Meet Lou Spanos

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Lets not get carried away here. Spanos has never been primarily responsible for coaching linebackers before. In Pittsburgh, he was a "quality control" coach. He coached 15 years in Pittsburg and was never promoted to linebackers coach. One would think if he was really so instrumental in the success of the Steelers linebackers, he would have been promoted to LB coach in 2003. Instead, the Steelers went after Keith Butler, who had a less-than-impressive resume with Cleaveland.

I'm not saying Spanos wasn't a good pickup, as we needed someone who could teach our LBs the 3-4, but i think its stretching things to call him a great coach or to give him credit for the steelers defenses. Calling him a great coach is like calling Cerrato a great executive because he "contributed" to a 49ers superbowl team. Spanos could end up being a great linebackers coach, but at this point, he could also be a jim zorn-esque hire: Great at doing one comparitively small job, but horrible when given broader responsibilities.

I think it's a great hire, and your examples are in no way comparable.

Zorn went from qb coach to head coach. Spanos was an assistant linebackers coach under an outstanding coach in LeBeau working on one of the premier linebacking units in the league. He moves up the ladder in the normal progession to Linebacker coach here.

VC was a small part of the SF FO that one the SB, going from a FO job not a direct assitant to the GM. Spanos assisted the linebackers and the defensive coaching staff with game preparation, video analysis and scouting of Steelers’ opponents.

BHA, you have good posts, but I honestly believe, if Cowher were here, and he brought Spanos in, your response would be completely different.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think it's a great hire, and your examples are in no way comparable.

Zorn went from qb coach to head coach. Spanos was an assistant linebackers coach under an outstanding coach in LeBeau working on one of the premier linebacking units in the league. He moves up the ladder in the normal progession to Linebacker coach here.

VC was a small part of the SF FO that one the SB, going from a FO job not a direct assitant to the GM. Spanos assisted the linebackers and the defensive coaching staff with game preparation, video analysis and scouting of Steelers’ opponents.

BHA, you have good posts, but I honestly believe, if Cowher were here, and he brought Spanos in, your response would be completely different.

i'm not opposed to hiring spanos at all - i just think some people are overreacting to his presence as if he's a top-notch, proven linebackers coach - he's not. Zorn was a horrible head coach and he showed us enough to indicate he'd be a horrible offensive coordinator too. there was a reason no other team - even the team he was on, considered hiring zorn as an offensive coordinator. there's likely a reason no one on the steelers staff thought spanos was deserving of being a linebackers coach. when someone does the same thing for 15 years, and doesnt get a promotion, there's generally two possibilities - 1) they are content where they are and dont want more responsibility or 2) they aren't good enough to make it at the next level.

youre right, though. if Cowher had been our head coach and he hired spanos, i would be much more confident in him, because Cowher is someone who worked with Spanos for over a decade and would be well aware of his abilities. Cowher also would very likely not have hired Haslett, another hire i am very, very, concerned about.

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

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

[GridIron26]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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

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

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

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

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GridIron26

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

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

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

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

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

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

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

Nice post. Good points.