"Bulletin Board" Material from Commanders Writer

[Rockytop6]

I can't wait for like mid October when the Skins are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, again, to see what kind of excuses they come up with this time and who takes the blame

The Commanders are at the top of my hate list with a couple of others, but I think they are going to surprise. I believe Dallas will win their division but it won't be easy. After that it is a scramble in my opinion.

 

[hammer1]

The biggest change for the Skins will be the implementation of the Shanahan leg-whip for the OL.

That's it.

Hammer

 

[BAT]

When did Haslett become a good coach? That guy is spare.

If Haslett is a good coach, why the hell did the Skins pick him up off the scrap heap? You realize the before the Skins hired him he was coaching in the UFL? I think if he was a good coach, one team would have given him a position. Before that, he was the D-coordinator for the Rams. Do you ever recall the Rams being good on D? Hell no. Was he "too good of a coach" to not make the Rams D top notch? Please.

Spare??? :laugh2: I love all the self righteousness oozing from your exaggeration of a post. Never said he was a great HEAD COACH, I said he was a GOOD coach, as in defensive coordinator. If Haslett was such a "spare" then how did he get the Steelers DC job in 1997-1999? And he did so well that he was offered the Saints HC job in 2000. And if he was such "crap" how did he get the NFL Coach of the year award in 2000???? Not to mention Haslett's Saints teams were very good on D in his years with the team. I guess you conveniently forget how those Saints teams routinely kicked Cowboy *** during that period. Not to mention his crappy Rams team hugely upset the Cowboys in 2008. Not bad for a "garbage" coach. :laugh2:

As to why Haslett could not get the Rams' D to "top notch" level in less than 2 seasons, you got me.

Where the hell do you guys get this crap? Haslett is garbage. The only people who think otherwise are idiot Commanders fans.
******* Commanders fans are morons.

And yet, I am not and never have been a Skins fan. Love that over zealous generalization there don't you? I just happen to respect an opponent & coach who has had some success against us in the past.

I'll let you have that last line though.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Shanahan is probably still one of the best game planners in the NFL. I much less scared of him without Kubiak. His record went well downhill after Kubiak left for Houston.

I think the defense is going to be quite bad. Moving to a 3-4 is tough and that's what I like about Wade's 3-4, it's a 1-gap scheme and you can take players more designed for the 4-3 and put them in and still do well. Ratliff dominates and he's a 300 lb NT with bad elbows. In Haslett's 2-gap scheme they'll need a motivated Haynesworth and the figure out how their ILB's are going to take on guards. And Haslett is about one of the most overrated defensive minds ever who spent the last 9 years or so teaching a 4-3. Go figure.

Even with the addition of McNabb and Brown, we've seen that in the NFL free agents/trades are often overrated because of the adjustment that needs to be made not only by the player, but the other players and the coaches. And McNabb is injury prone.

And Bruce Allen was in TB and produced ONE Pro Bowler out of all of the drafts he had.







YR

 

[firehawk350]

Shanahan is probably still one of the best game planners in the NFL. I much less scared of him without Kubiak. His record went well downhill after Kubiak left for Houston.

Personally, I think Kyle Shanahan will have more to do with any success the Skins have on offense than Mike Shanahan will. That's just my two cents though.

I think the defense is going to be quite bad. Moving to a 3-4 is tough and that's what I like about Wade's 3-4, it's a 1-gap scheme and you can take players more designed for the 4-3 and put them in and still do well. Ratliff dominates and he's a 300 lb NT with bad elbows. In Haslett's 2-gap scheme they'll need a motivated Haynesworth and the figure out how their ILB's are going to take on guards. And Haslett is about one of the most overrated defensive minds ever who spent the last 9 years or so teaching a 4-3. Go figure.

I just read something from KC Joyner that Haynesworth has, by far, the most success against single teams. Joyner said that you can't, bottom line, block Haynesworth with one blocker. Assuming Haynesworth plays, expecting a center to block Haynesworth one on one to free up the guards isn't realistic.

I also think we're looking at a lot of different rotations and looks from the front 3. Kemoeatu may be put in to tie up blockers and Haynesworth kicked out to DE. It could be Haynesworth in the middle with Carriker and Daniels out.

Orakpo will, by most people's opinions, do very well in the 3-4. The other spot is a mystery but there are some bodies there not named Andre Carter that has the faithful at least somewhat hopeful. I don't think there is any real concern for Fletcher and Rocky has been very underrated as a LB IMO.

The secondary is essentially the same but assuming that Haslett's additional focus on pass rushing as opposed to Blanche's horrible scheme should mean they don't have to cover for as long and can jump routes. Little good that will do Rogers though.

Even with the addition of McNabb and Brown, we've seen that in the NFL free agents/trades are often overrated because of the adjustment that needs to be made not only by the player, but the other players and the coaches. And McNabb is injury prone.

The McNabb comment has merit and we don't really know all that much about the Kyle Shanahan scheme (which is where I think a lot of the offense is going to be derived from with exception of the blocking schemes and the one cut running style) other than Matt Schaub didn't seem to have much problem assimulating it. To think Brown will have a problem is a bit of wishful thinking. Brown made the jump from college to NFL relatively easily so I don't think going from one scheme to another is going to cause him many problems.

And Bruce Allen was in TB and produced ONE Pro Bowler out of all of the drafts he had.

Bruce Allen didn't seem to be making many of the decisions here in DC, so I don't think this is overly relevant.

 

[cobra]

Bat, let's review. You claimed Haslett was "too good of a coach to not do well." That means you think he is so good, that one cannot expect anything but positive results.

I said he was a GOOD coach, as in defensive coordinator. If Haslett was such a "spare" then how did he get the Steelers DC job in 1997-1999?

He was spare enough that in '98 and '99, the Steelers had Cowher's two worst seasons in his tenure there.

He inherited the 2nd best defense in the league when he got that job, and proceeded have them fall in ratings each year as their DC until they came a middle of the pack team. And then the year after he left? The D raced backed up to 7th. In other words, he was a crap D coordinator who actually made the Steelers defense worse when he was there.

So he was "too good of a coach" that he actually made his defense worse.

Not to mention Haslett's Saints teams were very good on D in his years with the team.

You clearly have no idea what the hell you are talking about. His Saints teams were not "very good" on D in his years there. His Defenses ranked the following in his years there: 10th, 27th, 26th, 14th, 27th, 28th. That averages out to the 22nd ranked defense. How in the hell do you get "very good" from an average of 22nd out of 32 teams? Do you consider "very good" to be the bottom third? Do you think he was "too good of a coach" to stop having bottom third defense?

No they weren't good on defense or otherwise (other than the anomaly in 2000). When Haslett left, he was "too good of a coach" that he took a good team and lead them to 3-13. That's why he was fired.

As to why Haslett could not get the Rams' D to "top notch" level in less than 2 seasons, you got me.

Far from top notch, his defenses ranked 23rd and 21st. Awful defensive job. Do you think he was "too good of a coach to not do" better than bottom third?

In fact, more times than not, Haslett's defenses are worse than average. Yet, you make the idiotic claim that he is "too good to not to do well."

And I will point out one other thing: you wholly failed to address the fact that if he "such a good coach" as you said, then why the hell was he coaching in the UFL last year instead of on one of the 32 NFL teams? Your claim is complete BS. If he was a good coach, he wouldn't have had to go to the UFL after he couldn't get a job.

I just happen to respect an opponent & coach who has had some success against us in the past.

That's the thing: you are wrong about Haslett. You are giving him respect like the idiot Commanders fans are doing when he hasn't deserved it. Moron Commanders fans are acting like he is some sort of guru that they just scored, and you are acting the same way.

He is a spare coach that should instill no fear whatsoever. More times than not, his defenses are in the bottom half of the league, yet you want to give him respect? Please. Get your facts straight before running your mouth.

 

[Mansta54]

Bat, let's review. You claimed Haslett was "too good of a coach to not do well." That means you think he is so good, that one cannot expect anything but positive results.



He was spare enough that in '98 and '99, the Steelers had Cowher's two worst seasons in his tenure there.

He inherited the 2nd best defense in the league when he got that job, and proceeded have them fall in ratings each year as their DC until they came a middle of the pack team. And then the year after he left? The D raced backed up to 7th. In other words, he was a crap D coordinator who actually made the Steelers defense worse when he was there.

So he was "too good of a coach" that he actually made his defense worse.



You clearly have no idea what the hell you are talking about. His Saints teams were not "very good" on D in his years there. His Defenses ranked the following in his years there: 10th, 27th, 26th, 14th, 27th, 28th. That averages out to the 22nd ranked defense. How in the hell do you get "very good" from an average of 22nd out of 32 teams? Do you consider "very good" to be the bottom third? Do you think he was "too good of a coach" to stop having bottom third defense?

No they weren't good on defense or otherwise (other than the anomaly in 2000). When Haslett left, he was "too good of a coach" that he took a good team and lead them to 3-13. That's why he was fired.



Far from top notch, his defenses ranked 23rd and 21st. Awful defensive job. Do you think he was "too good of a coach to not do" better than bottom third?

In fact, more times than not, Haslett's defenses are worse than average. Yet, you make the idiotic claim that he is "too good to not to do well."

And I will point out one other thing: you wholly failed to address the fact that if he "such a good coach" as you said, then why the hell was he coaching in the UFL last year instead of on one of the 32 NFL teams? Your claim is complete BS. If he was a good coach, he wouldn't have had to go to the UFL after he couldn't get a job.



That's the thing: you are wrong about Haslett. You are giving him respect like the idiot Commanders fans are doing when he hasn't deserved it. Moron Commanders fans are acting like he is some sort of guru that they just scored, and you are acting the same way.

He is a spare coach that should instill no fear whatsoever. More times than not, his defenses are in the bottom half of the league, yet you want to give him respect? Please. Get your facts straight before running your mouth.

Nice post..

 

[cobra]

Bruce Allen didn't seem to be making many of the decisions here in DC, so I don't think this is overly relevant.

Then who is? Bruce Allen is a poor personnel-acquisition GM. Mike Shannahan (a good coach) is a poor personnel-acquisition HC. And Snyder is the worst personnel-acquisition owner. So who is running the show?

My understanding is that Shannie is running the personnel show, which is a bad idea because he has struggled doing that. In fact, that's his weakest area by far and what led him to losing his job. He is an otherwise very good coach.

Here is what I think happened:
The idiot owner of the Commanders had to hire a legit coach after the embarrassment of the coaching search that led to Jim Zorn. Shannie is a notorious control freak, and he had Snyder over a barrel so he demanded complete control. He got it. Well, Shannie then needed to staff other positions with people that had some name recognition but would otherwise be his puppets. So he hired Bruce Allen as his GM because Commanders fans love that name, though Bruce isn't successful and will just do whatever Shannie says. (What exactly do you think Bruce does? Would any self-respecting GM take a position where the coach had complete control?) Then Shannie hired his son to be OC. Then he got Jim Haslett to be his DC, who seems like he might be a respectable name, but really is a guy so desperate for a job he'll do whatever Shannie says.

So the Commanders are all Shannie-run. He has his control and fiefdom. History has shown that when Shannie tried to do all of that instead of just coach an offensive game, the results are not very good.

If he stumbles, you know that idiot boy Snyder won't stand it and start demanding more control. And if that happens, then control-freak Shannie and Idiot-boy Snyder will blow-up and the whole thing will turn into a clusterfark.

 

[AsthmaField]

I just read something from KC Joyner that Haynesworth has, by far, the most success against single teams. Joyner said that you can't, bottom line, block Haynesworth with one blocker. Assuming Haynesworth plays, expecting a center to block Haynesworth one on one to free up the guards isn't realistic.

It isn't looking good that Haynesworth will even suit up for the Commanders. Maybe he does... I don't know, but I can't see Shannahan giving in to that big tub of goo and letting him come back to the team. Many Commander fans are thinking the same way too. It will damage Shannahan's image with the rest of the team if he gives in. If he does, then my opinion of Shannahan and his coaching skills will further erode.

Personally, as a Cowboy fan I hope Fat Albert does come back to play for the Skins... but that probably is too much to hope for.

I also think we're looking at a lot of different rotations and looks from the front 3. Kemoeatu may be put in to tie up blockers and Haynesworth kicked out to DE. It could be Haynesworth in the middle with Carriker and Daniels out. Orakpo will, by most people's opinions, do very well in the 3-4. The other spot is a mystery but there are some bodies there not named Andre Carter that has the faithful at least somewhat hopeful. I don't think there is any real concern for Fletcher and Rocky has been very underrated as a LB IMO.

Of course they are looking at a lot of different front 7 rotations. Many defenses do these days, and in the Commanders case, they really don't even know what they have yet. I'm sure there will be some 43 looks along with the 34 that Shannahan has decided he wants to run.

Still, that front 7 would have me worried if I were a Commander fan. What happens when you don't have the correct players for the 34 is that offensive coaches will isolate on where you have troubles. If your ILB's can't hold their own, they'll run down your throat. If your OLB's can't cover well enough, the TE's and backs will kill you. If your DL isn't right, again you'll get run on.

Looking at the Commanders front seven prospects, I'm not convinced they're cut out for the 34:

Daniels is just a guy.

Kemoeatu is coming off injury but he does have the requisite size for NT. That is a key position in any 34 and pinning so many hopes to a 9 year vet coming off severe injury is risky.

Carriker was given up on by the organization that gave up a number 1 pick on him just a short 3 years ago. He never lived up to his top 15 pick billing in St. Louis and they cut him loose for next to nothing. If Spagnuolo (who I really like as a defensive coach) gives up on a D lineman, then I tend to think that guy isn't a player.

Jarmon is a pretty good player I think, but in a 34 he is seriously miscast. At his size he is way too small to be a DE and he's just not quick or nifty enough to play OLB. He reminds me a good bit of Michael Strahan, who as we know was a very good strongside DE in a 43, but he would have been mashed at DE in a 3 man front. He also would have been way too slow to play OLB. If I were Jarmon, I would be upset.

Andre Carter has already tried playing OLB in a 34 once before. That is why San Francisco let him walk. He is OK as a weakside DE in a 43, but he just isn't any good in a 34.

Orakpo should do fine in his new role. However, until we see him do it, over the course of a season, we just won't know for sure. How will he do when he is forced into coverage? I think OK, but that remains to be proven. Overall though, he should be a good piece for a 34 defense.

Fletcher is one of the most impressive LB's in the NFL today. I won't ever sell him short (no pun intended) no matter the obstacle. Still, he will have to put up with much more of a pounding than he's used to, and at his advanced age I'm not so sure he will be able to physically hold up. He's good with leverage and smart, so I think he at the very least won't be a liability.

Rocky McIntosh on the other hand is exactly the type of chase and hit LB that has real problems switching to a 34. He just doesn't have the ballast to hold up consistently against the NFL's huge interior linemen. Really, it depends on how the coaches use him. If they ask him to constantly take on guards (play 2 gap), then it is going to be a long, long season for Rocky. If they try to protect him, then maybe he will be alright, but he hasn't been the most durable guy in the world.

Haynesworth may or may not be in Washington. If he is, then he will physically help... but it will seriously hamper the chemistry of that team. If he isn't, then it will be good for the locker room and Shannahan's image with his players... but it will make a front 7 that will already have a ton of challenges, have to try just that much harder to make things work.

Alexander, Golston, Blades, etc. are dime-a-dozen players that aren't going to make much of a difference one way or another. They might help some, but they aren't going to make or break the new defensive scheme.

Overall, there are a lot of questions regarding that defense. Why Shannahan is so dead set on running a 34, I don't know. He has a very solid group for a 43, but for some reason, Mike just has to have a 34.

During his year off, he visited a long time with super bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers. Perhaps that is when he decided he would run a 34 when he came back. I don't know.

What is worrisome is that it appears that Shannahan decided to run a 34 long before he ever knew what team he'd be coaching. So he came into the Commanders job with the intent of taking whatever players he inherited and making them fit the system he wanted to run. Which, by the way, he has never run before. I just think that he would have been much better served by sticking with a 43 and using the players he had, and then working towards maybe moving to a 34 in a year or two, once he had collected enough players for that.

The secondary is essentially the same but assuming that Haslett's additional focus on pass rushing as opposed to Blanche's horrible scheme should mean they don't have to cover for as long and can jump routes. Little good that will do Rogers though.

I wouldn't count those chickens (sacks) before they're hatched. Year one with questionable personnel for a 34 doesn't mean sacks are going to be easy to come by. Maybe the team improves some... maybe not. But, if I were you I sure wouldn't be going into the season thinking that the secondary is going to be OK because of all the pressure my front 7 is going to generate.

That remains to be seen.

The McNabb comment has merit and we don't really know all that much about the Kyle Shanahan scheme (which is where I think a lot of the offense is going to be derived from with exception of the blocking schemes and the one cut running style) other than Matt Schaub didn't seem to have much problem assimulating it. To think Brown will have a problem is a bit of wishful thinking. Brown made the jump from college to NFL relatively easily so I don't think going from one scheme to another is going to cause him many problems.

IMO, both McNabb and Brown will be OK with learning the system. It might take a little while to adjust, but they should be fine at some point this season.

That doesn't mean they will or won't struggle... just that they'll learn the system without too much trouble.

With Brown I would just worry about him getting his legs back in a division full of pass rushers after missing a year. He might know what to do... but doing it will be a different story.

McNabb, while eons better than Campbell, is on the downhill slope of his career. He isn't what he once was and every day that goes by sees the tread on his tires get a little thinner. He's losing accuracy and mobility at this point, but his deep ball still is pretty nice.

Bruce Allen didn't seem to be making many of the decisions here in DC, so I don't think this is overly relevant.

So what the **** is Allen doing in DC then?

 

[BAT]

Bat, let's review. You claimed Haslett was "too good of a coach to not do well." That means you think he is so good, that one cannot expect anything but positive results.

Wrong, that is your spin. I said that considering the talent on the Commanders D, he will do better than expected. Never said Haslett was great, but he is better than the coach he replaced plus the D is more talented. This is the same D that was ranked TENTH in total yard given up last season. For comparison's sake, the Cowboys were ranked NINTH.

He was spare enough that in '98 and '99, the Steelers had Cowher's two worst seasons in his tenure there.

And yet you so conveniently fail to cite that the Steeler's D was 11th, 7th then 12th. If Haslett was so putrid then why was he promoted to the Saints' job??? THEN he won Coach of the Year his first season as HC. Again, I don't make any great claims about Haslett, but he is not the complete waste that you are hysterically trying to claim.

He inherited the 2nd best defense in the league when he got that job, and proceeded have them fall in ratings each year as their DC until they came a middle of the pack team. And then the year after he left? The D raced backed up to 7th. In other words, he was a crap D coordinator who actually made the Steelers defense worse when he was there.

So he was "too good of a coach" that he actually made his defense worse.

So the only factor that you take into account for the D slipping is the DC??? For such a know it all, you should know that there was jack **** on the Steelers D during that period. Aside from an over the hill Levon Kirkland (an inside LB) who the hell did they have??? In Haslett's last season with Pittsburgh, they actually drafted a catalytic player in Joey Porter (who took a few years to become good). You have an awful lot of self importance strewn around with your venom. For the health of your spleen, you should actually look up stuff beyond the surface stats.

You clearly have no idea what the hell you are talking about. His Saints teams were not "very good" on D in his years there. His Defenses ranked the following in his years there: 10th, 27th, 26th, 14th, 27th, 28th. That averages out to the 22nd ranked defense. How in the hell do you get "very good" from an average of 22nd out of 32 teams? Do you consider "very good" to be the bottom third? Do you think he was "too good of a coach" to stop having bottom third defense?

No they weren't good on defense or otherwise (other than the anomaly in 2000). When Haslett left, he was "too good of a coach" that he took a good team and lead them to 3-13. That's why he was fired.

AGAIN, I NEVER SAID HE WAS A GOOD HEAD COACH. But he is a good (again, nowhere do I say "great") defensive coordinator, especially when he has some talent. I like how you discount his rookie season (where he took a 3-13 team and won its division for the SECOND time in team history and won its FIRST ever playoff game). Haslett's Saints were not pretty, but he had them in playoff contention every year, even 2005 when New Orleans was devastated by Katrina and the Saints had to play their home games all over creation. But I am sure that had jack to do with the team's performance according to you.

Far from top notch, his defenses ranked 23rd and 21st. Awful defensive job. Do you think he was "too good of a coach to not do" better than bottom third?

In fact, more times than not, Haslett's defenses are worse than average. Yet, you make the idiotic claim that he is "too good to not to do well."

What kind of moronic reasoning is this??? Is Spagnuolo a scrub of a defensive coach b/c he took the same Ram's to a even worse record of 1-15????

And I will point out one other thing: you wholly failed to address the fact that if he "such a good coach" as you said, then why the hell was he coaching in the UFL last year instead of on one of the 32 NFL teams? Your claim is complete BS. If he was a good coach, he wouldn't have had to go to the UFL after he couldn't get a job.

You should have quit when you were behind. Was Moon a scrub b/c he could not get a job in the NFL out of college? Or Kurt Warner? You do know that Sean Peyton was stripped of his playcalling responsibilities in NY then had to be the co-offensive coordinator in Dallas right?? And Capers was a secondary coach (and he would have sat out 2008 if it weren't for the Pats job) before he rebuilt the Packers D in 2009. **** happens man, and sometimes you have to start all over again. Only in your world does that make that person a piece of ****.

That's the thing: you are wrong about Haslett. You are giving him respect like the idiot Commanders fans are doing when he hasn't deserved it. Moron Commanders fans are acting like he is some sort of guru that they just scored, and you are acting the same way.

He is a spare coach that should instill no fear whatsoever. More times than not, his defenses are in the bottom half of the league, yet you want to give him respect? Please. Get your facts straight before running your mouth.

Who said anything about "guru", that is all you. If anyone is running his mouth, without his facts, it is you. How you can even walk with all that vinegar geysering from your anal cavity is beyond me.

 

[firehawk350]

Then who is? Bruce Allen is a poor personnel-acquisition GM. Mike Shannahan (a good coach) is a poor personnel-acquisition HC. And Snyder is the worst personnel-acquisition owner. So who is running the show?

My understanding is that Shannie is running the personnel show, which is a bad idea because he has struggled doing that. In fact, that's his weakest area by far and what led him to losing his job. He is an otherwise very good coach.

Shanny has been hot and cold on personnel, just like just about every other personnel guy out there. He's hit on guys like Ryan Clady and Elvis Dumervil but has missed on his share of guys too.

Here is what I think happened:
The idiot owner of the Commanders had to hire a legit coach after the embarrassment of the coaching search that led to Jim Zorn. Shannie is a notorious control freak, and he had Snyder over a barrel so he demanded complete control. He got it. Well, Shannie then needed to staff other positions with people that had some name recognition but would otherwise be his puppets. So he hired Bruce Allen as his GM because Commanders fans love that name, though Bruce isn't successful and will just do whatever Shannie says. (What exactly do you think Bruce does? Would any self-respecting GM take a position where the coach had complete control?) Then Shannie hired his son to be OC. Then he got Jim Haslett to be his DC, who seems like he might be a respectable name, but really is a guy so desperate for a job he'll do whatever Shannie says.

That doesn't really work because Bruce Allen was hired before Shanny. I also don't think that Jim Haslett is being told what to do by Shanny at all. There's really no evidence of that.

So the Commanders are all Shannie-run. He has his control and fiefdom. History has shown that when Shannie tried to do all of that instead of just coach an offensive game, the results are not very good.

It's all up in the air as to this and my speculation isn't any better, or worse, than yours. Either way, I am pretty sure Kyle Shanahan is doing the offensive gameplanning. My personal view is that Mike Shanahan is going to get everything in shape and (hopefully) get the Skins a contender and hand the reins over to his son to be head coach and move into a more executive Bill Parcells-like position.

If he stumbles, you know that idiot boy Snyder won't stand it and start demanding more control. And if that happens, then control-freak Shannie and Idiot-boy Snyder will blow-up and the whole thing will turn into a clusterfark.

Very possibly. It's speculation at this point honestly.

It isn't looking good that Haynesworth will even suit up for the Commanders. Maybe he does... I don't know, but I can't see Shannahan giving in to that big tub of goo and letting him come back to the team. Many Commander fans are thinking the same way too. It will damage Shannahan's image with the rest of the team if he gives in. If he does, then my opinion of Shannahan and his coaching skills will further erode.

I don't think Haynesworth playing would be considered Shanny giving in. If Haynesworth shows up on time for training camp and plays whatever Haslett tells him to with no negative media quotes, I think that's a victory for Shanny. If Haynesworth gets released or traded for next to nothing, that's a victory for Haynesworth. I think if Haynesworth gets traded for fair compensation, it's a draw.

Personally, as a Cowboy fan I hope Fat Albert does come back to play for the Skins... but that probably is too much to hope for.

Despite Blanche's conservative scheme, Haynesworth's presence allowed Andre Carter to get 11 sacks and Orakpo to get 10.5. Hoping Haynesworth isn't there isn't your best bet.

Of course they are looking at a lot of different front 7 rotations. Many defenses do these days, and in the Commanders case, they really don't even know what they have yet. I'm sure there will be some 43 looks along with the 34 that Shannahan has decided he wants to run.

Still, that front 7 would have me worried if I were a Commander fan. What happens when you don't have the correct players for the 34 is that offensive coaches will isolate on where you have troubles. If your ILB's can't hold their own, they'll run down your throat. If your OLB's can't cover well enough, the TE's and backs will kill you. If your DL isn't right, again you'll get run on

Looking at the Commanders front seven prospects, I'm not convinced they're cut out for the 34:

Daniels is just a guy.

Daniels is an ox. He's not going to sack the QB, but he's about as stout as you get at the POA. You'd probably put him in for most downs, where you want to secure the edge. I would say he's just a guy, until you try to run on his side.

Kemoeatu is coming off injury but he does have the requisite size for NT. That is a key position in any 34 and pinning so many hopes to a 9 year vet coming off severe injury is risky.

You've got him and Haynesworth both manning the spot. Chances are one of them will come to play at NT. If both do, then we're the only team with two starting caliber NTs I can think of.

Carriker was given up on by the organization that gave up a number 1 pick on him just a short 3 years ago. He never lived up to his top 15 pick billing in St. Louis and they cut him loose for next to nothing. If Spagnuolo (who I really like as a defensive coach) gives up on a D lineman, then I tend to think that guy isn't a player.

You can't level this same criticism on Carriker without doing so on Alex Barron. Either way, Carriker is a prototypical 3-4 DE and he was played at NT. He's not a NT. He doesn't really belong in a 4-3. I think the Skins picking up Adam Carriker is a better move than the Boys picking up Alex Barron, and I'm on the record as that being a good move for the Boys.

Jarmon is a pretty good player I think, but in a 34 he is seriously miscast. At his size he is way too small to be a DE and he's just not quick or nifty enough to play OLB. He reminds me a good bit of Michael Strahan, who as we know was a very good strongside DE in a 43, but he would have been mashed at DE in a 3 man front. He also would have been way too slow to play OLB. If I were Jarmon, I would be upset.

Michael Strahan would have excelled in just about any scheme you put him in but I see your point. First off, I think Jarmon is putting on weight and secondly, he's going to be a rotational player and I think he's more than sufficient to play 3-4 DE on a rotational basis.

Andre Carter has already tried playing OLB in a 34 once before. That is why San Francisco let him walk. He is OK as a weakside DE in a 43, but he just isn't any good in a 34.

There's a lot of us concerned with Andre Carter in the 3-4 role opposite Orakpo but he said it's different in Haslett's scheme and he hasn't looked to get released or traded (to anybody's knowledge) so I think he'll be fine. Regardless, we've got Lorenzo Alexander and Chris Wilson who have been getting good reviews. It's a mysterty though.

Orakpo should do fine in his new role. However, until we see him do it, over the course of a season, we just won't know for sure. How will he do when he is forced into coverage? I think OK, but that remains to be proven. Overall though, he should be a good piece for a 34 defense.

Orakpo is a beast. I think anybody thinking Orakpo is going to do anything else other than well in the 3-4 is just betting against the odds.

Fletcher is one of the most impressive LB's in the NFL today. I won't ever sell him short (no pun intended) no matter the obstacle. Still, he will have to put up with much more of a pounding than he's used to, and at his advanced age I'm not so sure he will be able to physically hold up. He's good with leverage and smart, so I think he at the very least won't be a liability.

Rocky McIntosh on the other hand is exactly the type of chase and hit LB that has real problems switching to a 34. He just doesn't have the ballast to hold up consistently against the NFL's huge interior linemen. Really, it depends on how the coaches use him. If they ask him to constantly take on guards (play 2 gap), then it is going to be a long, long season for Rocky. If they try to protect him, then maybe he will be alright, but he hasn't been the most durable guy in the world.

Rocky is an unknown quantity in the 3-4 but he hasn't had any problem doing any job we've asked him to do thus far so I'm not sure he's going to be a liability in the 3-4 ILB either.

Haynesworth may or may not be in Washington. If he is, then he will physically help... but it will seriously hamper the chemistry of that team. If he isn't, then it will be good for the locker room and Shannahan's image with his players... but it will make a front 7 that will already have a ton of challenges, have to try just that much harder to make things work.

You are looking at it from a negative slant and it's as easy as doing it from a positive one. If he's not there, it'll be great for team chemistry. If he is, we'll have one of the best 3-4 DLs in the game. Win-win???


Alexander, Golston, Blades, etc. are dime-a-dozen players that aren't going to make much of a difference one way or another. They might help some, but they aren't going to make or break the new defensive scheme.

Overall, there are a lot of questions regarding that defense. Why Shannahan is so dead set on running a 34, I don't know. He has a very solid group for a 43, but for some reason, Mike just has to have a 34.

I actually had a bunch of people put forth the idea that the Skins switch out to a 3-4 before it was done, but whatever, I'm not going to argue something as subjective as this.

During his year off, he visited a long time with super bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers. Perhaps that is when he decided he would run a 34 when he came back. I don't know.

What is worrisome is that it appears that Shannahan decided to run a 34 long before he ever knew what team he'd be coaching. So he came into the Commanders job with the intent of taking whatever players he inherited and making them fit the system he wanted to run. Which, by the way, he has never run before. I just think that he would have been much better served by sticking with a 43 and using the players he had, and then working towards maybe moving to a 34 in a year or two, once he had collected enough players for that.

I wouldn't count those chickens (sacks) before they're hatched. Year one with questionable personnel for a 34 doesn't mean sacks are going to be easy to come by. Maybe the team improves some... maybe not. But, if I were you I sure wouldn't be going into the season thinking that the secondary is going to be OK because of all the pressure my front 7 is going to generate.

That remains to be seen.

That's wishful thinking. You are HOPING that Orakpo isn't going to get better in year 2. The bottom line is we're going from a prevent, read-and-react defense to an attacking one and unless there's something wrong schematically, we should get more sacks.

IMO, both McNabb and Brown will be OK with learning the system. It might take a little while to adjust, but they should be fine at some point this season.

That doesn't mean they will or won't struggle... just that they'll learn the system without too much trouble.

With Brown I would just worry about him getting his legs back in a division full of pass rushers after missing a year. He might know what to do... but doing it will be a different story.

He'll be playing RT against lesser pass rushers. Spencer has 6 or 8 sacks and Justin Tuck got 6. I don't think he has an uphill battle there.

McNabb, while eons better than Campbell, is on the downhill slope of his career. He isn't what he once was and every day that goes by sees the tread on his tires get a little thinner. He's losing accuracy and mobility at this point, but his deep ball still is pretty nice.

So what the **** is Allen doing in DC then?

Your guess is as good as mine. I think he plays a role in recommending player (college or otherwise) and does the leg work while Shanahan makes the final decision but I'm not sure honestly.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Personally, I think Kyle Shanahan will have more to do with any success the Skins have on offense than Mike Shanahan will. That's just my two cents though.

Well of course he is. It just depends if Kyle can get the job done and that once Kubiak left, the Broncos struggled to do anything significant. It's sort of like saying that Sean McDermott will have more to do with the success on defense than Andy Reid. Sure he does. But last year the Eagles missed Jim Johnson.

I just read something from KC Joyner that Haynesworth has, by far, the most success against single teams. Joyner said that you can't, bottom line, block Haynesworth with one blocker. Assuming Haynesworth plays, expecting a center to block Haynesworth one on one to free up the guards isn't realistic.

It's a 3-4 2-gap scheme. There's a reason why Haynesworth doesn't want to play in the scheme, he won't get those one-on-one situations. That's why they are calling Haynesworth 'selfish', because he doesn't want to give up those one-on-one matchups to play in a scheme where he'll get double teamed but could free up one of the linebackers. It's also a reactionary scheme for the down linemen where they have to react to how the linemen's feet go. Great scheme if you have the right players for it. Usually it takes a very unselfish D-Linemen. The more selfish guys tend to struggle because it's such a passive, take one for the team type of scheme.

I also think we're looking at a lot of different rotations and looks from the front 3. Kemoeatu may be put in to tie up blockers and Haynesworth kicked out to DE. It could be Haynesworth in the middle with Carriker and Daniels out.

Haynesworth moving to DE still means double team. Just this time with the guard and the offensive tackle. Kemoeatu sucked in Carolina and played in the 4-3 there. Carriker the same in St. Louis. Daniels may have been alive during the Red Grange era.

Orakpo will, by most people's opinions, do very well in the 3-4. The other spot is a mystery but there are some bodies there not named Andre Carter that has the faithful at least somewhat hopeful. I don't think there is any real concern for Fletcher and Rocky has been very underrated as a LB IMO.

Orakpo should be suited for the scheme since he didn't beef up last year and got good experience in the 4-3 as an OLB. Carter has never impressed me much. The ILB's I think would be a huge concern because they need to be quite big to play the 2-gap scheme and Fletcher and Rocky are both small guys. As we saw with Dat Nguyen, Scott Shanle and others in the 2-gap, they can start out well, but eventually the pounding is just too much to handle.

The McNabb comment has merit and we don't really know all that much about the Kyle Shanahan scheme (which is where I think a lot of the offense is going to be derived from with exception of the blocking schemes and the one cut running style) other than Matt Schaub didn't seem to have much problem assimulating it.

Matt Schaub didn't exactly come out a guns a blazing in Houston. It took him a good few years to get it down there and stay healthy.

To think Brown will have a problem is a bit of wishful thinking. Brown made the jump from college to NFL relatively easily so I don't think going from one scheme to another is going to cause him many problems.

Yes, a Commanders fan telling us that thinking a Free Agent/Trade won't have a problem adjusting to playing for a new team is pure comedy. Adam Archuleta says hello.








YR

 

[cobra]

Bat, because you're sporting a 12v weed-whacker engine of a brain there, let me be real simple:

How can you ever call a coach a good defensive coach if his teams finish, on average, in the bottom half of the league defensively? Please explain that.

Answer that simple question as to how a coach could be a good coach and finish, on average in the bottom half of the league. Quit spinning, and answer that simple question.

The fact that you won't admit that you were talking out of your *** and made a mistake, but instead want to constantly change your position and argue against the historical record is quite embarassing for you. Give it up. By continuing on this task, you are just disposing any shred of credibility you have.

But then again, maybe I'm not being fair. I'm guessing you read the Sunday comics with a highlighter in case you run across a particulary meaningful passage in Beetle Bailey.

 

[Mansta54]

Bat, because you're sporting a 12v weed-whacker engine of a brain there, let me be real simple:

How can you ever call a coach a good defensive coach if his teams finish, on average, in the bottom half of the league defensively? Please explain that.

Answer that simple question as to how a coach could be a good coach and finish, on average in the bottom half of the league. Quit spinning, and answer that simple question.

The fact that you won't admit that you were talking out of your *** and made a mistake, but instead want to constantly change your position and argue against the historical record is quite embarassing for you. Give it up. By continuing on this task, you are just disposing any shred of credibility you have.

But then again, maybe I'm not being fair. I'm guessing you read the Sunday comics with a highlighter in case you run across a particulary meaningful passage in Beetle Bailey.

:laugh2:

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Daniels may have been alive during the Red Grange era.

:laugh2:

 

[AsthmaField]

Shanny has been hot and cold on personnel, just like just about every other personnel guy out there. He's hit on guys like Ryan Clady and Elvis Dumervil but has missed on his share of guys too.

He has missed a LOT.

It's all up in the air as to this and my speculation isn't any better, or worse, than yours. Either way, I am pretty sure Kyle Shanahan is doing the offensive gameplanning. My personal view is that Mike Shanahan is going to get everything in shape and (hopefully) get the Skins a contender and hand the reins over to his son to be head coach and move into a more executive Bill Parcells-like position.

That is a huge guess and there is no shred of evidence to say it would happen, but if it does it is probably a good thing, but what happens to Allen in that case? Also, there is no guarantee that little Shanny can coach more than just an offense under an offensive guru head coach.

I don't think Haynesworth playing would be considered Shanny giving in. If Haynesworth shows up on time for training camp and plays whatever Haslett tells him to with no negative media quotes, I think that's a victory for Shanny. If Haynesworth gets released or traded for next to nothing, that's a victory for Haynesworth. I think if Haynesworth gets traded for fair compensation, it's a draw.

Keep hoping. You never know.

Despite Blanche's conservative scheme, Haynesworth's presence allowed Andre Carter to get 11 sacks and Orakpo to get 10.5. Hoping Haynesworth isn't there isn't your best bet.

So the best bet for a Cowboy fan is to hope that Albert is there? That's what I said.

Daniels is an ox. He's not going to sack the QB, but he's about as stout as you get at the POA. You'd probably put him in for most downs, where you want to secure the edge. I would say he's just a guy, until you try to run on his side.

Oooooooooo! Scary!

Jimmy Johnson said it best back in the mid 90's: "Run stoppers are a dime-a-dozen. Pass rushers are the one's who change games."

And he said that back when teams ran much more than they do now.

Daniels is a great guy and team mate... and his heart is 1000 times bigger than Fat Albert's... but he is just a guy on the D line.

You've got him and Haynesworth both manning the spot. Chances are one of them will come to play at NT. If both do, then we're the only team with two starting caliber NTs I can think of.

There you go, assuming Haynesworth will be there. Maybe, maybe not.

And calling Kemoeatu a starting caliber player is quite a stretch. He was rancid in Carolina before he got hurt.

If it helps you sleep at night, be excited about your NT position.

You can't level this same criticism on Carriker without doing so on Alex Barron.

Fine. Consider it leveled. Barron is in Dallas as a backup player who may or may not pan out.

That is pretty much how you should view Carriker.

Either way, Carriker is a prototypical 3-4 DE

And Barron is a prototypical LT.

Michael Strahan would have excelled in just about any scheme you put him in but I see your point. First off, I think Jarmon is putting on weight and secondly, he's going to be a rotational player and I think he's more than sufficient to play 3-4 DE on a rotational basis.

No way Jarmon holds up unless maybe they play him only on sure passing downs. If they play him that seldom than it will be a waste of a guy who could be really good in a 43.

If they play him often, he will get bulldozed.

There's a lot of us concerned with Andre Carter in the 3-4 role opposite Orakpo but he said it's different in Haslett's scheme and he hasn't looked to get released or traded (to anybody's knowledge) so I think he'll be fine.

Of course he's going to say that. They almost always do. However, the proof of him getting his *** handed to him the last time he played in a 34 is pretty concrete.

At best it is a cross your fingers and pray sort of proposition.

Regardless, we've got Lorenzo Alexander and Chris Wilson who have been getting good reviews. It's a mysterty though.

They too are just warm bodies, except they haven't proven themselves to at least be good team mates like Daniels.

Orakpo is a beast. I think anybody thinking Orakpo is going to do anything else other than well in the 3-4 is just betting against the odds.

I agree. He should do fine. I'm just saying that you really never know until you see it. You better hope to God that he does or else you guys really are screwed in a 34.

Rocky is an unknown quantity in the 3-4 but he hasn't had any problem doing any job we've asked him to do thus far so I'm not sure he's going to be a liability in the 3-4 ILB either.

Until we see it, we can't really call him a failure... so I think you are probably looking at that about right. I would still be very concerned though about his size and injury history.

You are looking at it from a negative slant and it's as easy as doing it from a positive one. If he's not there, it'll be great for team chemistry. If he is, we'll have one of the best 3-4 DLs in the game. Win-win???

What? That's what I said basically. If Albert is gone I think it helps your team way more than him being there. However, you then will be in dire straights along the DL.

If he helps along the DL, then it will create cracks in the team IMO.

Win/win or lose/lose, it doesn't matter. It all means the same thing. What your team needed was Albert to sack-up, play his role and try to help the team win. Then you could have had his talent without all the drama.

You didn't get that. You are now left with an either/or situation, and I promise you Shannahan sees the importance of the situation, even if you don't.

Alexander, Golston, Blades, etc. are dime-a-dozen players that aren't going to make much of a difference one way or another. They might help some, but they aren't going to make or break the new defensive scheme.

Right.

I actually had a bunch of people put forth the idea that the Skins switch out to a 3-4 before it was done, but whatever, I'm not going to argue something as subjective as this.

So what? I heard skins fans talking about every possibility when Zorn was fired. Of course many talked about the 34 because it is the defensive scheme to have right now. That doesn't matter squat though.

Shannahan still pre-determined to use the 34 before he even knew what personnel he would have. He is still changing to that scheme to the detriment of much of his defensive players.

That's wishful thinking. You are HOPING that Orakpo isn't going to get better in year 2. The bottom line is we're going from a prevent, read-and-react defense to an attacking one and unless there's something wrong schematically, we should get more sacks.

I'm not hoping anything about the Commanders. I expect Orakpo to be effective in the 34, but that isn't going to make your defense a good one by itself and it isn't going to get your team above average in quarterback pressure by itself.

I swear, people act like a 34 is a magic scheme for inventing QB pressure. You have basically the same group you did last year except many of them are now playing out of position in a scheme they don't fit. You assume Haslett will play more aggressively than Blache did, but he is going to have many of the same limitations that his predecessor had... as well as a few more created by the scheme change itself.

The only thing he has going for him that Blanche didn't is that he won't be playing opposite Jason Campbell and so won't have to play after 3 and outs all day.

Count on that if you want... but it is foolish to do so.

He'll be playing RT against lesser pass rushers. Spencer has 6 or 8 sacks and Justin Tuck got 6. I don't think he has an uphill battle there.

Oh... OK. The NFC East doesn't have very many good pass rushers in it.

 

[BAT]

Bat, because you're sporting a 12v weed-whacker engine of a brain there, let me be real simple:

How can you ever call a coach a good defensive coach if his teams finish, on average, in the bottom half of the league defensively? Please explain that.

Answer that simple question as to how a coach could be a good coach and finish, on average in the bottom half of the league. Quit spinning, and answer that simple question.

The fact that you won't admit that you were talking out of your *** and made a mistake, but instead want to constantly change your position and argue against the historical record is quite embarassing for you. Give it up. By continuing on this task, you are just disposing any shred of credibility you have.

But then again, maybe I'm not being fair. I'm guessing you read the Sunday comics with a highlighter in case you run across a particulary meaningful passage in Beetle Bailey.

Change my position? That is a hoot. My position, as you put it, is that Haslett is a good coach. Certainly better than Blache. As such, he should have at least as much succcess.

And instead of reputing the points, you do the limp wristed surrender by river dancing around the issue per usual. The angry little ****** schtick is very cute by the way. And a coach's worth is not solely determinative by a season or even three of your choosing (or worse some meaningless "average"), regardless of the fecundity you discharge, no matter how copious. Otherwise coaches like Belichick, Peyton, Norv Turner, Jim Johnson, Spagnuolo, Coughlin, Capers, Jim Mora (junior and senior), Pete Carroll and even Wade would not get second, third, even 4th chances. Not all are great, even fewer are gurus, some are just good.

 

[cobra]

Change my position? That is a hoot. My position, as you put it, is that Haslett is a good coach. Certainly better than Blache.

Yes. You keep changing your position. You began with "too good," retreated to "good," and are on your way to staking your ground with "certainly better than Blache."

And instead of reputing the points, you do the limp wristed surrender by river dancing around the issue per usual.

Do you mean "rebutting" or "refuting" instead of "reputing the points"? Regardless, um, I pretty much addressed your points heads-on, and gave you historical statistics. If you think I danced around the issue, I have a question for you: what ****ing thread are you reading? Because it sure as hell is not this one wherein I have shredded your points and laid bare the fact you were talking out of your ***.

And a coach's worth is not solely determinative by a season or even three of your choosing (or worse some meaningless "average"),

(I think you mean 'determined')

What would be a better measure of a coach's worth than the average rankings of his units? I'm at a loss. The stupidity inherent in what you just said is mind-boggling.

Do you think wins is a better measure? If so, that's actually worse for Haslett. The teams he was either a DC or a Head coach of have a losing record. And again, his defenses are on average and more times than not in the bottom half of the league.

Explain again how a good coordinator has a unit in the bottom half of the league more times than not. Still waiting for an answer on that one.

Or try this similar question: name me another coordinator who is good but, more times than not, ends up with a unit in the bottom half of the league.

regardless of the fecundity you discharge, no matter how copious.

I can't decide if you are trying to compliment me here or if you just failed at reading a thesaurus.

Otherwise coaches like Belichick, Peyton, Norv Turner, Jim Johnson, Spagnuolo, Coughlin, Capers, Jim Mora (junior and senior), Pete Carroll and even Wade would not get second, third, even 4th chances.

(I bet you failed preschool when they asked you "which one of these things is not like the other?")

Haslett is nothing like most of those guys. Most of those guys are, on average, successful coordinators and coaches. The fact you are comparing their respective successes is even further evidence of how far you will go in an ultimately futile attempt to salvage your moronic position instead of just admitting that you were talking out of your *** to begin with.

Oh, and I will note that, yet again, you still have not come with an answer to the question that has been directly posed to you several times: if he is "too good" of a coordinator, why did he have to drop out of the NFL to get a job at the UFL? You haven't answered that. You made some moronic point about how some people start in the UFL and become good, but that has no relation to someone being such a spare in the NFL that he drops down to the UFL. At least it has no relation in a discussion between two sentient individuals who actually knows the difference between the two.

 

[BAT]

Yes. You keep changing your position. You began with "too good," retreated to "good," and are on your way to staking your ground with "certainly better than Blache."

There is no position change, "too good" - "good" - and "better than Blache" are not prohibitive. How do you equate "too good" to mean "great" or "guru"? I said from the very beginning that he was better than the previous coach (Blache) and that he will have as much success (top 15 defense) if not better.

What would be a better measure of a coach's worth than the average rankings of his units? I'm at a loss. The stupidity inherent in what you just said is mind-boggling.

Your averages are slanted.

Do you think wins is a better measure? If so, that's actually worse for Haslett. The teams he was either a DC or a Head coach of have a losing record. And again, his defenses are on average and more times than not in the bottom half of the league.

And yet Haslett has 5 seasons with a top 15 defense and 7 seasons with a bottom tier defense as either a coordinator or HC.

Explain again how a good coordinator has a unit in the bottom half of the league more times than not. Still waiting for an answer on that one.

Or try this similar question: name me another coordinator who is good but, more times than not, ends up with a unit in the bottom half of the league.

Asked and answered above. Haslett has had successes in the league, no matter how much you want to discount it. If you only want to grade Haslett on his tenure with the Saints then be truthful, he had a very good 10-6 season and a horrible Katrina impacted 3-13 seasons, sandwiched by 4 seasons hovering around .500.

Haslett is nothing like most of those guys. Most of those guys are, on average, successful coordinators and coaches. The fact you are comparing their respective successes is even further evidence of how far you will go in an ultimately futile attempt to salvage your moronic position instead of just admitting that you were talking out of your *** to begin with.

Oh, and I will note that, yet again, you still have not come with an answer to the question that has been directly posed to you several times: if he is "too good" of a coordinator, why did he have to drop out of the NFL to get a job at the UFL? You haven't answered that. You made some moronic point about how some people start in the UFL and become good, but that has no relation to someone being such a spare in the NFL that he drops down to the UFL. At least it has no relation in a discussion between two sentient individuals who actually knows the difference between the two.

The point being is that there have been good (or better) coaches who have had bumps in their careers. Is it so difficult for you to admit that there are good coaches who have been drummed out of the NFL? If Denny Green were to accept another NFL coaching position, would he be a scrub? Fassel?? Both were in the UFL too.