Whitt promoted to secondary coach

[highlander]

Packers | Whitt promoted
Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:18:39 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports the Green Bay Packers have promoted defensive quality control coach Joe Whitt Jr. to secondary coach.

WTF doesnt this signal Moss is the man.....

[Bossman641]

Now that is strange. I can't figure out what is going on over there.

[Joemailman]

It sounds to me like they got word that some other team wanted him as their secondary coach.

[Brando19]

Ok..for one...what do we know about Whitt? Anyone?

Also...if this does signal Moss gets the job...why in the heck didn't McCarthy at least interview other candidates?

[BallHawk]

Ok..for one...what do we know about Whitt? Anyone?

Also...if this does signal Moss gets the job...why in the heck didn't McCarthy at least interview other candidates?

Because he's already got a black guy?

[Brando19]

Ok..for one...what do we know about Whitt? Anyone?

Also...if this does signal Moss gets the job...why in the heck didn't McCarthy at least interview other candidates?

Because he's already got a black guy?

:lol:

[Joemailman]

A little info on Whitt.

http://www.packers.com/team/coaches/whitt_joe/

[red]

secondary coach for 4 years at louisville

and assistant secondary coach with atlanta, he worked with emmit thomas there

almost sounds like he was brought in to maybe take over the job one day

[Guiness]

Emmitt Thomas was our DC???

I have to guess that was for Rhodes in '99. I sure don't remember him.

[KYPack]

Emmitt Thomas was our DC???

I have to guess that was for Rhodes in '99. I sure don't remember him.

We are still the only NFL team to have a Black HC, OC, & DC.

I think. I really don't keep track, but it might be right.

[ND72]

it would be weird to "promote" someone to a position before knowing exactly who your DC is going to be.

[RashanGary]

Reading his bio, he seems like he's earned a shot.

[SkinBasket]

This is all fucked up. Maybe McCarthy's going to tell everyone to go fuck themselves and he's not hiring anyone. He's going to do it himself.

[Bretsky]

It is quite odd to secure your secondary coach unless MM is hiring W Moss as the DC

[The Shadow]

Exactly how long will it take for him to become "Half-Whitt" or "Nit-Whitt"on this forum after a bit of poor secondary play?

[KYPack]

Exactly how long will it take for him to become "Half-Whitt" or "Nit-Whitt"on this forum after a bit of poor secondary play?

Based on his predecessor, I believe he will be "Shit-Whitt"

[Joemailman]

If he becomes DC some day, he will become Slo-Whitt.

[vince]

It is quite odd to secure your secondary coach unless MM is hiring W Moss as the DC
I agree B. Unless Moss gets the St. Louis job, which I think everyone, probably including Moss expects to be a longshot, I think he's the frontrunner, pending any interviews with coaches currently still playing.

It is possible I suppose that McCarthy has already been in contact with Nolan or whoever he intends to select that is not still coaching right now, who has already indicated he's on board with promoting Whitt, but that seems much more far-fetched to me. Moss would be the only one who would know enough about the guy to make thet judgement.

It would be inconsistent with McCarthy's character, particularly as an offensive-minded coach, to unilaterally make that decision at this time otherwise.

[AtlPackFan]

OK, help me understand. Why fire everybody if you are going to promote from within? Wouldn't you allow Moss to keep who he wanted from the just-fired staff? I would think that Moss would have kept one or two coaches for continuity. For example, Washington. The DBs didn't play all that bad this year, did they? Yes/No?

[swede]

OK, help me understand. Why fire everybody if you are going to promote from within? Wouldn't you allow Moss to keep who he wanted from the just-fired staff? I would think that Moss would have kept one or two coaches for continuity. For example, Washington. The DBs didn't play all that bad this year, did they? Yes/No?

This is absolutely not how things are normally done. The only scenario that makes sense to me is that McCarthy is holding the DC spot for Moss until the Rams HC interviews are played out.

I think of MM as a straight shooter but this whole episode reeks of backroom deals and coaches having to watch their back instead of watching film on nest week's opponent.

[Fritz]

If Whitt is in fact now the secondary coach, then I'd have to agree that this most likely means Winston Moss is the new DC barring a surprise hire by St. Louis.

It's the only scenario that makes sense. You fire everybody and his brother - except for one young guy - then you promote that guy, so whoever the new DC coming in is, you can say "hire whomever you want...except you have to have this one guy." Nope. Too weird.

And I'm okay with Moss. I really don't want the team to have to learn a whole new system - esp. the 3-4, which would require different types of players, completely. That means next season would probably be a wash because it'd b e a learning year. The heck with that.

Sounds like MM likes Moss, works well with him, and the players seem to like him as well. MM's future rides on this hire, so he may as well hire the guy who gives his team the best chance the soonest. I'm sure he's considering that as he mulls the hire.

[Gunakor]

Exactly how long will it take for him to become "Half-Whitt" or "Nit-Whitt"on this forum after a bit of poor secondary play?

Based on his predecessor, I believe he will be "Shit-Whitt"

His predecessor was the coach of the finest defensive backfield in the NFL in 2008...

I really don't get all the Shotty hate after what his group accomplished this season. Sure, Harris and Woodson and all that... But what about Nick Collins and Tramon Williams? They weren't great players before Shotty got here...

[sharpe1027]

Maybe Whitt is just a good coach that they don't want to lose.

[sharpe1027]

His predecessor was the coach of the finest defensive backfield in the NFL in 2008...

I really don't get all the Shotty hate after what his group accomplished this season. Sure, Harris and Woodson and all that... But what about Nick Collins and Tramon Williams? They weren't great players before Shotty got here...

How do you explain pretty much every other year he ever coached? Maybe he finally figured it out this year, but we don't know what was going on behind the scenes.

Judging from his past body of work, his firing and the promotion of Whitt, I have a feeling that input from other coaches was part of the improved secondary play this year, not some revelation by the Shotty. Of course, I am 100% guessing and don't have anything to back that up...

[Patler]

Exactly how long will it take for him to become "Half-Whitt" or "Nit-Whitt"on this forum after a bit of poor secondary play?

Based on his predecessor, I believe he will be "Shit-Whitt"

His predecessor was the coach of the finest defensive backfield in the NFL in 2008...

I really don't get all the Shotty hate after what his group accomplished this season. Sure, Harris and Woodson and all that... But what about Nick Collins and Tramon Williams? They weren't great players before Shotty got here...

Interesting footnote - Whitt's duties when he was hired were said to include breaking down film of opponents, and assisting the DB coaches. This was his first year. Perhaps MM felt the Whitt had more to do with the improved DB play than either Schottenheimer or Washington.

[Gunakor]

His predecessor was the coach of the finest defensive backfield in the NFL in 2008...

I really don't get all the Shotty hate after what his group accomplished this season. Sure, Harris and Woodson and all that... But what about Nick Collins and Tramon Williams? They weren't great players before Shotty got here...

How do you explain pretty much every other year he ever coached? Maybe he finally figured it out this year, but we don't know what was going on behind the scenes.

Judging from his past body of work, his firing and the promotion of Whitt, I have a feeling that input from other coaches was part of the improved secondary play this year, not some revelation by the Shotty. Of course, I am 100% guessing and don't have anything to back that up...

You could be right, but in a world where you are judged by your latest performance, Shotty deserved to stay IMO. Even if it was him getting advice from other coaches, that doesn't change what happened in 2008. Even if it was due to the advice he got from other coaches, wouldn't he retain that advice next year?

Bigger still is the emergence of Collins and Williams. Collins was shit before Shotty got here, and was shit while Shotty was here - up until this year. Now he's been voted by fans, coaches, and players as the best free safety in the NFC. I'm not sure I buy that, to be honest, but it is what it is. He's become a much better player, and I think that has as much to do with Kurt Shottenheimer as anyone else you could name. Same goes for Tramon Williams.

I don't know, but I have a sick feeling in my stomach that the contribution from our DB's is going to go down next year because of this move.

[Gunakor]

Exactly how long will it take for him to become "Half-Whitt" or "Nit-Whitt"on this forum after a bit of poor secondary play?

Based on his predecessor, I believe he will be "Shit-Whitt"

His predecessor was the coach of the finest defensive backfield in the NFL in 2008...

I really don't get all the Shotty hate after what his group accomplished this season. Sure, Harris and Woodson and all that... But what about Nick Collins and Tramon Williams? They weren't great players before Shotty got here...

Interesting footnote - Whitt's duties when he was hired were said to include breaking down film of opponents, and assisting the DB coaches. This was his first year. Perhaps MM felt the Whitt had more to do with the improved DB play than either Schottenheimer or Washington.

Good point. Still, I would never advocate a change to something that works. If Shotty as the DB's coach with the help of Whitt is what made this defensive backfield work, then Shotty should be kept as the DC and Whitt as his assistant once again. That works.

[sharpe1027]

You could be right, but in a world where you are judged by your latest performance, Shotty deserved to stay IMO. Even if it was him getting advice from other coaches, that doesn't change what happened in 2008. Even if it was due to the advice he got from other coaches, wouldn't he retain that advice next year?

Bigger still is the emergence of Collins and Williams. Collins was shit before Shotty got here, and was shit while Shotty was here - up until this year. Now he's been voted by fans, coaches, and players as the best free safety in the NFC. I'm not sure I buy that, to be honest, but it is what it is. He's become a much better player, and I think that has as much to do with Kurt Shottenheimer as anyone else you could name. Same goes for Tramon Williams.

I don't know, but I have a sick feeling in my stomach that the contribution from our DB's is going to go down next year because of this move.

It would be difficult for the contribution to go up, it was pretty much tops in the league. You need to associate the production with the cause or you can't be sure that it will continue. Simply saying, hey it worked, let's not change anything doesn't make sense to me.

If the improvement is primarily due to something other than Shott, keeping him is like keeping an anchor simply because you were able to drag that anchor fast enough to do well.

[Gunakor]

You could be right, but in a world where you are judged by your latest performance, Shotty deserved to stay IMO. Even if it was him getting advice from other coaches, that doesn't change what happened in 2008. Even if it was due to the advice he got from other coaches, wouldn't he retain that advice next year?

Bigger still is the emergence of Collins and Williams. Collins was shit before Shotty got here, and was shit while Shotty was here - up until this year. Now he's been voted by fans, coaches, and players as the best free safety in the NFC. I'm not sure I buy that, to be honest, but it is what it is. He's become a much better player, and I think that has as much to do with Kurt Shottenheimer as anyone else you could name. Same goes for Tramon Williams.

I don't know, but I have a sick feeling in my stomach that the contribution from our DB's is going to go down next year because of this move.

It would be difficult for the contribution to go up, it was pretty much tops in the league. You need to associate the production with the cause or you can't be sure that it will continue. Simply saying, hey it worked, let's not change anything doesn't make sense to me.

If the improvement is primarily due to something other than Shott, keeping him is like keeping an anchor simply because you were able to drag that anchor fast enough to do well.

This is where we disagree. I subscribe to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. If you agree that our DB's were tops in the NFL this year, then you must also agree that it wasn't broken. Why change anything?

[sharpe1027]

This is where we disagree. I subscribe to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. If you agree that our DB's were tops in the NFL this year, then you must also agree that it wasn't broken. Why change anything?

I would guess that the people in charge were of the opinion that Schot didn't have much to do with the improvement.

Look at it this way, if other coaches responsible for most of the improvement, you risk losing them by keeping Schott because they won't get recognized for their efforts. Plus, it can breed resentment internally and cause friction between coaches.

If it aint broke, you still change the dirty oil. :wink:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Didn't Schottenheimer and Washington split secondary duties? Washington worked primarily with the CBs and Schottenheimer worked primarily with the safeties. Thus, you could give him credit for Collins but not Williams. Then again, you could ask why it took him 3 years to get Collins to maximize his potential? Collins always had the talent. Rouse didn't progress. I actually think Washington is a bigger loss. Then again, he couldn't work any magic with Ahmad Carroll and Joey Thomas. Hard to hold that against him though.

[Gunakor]

Didn't Schottenheimer and Washington split secondary duties? Washington worked primarily with the CBs and Schottenheimer worked primarily with the safeties. Thus, you could give him credit for Collins but not Williams. Then again, you could ask why it took him 3 years to get Collins to maximize his potential? Collins always had the talent. Rouse didn't progress. I actually think Washington is a bigger loss. Then again, he couldn't work any magic with Ahmad Carroll and Joey Thomas. Hard to hold that against him though.

Washington, to my understanding, was the nickel package/CB's coach. Shotty was in charge of the defensive backfield as a whole, to my understanding, which essentially meant Washington was Shotty's underling. It doesn't suprise me that with Shotty being fired, Washington would go with him. I thought they both did suprisingly well this year.

Rouse didn't progress, but Rouse hasn't been healthy all season either. Charlie Peprah I thought looked better in regular season action than he looked in preseason, and Charles Woodson didn't look too terribly bad back there either. Maybe it's Rouse?

As for Collins, I don't know why it took so long. But he's not the first player who took a few years to finally get it. We give other players 3 years to prove themselves without bitching about it... So Collins needed 4. That he needed 4 years to finally get it doesn't concern me as much as the fact that he finally DID get it. Someone has to be given credit for that, and the guy it should be given to is out of a job now. That just doesn't sit well with me, and makes me nervous heading into the new season.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Maybe Kurt will be brought back for a third time.
:D

[MJZiggy]

This is where we disagree. I subscribe to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. If you agree that our DB's were tops in the NFL this year, then you must also agree that it wasn't broken. Why change anything?

I would guess that the people in charge were of the opinion that Schot didn't have much to do with the improvement.

Look at it this way, if other coaches responsible for most of the improvement, you risk losing them by keeping Schott because they won't get recognized for their efforts. Plus, it can breed resentment internally and cause friction between coaches.

If it aint broke, you still change the dirty oil. :wink:

This is kind of how I see it. If the team improved, but it was something other than Schott's contribution, then shouldn't the people who were truly responsible for the improvement receive the credit for it, i.e. the coach's job? What if they improved in spite of Schottenheimer? Considering the past performance, I think that's entirely plausible.

[Gunakor]

This is where we disagree. I subscribe to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. If you agree that our DB's were tops in the NFL this year, then you must also agree that it wasn't broken. Why change anything?

I would guess that the people in charge were of the opinion that Schot didn't have much to do with the improvement.

Look at it this way, if other coaches responsible for most of the improvement, you risk losing them by keeping Schott because they won't get recognized for their efforts. Plus, it can breed resentment internally and cause friction between coaches.

If it aint broke, you still change the dirty oil. :wink:

This is kind of how I see it. If the team improved, but it was something other than Schott's contribution, then shouldn't the people who were truly responsible for the improvement receive the credit for it, i.e. the coach's job? What if they improved in spite of Schottenheimer? Considering the past performance, I think that's entirely plausible.

Point taken. I guess that, since I don't know what happened exactly, I'd hesitate to make any changes to what worked so wonderfully for us in 2008. The way the coaching staff for the DB's was set up was working, so I'd just keep everything the same until it didn't work anymore. If they were going to can Shotty, they should have done so after a year in which the DB's struggled. This year they weren't just good, they were elite. So I'd keep everything exactly the same.

I'm all for this move if it works out. But if the DB's become merely average next season, look back to this move as the reason why. You just don't go tinkering with something that works IMO. Even if Shotty wasn't THE key to make this thing work, he certainly did nothing to prevent it from working. So I can't really support this move. Just keep everyone in the same job they were in and let's repeat the DB performance of 2008 in 2009.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that Bob Sanders' defense was #1 in the NFL in 2008. Would you fire him after such an outstanding performance by his defense simply because his defense wasn't so good in the years prior? I'm guessing no. Shotty's defensive backfield was #1 in the NFL this year, so why are we canning him because his defensive backfield wasn't so hot in years prior? I mean, you are judged by your most recent performance, after all.

Christ... now I'm starting to sound like Tex, I know. I'm all for change when change could mean getting better, but when you are already at the top there's no need for change. I don't see any possibility this change makes our DB's better, but a very good chance it makes our defensive backfield worse. So in this particular case, I agree with Tex. Change is uncalled for.

[cpk1994]

This is where we disagree. I subscribe to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. If you agree that our DB's were tops in the NFL this year, then you must also agree that it wasn't broken. Why change anything?

I would guess that the people in charge were of the opinion that Schot didn't have much to do with the improvement.

Look at it this way, if other coaches responsible for most of the improvement, you risk losing them by keeping Schott because they won't get recognized for their efforts. Plus, it can breed resentment internally and cause friction between coaches.

If it aint broke, you still change the dirty oil. :wink:

This is kind of how I see it. If the team improved, but it was something other than Schott's contribution, then shouldn't the people who were truly responsible for the improvement receive the credit for it, i.e. the coach's job? What if they improved in spite of Schottenheimer? Considering the past performance, I think that's entirely plausible.

Point taken. I guess that, since I don't know what happened exactly, I'd hesitate to make any changes to what worked so wonderfully for us in 2008. The way the coaching staff for the DB's was set up was working, so I'd just keep everything the same until it didn't work anymore. If they were going to can Shotty, they should have done so after a year in which the DB's struggled. This year they weren't just good, they were elite. So I'd keep everything exactly the same.

I'm all for this move if it works out. But if the DB's become merely average next season, look back to this move as the reason why. You just don't go tinkering with something that works IMO. Even if Shotty wasn't THE key to make this thing work, he certainly did nothing to prevent it from working. So I can't really support this move. Just keep everyone in the same job they were in and let's repeat the DB performance of 2008 in 2009.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that Bob Sanders' defense was #1 in the NFL in 2008. Would you fire him after such an outstanding performance by his defense simply because his defense wasn't so good in the years prior? I'm guessing no. Shotty's defensive backfield was #1 in the NFL this year, so why are we canning him because his defensive backfield wasn't so hot in years prior? I mean, you are judged by your most recent performance, after all.

Christ... now I'm starting to sound like Tex, I know. I'm all for change when change could mean getting better, but when you are already at the top there's no need for change. I don't see any possibility this change makes our DB's better, but a very good chance it makes our defensive backfield worse. So in this particular case, I agree with Tex. Change is uncalled for.I think that Schottenheimer was fired not for performnace, but for loyalty to Sanders.

[sharpe1027]

Point taken. I guess that, since I don't know what happened exactly, I'd hesitate to make any changes to what worked so wonderfully for us in 2008. The way the coaching staff for the DB's was set up was working, so I'd just keep everything the same until it didn't work anymore. If they were going to can Shotty, they should have done so after a year in which the DB's struggled. This year they weren't just good, they were elite. So I'd keep everything exactly the same.

I'm all for this move if it works out. But if the DB's become merely average next season, look back to this move as the reason why. You just don't go tinkering with something that works IMO. Even if Shotty wasn't THE key to make this thing work, he certainly did nothing to prevent it from working. So I can't really support this move. Just keep everyone in the same job they were in and let's repeat the DB performance of 2008 in 2009.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that Bob Sanders' defense was #1 in the NFL in 2008. Would you fire him after such an outstanding performance by his defense simply because his defense wasn't so good in the years prior? I'm guessing no. Shotty's defensive backfield was #1 in the NFL this year, so why are we canning him because his defensive backfield wasn't so hot in years prior? I mean, you are judged by your most recent performance, after all.

Christ... now I'm starting to sound like Tex, I know. I'm all for change when change could mean getting better, but when you are already at the top there's no need for change. I don't see any possibility this change makes our DB's better, but a very good chance it makes our defensive backfield worse. So in this particular case, I agree with Tex. Change is uncalled for.

There are plenty of reasons to can a coach even if the unit directly under them was #1.

Maybe the other coaches were doing all/most of the work. If that is the case and the unit takes a big step forward, wouldn't getting him further out of the way help and why the hell would you keep someone like that?

Maybe they are looking to go in a different direction next year and he refused.

Maybe he was loyal to other guys that had to go.

Maybe he was against proposed changes this past year, they implemented the changes anyway and that resulted in the improvement. Do you keep the guy who was standing in the way?

In the end I find it unlikely that the light suddenly went on for him. This year stands out from every other year he has ever been a coach and he still gets fired. I find that curious. It seems likely that this years the good play was in many ways despite his coaching rather than because of it, but that's just my opinion.

[Gunakor]

Point taken. I guess that, since I don't know what happened exactly, I'd hesitate to make any changes to what worked so wonderfully for us in 2008. The way the coaching staff for the DB's was set up was working, so I'd just keep everything the same until it didn't work anymore. If they were going to can Shotty, they should have done so after a year in which the DB's struggled. This year they weren't just good, they were elite. So I'd keep everything exactly the same.

I'm all for this move if it works out. But if the DB's become merely average next season, look back to this move as the reason why. You just don't go tinkering with something that works IMO. Even if Shotty wasn't THE key to make this thing work, he certainly did nothing to prevent it from working. So I can't really support this move. Just keep everyone in the same job they were in and let's repeat the DB performance of 2008 in 2009.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that Bob Sanders' defense was #1 in the NFL in 2008. Would you fire him after such an outstanding performance by his defense simply because his defense wasn't so good in the years prior? I'm guessing no. Shotty's defensive backfield was #1 in the NFL this year, so why are we canning him because his defensive backfield wasn't so hot in years prior? I mean, you are judged by your most recent performance, after all.

Christ... now I'm starting to sound like Tex, I know. I'm all for change when change could mean getting better, but when you are already at the top there's no need for change. I don't see any possibility this change makes our DB's better, but a very good chance it makes our defensive backfield worse. So in this particular case, I agree with Tex. Change is uncalled for.

There are plenty of reasons to can a coach even if the unit directly under them was #1.

Maybe the other coaches were doing all/most of the work. If that is the case and the unit takes a big step forward, wouldn't getting him further out of the way help and why the hell would you keep someone like that?

Maybe they are looking to go in a different direction next year and he refused.

Maybe he was loyal to other guys that had to go.

Maybe he was against proposed changes this past year, they implemented the changes anyway and that resulted in the improvement. Do you keep the guy who was standing in the way?

In the end I find it unlikely that the light suddenly went on for him. This year stands out from every other year he has ever been a coach and he still gets fired. I find that curious. It seems likely that this years the good play was in many ways despite his coaching rather than because of it, but that's just my opinion.

Very good points. But in the end, all that matters is production. Like I said, if everything works out then I'm in full support of the change. But if the production from our defensive backfield comes crashing back down...

I guess I just can't see how a move like this is going to make the #1 unit in the NFL even better. I hope I'm wrong.

[sharpe1027]

Very good points. But in the end, all that matters is production. Like I said, if everything works out then I'm in full support of the change. But if the production from our defensive backfield comes crashing back down...

I guess I just can't see how a move like this is going to make the #1 unit in the NFL even better. I hope I'm wrong.

First, it isn't about making the DBs better, it is about making the entire defense better.

Second, who is to say that even if they slip next year, they wouldn't have been worse with Schotty? Based on his record, I would bet that this year was either a fluke and/or not a direct reflection of his coaching skills.

[rbaloha1]

Retaining 2 defensive coaches eases the transition for the new coordinator.

Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the current players leads to better schemes.

[Gunakor]

Very good points. But in the end, all that matters is production. Like I said, if everything works out then I'm in full support of the change. But if the production from our defensive backfield comes crashing back down...

I guess I just can't see how a move like this is going to make the #1 unit in the NFL even better. I hope I'm wrong.

First, it isn't about making the DBs better, it is about making the entire defense better.

Second, who is to say that even if they slip next year, they wouldn't have been worse with Schotty? Based on his record, I would bet that this year was either a fluke and/or not a direct reflection of his coaching skills.

Well, Shotty might say they could've been better with him. And we'd have no way of proving him wrong, because he's gone now. You are missing the point I'm making, however.

When you find something that works, you ride it until it doesn't work anymore. Regardless what it looked like in the past. All that matters is what it looks like now, and what we let go started looking pretty good. I hope our DB doesn't suffer as a result.

[sharpe1027]

Well, Shotty might say they could've been better with him. And we'd have no way of proving him wrong, because he's gone now. You are missing the point I'm making, however.

When you find something that works, you ride it until it doesn't work anymore. Regardless what it looked like in the past. All that matters is what it looks like now, and what we let go started looking pretty good. I hope our DB doesn't suffer as a result.

I am pretty sure that I got your point: The DBs did well so all DB coaches stay until they fail. Seems so simple, but yet GMs and HCs wouldn't be paid millions to make these very decisions...

My point? I assume the Packers are being more proactive and putting more thought and analysis into their decisions.

[Patler]

When you find something that works, you ride it until it doesn't work anymore. Regardless what it looked like in the past. All that matters is what it looks like now, and what we let go started looking pretty good. I hope our DB doesn't suffer as a result.

I think the real question is, Was the defensive backfield really that good, or was it just that individuals played well? I know, I know! Let me explain! :D

The backfield at times looked like a mess, with no-name receivers running free and catching passes. One story said MM was absolutely irate with the number of mis-communications that lead to blown coverages at crucial times since the bye week. He put it on the coaches to get it fixed, but they really never did. Game after game the other team put together long drives that took all of just a few minutes as they connected to free receiver after free receiver. Sure, Woodson played well on a man, and Collins had his share of interceptions, and Harris too could lock down a receiver, but as a unit did the d-backfield really get the job done? I don't think so, and that falls on the coaches. They have little excuse because they did have talented individuals with which to work.

It wasn't all just the lack of pass rush either. At times a receiver would simply not be covered at all.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think the DBs were fine. You'll get breakdowns, but it wasn't terrible. Their stats against opposing QBs would seem to bear that out. I also think it would have helped immensely if they had gotten help from the DL. The DBs probably played about as well as you could expect given the ineptitude of the DL and the injuries to entire defense, DBs included.