Haslett to accept Defensive Coordinator

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I agree that schemes should be tailored to match the players' talents, but I do not agree that the best coaches do not find players to fit their schemes (as you imply when you say, "Not the other way around.") Do you really believe the best coaches do not care about finding players to execute their schemes?

You obviously have to do both. You have to work with what you've got, and find guys you feel are a good fit for what you do.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Haynesworth probably only has 2-3 good years left in him (shhh, don't tell any of our potential trade partners). We won't be a perennial contender by that time. I'd rather have two first round picks to use on starters who would be just starting to peak in 3 years.

Haynesworth's deal is really just for 3 more years anyway. its a capless season, so the perfect time to trade him. Any non-rebuilding team that feels like they are really just "one player away" from a superbowl in 2010 would gladly give up atleast a 1st and a 3rd or 4th for Haynesworth.

I doubt we'd be able to get 2 first round picks for Haynesworth -- a guy who only has, at most, 5 good years left (and trust me, that's no secret).

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

One reason for giving up big plays at inopportune time is that any time a team scored on us it was either to extend their lead or to take the lead. Our O never scores enough points to give the D any room for error.

That's a little more cliche than true don't ya think?
4 games with 17 pts (0-4)(the minimum to consider a winning score)
3 games with 20-29(1-2)
2 games with 30+ (1-1)

so we were 2 -7 in those 9 games. (we won once with 16 and once with 9)

I am not claiming we were an offensive powerhouse, but the claim that our O "never scores enough points" is not true either

People not liking this choice, and I really am on the fence about Haslett, but not about going outside of the organization(ie not Gray), need to consider the options available, I saw Romeo, but he was going to KC, no doubt at all, Zimmer - Cincinatti had a week grace before we could even talk to him, and apparently they said the right things, so that leaves us with Gray, Haslett, Jauron -but I don't think he is coaching this year, and a few other non-established guys. I can live with Haslett only because there is no dynamo out there.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

You obviously have to do both. You have to work with what you've got, and find guys you feel are a good fit for what you do.

Well, obviously.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I doubt we'd be able to get 2 first round picks for Haynesworth -- a guy who only has, at most, 5 good years left (and trust me, that's no secret).

Have you ever heard of Al Davis? Of course, the Raiders will always be selecting in the top 10, so the chances of getting two 1sts are a stretch. however, a team currently in the playoffs will have a pick somewhere between 25 and 32. Give up 2 firsts there isnt much of a stretch, especially when a 2011 1st round pick is valued as a 2010 2nd round pick. Still, it should be the starting point in negotations.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Haynesworth's deal is really just for 3 more years anyway. its a capless season, so the perfect time to trade him.....

Except for the $ 40M in signing bonus we can't get back. No way Haynesworth is traded this off-season. If we do make the move to a full-time 3-4, he'll have to play DE.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Except for the $ 40M in signing bonus we can't get back. No way Haynesworth is traded this off-season. If we do make the move to a full-time 3-4, he'll have to play DE.

We've already paid Haynesworth a good chunk of that. I agree its doubtful we trade him, but if he ever is traded, it would be this offseason.

[MTK]

I think it's too early to give up on a guy as talented as AH, but that's going to be up to Shanahan and his staff to decide. I would bet he's not going anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Except for the $ 40M in signing bonus we can't get back. No way Haynesworth is traded this off-season. If we do make the move to a full-time 3-4, he'll have to play DE.

I would think if we were moving to a hybrid, then the goal would be that Haynesworth comes off in the 3-4 portion, thus giving him the plays off he needs to come full strength on the 4-3 style plays. Could be viewed as a way of making the scheme fit the players.

[diehardskin2982]

Spanos from the Steelers is a great hire IMO
Redskins Insider - Turner reportedly takes Redskins' job

[MTK]

AH played in some 3-4 looks as a Titan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Sure we could have done worse. You can always do worse. Shanahan could have hired Vinny Cerrato or matt Millen or Miss Piggy as defensive coordinator. If saying "we could have done worse" is satisfactory, then I think you and I have two entirely different levels of what is acceptable.

Rank Gray, Zimmer, Crennel, and Haslett (the candidates we know the skins had contact with) in order from best option to worst option. If Haslett is #1 or #2 on your list then you're not basing your opinion on the actual records of any of these men.

If I see signs that things are changing, i'll give them a chance. If I see history repeating itself, and that history is full of failure, i'm not going to stick my head in the sand and ignore whats happening. I WANT to give Snyder, Allen, Shanahan, and now Haslett the benefit of the doubt. But they've got to give me some real evidence that things are different. Up until now, they haven't. They might say all the right things about wanting to win, but so does every single owner, GM, and coach in this league. They all say the exact same things. Its actions that count. So far, the actions do not* look promising and i'm not going to delude myself just to have some temporary false excitement and hope.

* - Edited

Once again you're assuming that we can get whoever we want. Zimmer and Crennel obviously didn't want to come here.. just like Cowher. That's a really strange way to base things.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Also, the whole idea about adjusting schemes to fit personnel is kinda bogus to me. What if you have a QB that can't throw for shit? You don't just run the ball all the time, you find a QB that can throw. In any case, our focus should be to implement the best schemes, and we should find players who fit those schemes. If we can't find them now, then we might not switch schemes immediately, but our long term goal should be to move towards those schemes which are most effective.

lol you've got to be kidding

you can't rebuild your whole roster in a season, this isn't Madden

if you have a QB that can't throw certain balls well, you let him throw the ones that he can then you look into getting somebody who can

like I said, you can't get every player that fits the scheme perfectly overnight, so to not adjust based on what you have would be purely idiotic

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I agree that schemes should be tailored to match the players' talents, but I do not agree that the best coaches do not find players to fit their schemes (as you imply when you say, "Not the other way around.") Do you really believe the best coaches do not care about finding players to execute their schemes?

they're not exclusive of each other.. but you can only do so much in one year

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Do you think there's anyone on our team who is suited to play NT right now?

Well, there's this guy who used to play for us back when it wasn't a requirement that you play your college ball in the SEC to play DT for the Redskins.

He's not an every down player, I don't think, but if you want to bring in a veteran to rotate at the position with him, he'll play well in the scheme.