Why Haslett has to go

[Lanky Livingston]

Makes you wonder why Shanahan personally chose him - was it so that he could assert control over the defense and the draft? Someone he could easily push around and do what he wanted?

 

[Om]

He didn't need to pick a puppet over control issues---he's the head coach and president of football ops. But your question is absolutely valid. And it's the one serious question mark I have over Shanahan's decision making since being here. McNabb, Jammal Brown...all easy to see now as bad calls, but at the time, even if I has reservations about some of the decisions, I could see where one could argue for them.

Haslett? I've been questionning that one since the first time we heard his name mentioned. Didn't get it then, don't get it now. And I have never heard one single word from Shanahan or anyone who I think might be in the know explain it.

Next time anyone sees Mike, ask him for me ok?

 

[Lanky Livingston]

He didn't need to pick a puppet over control issues---he's the head coach and president of football ops. But your question is absolutely valid. And it's the one serious question mark I have over Shanahan's decision making since being here. McNabb, Jammal Brown...all easy to see now as bad calls, but at the time, even if I has reservations about some of the decisions, I could see where one could argue for them.

Haslett? I've been questionning that one since the first time we heard his name mentioned. Didn't get it then, don't get it now. And I have never heard one single word from Shanahan or anyone who I think might be in the know explain it.

Next time anyone sees Mike, ask him for me ok?

I'm right there with you. Every other decision has some validity to it, even in hindsight (okay...maybe not trading Haynesworthless to Tennessee for a 3rd round pick has no validity) - but Haslett was questioned by many from the beginning.

 

[servumtuum]

Thing is....Haslett has NEVER been a top-flight DC. His record is average at best, pretty crappy at worst. We hear more and more comments, suggestions and hints from other teams all the time about our predictability defensively. We watch every single week as opposing OC's and QB's seem to be one step ahead of our play calling and adjustments.

With few expections since he's been here, Haslett's D has pretty much been what Haslett D's have always been....underachievers.

Again, I don't think he's getting the max out of what he DOES have. Wilson and Hall are hardly shutdown corners, and Gomes and Williams are just average safeties. But is this secondary as bad as the numbers would seem to indicate? Is it more about their physical skills than it is about how they are being deployed?

Personally, I don't think so. I've seen enough of Jim Haslett, here and elsewhere, to have pretty much made up my mind he's in over his head. I think 2013 sees a new DC and Haslett looking for work .... somewhere. I vote Dallas.

Let's go beyond "hints", and "suggestions" about our defensive predictability for a minute, shall we?

Jay Gruden was asked why he ran that Wildcat opening play that gave the Bengals their first TD.

He already knew what Haslett was going to do.

Self-Scouting and How the Bengals’ Jay Gruden fooled the Redskins’ Jim Haslett
Thursday, 27 September 2012 , by : Chris


Nowadays, some teams go crazy with self-scouting: stats, odds, percentages, tendencies, and so on. One can debate how useful it is that you run to the right 54.5% of the time out of a certain formation if you have only used that formation eleven times. But the best advice I’ve heard for self-scouting is to identify and counter what you “always” and “never” do. If you always run to the right out of a certain formation, or you never throw the ball when you show another look, or you always or never blitz or play a type of coverage in another situation, then you better counteract that because your opponent certainly will.



So it was this past weekend when the Bengals faced the Redskins. Bengals offensive coordinator Jay Gruden noticed that the Redskins, under defensive coordinator Jim Haslett, always ran Cover 0 when facing any kind of wildcat formation where the quarterback was not the one under center:

“We had a pretty good indication that they were gonna be in Cover-0 when we went wildcat with whoever we had back there other than a quarterback, whether it’s a running back or wide receiver,” Gruden told Adam Schein and Rich Gannon on SiriusXM NFL Radio this week. “It took a little bit of time, but the free safety came out of the middle of the field, and came in the box, and we knew we had A.J. one-on-one against a safety.

“And it was just Mo’s job to just launch it as high and as deep as he could and let A.J. run under it,” Gruden explained. “And he threw a great ball, a much better ball than he did in practice, that’s for sure. It worked out great, obviously.” . . . .

“Actually, it was just for this game,” Gruden replied. “Because Coach Haslett, I was just watching their wildcat reel. And every wildcat snap they had, they played Cover-0. And I’ve been waiting for it. We practiced it this week, and I told them on Wednesday when we installed our group that this was gonna be play one of the game against the Redskins,” Gruden continued. “We practiced it four or five times throughout the week, and made sure we protected it number one, and gave him a chance to step into it and launch it. And he did.”

Now, there’s nothing wrong with going Cover 0 against a non-quarterback formation, but, as I was told long ago, if you don’t notice your “always” and “nevers,” someone else will.

Predictablility tells your opponent what to expect...and loses football games.


(The bolding and emphases were mine-I considered them that important-and damning.)

Article link: http://smartfootball.com/grab-bag/self-scouting-and-how-the-bengals-jay-gruden-fooled-the-redskins-jim-haslett

 

[Goaldeje]

Christ, that's depressing. I hope Jimmy boy read that interview.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

LOL. He is so bad. He'll probably keep doing it to! What a dope.

 

[tshile]

While that's damning evidence to Haslett, I have less of a problem with that one play to open the game than I do with the fact that drive after drive after drive we had no answer for the short/quick passes. We couldn't get to Dalton fast enough and we couldn't cover the WR's worth a damn.

One play to open a game in week three - yeah, I can live with that. The rest of it... that's what bothers me.

The more I read from Om the more I'm leaning towards getting rid of haslett asap.

 

[tshile]

If you'd like a laugh, go through some of the threads post-saints game where some of us discuss how awesome our defense is They start on page 3 of the forum.

To be fair there were quite a few people pointing out how the saints scored in garbage time, and the whole 'foot off the gas' mentality, but I think most people were thrilled at allowing 24 points to the saints in their dome.

I just find it funny to go through that stuff, and don't get me wrong I'm just as much a part of the over-reaction crew as everyone else

Just like the threads where people got so angry that someone picked us to win 3 or 4 games all year; well, here we are with losses to the bengals and rams, not a very good start

or how people assumed the saints would be fine without Payton; well here they are with losses to the redskins, panthers, chiefs, and 2 of the 3 were at home

just funny stuff to read if you have time

 

[Lanky Livingston]

If you'd like a laugh, go through some of the threads post-saints game where some of us discuss how awesome our defense is They start on page 3 of the forum.

To be fair there were quite a few people pointing out how the saints scored in garbage time, and the whole 'foot off the gas' mentality, but I think most people were thrilled at allowing 24 points to the saints in their dome.

I just find it funny to go through that stuff, and don't get me wrong I'm just as much a part of the over-reaction crew as everyone else

Just like the threads where people got so angry that someone picked us to win 3 or 4 games all year; well, here we are with losses to the bengals and rams, not a very good start

or how people assumed the saints would be fine without Payton; well here they are with losses to the redskins, panthers, chiefs, and 2 of the 3 were at home

just funny stuff to read if you have time

Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back so vigorously.

Hindsight is great - but I don't care WHO you asked before the beginning of the season; if you asked them if they'd be happy holding the Saints to 25 points in the Superdome, they'd have been ecstatic.

 

[Neophyte]

That was before the season, Lanky, back when we all thought the Saints were contenders in the NFC. Now we know different. Their offense couldn't score enough on the Carolina defense to win that game and the Panthers were putrid on defense. That really puts our defensive effort in Week 1 in a whole new light, don't you think?

 

[tshile]

Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back so vigorously.

Hindsight is great - but I don't care WHO you asked before the beginning of the season; if you asked them if they'd be happy holding the Saints to 25 points in the Superdome, they'd have been ecstatic.

Who said I'm patting myself on the back?

I though the saints were going to contend for their division, or at least a wild card. I said as much when I mentioned the possibility that the saints would suck.

I never thought the saints would be 0-3, I was happy we only allowed 25 points on the road against the saints, I never thought we'd average over 30 points a game at this point, and I thought our defense would be what kept us in games despite knowing our secondary was suspect.

It's not an issue of hindsight. It's pointing out a very clear pattern among the fan base that over reacts positively to winning a game and negatively towards losing a game. It goes back over the course of time. This area was absolutely ecstatic Jim Zorn started 6-2; within 12 months of that time we were all calling for him to be fired.

It's not unique to this fan base; I know of at least one other that is this bi-polar, and thats the giants. The two super bowl runs for them both occurred in seasons that started with the fan base and local media declaring that Coughlin needed to be fired immediately.

I just can't help but wonder if, by chance, the redskins go from 1-2 to 6-2 with blow outs against the less stellar teams (vikings/bucs) including maybe even a shutout and holding the falcons and giants to less than 20 points, what that will do to change the way the fan base is currently talking about our coaching staff.

I've said all along I have no idea if haslett should be fired. I'm reserving judgement, and not faulting anyone else for having made up their mind. Just laughing at the general bi-polarness of our fan base. You should take a step back and enjoy it with me

 

[servumtuum]

While that's damning evidence to Haslett, I have less of a problem with that one play to open the game than I do with the fact that drive after drive after drive we had no answer for the short/quick passes. We couldn't get to Dalton fast enough and we couldn't cover the WR's worth a damn.

One play to open a game in week three - yeah, I can live with that. The rest of it... that's what bothers me.

The more I read from Om the more I'm leaning towards getting rid of haslett asap.

I was using that one particular play as another manifestation of Haslett's either lack of imagination or stubbornness or procrastination or whatever it is that makes him either unwilling or slow to make changes in his defensive approach, be it in-game or from game-to-game, that seems to be making it awfully easy for opposing OCs to compensate for or adjust to what we're trying to do on defense.

 

[Bulldog]

Instead of picking apart the individual pieces it may be more valuable for us to simply look at the overall product and decide if after 3 years the combination of Allen+Shanahan+Haslett has delivered what it should have.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

That was before the season, Lanky, back when we all thought the Saints were contenders in the NFC. Now we know different. Their offense couldn't score enough on the Carolina defense to win that game and the Panthers were putrid on defense. That really puts our defensive effort in Week 1 in a whole new light, don't you think?

True, but everyone is clamoring about how great our offense is, and we could only muster 24 against the Bengals, who's D might be worse than the saints'.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Bulldog]

The Bengals D-line dominated the game and looked like the 1985 Bears up front against our D-League OTs Jordan Black and Tyler Polumbus.

It is only because the team was able to put Griffin in the option which crossed up the Bengals and negated their speed upfield that Washington made a game of it.

 

[tshile]

Instead of picking apart the individual pieces it may be more valuable for us to simply look at the overall product and decide if after 3 years the combination of Allen+Shanahan+Haslett has delivered what it should have.

And to that I say yes.

 

[Neophyte]

True, but everyone is clamoring about how great our offense is, and we could only muster 24 against the Bengals, who's D might be worse than the saints'.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

You mean the Bengals D that was Top 10 last year but missing a couple of guys the first two weeks of the season but then got them back for our game? That Bengals D?

 

[Om]

The Redskins offense, without Trent Williams and with Jordan Black and Tyler Polumbus at tackle, is operating with one hand tied behind its back. The drop back pocket pass is simpy not an option--no QB can function when the DE's meet at his chest as he plants his back foot. Some day well have better OT's. I mean, we have to. Worse hardly seems possible.

Add to that we haven't had our #1 WR since the first quarter of game one, and it makes the fact we've been competitive at all in games the D is giving away touchdowns like Denise Brown gave away chocolate kisses pretty remarkable.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

You mean the Bengals D that was Top 10 last year but missing a couple of guys the first two weeks of the season but then got them back for our game? That Bengals D?

Nope. The Bengals D from this season that has given up 38 fewer yards and 1 more point than our own D.

 

[tshile]

nvm
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.