Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Folks, this is a LONG season. We have just gotten started. A lot can happen within this year. Shanahan will get this team playing like it should. It's just going to take a couple of seasons to get to where this team needs to be.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Ruhskins;740243]Well Landry never truly learned to play FS, and is doing much better as a SS. And one of the reasons Carter came to Washington was because he wasn't successful as a 3-4 LB when SF changed to that scheme. I think versatility is great, but at the same time you need players that are good at their positions in certain schemes. And save for maybe Orakpo, the rest of our front seven are learning their positions.[/quote]

I think it's safe to say this defensive coaching staff has for whatever reason, chose to ignore the obvious. The entire front seven of this defense is playing out of position. It has caused many to wonder why the mad-rush to switch to a 3-4 defense in the first place. Save for turnovers, defense was not this teams biggest problem.

It was suggested the move was made with the idea in mind of getting more turnovers...being more aggressive.....despite the aggressivness, good teams do not turn the ball over, that's why they're good, They don't beat themselves.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

In the words of Queen Henrietta "Sometimes to settle things, you must unsettle them first"

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Mattyk;740431]Sure why not, cut everybody[/quote]

Reed first, he worked too hard to be the first scapegoat of the season

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=artmonkforhallofamein07;740397]Really is a shame we never got to see a grouping like that ever! It was all in place, but failed to come through.

Why was Rak ever moved to OLB in the frist place, I seem to have forgotten. Other than a lack of a Strong OLB in 4-3 last year was there a real reason that Blache thought he could do it? He struggles in coverage and it seems like somewhat of a waste of talent to see him not rushing the passer.[/quote]

At least 1 3-4 OLB is rushing the passer every play.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Rak has been rushing the passer like crazy all season.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

How much of the origional faith and hope expressed for the new coaching staff was real and how much of it was imagined? Maybe some better/different decisions need to be made, but much to early to give up completely.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Chico23231;740436]Reed first, he worked too hard to be the first scapegoat of the season[/quote]

Yeah screw him for that forced fumble last week too. The nerve of him I swear.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Mattyk;740451]Yeah screw him for that forced fumble last week too. The nerve of him I swear.[/quote]


Because of the enormity of the cutting and firing session that needs to be done, could we ever get to the point where Danny Boy would actually have to get on the field? If so, Kick and Punt returner looks to be his natural position. I would love to see that.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;740176]I'm not sure how you're quantifying "worse" but I'd be interested in knowing. Of course we don't know how good the defense is going to be this year and I don't think people here are really trying to make that point. Adjustments and scheme changes are fine and expected, but no was expecting the defense to fall off the cliff to 32nd in the league, GTripp.

We don't need sixteen games to see that this ain't working and Haslett appears to be in over his head big time. It's not just a personnel issue, it's a coaching issue from what I can see. Can I prove that it's a coaching issue with stats? Hell no. Seventeen of the thirty two teams run a 3-4 scheme, yet we're making it look like algebra.[/quote]I didn't clearly lay out my argument in any one post, but I made it pretty clearly over the rest of the thread. One thing I didn't do was quantify worse, although "yards per play" is probably the stat I was using the most.

It's just a nonsensical conclusion is all I'm dealing with. A lot of us actually were frustrated with Blache at this time last year, if I recall correctly. Not ONE of us suggested that the problem was that we didn't have the personnel to play the 4-3 even though the results were frustratingly similar to what we've seen in the last three weeks.

When the evidence is the same (the defense is underachiving/was overrated), but the conclusion is instantly regarding our scheme/personnel fit, it's hard to defend that perspective, IMO. I hit the film every week, and didn't realize last year until after the seventh or eighth game that last year's team simply couldn't cover anyone in zone. I'd really like to know what people are seeing while following the ball in real time that has made them determine that the defense is schematically "out of its element."

There isn't a lot of evidence to support conclusions at this point, because mostly, there isn't a lot of evidence. Comparisons between last year and this year are completely valid for me. It's all we have at this point.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Mattyk;740448]Rak has been rushing the passer like crazy all season.[/quote]

I have never said that he hasn't. He is playing out of his normal position though.

Like Ruhskins had stated in his post. It would be nice to see a base DLINE of Andre C at Le, Golston DT, AH DT, and Rak at RE. I am not saying that these guys are never on the field at the same time or that we havent seen this this season. BUT I would like to see what it would produce if it were our base Dline package. AH hardly makes it on the field, Golston is always out there, and I know Rak rushes all the time, but without the big guy in the center the pass rush has taken a major hit when it only rushes 4. Now we are sending 4,5, and 6 guys at a time and not really getting much in the way of sacks but giving up big pass plays. AND getting gashed in the running game. It just isn't working yet.

I guess it is frustrating when our Defense has "worked" the last few years and we had to go and change it to something that we just arent suited for as of yet.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Was anyone really happy with the D under Blache?

I mean it's not like we had the '85 Bears D or something.

It's so funny, seems like every offseason for years we would have at least one thread suggesting we should switch to the 3-4. We finally change and people are all up in arms. Give it time.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;740176]We don't need sixteen games to see that this ain't working and Haslett appears to be in over his head big time. It's not just a personnel issue, it's a coaching issue from what I can see. Can I prove that it's a coaching issue with stats? Hell no. Seventeen of the thirty two teams run a 3-4 scheme, yet we're making it look like algebra.[/quote]

Do you remember when Spags 1st took over the Giants D?
They were horrid to start off the season but finished as one of the best defenses in the league.

NFL teams change every week as coaches and players make adjustements.
Should every team that struggles early in the season scarp everything?
Should the Texans scrap their defenses? Should the Viking scrap their offense?
Should the Pats scrap their defense?

Its too early.

Also, looking at the defense as the whole if you had to pick one major area of fault that's causing them to struggle what would you pick?
-Me i would pick the secondary. And guess what? They're the unit least effected by the change to a 3-4.
But, you're right in that the coaches need to look at what they're doing especially Bob Slowick.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Cut McNabb, bring back the great Rich Bartel, the only QB to lead us to a 4th quarter comeback win this year!

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Mattyk;740495]Was anyone really happy with the D under Blache?

I mean it's not like we had the '85 Bears D or something.

It's so funny, seems like every offseason for years we would have at least one thread suggesting we should switch to the 3-4. We finally change and people are all up in arms. Give it time.[/quote]

I don't think anyone is (or at least I'm not) saying that we need to bring back Blache or that the defense from last year was the greatest (esp since they had Rak and Landry playing out of position). I just think that the 4-3 scheme is something this defense knew how to play, and there wouldn't have been as steep of a learning curve or personnel deficiency as there is now with the 3-4.

Honestly, at this point there isn't anyone can do, other than to hope that this team gets the 3-4 and is able to play at a good level to help us win games. I just still don't get why the team needed to complicate itself with this side of the ball, given the issues that offense has (and probably still has).

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Obviously the changes we're making might not pay off in the short run, but they are changes designed to pay off in the long run.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Speaking of the devil....

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100928_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl]The 3-4 defense is trendy in the NFL these days, but it's part a of cyclical fad that will revert back to the 4-3, writes TMQ. - ESPN[/url]

[QUOTE]And consider the Washington Redskins. Using a conventional 4-3 with little blitzing, the Skins finished fourth in defense in 2008 and 10th in 2009. This year, seeking to "make plays" on defense, Washington switched to a blitz-a-rama 3-4. The Redskins are now last in the NFL in defense, and just surrendered 30 points to the hapless Rams. Not much of a testimony to the supposedly magical 3-4.[/QUOTE]

Best line...

[QUOTE]Give me a 4-3 defense with good players over a 3-4 with poor players any day of the week.[/QUOTE]

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Sure it's part of a cycle, but until offenses revert back to running the ball more, the 3-4 is going to stick around.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Let's just see how they do this week. Last week is done. And even though the defense got torched by the WORST team in the NFL, w/ a ROOKIE QB and it's BEST player on the bench, we've just got to be patient. But it's hard when the FO builds the team to win now. I expect the defense to play well against team like STL and Det.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Mattyk;740519]Sure it's part of a cycle, but until [B]offenses revert back to running the ball more[/B], the 3-4 is going to stick around.[/quote]

I wonder if this will ever happen given the big time media exposure of the NFL right now. Obviously the league has done everything to make the passing game dominant, and that's what seems to sell tickets and ratings.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Coff;740432]The defense looked a lot worse through the first three weeks under Marty, and then it pulled together. Certainly, this Sunday is going to be very, very ugly, but we have to give it time.[/quote]

Ya, top 10 in defense last year, top 5 in year before. Now, an idiot DC comes in, switches everything around even though we dont have the personnel to make the change a successful one, he does it anyway. Ranked last in the league in defense now, and SHOULD be 0-3, despite the defense doing EVERYTHING in its power it could to give the game away in the final quarter in the first game, we slide out with a win. We should be 0-3, next week, 0-4 considering how good Vick is playing.

For all these people saying give it time..............Didn't Shanahan say its win NOW??? Didnt McNabb say that he is all in???? Didn't we have an offseason chock full of old VETS coming in? WAIT FOR WHAT???????????

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Yeah, banking on Kemo was what made Shanahan thought he could win now. Guess that blew up in his face.

Assisting in lower AH's value. Can't totally blame AH, he's a passing rushing DT, not a statue of Easter Island.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Mattyk;740519]Sure it's part of a cycle, but until offenses revert back to running the ball more, the 3-4 is going to stick around.[/quote]

Yeah, but the dominant 3-4s all stuff the run more than competently. Dallas, Pittsburgh, etc...

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

^^ I understand where you're coming from Matty, the only problem with your assessment is that seemingly too few people actually have that long run mentality within their grasp. For a great many people, as you've witnessed so many times right here on this forum, it's win now or else. If you don't win now you don't have the luxary of a long run, what you do have is what some are suggesting should now be the fate of Haslett after only three games.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Longtimefan;740530]^^ I understand where you're coming from Matty, the only problem with your assessment is that seemingly too few people actually have that long run mentality within their grasp. For a great many people, as you've witnessed so many times right here on this forum, it's win now or else. If you don't win now you don't have the luxary of a long run, what you do have is what some are suggesting should now be the fate of Haslett after only three games.[/quote]

Not that I disagree, but the general mood as a whole that was being promoted thru the whole organization was "Win Now". I think the people on this board in particular, would have had no problem building the team up, all while trying to be as competitive as we could. Being aware that the team would get younger and need room and time to grow is a concept that I think could have gained plenty of traction, had it been the course of choice for the front office. Obviously, with the addition of McNabb, and other old vets, among other reasons, the win now attitude ran rampant, and me, like many, got caught up in the "possibility".

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Ruhskins;740517]Give me a 4-3 defense with good players over a 3-4 with poor players any day of the week.[/quote]

The 3-4 was created mostly to compensate for the lack of good 4-3 DEs. So, yeah I'll take a 4-3 with Reggie White and Michael Strahan over just about any defense you can think of. :spank:

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Mechanix544;740524]Ya, top 10 in defense last year, top 5 in year before. Now, an idiot DC comes in, switches everything around even though we dont have the personnel to make the change a successful one, he does it anyway. Ranked last in the league in defense now, and SHOULD be 0-3, despite the defense doing EVERYTHING in its power it could to give the game away in the final quarter in the first game, we slide out with a win. We should be 0-3, next week, 0-4 considering how good Vick is playing.

For all these people saying give it time..............Didn't Shanahan say its win NOW??? Didnt McNabb say that he is all in???? Didn't we have an offseason chock full of old VETS coming in? WAIT FOR WHAT???????????[/quote]

We could just as easily be 2-1 or even 3-0. The hypothetical stuff is pretty much useless.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Mechanix544;740534]Not that I disagree, but the general mood as a whole that was being promoted thru the whole organization was "Win Now". I think the people on this board in particular, would have had no problem building the team up, all while trying to be as competitive as we could. Being aware that the team would get younger and need room and time to grow is a concept that I think could have gained plenty of traction, had it been the course of choice for the front office. Obviously, with the addition of McNabb, and other old vets, among other reasons, the win now attitude ran rampant, and me, like many, got caught up in the "possibility".[/quote]

I understand your point, even adopted the slogan. Now that it seems doubtful there's going to be anything close to a quick turn around, we can't allow that to diminish the aspirations and/or prospects for the future, or give up on the current regime. Plan "B" maybe!!

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

This situation is not a complete surprise.
Posted 3 months ago...

"Re: Predict the front 7 starters

However they line them up they aren't gonna frighten anybody.

I think our defence will stink this year."


:(

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;740539]We could just as easily be 2-1 or even 3-0. The hypothetical stuff is pretty much useless.[/quote]

We could also just as easily be 0-3

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;740529]Yeah, but the dominant 3-4s all stuff the run more than competently. Dallas, Pittsburgh, etc...[/quote]

The change to the 3-4 was brought about by the movement of offenses to more passing oriented. A quality D is going to play the run and pass well, but the 3-4 gives more flexibility vs the pass and creates more confusion in blitz schemes.

Enjoy our flavor of the day: 3-4 defenses
 

[IMG]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0927/pg2_tmqillots_576.jpg[/IMG]
The 3-4 defense is trendy, but the 4-3 will be cool again. Trust me. [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/100928_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl"]Tuesday Morning QB[/URL]
[quote]Bartender, 3-4 defenses for everyone!

Nothing's hotter in the NFL right now than the 3-4 defense. A few seasons ago, five or six teams used the 3-4. This year, 15 are employing the look -- Ticonderoga-class nose tackle, two big defensive ends whose first assignment is to strip blockers, four quick linebackers whose job is to make the plays.


Dom Capers installed a 3-4 at Green Bay last season and immediately improved the Packers' defensive stats, from 20th overall in 2008 to second overall in 2009. (See below for more on Capers.) Last season ended with four of the top five defenses showing a 3-4. That got the league's attention, and this season the 3-4 is everywhere you look. Such defenses are the toast of sports talk. Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats asserts that if you adjust for differences in personnel, the 3-4 makes your team 4 percent more likely to win. That's one extra victory every two seasons -- and NFL owners would pay millions of dollars for an extra victory every other season.[/quote]

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

I am just curious at what point (if at all) they start using more 4-3 during the games, especially in running situations. I was very excited to see us install a 3-4 pittsburg style of defense in the offseason, but right now we are getting gashed in every way possibe. I know that switching now could cause more issues, but it could just as easily turn this season around. Guys are more familiar with the 4-3, and we honestly have a pretty damn good front rotation if we switch back. Good coaches adapt to what is given to them, and right now Haslett/Shanny have to see what they were given, which was not a 3-4 defensive personel group. It has been only 3 games, i realize that, and i know it will take time to improve. My only thing is if we are getting beat as bad as we are right now, switching back couldn't be any worse. Plus with the schedule looking as daunting as it is what else would we have to loose. The Eagles are scoring at will, the colts...well are the colts and the packers can put up points with the best of them. Rogers is no JOKE.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Shanahan has a ton of pride and is a bit stubborn. Incorporating the 4-3 even in a small way does not seem likely, because Shanahan is too proud and [B]to him[/B] it would imply failure or admitting he was wrong. I never understood why they scrapped the 4-3 all together. Seems drastic.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Our problem with the 3-4 is we have good DEs playing as bad OLBs, because we have no OLBs.... Rak is OK, but really if he is going to rush all the time let him put his hasnd in the ground. Carter is suspect at best in coverage. Same with Zo, GB had some great Lbs on thier team to complete this move. We don't.

Matty I have no problem making the switch but we just do not have the LBing talent to make it work. Hopefully they all prove me wrong, but I do not know how well it will work until we get the right kind of LB personel.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

Just a question, but is it strange to anyone else that Chris Wilson hasn't started/played in place of AC/LZ opposite Rak? He made the switch last year and was a decent fill in option when Rak wasn't on the field.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Defensewins;740583]Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Shanahan has a ton of pride and is a bit stubborn. Incorporating the 4-3 even in a small way does not seem likely, because Shanahan is too proud and [B]to him[/B] it would imply failure or admitting he was wrong. I never understood why they scrapped the 4-3 all together. Seems drastic.[/quote]

It hasn't been scrapped completely, we saw some 4-3 looks last week.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=21SkinsFan28;740588]Just a question, but is it strange to anyone else that Chris Wilson hasn't started/played in place of AC/LZ opposite Rak? He made the switch last year and was a decent fill in option when Rak wasn't on the field.[/quote]

I have long been a fan of Chris Wilson. I feel he would fit perfectly in this defense as the other OLB. He is quick and agile ala Rak, and am guessing alot better in coverage than Carter. Move carter back inside, because i dont see him getting much of a push or having any impact what so ever as an OLB.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

More reality: Rams on drives 2-5 in this game: 19 yards of total offense. Longest play went for seven yards, with perfect offensive execution.

Re: The Official Defense Has Major Issues/Fire Jim Haslett Thread
 

[quote=Defensewins;740583]Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Shanahan has a ton of pride and is a bit stubborn. Incorporating the 4-3 even in a small way does not seem likely, because Shanahan is too proud and [B]to him[/B] it would imply failure or admitting he was wrong. I never understood why they scrapped the 4-3 all together. Seems drastic.[/quote]Shanahan is a really prideful man and would be really slow to admit he was wrong, or even that he has a problem setting up defenses for long term, sustainable success.

With that said, any admission of wrongdoing in this specific case would simply be foolhardy. Haslett is doing some perplexing things with his defense (there's no obvious "contain" defender on a lot of calls), but nothing inexcusable. He's certainly adapted to his defense from going from almost entirely zone defenses in the opener, to a lot of man defenses in this game. Showing great flexibility in coverages week to week is a positive.

Question I'm trying to answer from the game tape is whether we have the guys to play those coverages.