Haslett to accept Defensive Coordinator

So we let em' score from 21 yards or more out alot huh?

i guess man. but our 4th and short D looked pretty solid this year. and i dont think teams put up that many points against us. i think our lack of scoring made it seem that way and the D's inability to close games out late.

from the top of my head i can remember 4 games where we held teams to or below 10 pts, one of them includes the boys.

Haynesworth is not the only player on this team. It's unlikely that anyone would be able to make a scheme to match *everyone's* talents. If AH doesn't want to do what he's told, he can just fuck off -- he doesn't run this team. I get the feeling people would like to see our defense fit AH's talents, and they just don't care about anyone else, or the final product.

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.

I guess Chucky would disagree

Redskins Insider - Gruden praises Shanahan's ability to adjust to personnel (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/mike-shanahan/gruden-praises-shanahans-abili.html)


That was a point that Gruden kept returning to: Much of Shanahan's success is because he has been able to adjust based on his personnel. Inheriting a completely new roster, he'll have to adjust more than perhaps any other time as a head coach. Gruden says Shanahan is certainly up to the task.

"I think Mike Shanahan's a rare coach, who's consistently adjusted to his personnel, which you have to do," Gruden said. "If you have John Elway, you adjust a certain way; if you don't have Elway, you probably adjust another way."

I guess Chucky would disagree

Redskins Insider - Gruden praises Shanahan's ability to adjust to personnel (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/mike-shanahan/gruden-praises-shanahans-abili.html)

I find that very encouraging. I would kinda expect a lot of knee-jerk reaction to change, but I'm more than willing to give these guys a chance before forecasting doom and gloom. I think some of us may be surprised by the success of this staff. I think they have a plan in place and it may very well be a good one.

What exactly has Haslett done as a Defensive Coordinator to warrant his hiring? Augh, what a horrible hire.

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

I think more than anyone it could go to Daniels. He's not nearly a big fat guy like a lot of top NTs but he does possess the strength and fundamentals for it. Griff seems a little too small. I guess montgomery comes to mind also. He's got the size but it is a hard working position and Monty isn't known as a hard worker. Signing Wilfork sounds like the best option if we really are switching to a base 3-4.

Or how about you just mix in some 3-4 looks now and then?

I like this. Gregg did it and when ever we did it seemed to work out pretty damn well. I seem to remember the 3-4 was always pulled out in games where were at our most dominant on defense.

I guess Chucky would disagree

Redskins Insider - Gruden praises Shanahan's ability to adjust to personnel (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/mike-shanahan/gruden-praises-shanahans-abili.html)

To me it is simple: you can either select the best scheme and try to find people who fit it, or you can try to find the best scheme that fits the people you have. Both are valid, but only one allows you the freedom to implement the best scheme possible (unless you get lucky and the guys you have also happen to fit the best scheme). I'm not saying it's easy, or Shanahan will/should be able to just go get great guys to fit a scheme, but I think it should be a long-term goal of ours. If that's not our long-term strategy, then what is? Trying to find a scheme that fits our players?

If we do the best we can with who we have, and it's still mediocre, I'm sure people won't be saying, "Oh that Mike Shanahan, he's so good at adjusting his schemes to fit personnel."

In any case, I don't think Gruden is advocating an adjust-only approach. I'm sure he understands the value of implementing a good scheme and finding the right guys for it.

Or how about you just mix in some 3-4 looks now and then?

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.

Haynesworth is not the only player on this team. It's unlikely that anyone would be able to make a scheme to match *everyone's* talents. If AH doesn't want to do what he's told, he can just fuck off -- he doesn't run this team. I get the feeling people would like to see our defense fit AH's talents, and they just don't care about anyone else, or the final product.

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.

Are you Greg Blache? The best coaches in the game fit schemes to match their players talents. Not the other way around. It's what we've lacked here the last two years.

And I don't want them to just cater to AH's desires. I tend to think that maxmizing the use of your most dominant player is probably the best way to improve. Let's face it. AH being used properly makes an average defense good. A good defense great. Our defense in a lot of ways just needs some tweaks here and there scheme-wise and in the talent department to get to dominant level.

Are you Greg Blache? The best coaches in the game fit schemes to match their players talents. Not the other way around. It's what we've lacked here the last two years.

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?