After this remarkable turnaround, do you want Haslett back now?

[SonnyandSam]

People also forget that Slowik was pretty much out the door once we bought Raheem on board. Lou left for UCLA which left a gap at linebacker's coach that, apparently, we couldn't fill with someone else, so Slowik stayed to coach linebackers as the Senior Bowl, and then just sort of stuck around after that.

It's worth mentioning that pretty much anytime there's a sideline camera on the field for NFL Films, all the linebackers are either talking to each other or talking to Raheem, not Haz or Slowik. Probably just a coincidence, but interesting none the less.

You might think Slowik was out the door but I don't thinks so. Shanahan and Slowik worked together daily while they were unemployed researching defenses together. The bond is tight between the two. Did Shanahan go out to find another LB coach? NO. He gave it to a guy who has never coached linebackers before. He didn't just "hang around". Shanahan had plenty of time to lure someone if he wanted to.

And those same sideline cameras show Slowik right beside Haslett all game long talking and giving advice. In fact, it looks like Slowik is the one communicating the calls onto the field to Fletcher. We seldom ever see Morris near Haslett....much more telling of who has influence and who does not. Morris has always been more of a player's coach...IMHO....that is not a good thing. When you get too buddy buddy with the players, you lose control...witness what happened at Tampa Bay. Not impressed with Morris at all. Good talker; fails to impress as a DC or as a HC based on real world experience at TB..

[Lavarleap56]

Some of your points are legit, some are jaded. What changes were "players" asking for ? How do you know this to be a fact? If our DC made changes because "fans" asked for it, he needs to be fired..sorry.

We talked about players wanting change a few weeks before the bye week. Following the Panthers game Hall went on record on the radio about frustration with the scheme at times. Rob Jackson and Fletcher wanting change during halftime vs the Giants is also well documented by all the local beat reporters.

3 of the 6 games were against Weeden and Foles, but 3 were against Eli, Romo sits to pee and Flacco, 3 QBs who played well and we still won.

Hmmm... I separated the QBs as such in my post just as you did. Yes we still won BUT playing decent against those QBs doesn't show defensive improvement.

Eli Manning- When have we not played well against him since 2010?

12-5-2010; 15 /25 161 yards 1 Int

1-2-2011: 17 /29 243yards 1 Td 1 Int

9-11-2011: 18 /32 268 yards 1 Int

12-18-2011: 23/ 40 257 yards 3 Int

10-21-2012: 26 /40 337 yards 1Td 2 Int

12-3-2012: 20 /33 280 yards 1Td

Like I said in the post you quoted.. Success against Eli in this 6 game win streak does not indicate a improvement in the defense.

Tony Romo sits to pee vs Redskins since 2010.. Again Defense has been pretty consistent vs Romo sits to pee under Haslett.

9-12-2010: 31 /47 282 Yards 1Td

9-26-2011: 22 /36 255 Yards 1 Int

10-20-2011: 23 /37 292 Yards 3 Td

10-22-2012: 37 /62 441 Yards 3Td 2 Int

Joe Flacco 2011 Vs Redskins

16 /21 182 Yards 76.2 Comp% 8.67YPA 3 Td 1Int 121.4 Rating

Lets not act like we stopped Joe Flacco and the Ravens offense, the same Joe Flacco that produced a 0.3 and 0.4 QBR vs Hou and Denver this season..

In the 3 games prior to our game with Flacco he produced QB ratings of 66.8 vs Phi, 68.5 vs Pitt, and a 86.8 vs SD.

Baltimore fans will tell you Cam Cameron is the offensive equivalent of Jim Haslett. Both coordinators discover something that works and mysteriously go away from it in games for no reason.

Our defense has no choice except to play "bend but don't break" because we have an extremely low amount of talent on that side of the ball.

I would respectfully disagree, Our defense actually performs better when we are in attack mode vs playing bend but don't break. Redskins began the Giants, Ravens, and second Eagles game playing more " bend but don't break" defense leaning on mostly zone coverages.. We were torched. The defense then became more aggressive as the game went on with better success.

Do we need to talk about how many 14+ point leads this defense has given up in 2012? What should have been relaxing victories turned into gut wrenching defeats or close calls.

Had Foles not had a broken hand the defense would have given up another big lead late in a ball game.. Maclin was wide open, TE was open but pass was low inside the 4 yard line.

Haslett hasn't done a good job in his 3 years combined, but you have to act on most recent history. Continuity is very important, if we win this Dallas game about the same way we won the last 6...then Haslett deserves another year.

Disagree... The Washington Offense is so strong it is making up for a weak defense.

I HATE to admit that because I have wanted him gone, but give him some real talent and let's see what he does. Something happened after the bye, things look different. I think now most of the defensive problems are on the players and the lack of talent than they are on the DC.

It is always a combination of Players and coaching.. When you watch the game films the defense makes the same mistakes as it has all year, difference is QBs like Foles and Weeden didn't see those mistakes like a veteran would.

Orakpo and Carriker were healthy last season when the defense was giving up 30 a game to close out the year..

It isn't how long it took for Has to make changes, it's the fact that he made them and they have worked out so far.

What? Coaches are paid to process and implement a working plan ASAP.. When players, Fans, and talking heads were calling for more stunts, slants, LB blitzes, stacking gaps, less zone and etc for weeks with no changes you have a problem. It should not take you 9 weeks to figure that stuff out.

Oh and the " STOP cover 0 all out blitz on 2nd and 20+ when everyone knows it is coming"..

Not a coincidence that right out of the bye week we saw all those things implemented more frequently with instant success.

[KCClybun]

I think this comment just reinforces that the defensive talent is poor and that scheming can only hide it so long before the other team figures it out. We have too many defensive players with certain strengths that are not all around quality defensive players capable of playing all three downs or playing both man and zone or playing fast vs shifty receivers. I just do not see how another DC is going to hide all the warts that this defense has this season.

I don't think that's true. If it was just that we had a good first half of football and then always sucked in the second, then maybe you can say the talent couldn't understand the scheme.

What's bothersome is that it doesn't happen that way. Too often this season we've had bad first halfs and then came out and basically dominated (or at least sucked less) in the second half. That suggests that the players aren't the problem.

It suggests we go into the game with a certain gameplan. And then we don't deviate from that gameplan at all until our hand is forced. If the gameplan works in the first half, then we don't make many adjustments to what the offense has done well. Then maybe we get burnt on a play and Haz goes into panic mode and calls off the dogs. If the gameplan doesn't work in the first half, several times guys like Fletcher and Perry have basically had to plead with Haz to change the strategy. He's stubborn.

And he's not well liked by his players. I'm not saying a DC has to give out hugs and candy to his players, or that they have to like him that much. But they have to respect him. The fact that part of the reason it took London so long to re-sign here was because he didn't want to deal with Haslett suggests that if a class act like London doesn't want to deal with him, no one else wants to either.

Not saying Haslett is a great DC; just saying that our defensive problems are a whole lot deeper than Haslett not scheming the players and defense correctly. Hell, he's got two former DCs working for him in Slowik and Morris....and you know the old man is not keeping his nose out of it.

There's pretty much only one documented case of Shanny ever asking for a certain play to be called by Jim. One. Out of three years. Mike isn't the defensive guy, and Haslett has complete autonomy over his defense. To suggest otherwise is to try and dig up an excuse in defense of Haslett.

Morris and Slowik are as much to blame as Haslett; which means Shanahan is also to blame for the situation. I'm tired of Morris always being left out of the criticism when it is HIS GUYS who are ****ing up most of the time. He supposedly came in to "fix" our secondary issues and they are worse than last year. So I continue having a very hard time believing it is all Haslett's fault for our poor defense.

Is it all Haslett? No. Could it be argued that it's mostly Haslett? Given how wildly inconsistent our defense looks on a week to week basis---hell, on a half-to-half basis--- it's hard to put that on anyone but the DC. He calls the plays. He crafts the game plan. He calls the shots.

[Lavarleap56]

Are you seriously suggesting Danny was responsible for benching Banks?

Not "suggesting" .. Why do you think we were on the podcast saying " the word was put out that if Banks doesn't improve in 2 weeks he is to be benched " .. Two weeks later he was benched. Not a coincidence. The owner of any team always has a say regardless of how naive fans want to be about that.

[MartinC]

Not "suggesting" .. Why do you think we were on the podcast saying " the word was put out that if Banks doesn't improve in 2 weeks he is to be benched " .. Two weeks later he was benched. Not a coincidence. The owner of any team always has a say regardless of how naive fans want to be about that.

Amazingly enough I don't listen to the podcast

The word being 'put out' that Banks had a couple of weeks to improve or be benched is one thing if its the Coaches putting the word out but quite another if its the owner. So lets be explicit here - are you saying that it was Dan Snyder who put the word out?

[KDawg]

It's kind of funny how six weeks ago everyone wanted Dan to get involved to put Shanny on the hot seat and tell him to shape up or ship out. Now Dan can't have a say in whether or not Haz should be fired. Weird.

A head coach put on the hot seat by the owner is much different than a coordinator.

Obviously Snyder can get involved in anything he wants to, its his team. But, Shanahan made a stand in Denver when it came to firing a coordinator because his owner wanted him to. If Snyder gets involved, it is possible that he'd need to be prepared to fire Shanahan as well. Snyder's involvement would also hurt his 'new' image, which he has worked so hard to get.

I firmly believe there is pressure from the organization for Shanahan to unload Haslett. I just don't think it'll happen.

[KCClybun]

Wait! Back track ..... if the above is what is being suggested, then NOTHINGS changed.

Hail.

Or things have changed and Dan stays out of it 99% of the time, but he got as pissed about Banks continually starting as the rest of and demanded a change be made, which just gave Shanny an excuse to finally bite the bullet and do it. Shanny had been lukewarm and calling out Banks for a while before Dan ever got involved.

---------- Post added December-26th-2012 at 01:24 PM ----------

I firmly believe there is pressure from the organization for Shanahan to unload Haslett. I just don't think it'll happen.

I think you're overestimating how much Mike likes Haslett. God knows the rest of his offensive coaches don't.

[MrJL]

there u go.. he "should" be able to but cant. and if a team can simply adjust their offense at halftime to what the defense is doing, there would never be shutouts. good coordinators dont adjust at halftime, they constantly adjust. haslett isnt creative enough

Halftime is when you make major adjustments, and shutouts happen with good game planning combined with superior players. Not all talent is created equal

[Diehard Otis]

He's coming back. As far as do I, personally, want him back? Yes. I'd like to see what he can do next year with an improved (hopefully) secondary and not so many damn injuries.

The media guys, especially the retired players/coaches/front office guys that do commentary sing his praises for what he's done with the defense the second half of the season.

I think sometimes it's easy as fans to get frustrated when the defense is playing poorly and be quick to call for the head of the d-coord. It's not just Redskin fans but all fans that do it, you can look at a team with a top 10 defense and when they have a couple bad games in a row look at their fan forum....the DC is an idiot and needs to be fired and replaced, along with half the defense. It's just how fans react.

Wholeheartedly agree. And I would add that Winning football programs tend to have a strong degree of continuity (don't know if that point's already been made). Washington finally has a chance to build upon a successful campaign with some off-season continuity -- assuming Kyle and/or any other assistants don't get lured away. Let's not mess with that. Give this young & hungry team an opportunity to grow together.

[KDawg]

I think you're overestimating how much Mike likes Haslett. God knows the rest of his offensive coaches don't.

I'm not "estimating" anything. Just a thought. Shanahan, for all his positives and negatives, really enjoys continuity. Haslett brings that.

[KCClybun]

For all this talk about "continuity", lots of people tend to completely ignore that most of the players on defense don't like Haslett. Keeping continuity just for the sake of the words doesn't make sense when the players don't like or respect the coordinator.

[WilberMarshall]

Dude is poor. The 6 game turn around not withstanding. I don't trust him (his defensive calls) at critical junctures in ball games. We lucked out against Dallas... a game that had no reason being close or even needing an onside attempt by the cowboys. Against the Ravens same thing... a better QB would have iced the game.

Then look at the last game against Philly. We almost blew the game. They got the ball and drove down the field like it was a 9-7 drill. And had two solid attempts that any other QB would have made to at least tie the game.

Who here will feel comfortable with the Cowboys having the ball and our defense needing to stop them with the game on the line?

The players (aside from Madieu) are not as bad as they make them out to be. I hope Sunday's game does not end up with the defense having to protect a narrow (1 score) lead.

[skins island connection]

I go out beachcombing for a few hours, come back, and see alot of 'wait and see' comments from some.

You're kidding me, right?

OK, lets take the 'better player' philosophy to task, shall we? By having these 'better players', Orakpo, Carriker, etc, yes the defense plays better; that in no possible logical way dictates a better coaching job by Haslett; it speaks volumes of the players and their abilities. IF Haslett was a good DC, he would have the substituting players playing at somewhat near as close as the starters were playing. This has player effort written all over it, and nothing that proves Haslett did anything to do with it.

Now, you can always go back and look at the poll thread of wanting Haslett gone, and by a wide margin fans want him gone; why? you need to only look at his track record with other teams and see how 'wonderful' a job he did with them, and you will see his abilities as DC or HC were not worthy of him being at any team for more than 3 years, in which each team the defense steadily declined in rankings.

Hec, if all else fails, go back to the simple way of thinking about it; great players do not make great coaches; great coaches make players great, for the way he maximizes their abilities to win their particular battle with their opponent.

I don't think I need to get into adjustments, because his record of that clearly speaks for itself...

SIC

[MartinC]

For all this talk about "continuity", lots of people tend to completely ignore that most of the players on defense don't like Haslett. Keeping continuity just for the sake of the words doesn't make sense when the players don't like or respect the coordinator.

I don't mind if players like him as long as the play for him. If they don't respect him that's another thing and would be a problem as it suggests they might not fully buy into his game planning or calls and that will lead to breakdowns.

I personally think if there is a better option available with experience in the style of 3-4 we run available we should and probably will make a switch - but there has to be a better option available. Changing for the sake of it or bringing in a guy who is not experienced in our system would be counter productive IMO.

[KCClybun]

I don't mind if players like him as long as the play for him. If they don't respect him that's another thing and would be a problem as it suggests they might not fully buy into his game planning or calls and that will lead to breakdowns.

They don't believe he's putting them in position to make plays. They don't respect his play calling, and they've spoken out about the fact that they aren't being properly prepared for games. A few times they've spoken with the beat guys abut how they don't like certain coverages; Wilson straight out said he doesn't like Cover 0 but they still play it all the time. I think it goes beyond simply not liking the guy. I think they don't trust or respect him, and they don't feel particularly respected by him either.

[KDawg]

For all this talk about "continuity", lots of people tend to completely ignore that most of the players on defense don't like Haslett. Keeping continuity just for the sake of the words doesn't make sense when the players don't like or respect the coordinator.

I'm not sure why continuity is in quotes. It exists. It's not something I made up. I tend to agree that continuity for the sake of having continuity is a mistake, but that's Shanahan's MO.

I'm also not ignoring that most of the players on defense don't like Haslett. I've heard that. But I don't know that to be true, so I won't comment on it's validity, one way or the other.

[pjfootballer]

Last drive, this is what I saw"

3 players rushing, 8 back. And I don't mean back, but WAY back. Foles dinked and dunked his way down the field. I was screaming for Haslett to mix it up. No blitzing, no stunts and nobody covering underneath. We were lucky we got the grounding penalty, because a rookie QB with 6 starts and playing with a fractured throwing hand was going to town on us to the tune of 300 yards and almost the game tying TD. If that doesn't make you want to get rid of Haslett, I'm not sure what will.

[jgbkab1]

The thing about this is that there is no real talent on defense even with all of our starters back. We have no one on the defensive side of the ball to instill fear in our opponents. Most of the top 20 defenses in the league has one player that is lights out and we just don't have that player. Hell, even when GW was here, we had ST. Orakpo was supposed to be that player but he falls short. Kerrigan and Orakpo together are a fine duo but no one fears either one.

I say give him a chance next year and get a complete stud on the defense by any means necessary. Spending money on 5 stopgaps is no good when we still end up at the bottom of the league. And I can't fault him for that.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Talent-wise, except for our safeties, all our players rate from average to above-average. So we should have an average to above average defense. Instead, we have a ****ty defense.

[jadams5214]

It's not really fair either way to view the merits of Haslett keeping his job based on one game but I am doing it anyway :pfft:

Let me preface this by saying I am NOT a Haslett fan and think he should be fired barring a miraculous playoff run by the Skins that includes great defensive performances but I am trying to be objective...

If the Skins beat Dallas and win the NFC East with a good defensive performance then I can understand keeping Haslett for another year. There is something to be said about keeping a system in place and giving him one more year with a few new players and hopefully several returning from injuries. Plus this offense will likely be even better next year so the Skins should be a force in the NFL even with a poor defense.

If the Skins beat Dallas in a shootout or lose the game with the defense getting shredded then I would think it's more than justified to fire him. He has had mostly poor defenses throughout his entire career and his tenure with the Skins is no different.

I like the idea of bringing in a few new parts, getting Orakpo, Carriker, Merriweather back and putting together an elite defense. The best way to do that would be bringing a new voice in to spark the defense and have them be a cog in a Redskin's team that will soon be a Super Bowl contender...

[KCClybun]

Talent-wise, except for our safeties, all our players rate from average to above-average. So we should have an average to above average defense. Instead, we have a ****ty defense.

That's what gets me. "Look at how horrible our talent is!". People just don't watch the games.

Bowen and Cofield have been playing out of their skulls since the bye. Jarvis Jenkins has finally started to look more and more like the guy from last year. It took Haslett weeks to put Jackson in on pass rushing down, and all he has is 4 sacks, an INT and 2 forced fumbles since the bye. And Jackson's increased playing time has begun positively effecting Ryan Kerrigan as well. Perry Riley is playing at a Pro Bowl level (yeah I said it) and London's the healthiest he's been and has been making a lot of plays.

The only true weak spot we have is our secondary, and honestly I feel like half the problems there would be solved if we just benched Madieu.

But the idea that we're completely talent starved on defense is ridiculous. We've got talent.

[veteranskinsfan]

For some reason Carlos Rogers ineptitude always bothered me but I did not latch on to the "get rid of Haslett"bandwagon this year. By the way, the 49ers made Rogers get his eyes checked and he needed them fixed. I think our defensive coordinator is able to make chicken salad out of chicken _ _ _ _ (you know what). I say give him one more year and give him some new defensive backs and some more new players on defense in 2013. By the way why doesn't Raheem Morris get more grief in these ES threads this year than Haslett?,

[KCClybun]

Raheem doesn't get **** because he doesn't call the plays.

It's so funny how Haslett's been thoroughly mediocre for three years (yes, even in 2011, when his defense fell apart the last 6-8 games of the season, coincidentally when the offense started moving the ball decently) and we just have to give have to give the poor guy one more chance because the talent he's working with is just so bad.

Meanwhile, Raheem has to coach up the same "terrible" talent and he's only been here a year, and everyone screams "WELL WHY DOESN'T RAHEEM GET ANY BLAME!" and are far more ready to get rid of him than the guy who will have coached this defense to bottom half of the league finishes three years in a row.

And I still find it funny that many of the same people who said we should keep Haslett after this year where ready to ship Shanny out to sea after the Carolina Panthers game, and every time Kyle calls an average game he gets claims of nepotism and people still don't want to give him credit for any of the success RG3 is having.

Haslett has gotten some sort of crazy immunity with fans that Morris, Mike and Kyle haven't got. And I can't figure out why, since he's done nothing to earn the amount of pity fans have for him.

[SonnyandSam]

I don't think that's true. If it was just that we had a good first half of football and then always sucked in the second, then maybe you can say the talent couldn't understand the scheme.

What's bothersome is that it doesn't happen that way. Too often this season we've had bad first halfs and then came out and basically dominated (or at least sucked less) in the second half. That suggests that the players aren't the problem.

It suggests we go into the game with a certain gameplan. And then we don't deviate from that gameplan at all until our hand is forced. If the gameplan works in the first half, then we don't make many adjustments to what the offense has done well. Then maybe we get burnt on a play and Haz goes into panic mode and calls off the dogs. If the gameplan doesn't work in the first half, several times guys like Fletcher and Perry have basically had to plead with Haz to change the strategy. He's stubborn.

What? It works both ways. You gameplan based on probablities and observations from film study. If the opponent changes its tendencies and heavens "gameplans against Haslett's defense", then the ability to play well is heavily on the quality of your players. Yes, some adjustments can be made during the half. But let's be realistic, those adjustments are difficult to make on the fly during the action of a game. Some can be made. But it takes time to figure out what the other team is doing; then create a response in minutes; then communicate it to your players and have them ACTUALLY do it. How many times are guys beaten by the receiver, not because of the scheme but because they just got physically beat on the pass pattern. We've all seen the replays often....especially involving our safeties, D Hall and London Fletcher. You can be the best schemer but if your players lose contact with their assignments by 5 yards or more consistenly, you are going to give up big plays. You are blaming Haslett when the players are a MAJOR reason that they give up big plays, whether in the first half or the second.

And he's not well liked by his players. I'm not saying a DC has to give out hugs and candy to his players, or that they have to like him that much. But they have to respect him. The fact that part of the reason it took London so long to re-sign here was because he didn't want to deal with Haslett suggests that if a class act like London doesn't want to deal with him, no one else wants to either.

And you know this how? Are you in the locker room? Are you at Ashburn listening in on the conversations? I have heard players complain a lot more to the media about broken coverages and bad play than they were in the wrong defense. Is Haslett going to call the perfect play every time...Hell no. As for London....he was looking for a pay day and a longer term contract than the Redskins were offering. Can't blame him. It's his last contract. He's only got a year or two left in him. I never read where he wanted to leave because of Haslett. I'd be shocked if Fletcher ever said anything like that to anyone other than Mike Shanahan....certainly not the media. You are making **** up to fit your opinion.

There's pretty much only one documented case of Shanny ever asking for a certain play to be called by Jim. One. Out of three years. Mike isn't the defensive guy, and Haslett has complete autonomy over his defense. To suggest otherwise is to try and dig up an excuse in defense of Haslett..

Again, you and I are not going to hear this kind of stuff openly. But here is why I believe Mike Shanahan DOES have a say in the defensive game planning. Mike Shanahan studied defenses as an offensive coordinator and as a HC. He spent his one year sabbatical from coaching studying defenses....This is well documented and admitted by Shanahan. He CHOSE the 3-4 defense BEFORE he chose a DC. Shanahan decided a 3-4 defense was the best defense being used in the NFL. Mike Shanahan CHOSE most if not all the defensive coaches under Haslett, including publicy Morris.

Does Mike Shanahan call defensive signals during the game...I highly doubt it. He doesn't even call the offensive signals during the game. Does Mike Shanahan sit down during the week prior to the game to discuss the defensive game plan with Haslett...I have absolutely no doubt in my mind. What better than to have an offensive genius like Mike Shanahan poking holes in the defensive gameplan and make suggestions. My proof of involvement is far stronger than anything you can come up with.

Is it all Haslett? No. Could it be argued that it's mostly Haslett? Given how wildly inconsistent our defense looks on a week to week basis---hell, on a half-to-half basis--- it's hard to put that on anyone but the DC. He calls the plays. He crafts the game plan. He calls the shots.

Yes, but he's not the one getting beaten off the line of scrimmage; or the one who is sucked in by the play fake as the receiver runs past him; or the safety who always seems 5 yards too far away to make a play on the ball; or the player who gambles for the interception and misses; or the LB who is now too old/slow/hurt to cover the tight end; or the safety who is too small/slow to cover a tight end; or the LB who seems unable to consistently make a pass rush. Need I go on?

It's like being QB. the QB gets too much credit when a team wins and too much credit when the team loses. Same for the DC/OC/HC. What happens on the field does not always work the way it is drawn up on paper. We have some good players on defense; but not a single dominating player let alone several like the best defenses have. There is a reason Haslett is forced to play 4 different safeties and 3-5 different cornerbacks. The skill set is lacking to play a full game at those positions. That means Haslett has to do his best to match the limited skill set he has on the bench with what he thinks the offense is going to do. That is a guessing game. And NO DC is going to win that kind of guessing game on a regular basis.

I just do not believe Haslett is at fault for everything that goes bad with the defense. Not saying he is a great DC nor that he should not be replaced. I just think that some of you are blaming him when it is a combination of factors, least of which is the lack of talent in the secondary in particular. To ask a DC to scheme around the many weaknesses in the secondary AND the lack of a pass rush, is asking a hell of a lot from a guy who is not on the field playing the game.

Coaching is important. But I believe that playing ability is far more important than coaching and has a much larger bearing on the outcome of a game. People should be ****ing a lot more about the players than they do.

[justice98]

Yes, but he's not the one getting beaten off the line of scrimmage; or the one who is sucked in by the play fake as the receiver runs past him; or the safety who always seems 5 yards too far away to make a play on the ball; or the player who gambles for the interception and misses; or the LB who is now too old/slow/hurt to cover the tight end; or the safety who is too small/slow to cover a tight end; or the LB who seems unable to consistently make a pass rush. Need I go on?

It's like being QB. the QB gets too much credit when a team wins and too much credit when the team loses. Same for the DC/OC/HC. What happens on the field does not always work the way it is drawn up on paper. We have some good players on defense; but not a single dominating player let alone several like the best defenses have. There is a reason Haslett is forced to play 4 different safeties and 3-5 different cornerbacks. The skill set is lacking to play a full game at those positions. That means Haslett has to do his best to match the limited skill set he has on the bench with what he thinks the offense is going to do. That is a guessing game. And NO DC is going to win that kind of guessing game on a regular basis.

I just do not believe Haslett is at fault for everything that goes bad with the defense. Not saying he is a great DC nor that he should not be replaced. I just think that some of you are blaming him when it is a combination of factors, least of which is the lack of talent in the secondary in particular. To ask a DC to scheme around the many weaknesses in the secondary AND the lack of a pass rush, is asking a hell of a lot from a guy who is not on the field playing the game.

Coaching is important. But I believe that playing ability is far more important than coaching and has a much larger bearing on the outcome of a game. People should be ****ing a lot more about the players than they do.

What would you say he IS at fault for? Do you think Haslett can coach up a bad defense and make them average, or an average defense and make them good, or good to great? Or he's just a guy with a headset taking credit for stuff when it goes good?