"One Level Removed"
 

The key to good coaching is knowing what’s fundamental to success and what’s not.

Teams with effective players and good plans usually do well.

That might seem like a blinding flash of the obvious, but look around the NFL and see how many teams are at least "one level removed" from something that improves either the effectiveness of the players or the quality of their plan. When I refer to plan, I mean the entire plan. Whether that be dealing with injuries, or having the scheme that best fits the personnel, or motivating the players, etc. etc..

It’s hard to define what I mean by being "one level removed" but you know it when you see it. Examples help:

1. When you're teaching a new scheme that puts your players in the best position to make a tackle -- that's fundamental to improving your team, but when you are teaching players how to make a tackle, that's -- "one level removed."

2. When a coach is trying to motivate his players during a pregame speech -- that's fundamental to having success on game day. When a coach is trying to motivate his players to lose 35 pounds or show up on time for team meetings, that's -- "one level removed."

3. When a coach is trying to implement a new passing route to give a receiver the best chance to catch the football -- that's fundamental to improving the offense -- when a coach is teaching a receiver to catch a football, that's -- "one level removed."

In other words, a coach does not spend enough time on truly implementing a plan that's fundamental to improving his team because he's too busy working on the "one level removed" stuff.

To be fair -- every coach has distractions that interfere from working on the important stuff. I mean, todays players come with their on set of unique problems.

But, what happens when you have too much of this stuff is "inconsistency."

Then what happens is the coach is always searching for ways to "tinker" with something in hopes of finding "consistency."

Haslett needs to resist the urge to tinker so much. It’s always tempting to "improve " the organization structure, or to rewrite the team policy to address a new situation, or to create committees to find where the inconsistencies are.

Individually, all those things seem to make sense. But experience shows that you generally end up with something that is no more effective than what you started with.

Or, in other words, the coach is always so busy changing his policy that no one is really ever on the same page. Or to put it plainly.............The coach is inconsistent and that leads to the players being inconsistent. Show me a consistent coach, and I'll show you a consistent team. Show me an inconsistent coach and I'll show you an inconsistent team.

A culture of efficiency starts with the everyday things that you can directly control: team meetings, practices, punishing players (but be consistent and send the right message), and praising players when it's called for. The way you approach these everyday activities establishes the culture that will drive your fundamental success. When a coach is "consistent" in his every day activities, players respect him. When a coach is inconsistent, players start to doubt him.

Haslett seems obsessed with the big picture. I think the big picture is hidden in the details. I’m all for working for the big picture, if you know where to find it.

Finally- we’re all idiots and we’re going to make mistakes. That’s not necessarily bad. Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Compounding mistakes with different mistakes is "one level removed."





[Edited on 26/6/2004 by GumboBC]

"One Level Removed"
 

Interesting post Billy.

This sounds like WhoDat\'s position on Haz (which I find fairly compelling).

Here is something to chew on: is Haz\'s coaching \"one level removed\" this year?

I\'ll just spell out what I think the answer is, rather than be enigmatic: how could we know right now? The problem with \"one level removed\" is you don\'t know you are until you have to start addressing the \"new\" needs (eg. tackling instead of schemes). That is, it can appear as though you are \"one level removed\" when you are not (at the beginning of the season anyway). I also agree with your idea of consistency - however, consistency must begin at some time (some coaches, perhaps Parcells, come in with consistency - but I PROMISE YOU that this wasn\'t always the case). Thus, we are left wondering if Haz will be consistent from here on out? I\'m not saying he will be (in fact, WhoDat has provided good reason to believe that he won\'t be), but I am saying that saying he won\'t be may be a mistake given a recent change in his attitude. IF the new tough guy thing suits him, I\'m not sure why we would think he wouldn\'t stick with it.

Also, you seem to suggest that all teams are \"one level removed\" in at least one area (probably more). Thus, it is hard to be too critical of our team given their being \"one level removed\", since everyone is. Perhaps it is a matter of how many areas in which you are \"one level removed\" that matters for assessment?

"One Level Removed"
 

I don\'t know about this \"one level removed\" thing... I mean if you go to a practice you\'ll see every coach out there including the head coach and they are all involved in teaching a player how to break up a pass or blocking or rushing technique. When the coaches go off the field they spend hours and hours looking at game films and studying what other players are doing and judging talent. I have been on the field and off the field with coaches including even Jim Mora and when we left the field and went to his office for an interview he was studying film. I think they all spend there fair amount of time on field coaching and the \"other intangibles\" coaching, its just a matter of game plan, players, football gods and who wants it more.

"One Level Removed"
 

Look guys. I\'m not suggesting that Haslett can\'t or won\'t get the job done in the FUTURE.

Nor am I suggesting everything has been Hasletts fault.

What I am suggesting is our coach has NOT been consistent in his approach to coaching.

He was tough his first year and lax the next couple of seasons.

He\'s gone after questionable character guys some years and now he\'s putting an emphasis on bringing in high character guys.

He\'s let bad deeds go unpunished with some players and been tougher on others.

He\'s put an emphasis on bringing in the huge DT and then he wants smaller faster DT.

Individually none of these are that big of a concern. But, it all adds up to inconsistency from Jim Haslett.

And as far as \"one level removed\"? Teams that are spending MORE time on teaching players how tackle and the other BS that\'s gone on in New Orleans spend way too much energy on that and it takes the focus away from the important stuff.

I have and continue to support Haslett. I like his new approach. We\'ll see how he does.



[Edited on 26/6/2004 by GumboBC]

"One Level Removed"
 

I think his 1st big philosophy mistake. Great point

Ditka left him with virtually nothing talent wise. They needed talent 1st and foremost, dammed the character issue. Now we\'re stockpiling a lot of talent and we aren\'t sdesparate anymore. We can now filter out the bad apples. I\'m not so sure that he\'s emphasizing it as much as being more selective now.

I\'ve heard rrumor of this but thats all.

I think it was more of an emphasis on stopping the run, which wasn\'t really Glovers forte, it just so happened the new guys were much bigger. I think he\'d love to have Glover back to team with Howard, Grant, and Sullivan.

Its kinda like Belichick his 1st few years. He made a lot of little mistakes that lead to him being fired. I believe coaches can learn and improve as well as players. Will Haslett? I have my doubts but wouldn\'t bet against him.

I think this is an excellent argument for some low-turnover continuity. The current players know the system, now its just fine-tuning what we have. Will it work? Logic says it has its upside. Its like returning 17 starters on a decent college team. That usually bodes well (unless your an Auburn fan)

I have my doubts, but I\'d rather see him succeed than fail and be replaced.

"One Level Removed"
 

Good take, Danno. I\'m not saying that I\'m right about every issue I brought up with Haslett (actually, I just threw up those issues real quick) I\'m saying Haslett has made mistakes and he needs to overcome and learn from those mistakes.

I think he\'ll do it. I think Haslett is a smart guy and just the fact that he\'s recognizing his mistakes is a sign that he\'ll get things straightened out.

Of course, I could say that there\'s no reason to believe he will be a good coach. But, I can\'t go there and I don\'t believe that..... ;)

[Edited on 26/6/2004 by GumboBC]

"One Level Removed"
 

Not buying it Haslett-lover. Isn\'t that what you and Saintfan tell me when I talk about Brooks? You love Haslett and always have. One comment in a sea of thousands doesn\'t cut it.

This also completely contradicts things you\'ve said in the past about Haslett and like Jkool said - is EXACTLY the stance I\'ve had on the guy for two seasons. Are you suggesting that maybe your position on the guy evolved? In any case, that sure was a negative post Billy.

"One Level Removed"
 

I hear ya chump. ;) I was WRONG about Haslett. WRONG. I was WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Now, kiss my ***. LOL :P



[Edited on 27/6/2004 by GumboBC]

"One Level Removed"
 

Ricky Williams, Willie Roaf, Kyle Turley, Ashley Ambrose, Jake Delhomme, La\'Roi Glover, Sammy Knight, Wayne Martin- not much compared to today, but there was a little talent there.

"One Level Removed"
 

There\'s no doubt that Haslett is capable of correcting every one of his past mistakes. The question is: How much is it going to help this year and is it too little too late? If the Saints don\'t make the playoffs this year, that will be 4 years in a row and there\'s a good chance he might get fired.



Yes. All teams are \"one level removed\" in some areas. But the succesful teams are \"one level removed\" in LESS areas than the unsuccessful teams. That\'s really the whole point of my original post in this thread.

You have to ask yourself WHY we are \"one level removed\" in so many areas Example:

1. Tebucky Jones: Haslett gambled with this guy. Last year the gamble did not pay off. Now, I\'m not talking about the future for Tebucky. I would like to think Tebucky was brought in to help us get to the playoffs LAST YEAR. It\'s not like he was a rookie.

2. Orlando Ruff: What can you say about Ruff. I don\'t want to dog the guy. But, he didn\'t help out too much last year either. And he wasn\'t a rookie . In the future who knows?

3. Ashley Ambrose: Yeah!! He could have a role on a lot of teams. Just not starting.

That\'s a lot of gambling, JKool. Now, I\'m all for rolling the dice from time to time, but at some point I need a little better odds.

Now, I\'ve only addressed the guys Haslett has chosen to bring in at KEY positions. Positions that have been a problem since Haslett\'s arrival.

Then you get into other areas like coach/player relationships. I\'m not going to go over them, but there\'s been problems there.

Then you get into his ever changing approach to what\'s going to make his team successuful. Tough guy, nice guy. Work \'em hard, take it easy on them. Starting to get the picture?

It\'s not that other teams haven\'t had EVERYONE of these types of problems. It\'s how they\'ve fixed them and how long it took them.

Part of this is Hasletts inexperience as a head coach. I feel he should have corrected some his short-comings sooner than what he has, though.

That said, I STILL give him the benefit of the doubt. I STILL believe he can and will fix the problems. I don\'t expect him to be perfect. I\'m not going to join the \"moon shiners\". But, if Haslett doesn\'t get the job done this year, then I\'m through.

And you know what? I still will think Haslett can become a successful head coach some where. I would just rather get someone else in here just in case he can\'t because I feel like he has had enough time here.





[Edited on 27/6/2004 by GumboBC]

"One Level Removed"
 

Billy, I think we\'ve agreed on this topic for some time now. I was just checking to see to what extent you\'d decided to change your position on this one.

I agree with this: I think, and I\'m sure someone could show this, that the number of gambles on players the Saints have taken are not too many more or less than other teams. Ruff was a bit of a bust, sure, but how many people thought he was the second coming. Rogers paid off, so that is 50%. T-buck was an asset to our defense (even if he had trouble tackling) - who else was really available to us to fill the S need? Ambrose was playing nickle in ATL; I don\'t think Haz brought him in to start. Hand replaced by Sully - did we win on that? At least we didn\'t lose. Moving Bellamy to SS: priceless. Dale Carter didn\'t look good (EXCEPT when he was healthy and on the field, which wasn\'t very often). At any rate, I\'m having trouble of thinking of these as GAMBLES; they seem more like calculated risks, and ones that weren\'t too bad at that.

I think we ALL agree that Haz\'s biggest weakness is in dealing with troubled players and maintaining discipline. It is my veiw that this sort of thing IS the most difficult thing for a new head coach (espc. when they played some time ago). I think that the ego of an NFL player is GENERALLY getting worse and more difficult to manage. This is not an excuse for Haz, since it is his JOB to get these guys playing as a team (and he has failed most glamourously); however, it is an explanation as to why some of the younger coaches have trouble their first few years.

"One Level Removed"
 

Billy - this is a point I\'ve made in the past as well. My question has been, if he makes the playoffs this year, is everything forgiven?

I guess for me that answer is more a matter of how than if. In other words, it\'s not about if they make the playoffs as compared to how they do it.

In my mind, playoffs are an absolute must for Haslett to keep his job. I think few people feel differently about that (Danno and Saintfan seem OK with allowing another year of no playoffs based on the circumstances).

For me, if the Saints are inconsistent again this season, and slide in as a Wild Card at 9-7 or 10-6 and lose in round one - I don\'t see that as much of an upgrade. As you\'ve argued - an extra point here, a completed pass there and this team could have been 9-7 or 10-6 last year. But to me they were a BS 8-8. They beat no winning teams.

In any case, my point is, for me to believe that Haslett can turn it around and give us a real shot, I need to see a solidly winning season with consistent play. If we go 10-6 but lose to other winning teams and beat the teams we\'re supposed to, if we win a playoff game and/or show that we can truly contend, then even I will say the guy deserves another year. Not another three or five, but another year.

My great fear is that the Saints stumble and bumble and somehow find themsleves in the playoffs as the 6 cede and get destroyed in round 1 and everyone says - well he made the playoff, what more do you want? Then I\'ll hear about how I hate the guy and nothing is good enough. That\'s not it - to me, he has to show results in two ares: 1) Record, and 2) The ability to take charge of the team, eliminate the stupid mistakes, and make them consistently competitive.

"One Level Removed"
 

In some ways Tebucky was an asset. In some ways he was a detriment. All in all Tebucky was disappointing last season, IMO.

IMO, when Haslett signed unproven or average players to fill the cornerback and linebacker positions it WAS A GAMBLE. Nothing wrong with gambling some. But those positions have been trouble areas for 3 years. And we\'re still gambling this year.

I like the way things are shaping up this year (kinda) but I liked the way things were shaping up last year too. Injuries killed us last year. I continue to say that I\'m giving Haslett the benefit of the doubt. But, I\'m also placing blame on Haslett for not correcting SOME of the problems quick enough.

I sound like WhoDat arguing with me last year. :P

"One Level Removed"
 

WhoDat --

Good post.

I think we are starting to agree on a lot of things. I\'ve changed my position on Haslett to some extent. And you\'ve changed your stance on Brooks to a certain extent. I too think Brooks still has to put it together in the consistency department. I mean, he can\'t find ways to hurt this team on a consistent basis.

"One Level Removed"
 

We were one level removed from the play off\'s ; )

"One Level Removed"
 

Billy, our linebackers are a counterexample. Rodgers and Ruff were both proven players. They are both starters. Those were not GAMBLES. Sure, Ruff didn\'t payoff as expected, and we\'re still working there. However, I don\'t see those moves as Gambling.

Also, as far as filling positions through the draft, Haz has done pretty well: Duece and Charles Grant come to mind immediately. Haz\'s group got us Hand - and he had a great season.

My point isn\'t that Haz doesn\'t have his problems (in general I agree with you and WhoDat on this one), but I still think that some caution is warranted in saying that he has just been plain bad in filling holes. In fact, I\'m willing to bet that Haz\'s track record of filling holes in FA isn\'t much worse than ANY other teams (in terms of guys brought in with a lot of hype and didn\'t pan out). The Bills defense or the Redskins offence of the last few years are great examples.

As far as T-buck goes, I don\'t think he was simply a \"disappointment\". The number of times I watched a WR run free to the end zone in plays of 30 or more yards was almost none compared to the year before. That is a HUGE success in my eyes. It is also my view that the FS can gamble on the ball more if the coverage is there on the corner - which it wasn\'t last year. Thus, I don\'t see how people want T-buck to stop the deep ball, provide zone help, AND make plays on the ball!? Sure he had some trouble tackling, but he did do all those other things we needed from our Safeties. I\'ll tell you what, I bet Bellamy\'s revival was in part due to not have to worry about getting scorched over his head (thanks again to our center fielder).

I agree that most of our teams problems go back to coaching, but how bad is it? I agree with WhoDat that how we make the playoffs matters to Haz keeping his job. I just don\'t see much reason to be negative about him so far this season GIVEN that he seems to have changed approach. It is this change that leads me to be skeptical about the usual - Haz sucked, Haz sucked, therefore Haz will suck - argument.

"One Level Removed"
 

JKool --

I think we agree on a lot of levels. Only you look at the free agents brought in at MLB and CB and see players that weren\'t expected to be stars. And I see huge holes that needed to be filled with a sure thing. Or at least more of a sure thing than what Haslett brought in with Orlando Ruff and Ashley Ambrose. Thus, I think it was more of a gamble than Haslett should have taken considering they had been trouble areas for about 3 years.

On Tebucky: I agree that he was a huge assest in preventing the deep pass last year, which was a HUGE problem the previous year. I think some folks forget that? I\'m probably being too critical on Tebucky. I think he\'s going to go on to have a great career with the Saints. But, he needs to tighten up in the tackling department..

[Edited on 28/6/2004 by GumboBC]

"One Level Removed"
 

I think we\'re pretty close on this one (as usual?).

I\'m thinking we\'re merely disagreeing about what constitutes a gamble.

"One Level Removed"
 

GumboBC, WhoDat. both agreeable? agreeing?

Since i\'ve been on the borad (not too long a time) this doesn\'t happen like this! Maybe there\'s hope for the Israelis and Palestinians after all. :D

Gumbo, you in one breath complain about Haz not being consistent, changing every year. But then you congratulate him for changing his style and going tough on his players. :casstet:

He\'s new to head coaching, so you have to expect him to try new styles. I\'d be much more ready to see him gone already if he didn\'t change his style. Why? Because we haven\'t done well. If our team was in the playoffs each year being competitive, hell ya, stay consistent.

If we do stupid things, drop the ball, fade in December, etc., i don\'t want us to \'consistently\' do these things. So change is good.

i agree, i think Haz \'can\' become a good coach somewhere. Not sure if this is his gig anymore. Depends on this year\'s results. And i agree with Who Dat that it\'s not only good enough to make the playoffs, but look solid and look like a real threat, than a lucky team. We have the talent...let\'s show it.

i think Haz is a bit clueless on the recipe for victory. That doesn\'t mean he can\'t learn. But i do not see a philosophy that truly works yet. It\'s like a guy who doesn\'t know how to cook adding a dash of salt (oops! too salty) then more water, (oops too watery), ad nauseum.

This is the only way a guy learns to coach (or cook), by making mistakes. But with all due respect to Haz, if he hasn\'t learned how to make a pot of gumbo by now, he needs to get out the kitchen and let someone else try. He has been a very good coach (New Orleans Saint\'s standards), not excellent, but heck, we got our 1st playoff win under him, and as much as we can argue it\'s luck, fate, Ditka\'s guys....still it was under him.

Plus from the Ditka era to now, I am much more pleased with the team. We actually can discuss whether we will go far in the playoffs, or even the Superbowl... i\'d much rather that than ponder if we\'ll have the 4th pick in next year\'s draft.


In conclusion, wait....what am i talking about again?? :mad: Thanks for humoring me, guys.

"One Level Removed"
 

You are correct. I am complaining about ALL the changes Haslett has experimented with in HOPES of finding success. Change isn\'t always a good thing. As a matter of fact, too much change and you end up right back where you started at. Which is still searching for answers!!!

That said, I like Hasletts approach this year. But, there\'s nothing NEW about it. The only successful year Haslett EVER had as a head coach he had what going for him? A no-nonsense approach!!!

After all the changes and experimenting he\'s right back where he started from. Call me crazy, but if it was working to begin with then I would have stuck with it. Glad Haslett figured it out... ;)

[Edited on 28/6/2004 by GumboBC]