Meet Lou Spanos

Well, I don't think that that Spanos wasn't promoted, as much as Pittsburgh is the essence of stability, and the D coaches don't move up as much. We will see, but I think it's safe to say that he has a ton of time teaching and working with other coaches that kept a top tier LB program while he was there. I would say the other way is just as valid, if he didn't have a clue, I believe he would not have lasted in the Pittsburgh LB staff very long.

Well, I don't think that that Spanos wasn't promoted, as much as Pittsburgh is the essence of stability, and the D coaches don't move up as much. We will see, but I think it's safe to say that he has a ton of time teaching and working with other coaches that kept a top tier LB program while he was there. I would say the other way is just as valid, if he didn't have a clue, I believe he would not have lasted in the Pittsburgh LB staff very long.

In 2003, Pittsburgh had a vacancy at LB coach. instead of promoting Spanos, who at that point had essentially ben assistant LB coach for 8 years, they hired an unimpressive linebackers coach from Cleaveland, of all places. As far as the other way being valid, I couldnt disagree more. Zorn lasted in Seattle for so long because he was a great QB coach, not because he had potential to be a great offensive coordinator or head coach. If someone is great at their job, and you dont think they can move up the ladder, you keep them in their current job. If they are great at their job, and you think they have potential to be great at bigger things, you promote them. I'm sorry, but its just not very likely that Spanos is some amazing quality control assistant that got overlooked for LB coaching positions for the last 10 years. He's probably just a great defensive assistant who lucked into the opportunity to be a position coach here because we really didnt have any other options. Hopefully, he's the hidden, overlooked gem. but i wouldnt bet on it.

You clearly know him better than I do, so I will just hope he is "that guy".

Hasslett knows him better than anyone, that's what really matters.

All you need is for someone to take a chance on you maybe we (REDSKINS) can catch lightning in a bottle.

Looking at the linebacker position in our defense, we've got alot of reason to be concerned. We're switching to a brand new defense that is schematically and philosophically completely different than the one we've run for the past 6 years. Orkapo aside, there's not a single holdover LB from last year who is ideal for the 3-4 defense. No starting LB on the roster has ever started a 3-4 defense before. our LB coach has never been a position coach before. Our Defensive coordinator is average at best. Our head coach has a history of impatience with defensive coordinators and systems.

Now, as a fan, we can hope for 2010 to be all roses and sunshine, but being realisticy we have no reason to expect our linebacking unit to be anything special at all this year. More reasonable expectations would be a unit ranking in the bottom 10, perhaps even the bottom 5, of the league.

This is exactly my concern for 2010 season, I am confident our offense will improve alot.. But I'm not with defense, I really don't understand why we decided to change the defense, especially at this time when we need some improvements on offense? Our original defense always have been stout, but imagine with the additional aggressive attitude? Our defense would be awesome, especially when the whole D-line men had a year experience together.. Orakpo probably would be moved to DE full time, and not to mention Haynesworth and Carter would be more effective, as well.. But we decided to change the defense and then now, we have unhappy Haynesworth, Carter who already proved that he can't play 3-4 in SF and definitely is not going to rack up another two digits number of sacks next season.. And not to mention, we have some questions on LB positions..

I have to say, I would be surprise if the defense is still good..

The need for change on defense was evident. While they've been stout and what most would call a bend but don't break kind of D, when was the last time this unit produced turnovers with any regularity?? That's why we're seeing a change.

Can't go wrong with him. Knows the 3-4 system, developed the LBs up there, 15 years experience. I can't fathom how different being a Linebackers coach is so different from being an assistant LB coach. You're working with the same core of players, just that you're doing to the delegating of tasks to the assistants, etc.

This is exactly my concern for 2010 season, I am confident our offense will improve alot.. But I'm not with defense, I really don't understand why we decided to change the defense, especially at this time when we need some improvements on offense? Our original defense always have been stout, but imagine with the additional aggressive attitude? Our defense would be awesome, especially when the whole D-line men had a year experience together.. Orakpo probably would be moved to DE full time, and not to mention Haynesworth and Carter would be more effective, as well.. But we decided to change the defense and then now, we have unhappy Haynesworth, Carter who already proved that he can't play 3-4 in SF and definitely is not going to rack up another two digits number of sacks next season.. And not to mention, we have some questions on LB positions..

I have to say, I would be surprise if the defense is still good..Passing game driven league. Increasing the probability that the QB-involved play is more important than ever nowadays. You can't win the Super Bowl unless you stop the good QBs in the league, and the only way to do that is with a lot of pressure on the quarterback.
Blache also had absolutely ridiculously (in a bad way) predictable blitzes that were bound to be picked up. What's the point of blitzing if it's going to fail?
Also, the run D was starting to suck it up in the latter half of 2008 and the D was supposed to be focused on stopping the run. Haynesworth kind of remedied the problem of a bad short yardage defense and lack of pressure, but he's only one guy and he was contributing mainly because of his talent, not because of any help from a hyper-conservative scheme.

You could question why did they simply get a more aggressive 4-3 coordinator, but whatever the case, Blache's D was only good for stat-padding against bad teams, not for getting to and winning the Super Bowl.

Passing game driven league. Increasing the probability that the QB-involved play is more important than ever nowadays. You can't win the Super Bowl unless you stop the good QBs in the league, and the only way to do that is with a lot of pressure on the quarterback.
Blache also had absolutely ridiculously (in a bad way) predictable blitzes that were bound to be picked up. What's the point of blitzing if it's going to fail?
Also, the run D was starting to suck it up in the latter half of 2008 and the D was supposed to be focused on stopping the run. Haynesworth kind of remedied the problem of a bad short yardage defense and lack of pressure, but he's only one guy and he was contributing mainly because of his talent, not because of any help from a hyper-conservative scheme.

You could question why did they simply get a more aggressive 4-3 coordinator, but whatever the case, Blache's D was only good for stat-padding against bad teams, not for getting to and winning the Super Bowl.

Nice post. Good points.