Defense 101?

Click the external link to read the Seahawks.net article which inspired me to write this.
I have not written an opinion piece in quite some time, so I thought it was time (with no real news to report) to do so. While this opinion piece may (and probably will), infuriate some, probably mostly my good pal Vin, (who I do not mean to offend), bear in mind that, it is just an opinion based on observation.

For years now, we as fans have been patient, (well mostly), with the current coaching staff, thinking that if they just had the right personnel, the coaching staff could get this team to the promised land; after all, Holmgren has been there before. I too have said repeatedly that, for at least right now, there's no one better available to run this team than Holmgren. I believe that he is at the end of his rope, however, and should really only have this one last season to do something more than first round exits from the playoffs.
It's not really Mike Holmgren that I wish to discuss here, however, but rather, Ray Rhodes.
Let me start by giving a quote from the Seahawk.net article I have linked to through the external link. It's an article which I do not wholly agree with but which, nevertheless, makes some interesting and valid points and which I recommend you all read.

"Joe Theismann made an interesting comment at the beginning of the game (Saturday, January 8, 2005) he relayed a tidbit from an conversation he'd had with Rhodes in which Rhodes maintained that he directs the safeties not to break to the receiver until the ball has left the quarterback's hand. After two years of trying in vain to solve the mystery of Seattle's epidemic late safety help, I finally had my answer. The Rams first touchdown of the game (and the 6-play, 75-yard drive it entailed) was symptomatic of this issue. The Seahawks began the game as they ended it, rushing four and dropping seven, leaving enormous gaps in coverage for Marc Bulger to exploit. The third play of the game, a 52-yard pass from Bulger to Torry Holt with took the Rams from their own 37 to the Seattle 11, happened when Holt slipped through Ken Lucas' coverage and beat a late Michael Boulware. Keep this in mind when you criticize Boulware for breaking late in coverage, he is doing what his coach has directed him to do.

The Rams sole turnover was caused by Ken Hamlin's refusal to do this. On St. Louis' second drive, Bulger threw deep again to Holt from Seattl's 44-yard line. Hamlin did not bite on Bulger's pump fake, he instead followed Bulger's progression and was in place for the interception at the Seattle 4-yard line. This writer would like to thank Ken Hamlin for apparently disobeying his coach and making the right play."

I remember very distictly, Thiesman's comments about how Rhodes was telling his safeties not to break on the ball until it had left the QB's hand, and I remember thinking that, telling a player NOT to play instinctively is the WORST possible way to coach an athlete. Telling Michael Boulware, for instance, not to do the things he had been doing which had put him in position to make so many plays for us last year, seemed to me, the epitomy of stupidity.
As it turns out, the safeties did what they were told, and as a result, were beaten deep time, after time, after time, in that game.
My point is this, if Holmgren is on a short leash, Rhodes should be on a choker chain. Supporters of Ray Rhodes have called into question the overall talent on our defense, and have repeatedly said that he just doesn't have the personnel to work with.
I agree (to a certain extent) that this has been the case, though I would argue that our secondary certainly hasn't been so bad the last few seasons that they should have gotten torched late in so many games, giving up huge comeback, after huge comeback. The talent in our secondary man for man, is actually among the NFC's best, just the fact that the majority of fans have looked at our young talented secondary as the defenses strength, nore than proves that.
So what was the problem with the seconday giving up so many late points? Why was it that the "strength" of our defense was exploited for so many late in the game points? Was the lack of pass rush a part of it? Certainly yes, it was. Were all the injuries to our front seven a part of it? Without doubt! However, I would also argue that when a team has shown a propensity for getting beat in exactly the same way several times, there is more than just a personnel problem. I would argue that Ray Rhodes schemes defensively have been very sub-par, as is evidenced by the lack of adjustments made when an offense begins moving the ball seemingly at will against us.
Ray Rhodes has had this same sort of thing happen to him, not just the last two seasons for us, but in fact, on every single team he has coached. Late game collapses and stoggy, untra conservative schemes have been a trademark of Ray Rhodes defenses wherever he has been.

So what exactly am I saying with all this? Am I saying that Rhodes should be fired immediately, as the writer of the piece I have linked to asserts? No, but I will say this; given the personnel improvements we have made on our defense this offseason, Rhodes has no more excuses for giving up big leads and for failing to figure out how to get to the passer. I believe that Rhodes should be given this one last season to get things right or he should be fired. In fact, I will go so far as to say, that the very first time, this team losses because we gave up a big lead, or because a team was able to do the same thing to us successfully, over and over again, as has been the case, he should be fired immediately, even if we're only two games into the season. Rhodes has not earned the same kind of leniency that Holmgren has earned, he has not won at a big time level the way Holmgren has, and therefore has not proven himself to be winner at all. Therefore, the first time that our defense shows the quirkiness of the past two seasons, he should be removed.

As I said earlier, I do not agree with everything the writer of the linked article said, and I think that he is being somewhat overreactive, however, many of the points he brings up in the article have validity and should be honestly discussed.
I feel that, for this coaching staff, one last, last, last chance is in order, but that is really all, no more failures, and no more excuses are acceptible. This coaching staff has had the time necessary to put together the kind of team that they want, (in fact they have now had two rather large scale purges of players they felt were detrimental), they have drafted or otherwise put together this team, both offensively and defensively, so the argument that the personnel isn't good enough, is invalidated by the fact that, this is the personnel the coaching staff wanted.
Bottom line, no more excuses for failure will be accepted, the time is NOW and if they fail to get it done, then it is time for a change.