Jim Haslett
 

What if Coach Haz would have been promoted to HC? I know he wasn't a candidate for the job before Jay Gruden was hired but what if he had been given the job? Would us fans approve or disapprove? It was reported that during his four year tenure as Redskins head coach, Mike Shanahan made defensive calls in critical situations that didn't work....and Haslett was left to take the blame for Shanahan's incompetence.......I think the players on this Redskins team respect Haslett enough to want to play for him......thoughts?

Re: Jim Haslett
 

I thought he was going to be fired after the defense's struggles lately. I think if he would have been promoted to HC there would have been riots.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Jim Useless? What?

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Bad track record as HC and DC, heavens knows how he's still working for the skins.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

This year I hope he releases the HOUNDS.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Performance wise, we kept the worse coordinator.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1072428]Performance wise, we kept the worse coordinator.[/quote]

Can't argue with that.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

People had a fit over keeping him as DC, could you imagine if he got the HC gig? lol please

Hopefully he can turn things around now that the handcuffs are supposedly off and the pass rush has been improved.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Shanahan made defensive calls in critical situations? I missed that memo. If thats was the case i owe Shantinhishand a few more mofo's.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Haz as head coach?
You been shopping in Colorado?

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=SFREDSKIN;1072425]Bad track record as HC and DC, heavens knows how he's still working for the skins.[/quote]

Pretty much my sentiment. Not very optimistic about this season with him still at the DC position.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Last chance for haslet and I'm gonna guess he is gonna go down swinging, that means an extremely aggressive defense. I'm looking forward to watching

Re: Jim Haslett
 

I'm willing to give Haz one last shot since everyone kept saying that Shanahan was basically secretly making Haz his bitch/scapegoat and calling the shots.

Last chance Haz, it's all or nothing.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;1072406][B]What if Coach Haz would have been promoted to HC?[/B] I know he wasn't a candidate for the job before Jay Gruden was hired but what if he had been given the job? Would us fans approve or disapprove? It was reported that during his four year tenure as Redskins head coach, Mike Shanahan made defensive calls in critical situations that didn't work....and Haslett was left to take the blame for Shanahan's incompetence.......I think the players on this Redskins team respect Haslett enough to want to play for him......thoughts?[/quote]

I would have lost a lost of the faith i have in Bruce Allen

I'm pretty okay with Haslett having one more shot at being DC without any impeding factors (allegedly Mike Shanahan) to prove his worth. Hopefully we're all pleasantly surprised.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

I feel like a lot of hate for Jim Haslett has been based on a simple stat. People see his Pittsburgh defenses drop year after year, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Wasn't Dallas the worst defense in the league last year? I think the Eagles were almost as bad. There are a thousand more factors that make for a bad defense (or offense). I have a hard time thinking that a coaching change would have had more than subtle improvement. It's a happy medium of personnel and coaching. How many times have you ever seen someone say, "Wow, that's a top 3 defense, but they're ranked in the bottom five. That's GOT to be a coaching issue."? That's rare. And if you want to quote stats from NFL.com or ESPN.com make sure you tell the whole story. The Bills were top ten, but you don't exactly have to go nuts yardage-wise to beat them. The Eagles won the division, but teams had to throw a shit ton to catch up.

Not saying Haslett is a great coach, but I'm not saying he's a bad coach either. We're all too quick to say, "Wow, well if Wade Phillips comes in here, he'll make that 3-4 work!"

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=CrustyRedskin;1072436]Shanahan made defensive calls in critical situations? I missed that memo. If thats was the case i owe Shantinhishand a few more mofo's.[/quote]

Yes....it was reported by Mike Jones of the Washington Post after Mike Shanahan was fired.........namely in 2011 in the game vs. Dallas on 3rd & 19....Haslett wanted to call cover 3.....instead Mike Shanahan called an all out blitz.....Romo eluded the rush and found Dez Bryant 21 yards downfield for a backbreaking first down.......there were other instances......

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=The Dull Roar;1072479]I would have lost a lost of the faith i have in Bruce Allen

I'm pretty okay with Haslett having one more shot at being DC without any impeding factors (allegedly Mike Shanahan) to prove his worth. Hopefully we're all pleasantly surprised.[/quote]

Oh come on....you would lose faith in Bruce Allen if Haslett was named HC? What if Haslett was indeed given the head coaching job and the Redskins started winning games? For his coaching career Haslett is 45-61.....but those Rams and Saints teams that he coached were bad teams when he was hired as HC in both New Orleans and St. Louis.......but with the Redskins the whole team, the defensive players in particular respect Haslett.....I may be a bigger fan of Haslett than most of you guys...but I think he would make a decent head coach....

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;1072511]Oh come on....you would lose faith in Bruce Allen if Haslett was named HC? What if Haslett was indeed given the head coaching job and the Redskins started winning games? For his coaching career Haslett is 45-61.....but those Rams and Saints teams that he coached were bad teams when he was hired as HC in both New Orleans and St. Louis.......but with the Redskins the whole team, the defensive players in particular respect Haslett.....I may be a bigger fan of Haslett than most of you guys...but I think he would make a decent head coach....[/quote]

Good teams don't need head coaches. Any coach that takes over a team needs to come in and fix the issues. That's their job. It is not easy, but good coaches find a way. I still don't like that Haslett is in DC. We should have gone out and gotten Jim Schwartz to run the defense.

Perhaps Shanahan overruled Haslett from time to time. That's his perogative as a head coach. Unless Shanahan was doing it constantly, I don't think Haslett is off the hook. I just don't find his defenses very effective, regardless of where he's coaching. They seem to lack aggressiveness and leads to the slow, painful losses we're all so accustomed to here in DC.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

I tend to believe that Haslett is simply not a top notch DC, with or w/out Shanahan. Some guys ( like Greg Williams and Rob Ryan) can just come in, mix and match and make improvements right away. I think what's most frustrating about his defenses is the tackling issue. Do they teach these guys how to tackle anymore? I know it's a league wide issue. The guys on Seattle and SF? They wrap up and tackle.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1072514]I tend to believe that Haslett is simply not a top notch DC, with or w/out Shanahan. Some guys ( like Greg Williams and Rob Ryan) can just come in, mix and match and make improvements right away. I think what's most frustrating about his defenses is the tackling issue. Do they teach these guys how to tackle anymore? I know it's a league wide issue. The guys on Seattle and SF? They wrap up and tackle.[/quote]

Well, why did we sign guys who were chronic bad tacklers before they got here like Brandon Merriweather and EJ Biggers? Or draft players who didnt tackle well in college like Rambo?

Thats on Bruce and the coaching staff

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=Chico23231;1072515]Well, why did we sign guys who were chronic bad tacklers before they got here like Brandon Merriweather and EJ Biggers? Or draft players who didnt tackle well in college like Rambo?

That's on Bruce and the coaching staff[/quote]

Rambo has got's to go.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

My main beef with Haslett is his lack of halftime adjustments. Jimmy is no Richie Petitbone.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

This thread, and most of the opinions in it, don't make much sense to me.

First, let's acknowledge the obvious, we gave up a shit-ton of points last year, giving up 478 points good for 30th in the league. But remember special teams contributed to that fiasco, giving up multiple returns for TD in addition to bad field position thanks to having the lowest number of kickoffs go for touchbacks. So I think you have to judge the defense last year on yards.

The team of course was horrible last year to start when Chip Kelly's Eagles came out and destroyed us to start the season, then Green Bay and Detroit went ape on us too. And then in weeks 7 we gave up a ton to Denver (who didn't?). But Haslett definitely got things fixed. In our first 8 games, we gave up 399 yards per game. In the last 8, 309 yards per game. If you want to break the season into 4-game chunks:

First 4: 441 yds per game
Second 4: 357 yds per game
Third 4: 325 yds per game
Last 4: 294 yds per game

That is significant improvement. It led to some improvement in points allowed, we averaged 32 allowed in the first 8, and averaged 28 allowed in the last 8 - and that was despite averaging an incredible 4 turnovers a game on offense in the last four games to end the season (Cousins + fumbles).

Haslett was able to get that improvement despite a very thin secondary. I think we still have questions about our secondary - is Clark really an improvement and is Amerson really ready to start full time, etc. But I think we're in better shape than last season. Our pass rush is certainly better with Hatcher and Murphy there for depth/rotations.

Haslett is definitely still a strong defensive coach, that's why he was kept. You can't lay the 30th ranking in points allowed entirely at his feet. Shanahan ignored special teams when building the roster, when he put Cousins in the team turned the ball over more, and yes he overruled Haslett at times.

For Haslett's D to work best he needs a playmaking safety and the reins taken off when it comes to rushing the passer. I like our passrushers. Not sure about safety. But that's not on the coach. Getting rid of Has would have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=Schneed10;1072518]This thread, and most of the opinions in it, don't make much sense to me.

First, let's acknowledge the obvious, we gave up a shit-ton of points last year, giving up 478 points good for 30th in the league. But remember special teams contributed to that fiasco, giving up multiple returns for TD in addition to bad field position thanks to having the lowest number of kickoffs go for touchbacks. So I think you have to judge the defense last year on yards.

The team of course was horrible last year to start when Chip Kelly's Eagles came out and destroyed us to start the season, then Green Bay and Detroit went ape on us too. And then in weeks 7 we gave up a ton to Denver (who didn't?). But Haslett definitely got things fixed. In our first 8 games, we gave up 399 yards per game. In the last 8, 309 yards per game. If you want to break the season into 4-game chunks:

First 4: 441 yds per game
Second 4: 357 yds per game
Third 4: 325 yds per game
Last 4: 294 yds per game

That is significant improvement. It led to some improvement in points allowed, we averaged 32 allowed in the first 8, and averaged 28 allowed in the last 8 - and that was despite averaging an incredible 4 turnovers a game on offense in the last four games to end the season (Cousins + fumbles).

Haslett was able to get that improvement despite a very thin secondary. I think we still have questions about our secondary - is Clark really an improvement and is Amerson really ready to start full time, etc. But I think we're in better shape than last season. Our pass rush is certainly better with Hatcher and Murphy there for depth/rotations.

Haslett is definitely still a strong defensive coach, that's why he was kept. You can't lay the 30th ranking in points allowed entirely at his feet. Shanahan ignored special teams when building the roster, when he put Cousins in the team turned the ball over more, and yes he overruled Haslett at times.

For Haslett's D to work best he needs a playmaking safety and the reins taken off when it comes to rushing the passer. I like our passrushers. Not sure about safety. But that's not on the coach. Getting rid of Has would have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater.[/quote]

Good post. I certainly think Has is certainly culpable for that start out the gate though, even he got the team to improve quartally that is really the only positive. He doesnt deserve an extension for that performance last year.

This is a prove it year, no more excuses. I hope he can get the team to play better on 3rd downs and red zone D. I say go agressive

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=Daseal;1072513]Good teams don't need head coaches. Any coach that takes over a team needs to come in and fix the issues. That's their job. It is not easy, but good coaches find a way. I still don't like that Haslett is in DC. We should have gone out and gotten Jim Schwartz to run the defense.

Perhaps Shanahan overruled Haslett from time to time. That's his perogative as a head coach. Unless Shanahan was doing it constantly, I don't think Haslett is off the hook. I just don't find his defenses very effective, regardless of where he's coaching. They seem to lack aggressiveness and leads to the slow, painful losses we're all so accustomed to here in DC.[/quote]

Please explain the 2012 season for the N.O. aints.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;1072522]Please explain the 2012 season for the N.O. aints.[/quote]

Their head coach got suspended and they were relatively bad? Not sure what you want me to explain.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

I think there's legitimate reason to question Haslett's performance as DC- mainly based on the bad 2013 season that the Redskins had on defense.

The main reasons that Haslett is still with the Redskins are familiarity, respect, and a sense of mentorship with Jay Gruden. This only goes so far and ultimately the only thing that matters in the end is the performance of the defensive unit - especially after Gruden's first season as head coach. Whether it's fair or not, Haslett will be judged solely on this (defensive performance/production). Personally, I think it should be this way.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=Daseal;1072524]Their head coach got suspended and they were relatively bad? Not sure what you want me to explain.[/quote]

Are you saying that all a team needs is talented players?

Re: Jim Haslett
 

I think there are a lot of coordinators capable of coaching a Superbowl team, but they can't do it without talented players. Haslett is one such coach.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;1072522]Please explain the 2012 season for the N.O. aints.[/quote]

Yeah, I have to agree with that. I think the head coach can make or break a team no matter the talent level. You can't just plug any ol' coach in as a head coach even if he's got a team full of Hall of Famers. There's so much that goes into head coaching. People think he just stands on the side lines and calls time outs while letting his coordinators do all the work - can't be any further from the truth.

At the same time, I DO think there are some coordinators in this league that can manage a good team well enough to keep them winning - maybe because they're head coaching material to begin with?

Re: Jim Haslett
 

football, more than any other organized sport, requires superior coaching for a team to be successful imo.

basketball is a distant 2nd.

football, basketball, hockey, baseball.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Coaching is definitely important. I'd still give the edge to talent though.

Barry freaking Switzer got a free ride to a Super Bowl win, and put together a 40-24 coaching record in the pros. Barry freaking Switzer.

Does anyone really think he was a quality NFL head coach?

Re: Jim Haslett
 

What I got out of Daseal's comment("Good teams don't need head coaches-any coach that takes over a team needs to come in and fix the issues") was that teams that are already good don't need a [I]new[/I] HC. In reply to this, '"For his coaching career, Haslett is 45-61...but those Rams and Saints teams he coached were bad teams when he was hired as HC in both New Orleans and St. Louis"', it makes sense.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think his comments were misunderstood.

If not, I agree with others. You can't win without good coaching.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=skinsguy;1072570]Yeah, I have to agree with that. I think the head coach can make or break a team no matter the talent level. You can't just plug any ol' coach in as a head coach even if he's got a team full of Hall of Famers. There's so much that goes into head coaching. People think he just stands on the side lines and calls time outs while letting his coordinators do all the work - can't be any further from the truth.

At the same time, I DO think there are some coordinators in this league that can manage a good team well enough to keep them winning - maybe because they're head coaching material to begin with?[/quote]

Thank you for understanding and answering my question.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1072538]Are you saying that all a team needs is talented players?[/quote]

I see the confusion now. When I said "Good teams don't need head coaches" I was trying to say winning teams don't fire their coach, because another poster mentioned Haslett took over bad teams. If you're going to a team, as a head coach, they're probably a team that did poorly the previous year. In my opinion, football coaches are the most important coaches in sports.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=Daseal;1072594]I see the confusion now. When I said "Good teams don't need head coaches" I was trying to say winning teams don't fire their coach, because another poster mentioned Haslett took over bad teams. If you're going to a team, as a head coach, they're probably a team that did poorly the previous year. In my opinion, football coaches are the most important coaches in sports.[/quote]

Oh, so then "good teams don't need [I][B]new [/B][/I]head coaches"

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdKa9bXVinE]Monty Python - Dumb Guards - YouTube[/url]

[YT][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdKa9bXVinE]Monty Python - Dumb Guards - YouTube[/url][/YT]

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Great coaches, great players, and great teams. They all go hand in hand. It's an argument of what came first? The chicken or the egg?

Re: Jim Haslett
 

[quote=warriorzpath;1072606]Great coaches, great players, and great teams. They all go hand in hand. It's an argument of what came first? The chicken or the egg?[/quote]

Well stated.

Re: Jim Haslett
 

Nah Danny wouldn't give it to Gregg either and he woulda gladly took the spot when Gibbs stepped down.