Should Gregg Williams return as defensive coordinator in '08?

[Daseal]

I would not be surprised in one bit if we lost Al, Greg, or Saunders to other teams the offseason. Could be one, could be all, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see our coaches poached.

The longer Gibbs sticks around, the less of a chance GWill becomes our next HC.

[SouperMeister]

Not only should Williams be retained, he should be the front runner for head coach whenever Gibbs steps down. I love the fact that he moved Landry to Free Safety to leverage his athleticism. The hit on Burress and the near interception later were great examples of Landry's range. I don't think that he'll ever quite be what Taylor would have been (a potential all-time great), but I'd be surprised if Landry isn't a Pro Bowler by year 3 in Williams' defensive scheme.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I'm curious about the reasoning behind the 3 people (so far) who have said "no". Are you saying you think, from GW's perspective, he should go elsewhere? Or that, from the Skins' perspective, he should not be brought back?

I said "no", I don't think he should be brought back. Here's why; GWs defense has done fairly well statistically, but the second half breakdowns game after game are a major concern. A stat that was shown in the game Sunday night was that Gibbs 1.0 was 2nd best in the NFL in protecting 2nd half leads from 1982-92 (Richie Petitbone). Gibbs 2.0 was either the worst or 2nd worst in the same stat since 2004 (GW). Gibbs' offensive philosopy hasn't changed dramatically, Gibbs 1.0 was constantly criticized for being "too conservative" also. So IMO this is primarily a D-Coordinator issue. What this indicates is good preparation going into the game but the ability to "think on your feet" and make in-game adjustments is poor.

2004 was amazing defensively
2005 was in the top 1/3, but didn't create many turnovers, overall good
2006 poor, set NFL record low for turnovers created
2007 average at best. 2nd half of games have been poor defensively. 26th in generating turnovers.

The trend is going down, not up. Obviously after last year there was no where to go but up. We should be seeing consistent improvement or at least a steady level of defensive play in the top 1/3 of the NFL for a guy that is one of the highest paid coordinators. Gibbs has given him whatever he has asked for (Taylor, Rogers, McIntosh, Landry, Archuletta, Fletcher, Carter). Even with injuries and Sean's death, we have at least average talent on the defensive side of the ball.

These are the 2nd half breakdowns this year.

Giants: 17-3 Skins at Half / 21-0 NYG in 2nd L
Packers: 14-7 Skins at Half / 10-0 GB in 2nd L
Cards: 14-6 Skins at Half / 13-7 Cards in 2nd W
Eagles: 12-7 Skins at Half / 26-13 Eagles in 2nd L
Dallas: 10-7 Skins at Half / 21-13 Dallas in 2nd L
Bills: 9-2 Skins at Half / 15-7 Bills in 2nd L
Bears: 7-0 Skins at Half / 17-16 Skins in 2nd W

Granted the offense hasn't performed well in the second half of some of these games, but if the D could stay even in the 2nd half of two of these games we are 9-5. Sitting back watching that Cover-2 get picked apart in the 2nd half with almost no defensive shifts or blitzing is sickening. In each of these games it appears the opponent's offense adjusts to our gameplan at halftime and GW isn't prepared.

Obviously not a popular opinion, but I stand by it and honestly hope in the long run I am proven wrong. Bottom line is we all want the same thing; for the Skins to be successful and win Superbowls again. We just don't all agree on how to get there, not that our opinions can do anything to help or hurt the franchise.

[onlydarksets]

I'm more inclined to call 2004 an aberration and ascribe 2006 to GW not having a field general out there. With Pierce gone, we had Washington leading the charge. I love the way Marcus plays out there, but the consensus is that he is not much of a student of the defensive game. With Fletcher, we're seeing a lot more cohesion out there.

Now, you can say that's the players, not the coach, but I think GW's system is back on track with the right core nucleus of players (intelligent MLB, FS with huge range, quick DE).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I said "no", I don't think he should be brought back. Here's why; GWs defense has done fairly well statistically, but the second half breakdowns game after game are a major concern. A stat that was shown in the game Sunday night was that Gibbs 1.0 was 2nd best in the NFL in protecting 2nd half leads from 1982-92 (Richie Petitbone). Gibbs 2.0 was either the worst or 2nd worst in the same stat since 2004 (GW). Gibbs' offensive philosopy hasn't changed dramatically, Gibbs 1.0 was constantly criticized for being "too conservative" also. So IMO this is primarily a D-Coordinator issue. What this indicates is good preparation going into the game but the ability to "think on your feet" and make in-game adjustments is poor.

2004 was amazing defensively
2005 was in the top 1/3, but didn't create many turnovers, overall good
2006 poor, set NFL record low for turnovers created
2007 average at best. 2nd half of games have been poor defensively. 26th in generating turnovers.

The trend is going down, not up. Obviously after last year there was no where to go but up. We should be seeing consistent improvement or at least a steady level of defensive play in the top 1/3 of the NFL for a guy that is one of the highest paid coordinators. Gibbs has given him whatever he has asked for (Taylor, Rogers, McIntosh, Landry, Archuletta, Fletcher, Carter). Even with injuries and Sean's death, we have at least average talent on the defensive side of the ball.

These are the 2nd half breakdowns this year.

Giants: 17-3 Skins at Half / 21-0 NYG in 2nd L
Packers: 14-7 Skins at Half / 10-0 GB in 2nd L
Cards: 14-6 Skins at Half / 13-7 Cards in 2nd W
Eagles: 12-7 Skins at Half / 26-13 Eagles in 2nd L
Dallas: 10-7 Skins at Half / 21-13 Dallas in 2nd L
Bills: 9-2 Skins at Half / 15-7 Bills in 2nd L
Bears: 7-0 Skins at Half / 17-16 Skins in 2nd W

Granted the offense hasn't performed well in the second half of some of these games, but if the D could stay even in the 2nd half of two of these games we are 9-5. Sitting back watching that Cover-2 get picked apart in the 2nd half with almost no defensive shifts or blitzing is sickening. In each of these games it appears the opponent's offense adjusts to our gameplan at halftime and GW isn't prepared.

Obviously not a popular opinion, but I stand by it and honestly hope in the long run I am proven wrong. Bottom line is we all want the same thing; for the Skins to be successful and win Superbowls again. We just don't all agree on how to get there, not that our opinions can do anything to help or hurt the franchise.

We would also be 9 and 5 if the O could have scored 20 points in 9 games. So it goes both ways. The O has only scored 30 or more points one time.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I'm more inclined to call 2004 an aberration and ascribe 2006 to GW not having a field general out there. With Pierce gone, we had Washington leading the charge. I love the way Marcus plays out there, but the consensus is that he is not much of a student of the defensive game. With Fletcher, we're seeing a lot more cohesion out there.

Now, you can say that's the players, not the coach, but I think GW's system is back on track with the right core nucleus of players (intelligent MLB, FS with huge range, quick DE).

I understand what you're saying, but how do you account for us doing well in the first half of games and then having major let-downs in the second half. Based on the poll results I guess everyone blames the offense or it doesn't concern anyone but me? I know the offense hasn't done a great job this season, but the offense hasn't given up points or had critical turnovers in our own territory to cost us games. It isn't a player issue or we'd be getting beat from start to finish.

GW is one of, if not the highest paid assistant coach in the NFL. He has complete control of the defense and has had a major say in the personnel brought in to run it. To be responsible for losing the most or second most 1st half leads in the NFL in the last four years is not acceptable. Again, if we were getting beat from start to finish, fine, maybe it is a player issue, injury issue, or the offense just stinks, but we are getting the lead at half and then losing.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by firstdown

We would also be 9 and 5 if the O could have scored 20 points in 9 games. So it goes both ways. The O has only scored 30 or more points one time.

The offense has been consistent outside of the Eagles & Packers game. Consistently not very good, but still consistent. I guess to me the main thing that points to a big coaching problem is the defense isn't consistent and breaks down after halftime.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The offense has been consistent outside of the Eagles & Packers game. Consistently not very good, but still consistent. I guess to me the main thing that points to a big coaching problem is the defense isn't consistent and breaks down after halftime.

Maybe because they spend the whole first half picking up the slack for the O and by the 2nd half are tired of running on and off the field.

[rypper11]

I am for GW staying. I think sometimes he outthinks himself but when he doesn't trust the guys he goes vanilla (much like Saunders). I like that we don't give up big plays and that we force an offense to play a perfect game to win (like the Patriots).
How can GW be the heir apparent to Coach Joe? Don't the Skins have to interview a black coach should any position open? Would Blache be given a token interview like Green was given last time?

[hail_2_da_skins]

A big yes. Greg Williams has done an outstanding job. He should be the next in line if Gibbs decides to retire. The second half breakdowns are because of conservative and predictable offensive play calling that has left the defense on the field too long.

[SmootSmack]

You really have to take it on a game by game basis. The Packers loss was entirely on the offense (namely Moss' fumble), the Giants loss was probably a joint effort, the Eagles loss was on the defense (letting Westbrook run through them for a 50+ yard TD). The Tampa loss is on the offense turning the ball over 6 times. Some say the Bills' loss is entirely on Gibbs. I say why did the D give up such a huge pass down the middle to set up the final field goal.

And arguments can be made in almost all the above cases for the other side costing us the game.

Plus, let's not act like we had huge leads at the half. In most cases it was a TD or less.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You really have to take it on a game by game basis. The Packers loss was entirely on the offense (namely Moss' fumble), the Giants loss was probably a joint effort, the Eagles loss was on the defense (letting Westbrook run through them for a 50+ yard TD). The Tampa loss is on the offense turning the ball over 6 times. Some say the Bills' loss is entirely on Gibbs. I say why did the D give up such a huge pass down the middle to set up the final field goal.

And arguments can be made in almost all the above cases for the other side costing us the game.

Plus, let's not act like we had huge leads at the half. In most cases it was a TD or less.

SS, in every game lost, with the exception of possibly GB, we've had no less than a 10 point lead in every 2nd half.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Maybe because they spend the whole first half picking up the slack for the O and by the 2nd half are tired of running on and off the field.

If we were up 3-0 in these games then maybe yes. But the offense is putting up decent numbers in the first half of these games. Also in the first half of these games the defense has played well and shut the opponent down. Then at halftime everything goes south and the opponent marches up and down the field on us, picking apart our basic Cover-2.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

SS, in every game lost, with the exception of possibly GB, we've had no less than a 10 point lead in every 2nd half.

I see what you're saying. I'm talking about the halftime lead specifically. Either way, I think it's way too simplistic to place the blame entirely on one side

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You really have to take it on a game by game basis. The Packers loss was entirely on the offense (namely Moss' fumble), the Giants loss was probably a joint effort, the Eagles loss was on the defense (letting Westbrook run through them for a 50+ yard TD). The Tampa loss is on the offense turning the ball over 6 times. Some say the Bills' loss is entirely on Gibbs. I say why did the D give up such a huge pass down the middle to set up the final field goal.

And arguments can be made in almost all the above cases for the other side costing us the game.

Plus, let's not act like we had huge leads at the half. In most cases it was a TD or less.

Giants: 17-3 Skins at Half / 21-0 NYG in 2nd L
Packers: 14-7 Skins at Half / 10-0 GB in 2nd L
Cards: 14-6 Skins at Half / 13-7 Cards in 2nd W
Eagles: 12-7 Skins at Half / 26-13 Eagles in 2nd L
Dallas: 10-7 Skins at Half / 21-13 Dallas in 2nd L
Bills: 9-2 Skins at Half / 15-7 Bills in 2nd L
Bears: 7-0 Skins at Half / 17-16 Skins in 2nd W

My problem is; how do you explain the defense going from good 1st half to bad 2nd half on a consistent basis other than the guy calling the defense not making good halftime adjustments or making bad defensive calls in the 2nd half. If there's another valid explanation I would love to hear it because I can't figure it out.

I don't think offensively Gibbs has changed very much, but I guess I was spoiled by watching Richie Pettibone's defense consistently hold small leads for Gibbs.