Chalk Talk: Switch To A 4-3! (Why That Transition Is Difficult)

[Rufus T Firefly]

Who are your DEs in a 4-3 other than Kerrigan and Rak (which would have it's own set of issues)?

 

Here's what we'd need if we went to a 4-3:

 

-Defensive End (Rak's contract is up and they probably wouldn't sign him to experiment with him at end)

-Defensive End depth

-Middle Linebacker

-Middle Linebacker depth

-1-technique

 

Here's what we'd need for a 3-4:

 

-ILB

-NT

I'm not sure how excited I'd be about Jackson (who would need to re-signed) and Riley as OLBs in a 4-3 either.

[KDawg]

Skins have too many wants to use a draft pick on a NT. 

 

Explain?

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

We have a personnel issue on defense.  Our players are way overvalued by our fans.  It's not that we don't have some pieces, but with holes at LB, safety, nickel DB, NT, and no edge rush, we are gonna suck no matter the scheme.

 

The 3-4 doesn't bother me.  I hope we stick with it, grab some more talent, and get a DC that put it into motion.

[Rufus T Firefly]

We have a personnel issue on defense.  Our players are way overvalued by our fans.  It's not that we don't have some pieces, but with holes at LB, safety, nickel DB, NT, and no edge rush, we are gonna suck no matter the scheme.

 

The 3-4 doesn't bother me.  I hope we stick with it, grab some more talent, and get a DC that put it into motion.

I think a lot of people overstate the issues as well. Assuming we stick with a 3-4, we need to re-sign either Jackson or Orakpo (I feel Jackson is the cost-effective move), and then you are two players away from a very good front 7- A NT who takes over the line of scrimmage (Linval Joseph? BJ Raji? Paul Soliai) and then an ILB, with plenty available. Riley needs to be re-signed.

 

The S position is obvious, depending on the youngsters. CB s OK if Hall is back, and a nickel should be easy (that could really be Wilson).

 

The potential to turn this D around by next year is really there. Should point out we could make a good deal more cap by dumping Carriker and Bowen if we bring in a NT.

[RandyHolt]

I wonder if the transition back to a 4-3 would be more difficult than the move to the 3-4

 

Which seems to still be a work in progress now into the 4th year

[Higgs44]

We have so many holes, it doesnt really matter.  Problem is Orakpo will never be a great OLB, neither will Kerrigan and they were supposed to lead this defense for years to come.

[Chump Bailey]

Good 34 NT's are hard to find and acquire though. We either get lucky in the draft or grossly overpay for one and he'll likely be average.  

[Prototype]

I love Barry Cofield, but he's not a true 3-4 NT. I'd like to see what we're capable of with a stud DT

 

Internet scouts, start your research!

 

EDIT: I've done some for you already...

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/2027385/daniel-mccullers

 

"McCullers has shown improved awareness and uses his eyes better to track and make plays against the run, although most times he just doesn't get there in time. He has tight hips and struggles to freely move laterally which inhibits his overall range. But that's not his game, McCullers is a short-area defender who clogs the middle and can handle multiple blockers while still making plays against the run whether lined up as a nose tackle or outside the guard's shoulder."

 

"He is a double-team magnet with his massive frame and overall length, but he has above average natural power to overwhelm single blocks and win 1-on-1 matchups."

 

                                                                                                                                        - Dane Brugler, NFLDraftScout.com

 

A 6'6,  350 lb, gap-clogging, double-team taker is just what the doctor ordered. He's a viable target for us in the 2-3 rounds. I don't really see anything else worth taking in those 2 rounds except an ILB

[bedlamVR]

Thanks KDawg - interesting thread . I belive you are right it will be easier to fix this defense than move to the 4-3 and to be honest I did not love the 3-4 previously but now we have it I kind of like it in terms of its versatility... 

 

People harping back to the good old days with the top 10 defenses outside of 2004/2005 and a little bit of 2007 our defense was statistically impressive but rarely won us any games and you could guarantee when we needed a stop it could never get off the field and we couldn't buy a turnover ...

 

4-3 defenses the good ones around the league you have to look at the demands in terms of resources (generally) the line demands highly sought after players that are expensive in the draft (1st and 2nd rounders) - for example with the Rams - one of the best 4-3 lines in the the NFL you have Long, Brockers and Quinn all first rounders and you do not see a Giants draft go by without them seaming to select a DL in the first few rounds which can leave you short in other areas (see NY Giants LBs for example)  ... you can run a 4-3 on a budget and it is not a problem but to have a good one ...well

 

You have also convinced me about moving Colefield - I feel he could have impact at 3-4 end (like Cariker was having) bring in a NT (draft or FA no,1 target) and add a DC - a name not often thrown about would be Spagnola who learnt under Johnson in Philly is thought of as a 4-3 guy but spent the last year as an associate coach in Baltimore but where he excels is in bringing the heat from zone blitzes and in a 3-4 orientation could be fun to watch ...

 

Haslett just cannot seem to make the on the fly defensive changes and sells out in one area and takes away a lot of the flexibility of the 3-4 . I am sick of seeing Rak and Kerrigan dropping back into coverage or if they do rush it is always a wide outside rush they rarely stunt or do anything innovative (as they did at the back end of 2011) ... i get why they do it but it is hardly taking advantage of their talents .

 

What I would be looking for in this off-season would be ILB NT and S (interestingly really the backbone of the defense) we have the money to resign our own and we have to bring someone in who can use them - the entire defensive staff looks to be employed because they know someone on the team, we need to mix it up ..

[Rufus T Firefly]

I love Barry Cofield, but he's not a true 3-4 NT. I'd like to see what we're capable of with a stud DT

 

Internet scouts, start your research!

 

EDIT: I've done some for you already...

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/2027385/daniel-mccullers

 

"McCullers has shown improved awareness and uses his eyes better to track and make plays against the run, although most times he just doesn't get there in time. He has tight hips and struggles to freely move laterally which inhibits his overall range. But that's not his game, McCullers is a short-area defender who clogs the middle and can handle multiple blockers while still making plays against the run whether lined up as a nose tackle or outside the guard's shoulder."

 

"He is a double-team magnet with his massive frame and overall length, but he has above average natural power to overwhelm single blocks and win 1-on-1 matchups."

 

                                                                                                                                        - Dane Brugler, NFLDraftScout.com

 

A 6'6,  350 lb, gap-clogging, double-team taker is just what the doctor ordered. He's a viable target for us in the 2-3 rounds. I don't really see anything else worth taking in those 2 rounds except an ILB

I like McCullers as a NT prospect we might have a shot at, and Daquan Jones from Penn St. Haven't seen much except a couple of clips (just haven't watched much college this year) but both sound good from scouting reports.

 

As I said earlier, Raji, Soliai and Linval Joseph seem like the best FA targets. Maybe Alan Branch.

[PeterMP]

I suspect much of the advantage of running a 3-4 is gone.  When there were fewer teams running it there was less competition for the players making it easier to pick them up.

 

While running the 4-3 had more teams meaning more compeition.

 

There was a premium on 4-3 rush ends.  The 3-4 teams could get people to play OLB and DE that didn't fit as 4-3 ends (either too small or to big) and so that was an advantage to them.

 

What I think we've seen is the demand for 3-4 OLBs has gone up, and getting a 3-4 NT has always been hard and now it is that much harder.

 

In addition, teams saw less 3-4 so preparing for it was different.  If half the teams you play are 3-4, you are going to be better prepared for it then if it is 25%.

 

I'm not sure we can switch now, but with Orakp and Fletcher gone (potentially) at the end of this year, it seems to me that we could pretty easily revamp the LB group this off season.

 

We'd almost certainly move some of the pieces in the DL into better fits (Coefiled, I think, would be better as a 4-3 DT).

 

The question becomes Kerrigan.  Can he play OLB or DE in a 4-3?

 

I'm not saying we should do it, but I wouldn't be opposed to it.

[MartinC]

Good 34 NT's are hard to find and acquire though. We either get lucky in the draft or grossly overpay for one and he'll likely be average.  

 

This. Teams are not going let a good NT walk in free agency unless there are injury issues or he is looking for a massive pay day (been there done that). Your going to have to draft one. But its also very hard to find the kind of NT we are talking about who can elevate a 3-4 defense in the draft unless you are taking one pretty high first round - not impossible, but hard. 

 

We don't have a first round pick this year. I don't have a clue what NT prospects there are coming into the draft pool this year but unless its a very deep group we get are going to have to get lucky and have someone fall to us in the second round. I think we pretty much have to use our second round pick on defense unless there is an absolute can not pass stud on offense who falls. I would be targeting best available player at NT, ILB, CB and FS.

The question becomes Kerrigan.  Can he play OLB or DE in a 4-3?

 

I'm not saying we should do it, but I wouldn't be opposed to it.

 

Kerrigan was a 4-3 end in College. 

[scottishskinsfan]

 

The other variable that's hurt us over the last two seasons is the loss of Carriker. It hurts us more than many know.

If I had to use hindsight, I believe the Redskins made the switch to the 3-4 thinking that Haynesworth would be the nose that would allow us to have this system thrive. He threw an immediate monkey wrench in that plan. Thus we were left scrambling. We still had plenty of 4-3 personnel at that time, so a switch then wouldn't have been as difficult. Since then, we've transitioned to an entirely different group of guys and the switch would become much more difficult. Now is not the time to switch, in my opinion. This offseason is the time to find that nose or make the transition (but it'll take a few years).

 

Thanks for the insight. I hadn't really considered the impact the lack of a proper NT has had upon us but thinking back, Rivers ability to escape the pocket was perhaps as good an example you'll get where both Rak and Kerrigan were getting into the backfeld consistently without the inside help to close out sacks. I'm also glad you mentioned Carriker who for me has a major impact on our line - he's been a major loss both this year and last.

 

As for Haynesworth: I remember one play just before he left where he lined up at NT and it was 2 or 3rd and goal from about our 4. The guy flattened the guard and center and was upon the running back just after the hand off. If only he had that mentality and aggression permanently and we would be in a much better place.

 

Do you have any suggestions for guys available who can fill that NT position?

[DC9]

I think a lot of people overstate the issues as well. Assuming we stick with a 3-4, we need to re-sign either Jackson or Orakpo (I feel Jackson is the cost-effective move), and then you are two players away from a very good front 7- A NT who takes over the line of scrimmage (Linval Joseph? BJ Raji? Paul Soliai) and then an ILB, with plenty available. Riley needs to be re-signed.

 

The S position is obvious, depending on the youngsters. CB s OK if Hall is back, and a nickel should be easy (that could really be Wilson).

 

The potential to turn this D around by next year is really there. Should point out we could make a good deal more cap by dumping Carriker and Bowen if we bring in a NT.

 

I agree.  As frustrating as it has been to watch, we really aren't that bad off and could easily turn the corner with a couple of moves (obviously the correct moves) in the offseason.

 

Lou Spanos (a 3-4 guy who learned from LeBeaux) was really good at making us look good when we had less personnel.  It's no coincidence that in 2011 when we were a top 15 squad, he was calling the plays (as my avi illustrates).  I was as upset as anyone could be when UCLA hired him away after that season... and what do you know, right back to the pooper for two more years.

 

If we get him back I think that's a good start. 

[KDawg]

I agree.  As frustrating as it has been to watch, we really aren't that bad off and could easily turn the corner with a couple of moves (obviously the correct moves) in the offseason.

 

Lou Spanos (a 3-4 guy who learned from LeBeaux) was really good at making us look good when we had less personnel.  It's no coincidence that in 2011 when we were a top 15 squad, he was calling the plays (as my avi illustrates).  I was as upset as anyone could be when UCLA hired him away after that season... and what do you know, right back to the pooper for two more years.

 

If we get him back I think that's a good start. 

 

 

Spanos was likely just the signaller for Haslett. Having said that, Spanos is a damned good defensive mind and a guy I'd love to have back on our side. I really do think his insight helped make us a stronger defense.

 

We have so many holes, it doesnt really matter.  Problem is Orakpo will never be a great OLB, neither will Kerrigan and they were supposed to lead this defense for years to come.

 

I think they are both doing all they can at this point. I'm a huge Rak fan, but, at this point, Jackson is interchangeable with either guy. Why? Simply because our personnel and scheme is hindering their ability to do what they do best at times: Get to the QB. I STRONGLY believe that Jackson is the best of the three of them in coverage. I also think Rak and Kerrigan are head and shoulders better rushers. And, to add, I think Jackson is extremely football savvy.

 

With our current issues, and the amount that we're using Rak and Kerrigan in coverage, it might be better for Jackson to be out there at times, for either of them.

 

Keep in mind, that's not a knock on either Rak or Kerrigan, but rather we don't have the interior personnel to put them in situations to succeed.

 

Without that middle pocket collapse, we're struggling. Carriker provided it as an end in 2011, he's missed and severely undervalued around here. He allowed Cofield to play nose (which, I still believe Cofield in a rotation at the ends with a bigger, stouter nose would have made us unbelievable defensively). Having said that, he's also shown he can't stay healthy, and if he gets another chance it will likely be his last. But if we can acquire a nose, that allows us to play Cofield as an end. New Nose + Cofield + Bowen + Carriker (if he's back) + Jenkins + Golston + Baker and I think we have a formidable DL.

 

If that happens, Rak and Kerrigan can thrive.

 

I think we're currently screwing the pooch, though. I'd LOVE to see Mr. Jackson get reps at the interior LB spot. I think his coverage ability and football savvy would benefit him greatly in there. Especially because he's protected in the 3-4. If he can play 3-4 ILB, and we can manage a nose and we re-sign both Jackson and Rak, I think our defense becomes THAT much more dangerous. While I'm not sure Jackson is as good of a rusher as Kerrigan/Rak, I am sure that he's a SMART football player and reads things well. The three of them on the field would be dangerous. Add to that, Riley CAN rush the passer, too. We have four guys who can bring pressure if that happens. We need one nose and we need to experiment.

 

Having said all of that, it's 100% possible Haslett had the thought and it didn't work out.

 

Good 34 NT's are hard to find and acquire though. We either get lucky in the draft or grossly overpay for one and he'll likely be average.  

 

You can't buy a nose in FA. As stated, good noses (or ones in their prime) don't often hit the FA market. You have to draft one. But it doesn't need to be a first rounder. You can find a stud in the second. It just takes good scouts.

 

I suspect much of the advantage of running a 3-4 is gone.  When there were fewer teams running it there was less competition for the players making it easier to pick them up.

.

What I think we've seen is the demand for 3-4 OLBs has gone up, and getting a 3-4 NT has always been hard and now it is that much harder.

 

In addition, teams saw less 3-4 so preparing for it was different.  If half the teams you play are 3-4, you are going to be better prepared for it then if it is 25%.

 

I'm not sure we can switch now, but with Orakp and Fletcher gone (potentially) at the end of this year, it seems to me that we could pretty easily revamp the LB group this off season.

 

We'd almost certainly move some of the pieces in the DL into better fits (Coefiled, I think, would be better as a 4-3 DT).

 

The question becomes Kerrigan.  Can he play OLB or DE in a 4-3?

 

I'm not saying we should do it, but I wouldn't be opposed to it.

 

I'm not opposed to it, either, and you bring some very pertinent points. The competition for 3-4 pieces is fierce, but it's still equally as hard to find a 4-3 DE as it is to find a 3-4 NT. They are rare breeds in my opinion.

 

Kerrigan could play DE as long as we had a Phillip Daniels type on the other side, in my opinion. Otherwise, I'm not sure how well that would work.

[Chump Bailey]

Sammie Lee Hill was a primary target for me in the offseason. I wish we could have had the cap space to land him. He likely would have made a huge difference.

 

Cofield at DE is something I absolutely agree with too and have felt so since he arrived.

 

Hopefully will get this turned around soon...

[Chump Bailey]

Maybe we can pry Kwame Geathers away from the Chargers?

[DC9]

Spanos was likely just the signaller for Haslett. Having said that, Spanos is a damned good defensive mind and a guy I'd love to have back on our side. I really do think his insight helped make us a stronger defense.

 

Spanos called a lot of the defense that year (not all of it) and was heavily involved in gameplanning.

 

Haz isn't a 3-4 guy.  There's only one spot he has run a 3-4.  Spanos is a 3-4 guy.

 

Heck, even Raheem is a 4-3 guy. 

[KDawg]

Spanos called a lot of the defense that year (not all of it) and was heavily involved in gameplanning.

 

Haz isn't a 3-4 guy.  There's only one spot he has run a 3-4.  Spanos is a 3-4 guy.

 

Heck, even Raheem is a 4-3 guy. 

 

Sure. Agreed. Haslett ran the 3-4 in Pittsburgh, with a tailor made defense and it got progressively worse each year he was in charge.

 

Spanos was probably the glue that made the defense tick. But I'd still guess he was primarily the signaller. He probably made many suggestions to Haslett, and Has probably said, "go for it!", but I don't think his role was ever to call plays. That's not how headset conversations generally work.

[DC9]

Sure. Agreed. Haslett ran the 3-4 in Pittsburgh, with a tailor made defense and it got progressively worse each year he was in charge.

 

Spanos was probably the glue that made the defense tick. But I'd still guess he was primarily the signaller. He probably made many suggestions to Haslett, and Has probably said, "go for it!", but I don't think his role was ever to call plays. That's not how headset conversations generally work.

 

I hate the proverbial "stats guy" and "insiders said this guy" but I'm going with that here, KD.

 

No doubt he wasn't the primary guy, but the numbers speak for themselves.

 

2010: 31st in total defense

2011: 13th in total defense

2012: 28th in total defense

2013: 27th in total defense (as of right now)

 

I'd also look at how WHEREVER Bobby Slowick is on the defense, they regress.  2010 and 2011 he was in the secondary, 2012 and 2013 he was with the LBs. 

 

These are two of the easiest things to see since the inception of this defense in 2010.

[darrelgreenie]

I think the OP is underestimating the ability of the current personal to play the 4-3.  I think, at least in theory, the switch to 4-3 would be much easier for the current group than the one to 3-4.  Most of those players were 4-3 by nature to begin with.  Either we converted 4-3 players already on the roster (Riley, Fletcher, Jackson, Orakpo, and Kerrigan's new, but even he was 4-3 in college), or we brought in players that played in the 4-3 their whole career and made them 3-4 players (a la Cofield).  

 

Orakpo was effective in the 4-3, and Blatche moved him around and made it work.  Might he and Kerrigan be a weakness against the run, perhaps, but that goes for any smaller 4-3 DE.  It's a tradeoff, you could have guys like Philip Daniels that hold down the ends in the run game, or you can have Robert Quinn/Chris Long types like they have in St. Louis that get after the QB.  

I agree. Like I would saying in my first post in this thread the personnel could switch to 43 fairly easily provided its a  43 Under with a base LDE that's more of DT Bowen/Carriker.

Rak could play the LOLB/Jack/Elephant (rush OLB) like he did under Blatche

Kerrigan could play the RDE or vice versa

or we could play a 1-gap 34

or find a NT

[KDawg]

I hate the proverbial "stats guy" and "insiders said this guy" but I'm going with that here, KD.

 

No doubt he wasn't the primary guy, but the numbers speak for themselves.

 

2010: 31st in total defense

2011: 13th in total defense

2012: 28th in total defense

2013: 27th in total defense (as of right now)

 

I'd also look at how WHEREVER Bobby Slowick is on the defense, they regress.  2010 and 2011 he was in the secondary, 2012 and 2013 he was with the LBs. 

 

These are two of the easiest things to see since the inception of this defense in 2010.

 

I'm not saying he didn't have an impact, brother. Rather, that wasn't his role. He probably DID make some playcalls because he said something on the headset to Haslett such as: "Hey, they're tendency in this spot is to go A-Gap. Let's run Attack X here and clog up the center and make them bounce."

 

And Haslett said, "Sounds wonderful!"

 

If Spanos was trumping Haslett in any way, as the DC, and Mike was okay with it, Haslett should have packed his bags and left. He wasn't going to be respected and even if he knew what he was doing it wouldn't work. I don't believe that was the case.

 

Spanos was the glue. He was the 3-4 brains, and he had suggestions that Haslett found extremely helpful, which is why at times, Spanos' play calls were made... Because he knew his ****.

 

I think you would agree with these statements, so I don't think we're in any kind of disagreement at all.

[KDawg]

I agree. Like I would saying in my first post in this thread the personnel could switch to 43 fairly easily provided its a  43 Under with a base LDE that's more of DT Bowen/Carriker.

Rak could play the LOLB/Jack/Elephant (rush OLB) like he did under Blatche

Kerrigan could play the RDE or vice versa

or we could play a 1-gap 34

or find a NT

 

I don't disagree that we could transition. I just don't think we have the pieces necessary to do it. Especially the depth. Fletcher has lost a step, and while he could still be effective in spurts, he'd struggle. Riley would be okay. Rak as a rush OLB would be fine and Kerrigan could be a DE, as I said earlier, if he had that stout DE opposite him.

 

But, you can't have a LDE and play an under at the same time. The under puts a DE in a 5/7 technique (sometimes other techniques) [and for reference, I refer to the 5 as the outside shade of the tackle, 7 as the inside shade of the TE]. That DE would have to go to the TE side. Now, I think you're saying that in a balanced front, that DE would play to the left, but for clarity to others reading I wanted to clarify that.

 

Now having said that, the 4-3 under is basically EXTREMELY similar to the 3-4. So yes, it would likely transition a bit easier. But the same problems will arise. We need that stud 1-technique/shade which we still don't have. Especially because the 1-technique is usually to the formational strength.

 

Find a nose and we can do either of those things. 3-4, 4-3, whatever.

 

I think it's important to note, not to you DG, but in general, the terms 3-4 and 4-3 aren't as rigid as people seem to think.

 

Any defense is X-X-X in it's totality, and it speaks more to personnel than it does to alignment.

 

You can have a 3-4-4 defense and run it as a 4-3 under quite easily.

 

if I was told I had to switch to a 4-3 under look, this would be my personnel:

 

Defensive Line:

SE: Stephen Bowen

N: Chris Baker

3T: Barry Cofield

 

Linebacker:

M: London Fletcher (for now)

W: Perry Riley

S: Brian Orakpo/Ryan Kerrigan

J: Ryan Kerrigan/Brian Orakpo

 

Here's the diagram of how I'd set it up:

 

 

                                                        TE     T     G     C     G     T

                                                    S       SE             N         3T     J

 

                                                                     M              W

 

Against a balanced set:

 

                                                                 T     G     C     G     T

                                                              SE          N           3T      J

 

                                                       S               M              W

 

Against TE sets, it wouldn't be all that different. Against balanced sets it would be more of a 4 front. But the personnel would still be 3-4 (3 DL, 4 backers). To be honest, against a spread set I'd probably change my defensive package to a nickel with Kerrigan/Rak as the ends and the SAM would be a coverage guy. So it would be more like a 2-4-5, like we have done. Or, you could have some fun and go with a 2-5-4 and bring Jackson in as the SAM. Slightly weaker coverage wise, but stronger in blitz disguise.

 

There's a lot you can do, but in the end, the 4-3 under is extremely similar to the 3-4 Phillips System.

[DC9]

I'm not saying he didn't have an impact, brother. Rather, that wasn't his role. He probably DID make some playcalls because he said something on the headset to Haslett such as: "Hey, they're tendency in this spot is to go A-Gap. Let's run Attack X here and clog up the center and make them bounce."

 

And Haslett said, "Sounds wonderful!"

 

If Spanos was trumping Haslett in any way, as the DC, and Mike was okay with it, Haslett should have packed his bags and left. He wasn't going to be respected and even if he knew what he was doing it wouldn't work. I don't believe that was the case.

 

Spanos was the glue. He was the 3-4 brains, and he had suggestions that Haslett found extremely helpful, which is why at times, Spanos' play calls were made... Because he knew his ****.

 

I think you would agree with these statements, so I don't think we're in any kind of disagreement at all.

 

This is why I love that you are on this board.  What you and I get to disagree on is so miniscule and minute compared to just about everyone else I talk to on here.

 

I know what you are saying.  And other than what one of the insiders said and the results of that year vs the others I have no proof that he called most of the plays.

 

I would argue that Haslett was probably on his way out (especially after leaking the draft plans to that fan in Va Beach during his daughter's volleyball tourney  ) and that when Spanos left for UCLA and we brought in Rah it all but solidified that. 

 

There was some weird stuff going on during that time and then when the rumors came out about Raheem calling plays in the 4th quarter of the Rams game last year it just added to it.

 

I don't know what's going on, but I know the set up is poop and we need to fix it.  I know we can agree on that. 

[KDawg]

This is why I love that you are on this board.  What you and I get to disagree on is so miniscule and minute compared to just about everyone else I talk to on here.

 

I know what you are saying.  And other than what one of the insiders said and the results of that year vs the others I have no proof that he called most of the plays.

 

I would argue that Haslett was probably on his way out (especially after leaking the draft plans to that fan in Va Beach during his daughter's volleyball tourney  ) and that when Spanos left for UCLA and we brought in Rah it all but solidified that. 

 

There was some weird stuff going on during that time and then when the rumors came out about Raheem calling plays in the 4th quarter of the Rams game last year it just added to it.

 

I don't know what's going on, but I know the set up is poop and we need to fix it.  I know we can agree on that. 

 

I will say this: If Shanahan is having other people on the defensive staff call plays for us, Mike Shanahan needs to be fired. Why, some here may ask? Because then he's showing that he should have canned Haslett more than once. He's showing he probably could have kept Spanos if he offered him the DC role and chose not to. He's showing that we could have had a new DC in place with Raheem by now and he choose not to.

 

As of now, we don't really know what his thoughts are Haslett are. I like to believe that he lives in fantasyland and he believes the defense is just missing personnel and not scheme. But if he's actually allowing other guys to call plays and he hasn't acted on that and removed Haslett, Mike Shanahan is the guy that needs to be removed.