The 12th Commandment Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Considering the remarkable turnaround in the way we've been playing since he came on board, I think he should be a serious consideration. He's not chopped liver, the guy is a really good OC if nothing else. I'd think he'll be our Rooney candidate but I think we should honestly be considering keeping him for continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Who knows? Maybe there has been. I think the question you have to ask though is have we improved enough and do we think we are heading where we ultimately want to be. Are we heading to good or great? If you believe you can get to great with Zorn, Lewis, or Blatche then you definately stay put. If you think you can get to good, then you have to pause. If you think that there is a ceiling on these guys and they are around their limit, then you have to go elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myzhi Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Is Sherman nice standup guy? He should have chance at the prize. Nice shouldn't always finish last... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 The continual going somewhere else has made a whole generation of Skins players live well below their expectations IMO. Heading where you ultimately want to be takes longer than two years if it's to be done with any lasting effect. I hate the thought, and I'm sure the players do more, that we're going to have to learn a whole new set of nomenclature and way of doing things yet again. We have a new generation that's just getting it together and now they too are going to have to relearn just when they were starting to get it. I love the Bruce Allen move and I think Cerrato was the biggest problem. Zorn has been de-manned for all practical purposes so he has to go for Danny to save face but why not stay with what seems to be working instead of going through the whole process yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wysknz1 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Too old. Sorry, but why hire someone that will have to be replaced soon? Even if he were to stick around 3-4 years. Then we change again. I'm not even too hip on Shanahan. I know he's not old old, but I really was looking forward to young, like what denver got. If he pans out, which I think he will he could be there 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Sherm is presently 67 years old. Somehow I don't think that he wants the endure the rigors of a HC position, and even if he entertained thoughts, his stint wouldn't last long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichmondRedskin88 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Sherm is presently 67 years old. Somehow I don't think that he wants the endure the rigors of a HC position, and even if he entertained thoughts, his stint wouldn't last long. As stressful as the Redskin Head Coaching job is the man would die on the sidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Danny: Sherm you are pretty old, you ever thought about head coaching. Sherm: Not much. Danny: (Gets on phone) Hey Roger we just fulfilled the Rooney Rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 Let the coordinators be the fire and brimstone. You need a coach who has the experience to see the whole picture and I think Sherm's been overlooked before. He wanted to get back in football or he wouldn't have come here and he's obviously a good play caller so what difference does it make if he's not a young guy? He's not that old anyway, is he? He looks like a young 67 in his pictures. Marve Levy was in his 60's during the Bills runs back when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Considering the remarkable turnaround in the way we've been playing since he came on board, I think he should be a serious consideration. He's not chopped liver, the guy is a really good OC if nothing else. I'd think he'll be our Rooney candidate but I think we should honestly be considering keeping him for continuity. Sherm Lewis is a WCO purist, which, in my mind, labels him negatively as a coach lacking the ability to innovate and keep up with the competition. It's possible his playcalling was a minor factor in the improvement, but giving him major credit is absurd, in my opinion. The playcalling itself cannot make that much difference. If you think it can, name another playcalling specialist in the history of the NFL, who was given as much credit as many fans want to give Sherm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 Sherm Lewis is a WCO purist, which, in my mind, labels him negatively as a coach lacking the ability to innovate and keep up with the competition.It's possible his playcalling was a minor factor in the improvement, but giving him major credit is absurd, in my opinion. The playcalling itself cannot make that much difference. If you think it can, name another playcalling specialist in the history of the NFL, who was given as much credit as many fans want to give Sherm. Sometimes being a layman is helpful in not clouding your judgment with too many analysis'. We couldn't get it done, he came on board, and then we could. That's what I'm basing my opinion on, not the success or lack thereof of past play callers in different situations. Really, we don't know what all he was doing and I doubt it was simply showing up on Sunday to call plays without any other interaction all week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Sometimes being a layman is helpful in not clouding your judgment with too many analysis'. We couldn't get it done, he came on board, and then we could. That's what I'm basing my opinion on, not the success or lack thereof of past play callers in different situations. Really, we don't know what all he was doing and I doubt it was simply showing up on Sunday to call plays without any other interaction all week. I pretty much agree with that. The improvement curve seems way to linked to his entrance. I'm sure there are multiple factors, but I think in this case that things that walks, flys, and quacks might just be a duck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I wouldn't be opposed to keeping him on staff if we're staying with this type of system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Sometimes being a layman is helpful in not clouding your judgment with too many analysis'. Maybe, but more often than not, that's an excuse for a simplistic analysis. We couldn't get it done, he came on board, and then we could. That's what I'm basing my opinion on, not the success or lack thereof of past play callers in different situations. Despite the fact that a playcaller has never had that much impact before in the history of the game, and despite a list of other potential causes, you are assuming that Sherm's playcalling was the major cause and not coincidence or mostly coincidence. Really, we don't know what all he was doing and I doubt it was simply showing up on Sunday to call plays without any other interaction all week. Since we don't know of any other valuable contributions, we should not give him credit for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seriously Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Danny: Sherm you are pretty old, you ever thought about head coaching.Sherm: Not much. Danny: (Gets on phone) Hey Roger we just fulfilled the Rooney Rule. now that was funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 Maybe, but more often than not, that's an excuse for a simplistic analysis. lol, in my case that is all there is. Despite the fact that a playcaller has never had that much impact before in the history of the game, and despite a list of other potential causes, you are assuming that Sherm's playcalling was the major cause and not coincidence or mostly coincidence. Yes, that's what I'm doing. Care to proffer another explanation? (I don't doubt you will!) The only other explanation I can come up with is that Zorn's O finally was taking root anyway and he just wasn't up to the task of play calling. Even if that's the case, if the next three games continue the trend it would have to hard for anyone to think a big change is called for in coaching or play calling. Since we don't know of any other valuable contributions, we should not give him credit for them. It's seems simplistic to me to think that's all he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 KAOSkins -- Care to proffer another explanation? Better execution: Starters playing hurt were replaced by healthy backups who did better. Better execution by Campbell and the young receivers. Better execution due to random luck: two great catches by Yoder in the end zone for Sherm; two drops in end zone for Zorn. Coaching adjustments: -- After the loss to the Lions, Blache's defense stopped allowing opponents long, clock eating drives which kept our offense on the sidelines -- Sellers deployed as TE was better than Sellers blocking in stretch plays -- Game plan pared down to eliminate pass plays that are more difficult to protect. Sherm's playcalling could have been a minor factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 The playcalling itself cannot make that much difference. If you think it can, name another playcalling specialist in the history of the NFL, who was given as much credit as many fans want to give Sherm. Playcalling specialist? That's a fairly narrow market how many coaches have been in Sherman Lewis situation here? How about all the hot OC/playcaller that got HC or became hot prospects because of their offense/playcalling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Playcalling specialist? That's a fairly narrow market how many coaches have been in Sherman Lewis situation here? With Joe Gibbs, we had Jack Burns and Don Breaux in Gibbs Two. They had titles, nobody knew their weekday duties. We knew that they were in the booth on Sundays. How about all the hot OC/playcaller that got HC or became hot prospects because of their offense/playcalling? Name one. OCs on winning teams, like the Patriots, are sought after because of their knowledge of the scheme somebody wants to duplicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 How about all the hot OC/playcaller that got HC or became hot prospects because of their offense/playcalling? Name one. OCs on winning teams, like the Patriots, are sought after because of their knowledge of the scheme somebody wants to duplicate. You know the names as well as i do. Why bother asking if you're already claiming that they aren't sought after for their playcalling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 You know the names as well as i do.Why bother asking if you're already claiming that they aren't sought after for their playcalling? I haven't claimed anything. I asked you to name someone. Obviously, you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTribeVA Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 All this talk of playcalling vs. execution is getting pretty ridiculous. Obviously both have factored into the improved play. The backups have brought health and fire to the starting lineup, and the improved playcalling is putting everyone in better positions to make plays, thus instilling confidence. I'd be all for Sherm Lewis interviewing for any offensive coaching position. He definitely has an understanding of where our guys need to be on the field and how to play to their strengths, so having him around through a transition could definitely benefit the new staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 All this talk of playcalling vs. execution is getting pretty ridiculous. Obviously both have factored into the improved play. The backups have brought health and fire to the starting lineup, and the improved playcalling is putting everyone in better positions to make plays, thus instilling confidence.I'd be all for Sherm Lewis interviewing for any offensive coaching position. He definitely has an understanding of where our guys need to be on the field and how to play to their strengths, so having him around through a transition could definitely benefit the new staff. While I agree with this, I think Sherm Lewis has proven to be a good play selector calling plays from Jim Zorn's playbook. Someone sitting in a booth calling plays someone else has written without being around the team or coaching is a far cry from being a head coach right now. I'm not sure he even wants the stress, no matter how much money Dan offer's, unless it's ridiculous like 5 million or so... To even suggest Sherm Lewis be mentioned as head coach is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 With Joe Gibbs, we had Jack Burns and Don Breaux in Gibbs Two. They had titles, nobody knew their weekday duties. We knew that they were in the booth on Sundays.Name one. OCs on winning teams, like the Patriots, are sought after because of their knowledge of the scheme somebody wants to duplicate. Don Breux and Jack Burns were coaches who coached positions and the offense... We know Sherm Lewis' weekday duties and it does NOT involve coaching any players... He simply calls plays on game day from Jim Zorn's playbook... obviously he meets with the other coaches during the week and discussed plans of attack and such other schemes. Is it really their scheme? Who's scheme is it, I'm just curious. Charlie Weiss was supposedly a genius, but didn't show much in college... although he may not have been a good HC or recruiter and may still be a "genius" OC... Then Pats had their best season with Josh McDaniels... although Randy Moss might have helped... Is it the Pats scheme or Tom Brady?? IMO... I'm going to say they would have been good without Tom Brady, but they wouldn't have won any Super Bowls if no Tom Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Don Breux and Jack Burns were coaches who coached positions and the offense... In Gibbs Two, they were not position coaches. They must have had some coaching responsibilities, but the point here is their main task was calling plays on Sunday. I think Jack Burns took over from Gibbs, then Breaux became primary -- although I might have that reversed. Is it the Pats scheme or Tom Brady? It's not one or the other. It's both. All QBs are scheme dependent. Some schemes are QB friendly, some are not. The QB has to fit the scheme if he's going to deliver on his full potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.