at least close to equal in my worry about what MS will do in a "make or break" offseason.

[KCClybun]

I dont mind full control when the team is run wisely.

Would Gruden have gone 34 with a mostly 43 guy to run it, and switched up the OL to be zone blockers? Those things take years to implement and here we are in year 3 at 3-6 yet have the ever elusive QB and LT in the fold.

I speculate that Gruden would have had selected linemen that can do more than run block, maybe gotten a proven 34 guy to run to teach a D in transition. And I bet he would have had more than 1 guy he trusts to run the ball.

While I am speculating I think those are somewhat reasonable assumptions

To say he is only a better interview rings a bit shallow.

Those are straw men arguments; we don't know what the hell Gruden would do. It'd be like me asking "Do you think John Gruden would've marched naked through the streets after he signed his contract!?". I don't know.

All I know is that he took the team that Tony Dungy and Rich McKay had built and more or less turned the franchise completely mediocre immediately following the Super Bowl. They had two losing seasons coming off that Super Bowl win, they jettisoned guys like Warren Sapp and John Lynch that were (excuse the pun) lynchpins of their defense, and then couldn't find adaquate replacements for them because they had a nasty habit of trading draft picks for veteran players. They had really bad drafts, a revolving door at quarterback, and Gruden rubbed his staff members and front office personnel the wrong way. Gruden's career winning percentage in Tampa Bay was .509%, which is about as mediocre as you can get, and that was all with him as the de facto GM because, as we know, Bruce Allen is really the cap/contracts/trades guy, and, as I mentioned, he had pushed out McKay. After their one Super Bowl run, Gruden's record in the playoff's was 0-2; in the 6 seasons after the Super Bowl, he made the playoffs twice, and lost in the first game both times.

Those aren't strawmen arguments. Those are facts. Gruden's bark really is bigger than his bite; he's got a big mouth and a big personality which tends to mask the fact that he was basically a one trick pony taking a team other guys built to the Super Bowl who effectively did jacksquat after that one run when, by all accounts, he was basically the general manager and head guy in charge of everything.

[Skinsinparadise]

I think we have been through this before.

Gregg Williams knows how to use his defense to create turnovers if he wants to. In his stint here, he didn't want to except for that six-game stretch in 2005. The reason he didn't want to is that a defense that plays a passive bend don't break will rank higher on the points against stat which many fans, media, and even NFL coaches think is a good way to grade defenses. The stat is deceptive.

Haslett is over-agressive. His unit will create takeaways, it will help the offense score more points, but they will look bad on the points against stat.

The best defense is passive or aggressive depending on the score. Neither approach works out well full-time.

Just saying I don't think Gregg was as much of a bend but don't break guy as Blache, he'd blitz more among other things. But my main point is I think the #1 problem with defense is the personnel so I put that more on Shanny than scheme.

[Oldfan]

Just saying I don't think Gregg was as much of a bend but don't break guy as Blache, he'd blitz more among other things. But my main point is I think the #1 problem with defense is the personnel so I put that more on Shanny than scheme.

Agree on Blache and Williams.

The over-aggressive defensive scheme might be put on Shanahan also. He knows that those takeaways produce short-field opportunities for his offense. He was once called the "mastermind" on offense. I think that reputation is very important to him.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Agree on Blache and Williams.

The over-aggressive defensive scheme might be put on Shanahan also. He knows that those takeaways produce short-field opportunities for his offense. He was once called the "mastermind" on offense. I think that reputation is very important to him.

Along with everything else, I think that reputation is fast slipping the longer this year, and his time here rolls.

Hail.