|
On January 06 2011 03:49 lambnrice wrote:
Cutler is all physical gifts. His mechanics are pretty awful. His decision making is pretty awful too. You ever see him take a 7 step drop and heave a 40 yard pass off his back foot into double coverage?
Yeah he's what gunslinger meant before Favre redefined it as playing way past your prime
Dude's def got skills but the other shit is just meh at times
|
On January 06 2011 04:03 Southlight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 12:37 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Not surprisingly, Pat Bowlen is continuing to be Pat Bowlen and going after an offensive HC, instead of a defensive coach. Like Mike Tomlin (DC, but he didn't touch defensive stuff at all)
I agree with your post pretty much everything you said, but Mike Tomlin did tweak the defense a bit in Pittsburgh. They run some hybrid cover 2 stuff now that they never had under Cowher. It's more Lebeau incorporating a lot of Tomlin's ideas and personnel choices into his own scheme and Tomlin being content to give input rather than take over. I think that is the best coach/coordinator dynamic you can have with a new coach and an established coordinator.
On January 06 2011 04:10 Hawk wrote:
Yeah he's what gunslinger meant before Favre redefined it as playing way past your prime
Dude's def got skills but the other shit is just meh at times
I know the whole "this guys got a little Brett Favre in him" is way overplayed, but it's so true in Cutlers case. Guy is almost getting by almost purely on raw physical talent at this point. It's entirely possible to win with a guy like that, even dominate, but they sure as shit don't age well.
|
all i can say is a NE v PIT afc championship game seems to be pretty unavoidable at this point. i would love to see PHI win the superbowl so McNabb can cry himself to sleep everynight for the rest of is life lol.
|
On January 06 2011 04:03 Southlight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 12:37 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Not surprisingly, Pat Bowlen is continuing to be Pat Bowlen and going after an offensive HC, instead of a defensive coach. I'm not passing judgement on Mularkey either way, just to make things clear. However that aside I'm of the strong belief that it doesn't really matter what "sort of mind" a head coach has a background in, because it's more important that the HC be able to motivate, manage, and find good people to surround himself with. Like Mike Tomlin (DC, but he didn't touch defensive stuff at all) and John Harbaugh (special teams lol). Almost every good OC/DC that becomes an HC and actually bothers dealing with the OC/DC side of the ball gets skewered for it, and they also tend to do horribly because they're not actually being an HC. If Bowlen (slash Elway) believe Mularky is "HC material" then so be it, but I don't think you should be writing the guy off on the grounds that he's an offensive mind because 90% of the time that doesn't mean anything. Another example is Joe Gibbs. People laughed at him for being a "CEO" in his second stint in Washington but by keeping a level head regarding team construction and surrounding himself with good people (and trusting them to do their job), they were doing pretty well when he retired and everything fell back down.
Agreed. Brian Billick was a guy with an offensive background, and he won a Super Bowl with a team that got by on amazing defense.
|
On January 06 2011 04:18 Aquafresh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 04:03 Southlight wrote:On January 05 2011 12:37 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Not surprisingly, Pat Bowlen is continuing to be Pat Bowlen and going after an offensive HC, instead of a defensive coach. Like Mike Tomlin (DC, but he didn't touch defensive stuff at all) I agree with your post pretty much everything you said, but Mike Tomlin did tweak the defense a bit in Pittsburgh. They run some hybrid cover 2 stuff now that they never had under Cowher. It's more Lebeau incorporating a lot of Tomlin's ideas and personnel choices into his own scheme and Tomlin being content to give input rather than take over. I think that is the best coach/coordinator dynamic you can have with a new coach and an established coordinator.
Ah, yeah, that's true.
|
My issue is with the amount of power the coaches in Denver have to make personnel decisions, not with his scheming and player motivation. I am aware that Bowlen said that the next coach will not have complete control, but to what point the GM will be making decisions is unknown as of now. And, further, who that GM is is unknown as of now. So, if they continue to have a coach/GM, then they're going to be fucked by the personnel decisions made, since every damn offensive coach seems obsessed with drafting young offensive talent, and bringing in defensive players in the twilight of their career.
My issue is with Bowlen's management of the team, not with Mularkey's ability (or lack of) to lead a team. But he did suck in Buffalo.
On January 06 2011 04:40 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 04:03 Southlight wrote:On January 05 2011 12:37 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Not surprisingly, Pat Bowlen is continuing to be Pat Bowlen and going after an offensive HC, instead of a defensive coach. I'm not passing judgement on Mularkey either way, just to make things clear. However that aside I'm of the strong belief that it doesn't really matter what "sort of mind" a head coach has a background in, because it's more important that the HC be able to motivate, manage, and find good people to surround himself with. Like Mike Tomlin (DC, but he didn't touch defensive stuff at all) and John Harbaugh (special teams lol). Almost every good OC/DC that becomes an HC and actually bothers dealing with the OC/DC side of the ball gets skewered for it, and they also tend to do horribly because they're not actually being an HC. If Bowlen (slash Elway) believe Mularky is "HC material" then so be it, but I don't think you should be writing the guy off on the grounds that he's an offensive mind because 90% of the time that doesn't mean anything. Another example is Joe Gibbs. People laughed at him for being a "CEO" in his second stint in Washington but by keeping a level head regarding team construction and surrounding himself with good people (and trusting them to do their job), they were doing pretty well when he retired and everything fell back down. Agreed. Brian Billick was a guy with an offensive background, and he won a Super Bowl with a team that got by on amazing defense.
You're actually helping me by bringing him up. Billick was brought in to bring the Minnesota offense to the Baltimore Ravens; he failed miserably, and was criticized for the lack of offensive production from his team. Marv Lewis was hired from that team for his defensive "genius" and has utterly failed to produce a team like that in Cincinnati.
Again, Rex Ryan was hired because of his defensive schemes, which he brought with him to the Jets. The same can be said of Steve Spagnuola to the Rams. He has brought his defensive mentality with him to the Rams. Lovie was brought in for his defensive schemes, and he brought the C2/T2 with him to Chicago.
It's only okay if the HC can completely ignore his personal biases and bring in guys that may not agree with him, but work better for their personnel, most coaches will try to force a scheme... In any case, to say it doesn't matter what their mentality is seems distinctly incorrect to me, considering the list of evidence to the contrary that I have provided. The problem, though, isn't that they bring their schemes, it's that they spend too much time trying to fix what isn't broken. The good HC's don't do that, but most guys are not good HC's, and do what the Josh McDaniels of the world have done.
In summation, the reason I say bring in a defensive coach is that he will leave well-enough alone on the offense, hire someone to coordinate it, and bring his expertise to the ailing defensive side of the ball, then hire someone competent to coordinate it. But, the offensive coach will likely spend the beginning of his tenure putting his offensive system into place, and collecting players to run his system, while the defense continues to be ignored, because there aren't enough draft picks to go around.
|
On January 06 2011 03:49 lambnrice wrote:
Cutler is all physical gifts. His mechanics are pretty awful. His decision making is pretty awful too. You ever see him take a 7 step drop and heave a 40 yard pass off his back foot into double coverage?
That isn't entirely fair. The dumb 7 step drops are the innovation of Martz and often the pass off his back foot is due to an inability to step up thanks to the worst offensive line in the NFL. Also, he has improved a lot this year. He is a lot more willing to take the sack rather than just heave it in the direction of a receiver like he used to do whenever he was in trouble. Also, I've seen a few passes thrown with touch this year instead of Cutler just throwing it as hard as he can on every play. That being said, he definitely relies too much on his ridiculous arm strength and his decision making can still get a lot better. Hopefully a few years in a row in the same system will do him a lot of good.
On January 06 2011 05:08 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:My issue is with the amount of power the coaches in Denver have to make personnel decisions, not with his scheming and player motivation. I am aware that Bowlen said that the next coach will not have complete control, but to what point the GM will be making decisions is unknown as of now. And, further, who that GM is is unknown as of now. So, if they continue to have a coach/GM, then they're going to be fucked by the personnel decisions made, since every damn offensive coach seems obsessed with drafting young offensive talent, and bringing in defensive players in the twilight of their career. My issue is with Bowlen's management of the team, not with Mularkey's ability (or lack of) to lead a team. But he did suck in Buffalo. Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 04:40 Ferrose wrote:On January 06 2011 04:03 Southlight wrote:On January 05 2011 12:37 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Not surprisingly, Pat Bowlen is continuing to be Pat Bowlen and going after an offensive HC, instead of a defensive coach. I'm not passing judgement on Mularkey either way, just to make things clear. However that aside I'm of the strong belief that it doesn't really matter what "sort of mind" a head coach has a background in, because it's more important that the HC be able to motivate, manage, and find good people to surround himself with. Like Mike Tomlin (DC, but he didn't touch defensive stuff at all) and John Harbaugh (special teams lol). Almost every good OC/DC that becomes an HC and actually bothers dealing with the OC/DC side of the ball gets skewered for it, and they also tend to do horribly because they're not actually being an HC. If Bowlen (slash Elway) believe Mularky is "HC material" then so be it, but I don't think you should be writing the guy off on the grounds that he's an offensive mind because 90% of the time that doesn't mean anything. Another example is Joe Gibbs. People laughed at him for being a "CEO" in his second stint in Washington but by keeping a level head regarding team construction and surrounding himself with good people (and trusting them to do their job), they were doing pretty well when he retired and everything fell back down. Agreed. Brian Billick was a guy with an offensive background, and he won a Super Bowl with a team that got by on amazing defense. You're actually helping me by bringing him up. Billick was brought in to bring the Minnesota offense to the Baltimore Ravens; he failed miserably, and was criticized for the lack of offensive production from his team. Marv Lewis was hired from that team for his defensive "genius" and has utterly failed to produce a team like that in Cincinnati. Again, Rex Ryan was hired because of his defensive schemes, which he brought with him to the Jets. The same can be said of Steve Spagnuola to the Rams. He has brought his defensive mentality with him to the Rams. Lovie was brought in for his defensive schemes, and he brought the C2/T2 with him to Chicago. It's only okay if the HC can completely ignore his personal biases and bring in guys that may not agree with him, but work better for their personnel, most coaches will try to force a scheme... In any case, to say it doesn't matter what their mentality is seems distinctly incorrect to me, considering the list of evidence to the contrary that I have provided. The problem, though, isn't that they bring their schemes, it's that they spend too much time trying to fix what isn't broken. The good HC's don't do that, but most guys are not good HC's, and do what the Josh McDaniels of the world have done. In summation, the reason I say bring in a defensive coach is that he will leave well-enough alone on the offense, hire someone to coordinate it, and bring his expertise to the ailing defensive side of the ball, then hire someone competent to coordinate it. But, the offensive coach will likely spend the beginning of his tenure putting his offensive system into place, and collecting players to run his system, while the defense continues to be ignored, because there aren't enough draft picks to go around.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this either. I agree that the offensive coaches tend to need more different talent in order to implement their schemes, but you still see teams where the new coach comes in and decides that they want to switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4 or vice versa and wind up having to spend a lot of time picking up new defensive players to make their desired scheme work. You also mentioned that each coach has their own scheme that they want to run and some need specific talent to get there. For example, Lovie has spent a ridiculous amount of time/draft picks trying to find safeties and dlinemen to run his C2. I guess it is true that this kind of problem happens more often with the offensive minded coaches though.
I think what makes a really good head coach is the ability to get the most out of your players and fit your scheme to what your players do best. Once you make sure that the team's focus is in the correct areas and you are maximizing your strengths, let the coordinators do their jobs and go out and win games. Far too often I see a team utterly misusing their talent because they are being forced into some scheme which just doesn't fit their players (the Redskins this year come to mind). These teams rarely do well.
|
@Lemon,
I'm not saying it doesn't help, obviously, but I just feel writing someone off as an "offensive coach" tends to be overdone because their tendencies are often overrated. It helps if they're good, sure, but if the Broncos were to hire Mularkey as HC, bring in Piolo as GM (and actually give him GM powers) and then hire Lebeau as DC they would be okay... with obviously Mularkey the HC being the weakest link (until proven wrong, because he was pretty bad in Buffalo). Because the man making the personnel decisions would be a pretty good GM, and the DC would be a proven, good head; the question becomes whether the HC is willing to hand off the personnel decisions to the good GM and how much of an ear he'll give the DC. Obviously then he has to weight that ear with the ear of his offensive coordinator and/or himself but... that's a HC issue, not an offense issue.
I'm not sure those hirings and failures really support you so much as they support me - people overrate coaches based on their successes (or perceived successes) as coordinators, but my point was that usually it doesn't matter. And it didn't, in those cases. Certainly their OC/DC resume helped them get hired, but owners hiring coaches for their expertise on any side of the ball usually get disappointed, because that's not what HCs should be doing. Pittsburgh didn't hire Tomlin because he was doing great as a DC in Tampa; they most likely gave him a look because he looked to be doing a good job (doesn't hurt to know what you're doing!), but they hired him because they felt he had HC material. And props to Pittsburgh because they do a damn good job of finding good HCs.
|
I honestly don't think any of us are disagreeing here, we're just stating different parts of the same point in a way.
Qatol, I understand that Lovie had a long time to do that, as Spagnuola will in St. Louis. My point is that the offense is/was set before they fired Shannahan, and they brought in an offensive guy that fucked it up. I think the offense is still the strong point (needs a QB), and that the new offensive HC will do similarly to McFuckhead (because he's not good at his job either). Basically, I'm afraid that a third consecutive offensive coach will do what the two previous coaches did, which is continue to tweak/improve the offense, and ignore the defense.
I agree that if they were able to do like KC did it'd be a great situation, I just doubt Bowlen's willingness to do that.
So, I'm not really disagreeing, more so voicing my concerns with Bowlen's trend in hiring, I guess.
|
|
|
But if they didn't get that play, they wouldn't have lost in the Super Bowl!
|
That was a big play, but not Tyree big. I think equally big was Favre's retarded heave in OT, or late in the fourth. I don't remember when, but that really fucked the Packers.
|
On January 06 2011 06:32 Ferrose wrote:
But if they didn't get that play, they wouldn't have lost in the Super Bowl!
*punches himself in the face*
|
On January 06 2011 06:45 KOFgokuon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 06:32 Ferrose wrote:
But if they didn't get that play, they wouldn't have lost in the Super Bowl! *punches himself in the face*
Hahaha, I totally missed that. Great burn, Ferrose.
|
On January 06 2011 06:42 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
That was a big play, but not Tyree big. I think equally big was Favre's retarded heave in OT, or late in the fourth. I don't remember when, but that really fucked the Packers.
Are you talking about that one Wild Card game when Farve, who NEVER lost at Lambeau in the cold, threw a pick six in OT against Seattle?
|
On January 06 2011 06:50 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 06:42 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
That was a big play, but not Tyree big. I think equally big was Favre's retarded heave in OT, or late in the fourth. I don't remember when, but that really fucked the Packers. Are you talking about that one Wild Card game when Farve, who NEVER lost at Lambeau in the cold, threw a pick six in OT against Seattle?
No, Matt Hasselbeck threw that for Seattle. He said right before that they" want the ball and [were] going to score." It was actually the Wild Card game of that same season. The Packers only home playoff loss was against Atlanta.
In that same game vs the Eagles, Favre chucked a ball down field like 50 yards to no one in particular and was intercepted on it. I think it was their first (and only) OT possession of that game.
|
On January 06 2011 06:50 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 06:42 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
That was a big play, but not Tyree big. I think equally big was Favre's retarded heave in OT, or late in the fourth. I don't remember when, but that really fucked the Packers. Are you talking about that one Wild Card game when Farve, who NEVER lost at Lambeau in the cold, threw a pick six in OT against Seattle?
aint that the other way around, with Baldie's 'we're gonna get it... and we're gonna win!' comment?
either way, mitchell's the tard saying that's an all time play, not I. Read his comments, theyre just too insane to not read. the man talks so much, but in his four spectacular seasons, he's had as much as jerry rice in his best year
|
On January 06 2011 06:55 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 06:50 Ferrose wrote:On January 06 2011 06:42 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
That was a big play, but not Tyree big. I think equally big was Favre's retarded heave in OT, or late in the fourth. I don't remember when, but that really fucked the Packers. Are you talking about that one Wild Card game when Farve, who NEVER lost at Lambeau in the cold, threw a pick six in OT against Seattle? No, Matt Hasselbeck threw that for Seattle. He said right before that they" want the ball and [were] going to score." It was actually the Wild Card game of that same season. The Packers only home playoff loss was against Atlanta. In that same game vs the Eagles, Favre chucked a ball down field like 50 yards to no one in particular and was intercepted on it. I think it was their first (and only) OT possession of that game.
Wait what? How do I remember that wrong? -_-
|
You know that play is a love-hate play for me because that was the first time they threw to me the whole friggin’ game.
Gold. It's like he's the best receiver in the whole NFL in his mind.
Right when I caught the pill, I kind of knew I had the yardage right away. I looked at the sticks and to see where I was at and I knew I got it. I felt like Michael Jordan hitting a last-second shot or Tiger Woods sinking a 50-foot putt.
Damn, this guy is so clutch.
|
You can't blame a guy for wanting the ball, regardless of his skill level. And it's not like anyone on that particular team stood out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
