Patriots’ throng of defensive linemen at practice doesn’t include Albert Haynesworth

[Lanky Livingston]

lmao, the brick wall would be the guy who is trying to argue that you coach the players you want and not the players you have, , you need to just admit you were wrong, its really that simple, its no longer even an argument, your contention is that we should switch because we werent that good, mine is that you can switch but you need to do it right, that change simply to chage is stupid and counter productive.

You're not even stating my argument correctly anymore; I am not wrong, its a matter of opinion. On one side, you have Ryman's opinion, and on the other side you have Mike Shanahan's opinion. Clearly the superbowl winning head coach is more knowledgeable than the semi-pro football player who "could have made big money coaching but likes money too much to get into coaching." My side wins.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

NO Lanky its not a matter of opinion, its an argument where one side points to empirical facts, and one side is trying to change the argument to something based on opinion. The Fact is that you don't change schemes until you have the majority of the pieces unless you dont care about winning, the opinion is that its ok to do so based on a coaches ego. so yes I was absolutely correct that the change was a fail because we havent gotten better quickly which is the goal.

 

[Bulldog]

I began this argument months ago agreeing that if you have base 4-3 talent you should run that scheme until you have acquired enough players to make the switch to the 3-4 at a productive level.

But as the 2010 season unfolded and I looked at the age of the roster and the players on defense, I slowly changed my mind in this case.

The Redskins were OLD. Outside of Adam Carriker, Brian Orakpo and London Fletcher the front seven was FORGETTABLE and the backfield was facing transition with the pending free agency of Carlos Rogers (whom the team did not want to bring back) and the black hole that was the free safety position.

So, there was little upside on a team destined to finish near the bottom of the standings to stand pat in terms of schemes on offense and defense. If the team was not going to be able to post wins consistently, why not suffer the pain right away instead of waiting until 2011 and THEN having to make all of the changes?

With the lockout and the lack of offseason work waiting until 2011 to move to the 3-4 would have been a disaster.

The revealed fact was that the Redskins defense in 2010 didn't have that much talent on it.

Rogers couldn't catch the football. There was no free safety. There was no right outside linebacker. There were no inside DTs worth a nickel. The DEs outside of the newly acquired Adam Carriker were weak at the point of attack or were 35 years old.

Why not make the changes during 6-10?

Making the changes during an otherwise 'lost' season was in retrospect the smart move.

That way this season can be about coming back up from the bottoming out process and looking forward to 2012 as the season the club should be able to emerge back onto the stage as a competitive team with depth.

 

[gbear]

While many say the redskins D was at a minimum respectable and went to pot with the switch to the 3-4, I think this arguement assumes a D's ranking should be in yards allowed or the only slightly better stat, points allowed. For years, we had good or even top 3 defenses by those metrics. However, they never got off the field! For years when it came to the 4th quarter, you knew our D would tire and eventually let in a score on a short field.

Yes, our O wasn't moving the ball, and the field position sucked. That said, when we were down 2 with 4 minutes left in the game, how many skins fans knew if we punted on 4th down, we won't see the ball again? When you look back at how many close losses we had, how many possessions did our O have?...and in the 4th quarter?

So it doesn't seem crazy to me for a coach to come in and say "making them punt from the 50 yard line is all well and good, but we don't have an offense to drive 80 to 90 yards for a score. How can we force more negative plays from the opponents offense? Hmm league wide the teams who seem to do this best seem to be running 3-4. Ok, we will give up more big plays, and our ranking might suffer, but we didn't have a winning way if we stayed pat. Make the switch."

 

[Elephant]

NO Lanky its not a matter of opinion, its an argument where one side points to empirical facts, and one side is trying to change the argument to something based on opinion. The Fact is that you don't change schemes until you have the majority of the pieces unless you dont care about winning, the opinion is that its ok to do so based on a coaches ego. so yes I was absolutely correct that the change was a fail because we havent gotten better quickly which is the goal.

While we agree the timing of the switch was wrong due to the lack of proper personnel in place to execute, the above, emboldened statement is pure opinion/speculation/conjecture on your part.

You can suggest the coaches were not concerned with winning, but you cannot say with certainty that they did not care about winning. They may have seriously thought they could win. Neither you or I believed they could have succeeded in the 3-4 with the players they had, we said it before they made the switch and we say it a year later with the experience to support our assertions. But you cannot say the coaches didn't care about winning. They could could have seen things in practice that suggested they could. And that was my major concern.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I will defer to BT, and also reiterate (for the one millionth time) that it was essential to evaluate the players we had to see if they were a fit for the 3-4. In this manner, Shanahan was able to identify where to go in the draft. Why is this such an epic fail? It seems perfectly rational to me.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

ok lanky, so your assertion was that we needed to evaluate the players, I disagree (thats what film is for) but given your assertion, who do you think benefitted from the switch who is still on the roster.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

While we agree the timing of the switch was wrong due to the lack of proper personnel in place to execute, the above, emboldened statement is pure opinion/speculation/conjecture on your part.

You can suggest the coaches were not concerned with winning, but you cannot say with certainty that they did not care about winning. They may have seriously thought they could win. Neither you or I believed they could have succeeded in the 3-4 with the players they had, we said it before they made the switch and we say it a year later with the experience to support our assertions. But you cannot say the coaches didn't care about winning. They could could have seen things in practice that suggested they could. And that was my major concern.

The moves were just too schizo, we sign a vet QB giving up way too much (given what other players were going for) we sign a couple aging vets to fill holes and we traded picks away, on top of that instead of tweaking a defence that was decent (that cannot be argued, people can say it wasnt great and for the sake of argument I will agree that it wasnt anything more than above average) however it certainly wasnt BOTTOM 5 NFL. so were we rebuilding or did Shanny overestimate his coaching ability and that of Haslett?

 

[Elephant]

The moves were just too schizo, we sign a vet QB giving up way too much (given what other players were going for) we sign a couple aging vets to fill holes and we traded picks away, on top of that instead of tweaking a defence that was decent (that cannot be argued, people can say it wasnt great and for the sake of argument I will agree that it wasnt anything more than above average) however it certainly wasnt BOTTOM 5 NFL. so were we rebuilding or did Shanny overestimate his coaching ability and that of Haslett?

Unfortunately I think he did over estimate. I mean he did trade for a QB that was being pushed out of Philly for a reason. I think he made a few significant miscalculations. But like I was saying, that is my opinion. Just like it is your opinion that they did it with the idea that losing was ok.

 

[burgold]

On the transition, I think it was mostly a mistake. I think I would have enjoyed seeing what a defensive line looked like with Orakpo on one side, Jarmon on the other and Carricker and __________ in the middle. Fletcher obviously would have been fine in the middle. Rocky would have been better outside than in and our secondary would have been the same.

Still, that D was allowing a ton of yards and it seemed that despite its ranking whenever an opponent needed to score... they did. We couldn't produce stops or turnovers. We probably forced the fewest number of punts in the NFL for several years running.

That said, last year was putting a square into a round hole. Despite player defections and distractions, we just didn't have the right guys. Perhaps the learning curve would have always been rough and it was best to get it out of the way, but geez that was an ugly year... until injuries mounted and we had to "sit" many of our stars and vets.

Surprisingly, the D began to be pretty good once we sat most of our good players.

 

[fansince62]

eh...I don't think it really matters. The FO was boxed in by past mistakes and the McNabb trade. There was no draft to initiate a rebuild/revamp. So they opted to reel in whatever the market happened to offer...which obviously wasn't much when it came to players on defense. They were committed to a transition - that's a strategic decision. they probably knew it was gonna blow....but they wanted to start the learning process immediately. they just couldn't actuate the decision cuz they were short the resources to do so. this year should be better...but I'm still wary:

- dl depth is not great IMO
- love cofield...but he will get pushed around at times
- secondary is uncertain-> landry injury, CBs do get burned
- is mcintosh a strength, weakness, or just ok?

in the event....I bet we see ILB and CB drafted over the next couple yrs...and maybe a NT depending on how cofield holds up against bigger OLs

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

FS- great post all good points and I think Cofield will need another run stop nt to be really effective, he is just too small to be an every down NT in our scheme, we dont run a cowboys style 3-4 where the LE is the main 2 gapper and the NT shoots gaps (not all 3-4s are the same). if haslett were a better schemer this wouldnt be such an issue.

Burgold- thats what bugs me, the failed potential, Jarmon, Carter , Rak and Daniels as the run down de is a solid rotation, Carriker, Haynesworth and Gholston would have been a solid rotation inside, Fletch is a far better Mac than he is an inside in the 3-4 and Rocky was a solid Will in the 4-3. we needed a sam backer as we had no LB depth. but that would have been a solid 4-3 front 7. instead, basically last season we ditched carter for nothing, Haynesworth was swapped out for a still injured Kemo Carriker took Jarmons place and gholston was in no mans land lol. not a good trade out.