Shaw66
-
Posts
9,729 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
On 1/15/2018 at 4:00 PM, Buffalo716 said:
To a point.
Again, everybody runs the same plays to a degree. The difference is some teams (good teams) will add a few more concepts than bad teams
in the west coast offense the verbiage is all memory. To oversimplify, the system uses what is essentially a memory system. On running plays, the same two-digit numbering system as most NFL and college teams is used. Passing plays, however, are typically denoted by the primary receiver’s route, such as Z- in x- hook , while the rest of the players are required to memorize their task. These plays can be 15 words long sometimes longer
The Coryell system is similar to the west coast but relaces the verbiage with the route tree. So you can have a play called 896 and all receivers would know what to do . but the 1 back system has rendered this all but obsolete because you must add in west coast verbiage as well
the erhardt/ Perkins verbiage is based all around the concepts of the offense. So you can have choice combinations , in combinations, flood, etc and they all mean something to everyone when called
I just looked through the first page and a half of posts, and it seems most people except you are making more of this article than it is.
As you say, the article is verbiage, nomenclature. And as you say, regardless of nomenclature, most teams, including the Pats, run the same plays. The interesting point to me was that this system tends to be more QB-centric, that is, it allows the QB to talk about plays in ways that help him think about what's happening. Simply by using one word, he knows what all his receivers are doing on one half of the field. It makes life easier for the QB, and it makes a life a little more complicated for the receivers, because they have to know which route to run depending on where he's lined up in the formation. That is, it off loads some responsibility from the QB to other players. Brady doesn't have to know which wideout is second from the outside and tell the wideout what to do. All he has to know is whoever that wideout is, he's running a particular pattern. And, playing for Belichick, if you're the wideout and you don't know your assignment, you're sitting.
None of this says much about the offensive philosophy. It doesn't say the offense will be run- or pass-oriented. Remember, it's just about how the plays are communicated to the players, not about the nature of the plays.
It's also noteworthy that in one of the articles there was a suggestion that it was time for Daboll to leave Alabama because Saban wants to go to more of a spread-formation college-type offense. In other words, more passing and less running. So I wouldn't be quick to expect Daboll to be a pass-first guy. I think McD is a run-first guy - he's a fundamental-football guy, and I don't think he called up Daboll and asked him how he'd like to run an offense that throws the ball 40 plays a game.
One thing I think about this change is that it's another indication that McD isn't planning on Tyrod being the guy. If he wanted to keep Tryrod around, he wouldn't be changing systems. He'd want to keep Tyrod in the same system for a second season. With a new system being installed, Tyrod has no advantage over anyone else competing for the job.
I think we have to wait and see.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
This is one of the most interesting football reads I've encountered this year.
Four likes.
Much as I hate the Hoodie, fascinating to know his background as the child of a ground-breaking football scout
RIght.
Plus, what it did for me is solidify my belief that football is much more complicated than all of us arm-chair coaches think it is. I mean, how many of us BEFORE EVERY PLAY is first checking if there's a 1- 2- or 3-deep safety set, checking the defensive formation inside the tackles and making a note of the deployment of the backs? That's before the play. Then you have to watch where 22 guys go and note it all. Who does that?
That's why when someone says Tyrod missed this or didn't do that, I don't trust it. The person who says that here rarely understands everything that was going on in a play.
I'm not criticizing anyone. I do it too. We all focus on what we see; my point is that there's a lot that most of us don't see and don't know. Even watching the all-22, we don't know what each player's assignment was.
Take a guy like Brian Daboll. He played football in college, which already puts him way ahead of most of us in football knowledge. For the past 20 years, he's been studying film. He's survived because he worked at it from day 1,. He did well enough after a few years in college to get a shot as a defensive coaching assistant at New England. He was a grunt, and he was breaking down film. He must have been good at it, because after two years Belichick promoted him. Then he got some OC jobs, and then Belichick brought him back. Then Nick Saban hired him; Saban and Belichick are buddies, so you know Belichick told Saban the truth about Daboll and Saban trusted Belichick.
All the while, Daboll was studying details like the details described in this article. He's seeing things, reporting them, and I"m sure eventually making creative suggestions about what to do next.
A guy like that sees detail and has a level of understanding that goes way beyond what I know. Way beyond.
And, by the way, that's why I think 95% of the discussion here and on television, discussion about this player or that, is pointless. Winning and losing is not nearly so much about the relative talent of the players - it's about what the coaches know, what they can teach, and what they can create. The missed tackle that lost the game for the Saints, that wasn't because the guy was a bad player, wasn't talented enough. It was because he was coached well enough, trained well enough. Belichick's safety doesn't make that mistake, and I'm happy to say that McDermott's safety doesn't make that mistake, either. Why not? Because Belichick, and I think McD, teaches his players situational football. Belichick's safety is actively aware of several important requirements on that play and executes accordingly. He knows to do these things, in order of importance: 1. Don't get beat deep. 2. Make the tackle. 3. Don't interfere. 4. Keep the guy in bounds. The Saints guy apparently skipped 1 and 2 and made the play as 3 was the most important point. Well-coached football players don't make that mistake. It has nothing to do with how good the player is. Do some players know these things intuitively? Sure, but most players don't. They're taught, they're trained and they understand it's their job to execute.
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the post. Interesting article from Grantland.
Really doesn't say a lot about philosophy. Just passing terminology.
But I'm happy to have anyone out of the Belichick/Saban tree.
-
1 hour ago, BillsfanAZ said:
I think fans can forget about moving that far up in the draft. The Bills shouldnt give up everything to move up for one player that nobody knows what kind of pro he will be. Even if he is good, the Bills couldnt upgrade anywhere else because they traded away all their picks. I can see the Bills seeing what QB's get past the top ten and if they are going to move up then move up to spots 10-15. It would not cost them a kinds ransom to do so. Also they may only see two QB's worthy of a top 15 pick so they may stay where they are. Between pick 7 of the Bucs and where they Bills pick at 21 there are only two teams that QB would be a need.....Cardinals and Redskins if they lose Cousins. If there was a trade maybe they trade with the Bengals at #12 which could be done for a 1st round pick the following year and a 5th. It all depends on what happens in Free Agency. If the bills sign a Keenum, Bradford, type player then they dont move up at all and see who is there at 21 to groom for a couple years.
I think this is right scenario.
If the Bills sign a free agent QB (Cousins, Bradford, Keenum) they aren't moving up. If they don't sign one AND they see a QB they really like (Mayfield?) they might trade up into the 10-15 range to get him. Otherwise, they'll do the best they can.
Remember, Beane and McD LOVE having picks. They aren't going to want to trade a bundle of picks. That's why I think they spend the money on Cousins.
-
Pats were 5th in points allowed.
-
2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:
Saints lose in the last play because a DB lowers his head and throws a shoulder instead of actually tackling a guy.
One thing I liked about our D: the DBs played good fundamental football. Wrapped up on guys.
That's what I thought when I saw that.
Actually my first thought was Belichick's guys know what their job is. Second thought was McD's guys know. It gave me a warm feeling.
-
57 minutes ago, PIZ said:
I want a coach I like and respect. Marrone doesn't fulfill either.
You know, I agree with this. Marrone's ego is SO big, he's arrogant, and he's often in your face. Now, all those things may serve him well as a head coach, but they don't make the guy very likeable.
-
There are a lot of things that go into coaching. I think Tomlin has a lot of them. He certainly seems to have the respect of his players. They'll follow him anywhere.
But I've always thought he as a lousy sideline coach. Showed it again today. The onside kick was clearly the wrong call. And when he got to the five he should have kicked the field goal.
-
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:
My argument though Shaw is you are only spending the extra picks you have accumulated you are not creating any extra holes. If the Bills spend a lot of 2019 capital on a trade up I would agree the length of time a bad decision can set you back is certainly a year or two longer. But if all they use is their extra ammunition in this draft then I don't buy the creating other holes argument.
I didn't understand that's what you were saying, and it makes sense. But it's sort of saying "look, I just found some money, I'll spend it something bright and shiny, because it's just extra money." That is, you're saying the Bills have something, extra draft picks that they didn't expect to have, so it's okay to burn them to move. I think it makes more sense just to look at what you have - draft picks - and ignore where they came from, just ask yourself what's the smartest thing to do with what I have?
What I have is five picks in the first three rounds, and if I'm smart with those picks (and the GM always assumes he'll be smart with them), I'll have four or five guys playing significant time in 2018. So the question is do I want to trade three of those five guys to take a chance on a QB? And the big problem is that I'm not going to get the best QB prospect, because someone at the top of the draft is going to take him before I can get to him. So I'm giving up three good players to take a shot. And I'll have cap room to sign some free agents to help fill holes.
Or do I spend my cap space on Cousins, have a higher probability of getting a quality starting QB, keep those three guys I can draft, but have no cap room to sign free agents?
Those are the two ways to go, and neither is obviously the right choice. I like the Cousins choice because of the higher probability that you have a top 10 QB in 2018 and going forward. The other way you MIGHT get a top 5 Qb, you might get a top 10 QB, you might get a bust, and in any case you probably don't have really QB play until 2019.
As always, thanks for your comments.
-
7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
No it wouldn't. We took a swing on a Quarterback in 2013 that didn't work out and after riding with him in his rookie year we have won 9, 8, 7 and 9 games the next 4 games.
Missing on Quarterback does not set teams back for years anymore. And if the Bills are spending extra picks they have this year rather than their 2019 picks then the most they are risking is a 1 or 2 year setback with a wrong choice.
Someone else just quoted this and I wanted to talk about this. It's a very good point.
When you pick the wrong guy, whether as a draft choice or as a free agent, he sets you back three years, more or less. Why? Because you have to invest three years in him to know what you've got. If he's the guy you want, you make him the starter and run with him. It's only less if (1) he turns out to be a total bust or (2) somebody like Russell Wilson comes along and surprises everyone.
If the guy you're investing in is drafted, if you're like the Bills and not sitting on a top pick, you have to give up several of your picks, usually a couple of firsts to move up, often three. Giving up those picks means you have three holes someplace else for three to five years, and you have to fill them as well as you can. If the guy you invest in is a free agent, it means you're using cap space, so you can't sign as many other free agents (or you have to lose some guys) as you ordinarily would.
Bottom line, whichever way you go when you invest in a top QB, you're betting some of your short-term future on the guy.
It's different if you're just taking a QB who's available with your pick. That's what happened with Manuel. In fact, the Bills traded down and picked up an extra pick. So the Bills didn't invest a lot to get Manuel, and that's why they were able to be a .500 team even though Manuel didn't work out. The problem with that route is that a guy you're taking with the 16th or 20th pick probably has about one chance in 8 or 10 to be what you need. If he's not at the top of the draft he's a longshot.
-
I'm telling you, Belichick is McDermott's role model. That's why he'd want Daboll.
-
Just now, Royale with Cheese said:
I understand the reluctance to pay Cousins the highest contract at the position when he’s not in the top 5 among QB’s. But that’s what the position commands. Carr and Stafford got their mega deals because of it.
IMO opinion, Cousins is a top 10 QB in a bad organization.
That's where I started. I think he's top 10. On the bubble, but top 10.
The whole point is (1) you're have to overpay him to get him and (2) it's worth it to overpay him if he's actually top 10. Worth it at top 10 or better, a mistake at top 15 or worse.
-
10 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:
You’re always going to overpay for QB’s because of how important the position is.
Cousins will be overpaid just like Jameis Winston will be a few years, Goff and Wentz will follow. Stafford and Carr last year..
And I'd say that it's better than even money that at least one of those is going to be a disappointment, in the sense that he got, say, top 5 money but turns out to be only a top 15 guy. In other words, at least one will be the next Flacco.
2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:Exactly this. Windows are short and patience is a commodity. Take your chance now with Cousins, use the draft to fill needs, hope for the best in 2 years. And since Cousins is significantly better NOW than any rookie QB will be in 2018 (and maybe ever), it's lower-risk than moving up in the first round. Plus if it works out, he's only 29.
Yes.
He'd be an upgrade right now, and you keep drafting QBs. That way you have his replacement on board if Cousins turns out not be THE answer.
-
1
-
-
Here's the SI article. Read it and tell me he doesn't sound like McDermott's man. The two guys live for process.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/11/29/kirk-cousins-washington-redskins-quarterback
One more thing. He won't say it, but I really believe McDermott's role model is Belichick. Belichick has succeeded with process and nerdy QB - a guy determined to win, determined to prove that everyone was wrong about him. That sounds like Cousins.
-
I'll jump back in. A couple of things.
First, to reiterate a point I made earlier, I think there's a difference between overpaying for a QB and overpaying for a position player. If you pay top 3 money to a receiver or a tackle or a linebacker who turns out to be top 10 at his position, you've overpaid and it was a mistake. You could have gotten as effective a guy for a lot less. Like Sammy. The Bills paid two first round picks plus for a guy who performed like several guys they could have gotten with one pick. So that was a mistake.
At QB it's different. If you pay top 3 money for a QB who turns out to be the 10th best QB in the league, it's not a mistake. You're paying too much, but it isn't a mistake, because you couldn't have gotten another guy who's 10th best. They just aren't easy to find.
More importantly, if you have the 10th best receiver, or 10th best offensive tackle, that guy isn't on his own putting you in the playoff conversation year in and year out. If you have the 10th best QB, you are in the conversation.
If you pay top 3 money for a QB and he turns out to be the 15th best AB, then you've made a mistake, because the 15th best QB DOESN'T put you in the playoff discussion.
Yes, whoever gets Cousins will have overpaid for him. But I think it won't be a mistake.
Second, a lot of the discussion has turned to whether Cousins would come to Buffalo. Someone said there's an SI article about what he's looking for and how McD is the kind of guy he'd like. I'll need to go find that article - my sense has been exactly that. Cousins is a guy who LIKES being in a program, a system, where everyone has a role and where he can do his.
I don't think people should overlook the ability of OBD to sell itself now. Terry and Kim are a very attractive pair - they're pleasant, warm, charming, and earnest. The simple fact that they're spending BILLIONS of dollars because they want to do something for Buffalo is pretty impressive. It speaks to their sincerity. Then you get to Bean and McDermott, two guys who are interest, deadly serious and committed. They LOOK like winners. That's a pretty impressive package.
So I think if the Bills decide that Cousins is someone they want, I think they'll be willing to spend and they'll sell themselves quite well.
The Giants, by virtue of tradition and market, would be formidable competition. I don't think they'd shy away from the bidding just because they have Eli. They'd find a way to deal with the cap and compensation issues. The Giants problem is they don't have a coach, and the team actually is in much more disarray than the Bills. The Bills offer a stable package going forward; the Giants are up in the air.
The Broncos would seem to be more attractive. Elway is an attraction. There probably are other things that might make the Broncos a place he'd like.
But let's go back to the Bills for a minute. I think there are some other things, intangibles, that might make Buffalo especially attractive to him. One is the challenge of bringing a championship to the city. But think about this:
Cousins is from Illinois, I think. He went to high school in Michigan, played at Michigan State, and has played pro ball on the East Coast. His parents now live in Florida. I think he's and east coast/midwest guy, and Denver may have little geographic appeal to him.
Moreover, his father's a pastor, he went to a Christian high school, he participated in Athletes in Action in college. McD and I believe Beane are serious Christians - they don't beat people over the head with it, so far as I can tell, but if Cousins is a serious Christian, there's a good chance he's going to feel a connection to McD. And having an owner who lives in Florida where is parents live is another connection.
Not saying it's going to happen, but I don't think it's far-fetched.
-
5 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
His top target Jordan Reed says hello. LT Trent Williams says hello. I could go on.
Both were injured for most of the year.
-
1
-
-
The OP lays it pretty well.
What you have to add is the probability of each of the guys actually making it. Even Rosen is far from a sure thing, and after him there no telling. Burning picks to take that chance is a huge risk.
If I had a top 5 pick I'd take one. If I had a top 10 I'd trade up. Trading p from 21 would be very costly.
-
2 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said:
To say it won’t happen because of money shows ignorance. If McDermott and Beane want Cousins, the Pegula’s will pay what they need to.
That doesn’t mean Cousins will come here but if the Bills decide to pursue him they won’t be scared off by the price tag.
Right. And I'm saying I'm not afraid of the price tag.
-
3 hours ago, Scott7975 said:
If they can get him here I am all for it. Cousins isn't elite level but I believe he is top third level. We have a ton of picks and if the GM is any good they can surround him with good young players. Shore up the oline, get a speedy receiver, and get a good pass rusher in here this team should be able to compete.
Spending 25+ mil on a QB is less hindering to a team then spending a crap load of top draft picks to get one of those QBs that may or may not work out. If we were picking at the top of the draft, I might agree with you. The Bills would have to spend a kings ransom to get to the top of the draft this year. Doing that and picking the wrong guy would set this team back another decade.
A team can get over the cap expenditures. It can not get past wasting a ton of draft picks.
This is a good statement of why it makes sense. It's a question of the probability of getting a qb who is good enough and the cost if you're wrong.
With Cousins there's a pretty good probability that he's good enough and the cost if you're wrong is manageable over about four years.
In the draft, the probability is low if unless you trade way up, and even then it's a crap shoot. And the cost of trading up and getting the wrong guy is really high, because you've lost maybe three first round picks, which are worth three quality starters cheap.
-
3 minutes ago, Batman1876 said:
He’s going to sign the richest contract ever, think 150 over 5 years more if there is s bidding war. Are you ok with spending that?
Yes.
Look, I haven't watched the guy, and I don't know talent like NFL front office guys do, but if I'm right that he's a top 10 guy, then I'd pay that.
You have to have a good QB. Have to. You can win with good young, underpaid guys all over the field. The Pats do it, the Pack does it. If you have a good system and good coaching, you get good young athletes to do their jobs, and you're fine. You're fine, that is, as long as you have a good QB.
I think Cousins is what people thought Flacco was, but they turned out to be wrong. They thought Flacco was a solid to 10 guy but not a Hall of Famer. Now, it turned out Flacco isn't that, but that's what they thought, and that's why the Ravens paid him. I think Cousins is guy people thought Flacco was, and if he is, you're competing every year he's under center. Some years he'll be better than others, but you won't be saying we need a change.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:
Its saying the same thing over and over..but with Cousins, it is all about how much you have to pay for him.
4 years and $70 million or less. Wow, great move for the Bills, sign me up and use those top 4 picks to fill other holes.
5 years $120 millon.....Eh....I think it is overpaying but it is the market rate I guess....OK with it.
7 years $180 million...no way.
Well, it's all in the details. You have to understand the market in the NFL, and I"m not sure any of us does. Even 7 years $180 might be doable, depending on how much is guaranteed. If you could get out after 5 and having paid $130 million, that's probably not too far out of the market.
Cousins is going to get overpaid. The biggest free agent in the market almost always does. I still don't mind having overpaid for Mario - that was the beginning of the change of culture in Buffalo. He didn't play up the level of his contract, but big free agents rarely do.
But QB is different. Qb is the one position where if you don't have a top 10 guy, you're not going to compete. That is, it doesn't pay to overpay for the best guy at any position, but it pays to overpay for a top 10 QB.
So if the Bills get Cousins, there are going to be plenty of people saying the Bills overpaid. His contract will be bigger than QBs who are better. I don't think it matters. It's the only position where, if you have the right guy, it doesn't matter if you've overpaid.
-
2
-
2
-
-
I think the off-season that secures the Bills' future is to write the big check for Cousins. I haven't studied the cap situation, but on the assumption the Bills could find the room, I think that's the way to go.
Why? Two part answer:
1. Looking for a QB in the draft is a crapshoot, even near the top of round 1. Teams have demonstrated for years that it simply isn't easy to identify the right guy in draft. So you're much better off if you can solve your QB problem another way and use your picks to build the rest of the team. That isn't easy to do, but if you can do it, you're way ahead of the game. That's what the Seahawks did - admittedly with a little luck, they solved their QB problem with Wilson in the third round. The result was that they had a lot of picks, in earlier years and for a year or two later, and they acquired a lot of cheap talent in the draft.
So if the Bills can fill the QB slot without burning a lot of picks, that's the way to go. They have those five picks in the first three rounds, which means they can get a lot of good young talent to bolster the team at several positions.
And, if they sign Cousins, they still can take a shot at a decent young QB in the draft where they see value. Maybe they'll get lucky and have a kid on the bench who can grow into the job and eventually take it from Cousins.
2. Why Cousins? Do I think he's a HOF QB? No. But I think you're playing a fool's game if your objective is to get a Hall of Fame QB. To do that, you have to pick at the top of the draft and then hope things work out, because the top of the draft is where Hall of Fame QBs come from. And if you tell me that there's Brady and Watson and Brees, then fine, my strategy plays right into that - pick a QB along the way when you see what you think is a good one.
But in the meantime, you want to compete, and to compete you need a top 10 QB. I've said that for years. After Taylor's first year I said that if he'd keep playing at that level, he'd be the guy. Unfortunately, it's two years later and he hasn't played at the same level, he's dropped to the point where he's an average or below average QB in the league, and that isn't good enough.
Cousins IS a top 10 QB. He's had three good seasons, altho 2017 fell off a bit. His passer rating comfortably averages in the top 10. He has good size. He seems smart and in control of the game. He sees and is willing to make the throws Taylor doesn't and isn't. Actually, in some ways he reminds me of Kelly. Not the best thrower, but good enough. Tough. Competitor.
So pay him. Get him in Buffalo. It means you're not going after any other high priced free agents, because you won't have the cap room. But that's okay. Benjamin is the only who will be coming off a contract soon who will get a big contract. Watkins and Dareus are gone. McCoy won't get another huge deal.
Load up on talent in the draft, and go to work.
If you have Cousins on a six-year deal, you can draft an occasional QB. If you find one who looks like the guy, then you cut Cousins late in his contract and eat some cap room, if necessary to keep the youngster. And if somehow Cousins emerges into a true star, then you trade the youngster you drafted, like the Pats have done over and over again, and you ride Cousins for the next 8-10 years.
Make me GM for a day and that's where I'm going.
-
10
-
-
1 hour ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
You have an impressive grasp of the obvious.
I didn't say it that way but yes, I am wondering if it is really true that only 5-8 people on the planet, can play the position competently.
I don't think the number is that low, but I think the concept is correct.
Why don't I think the number is that low? Tom Brady. He's the luckiest athlete in the world. He had less than the perfect physical skill set - no serious size, mediocre arm, no foot speed. But he had brains, the right temperament, and he ended up with exactly the right coach for him. They were a perfect match. Anyplace, and he might have been a journeyman QB for 10 years, bouncing around the league, having a couple of good seasons. Instead, he grew with Belichick, he took in everything Belichick had to teach him, he work his butt off, and he became Tom Brady.
Favre too. Wasn't the right fit in Atlanta, but in GB they nurtured him the right way, gave him some rope, and voila, HOF!
So there probably are a few guys who don't make it because they just didn't land in the right place at the right time. Who are they? I don't know, because they didn't land in the right place at the right time and therefore didn't blossom. A guy like Blaine Gabbert, maybe. Give him a couple of years behind Peyton with a good coach, maybe. Heck, maybe Andy Dalton is two notches better playing for Andy Reed. Even EJ, in the right circumstances. Maybe Flacco.
So I'd guess if there are 5-8 who are doing it, there may be as many as a half dozen more who are in the league but for whom the pieces didn't come together.
And in any case, it's more than 5-8 IN THE WORLD. There are guys in MLB and the NBA and playing soccer at elite levels with the combination of natural abilities that would have made them excellent QBs, if their childhood focus had been football instead of some other sport. Take a guy like Chris Paul, watch the intelligence he plays with, the recognition and decisiveness. He could be a QB. I'm sure MLB has some. Derek Jeter, for example.
These people are elite. That means there aren't many of them. If your thesis were true, given how many guys want to play in the NFL, the league would be full of them. The simple fact that there aren't a lot of these guys proves your thesis wrong. They're elite, they stand alone for a reason, and the reason is that they have a unique combination of natural abilities most don't have, they've worked hard, they were this sport and they got the right opportunities.
-
5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
I won't quote the whole of your post for sake of repetition but it is a very sensible series of considerations. I think scheme and play calling have a share of the blame for a poor offense - they always do but the execution was the bigger problem that I saw based on my study throughout the year.
In conclusion you are certainly right that the picture is far more complicated than many on here have painted it and there are a multitude of factors that need to go into this decision on Dennison. I would be less surprised than many here if he was retained... and less outraged by that decision too.... though I probably lean towards replacing him. Too many have simplified it to "offense bad, regression, fire Dennison".
I'll be surprised if they go away from him, but not disappointed, because that will mean they're quite sure he can't do the job. I'd guess that the most likely reason they'd dump is if, as someone suggested earlier, the guy or guys McD really wanted are now available. I don't think that will happen because I believe that McD has studied and is a believer in all the truisms about team excellence, including the one about continuity. I haven't heard McD on the subject, but I would be amazed if he didn't think that continuity of scheme and coaching is critical to team success. I think that will make him reluctant to make a change unless he believes there's a clear and indisputable better choice out there.
In other words, he won't fire the guy because he's concluded he can't do the job. He'll fire him if there's a clear upgrade available.
Daboll's preferred offense and QB.
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
As I think about it, what's particularly interesting is the comment in the article about week to week changes.
You mention that it's hard to know whether the Pats are run- or pass-oriented from week to week. The article talks about how it's easy in any week to install variations off the concepts. That is, the receivers learn that this week when they're running this concept, they make an in-cut instead of an out-cut. The nomenclature doesn't change; it's still fundamentally the same pattern, but the receiver breaks it off a different way.
Again, this spreads the responsibility - instead of the QB needing to change how he calls the play so he gives the receiver all the info he needs to run his route, the QB calls the same play and the QB knows this week the cut is different. It puts more responsibility on the receiver, because he has to have learned the weekly change, too.
The more I learn about what Belichick does, the more I marvel at his ability to train his players to be active thinkers on the field. They all have to understand what's going on in this play or that play, they all are expected to understand how the play may be run differently at different times in the game. All the complexity he sees gets down-loaded to players - the players only learn the principles that govern their play and the play of the guys around them, the QB has to learn it all. Belichick has remarkable success getting his players to think along with him.
Just because Daboll was worked in the system doesn't mean that he can get players to perform that way. However, I think McD imposes the same kind of expectations on his players as Belichick does, so maybe Daboll is a good fit. We'll see.