RichmondRedskin88

Next Coach?

Recommended Posts

On 10/28/2019 at 8:45 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

Have we ever needed Cavanaugh?  Has Cavanaugh ever done anything?  Does anybody know?

 

Cavanaugh is a damn good coach (phrasing not to be confused with 'damn good' culture). Super Bowl-winning OC, and his tutelage was key in masking a lot of Sanchez's deficiencies (and they were legion) with the Jets when they were showing up in the Conference Championship while we were all trying to decide which teams to root for that week because the Skins weren't in it.....again. Also, aside from BB, Cavanaugh was the only coach who was advocating for his team to draft Brady. The Ravens have always had a doggone good FO in terms of talent evaluation, but they dropped the ball on that one; should've listened to Cavanaugh, who wanted to take Brady before the 6th when he was ultimately drafted by the Pats. The problem, as is often the case for the Skins, is not fully utilizing the talents of those who are in the building. We've done it with free agents, and we do it with coaches. Instead of utilizing Cavanaugh as we should, Gruden essentially decided he, himself, could do damn near everything. As a first-time HC, no sir, you could not. And then here comes O'Connell. Now THERE's your more relevant question. Have we ever needed O'Connell? Has O'Connell ever done anything? Does anybody know? It's a relevant question, given how much hype there is about him when he hasn't done diddly squat anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been listening to Keim's praise for KOC's play calling against the Bill's, particularly building Haskins's confidence and getting him out of the huddle. And it for me to thinking, when will we see KOC's offense? Could he have already simplified some of Jay's complex calls? 

 

Or what I'm really wondering about is if KOC stays on next year to teach Haskins and be OC, would he have to wait til Jan to write his own playbook? And if that's the case, how raw of a deal is this? Did Jay let him change the playbook from last year or two years ago? To this, I'm guessing so because we heard that McVay did, but McVay had more experience than KOC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I've been listening to Keim's praise for KOC's play calling against the Bill's, particularly building Haskins's confidence and getting him out of the huddle. And it for me to thinking, when will we see KOC's offense? Could he have already simplified some of Jay's complex calls? 

 

Or what I'm really wondering about is if KOC stays on next year to teach Haskins and be OC, would he have to wait til Jan to write his own playbook? And if that's the case, how raw of a deal is this? Did Jay let him change the playbook from last year or two years ago? To this, I'm guessing so because we heard that McVay did, but McVay had more experience than KOC. 

 

From what Hoffman and others have said, they have had a package all along for Haskins.  I don't get the impression it's changed.  Czaben said they simplified the call names where instead of calling in the play in full, they just give him a number which he reads off of his wrist band the accompanied call.   

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how you can praise an offense that is run heavy but has more 5-step drops in it than play action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a Standig article today.  I admit I don't know a lot about O'Connell but what from what I've read, I am intrigued.  But I do have a bias towards the younger-innovative minds (at least in the theory) types.  i like what I've seen too as to O'Connell's personality. 

 

 

Screen Shot 2019-11-07 at 9.42.41 AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we don't at least interview Eric Bienemy to pick his brain about the development of Mahomes then we are completely clueless as an organization....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

If we don't at least interview Eric Bienemy to pick his brain about the development of Mahomes then we are completely clueless as an organization....

Bienemy is my choice for HC.

13 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

From a Standig article today.  I admit I don't know a lot about O'Connell but what from what I've read, I am intrigued.  But I do have a bias towards the younger-innovative minds (at least in the theory) types.  i like what I've seen too as to O'Connell's personality. 

 

SIP, on another forum someone was saying Rex Ryan wants the job.  KOC was one of the QBs on his roster when he was with the Jets.  Does SnyderAllen try and hire a DC guru HC like Rex and keep KOC as his OC.  Long, interesting offseason awaits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all know the next coach will be a Bruce puppet.  I don't think Dan will really be involved in the process much.  Dan will let Bruce hire another coach.

 

If Snyder was doing the hiring we would hear more rumors than the Tomlin one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

You all know the next coach will be a Bruce puppet.  I don't think Dan will really be involved in the process much.  Dan will let Bruce hire another coach.

 

If Snyder was doing the hiring we would hear more rumors than the Tomlin one. 

 

If Bruce is not released from this organization after the season I'm officially done with this team because it would be clear as day that Dan doesn't care about improving. I'll still come here because I like a lot of people on the boards, but I won't bother watching anymore games or giving a damn about their transactions. 

 

A person can only take so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

You all know the next coach will be a Bruce puppet.  I don't think Dan will really be involved in the process much.  Dan will let Bruce hire another coach.

 

If Snyder was doing the hiring we would hear more rumors than the Tomlin one. 

The best thing about Bruce "puppets" is that they eventually grow a backbone. We saw it with Shanny and with Gruden. We saw Cal ask for full control (kinda don't believe it, but I can understand it if it went down). So it becomes more of a thing of what will be the straw for the next coach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

The best thing about Bruce "puppets" is that they eventually grow a backbone. We saw it with Shanny and with Gruden. We saw Cal ask for full control (kinda don't believe it, but I can understand it if it went down). So it becomes more of a thing of what will be the straw for the next coach. 

 

From what I read Shanny wasn't a Bruce puppet at all.  They were two separate targets from Dan.  Shanny at least on paper had authority on personnel not Bruce. 

 

Jay and the Grudens certainly though were tight with Bruce at the time.  Chris Russell said though Jon Gruden years back at some point no longer cared much for Bruce and had no interest in bringing Bruce to the Raiders and Russell suspected the Bruce to the Raiders rumor was orchestrated by Bruce himself.

8 hours ago, RWJ said:

Bienemy is my choice for HC.

SIP, on another forum someone was saying Rex Ryan wants the job.  KOC was one of the QBs on his roster when he was with the Jets.  Does SnyderAllen try and hire a DC guru HC like Rex and keep KOC as his OC.  Long, interesting offseason awaits.

 

I like Bienemy in theory but I got to dig into it some.  I like Kris Richards.  In theory I like O'Connell. As for Rex Ryan I wouldn't hate it, I got to think about it.

 

Right now, I don't think I want Callahan but I'll digest it more over the season so maybe I'll change my mind.  I don't want Bowles.  I like Bowles as a D coordinator but not a HC.   Ditto Gregg Williams. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you saw the end of the Raiders game last night? All I could think about was how bad we spanked them on national tv a couple of years ago and how far they have come as an organization since putting John Gruden in charge. I was blown away by Gruden going to the stands and hugging the black hole fans after such a great win. Derek Carr almost cried when speaking about his love for the Raider organization given all he's been thru there. It actually gave me some hope that things can/will get better here if Tweedle Dumb can get the right coach in here and give him the power to shape the roster. I'm not crowning the Raiders but they have a lot of promise heading into Vegas. It's sad to see those Oakland fans losing their team too, but you wouldve never known it by watching last night. 

I hope jackass Snyder was watching cause Oakland actually gives me hope that the NFL can return to DC in the not so distant future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does this myth persist that Bruce hired Shanny? Danny wanted Shanny from the moment he was fired in Denver. He tried to get Shanny to come in 2009 during the season.  When Zorn was canned, everyone knew Shanny was getting the job. Bruce's hiring was secondary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 4:44 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

From a Standig article today.  I admit I don't know a lot about O'Connell but what from what I've read, I am intrigued.  But I do have a bias towards the younger-innovative minds (at least in the theory) types.  i like what I've seen too as to O'Connell's personality. 

 

 

 

This is an interesting article on KOC. I want to catch the TV interview he did as well. It seems like he's walking a line between a few different philosophies. I honestly hope that he understands the challenges that coaches like Cal, Gruden, Belichick, McDaniels, etc. have faced. From Gruden's long plays and just play clock issues as well as the problems he seems to have had with different personalities. McDaniels and his attitude (****y) problems, Cal being too old school, or too resistant to change, some coaches overestimating their rosters or not caring enough about the other side of the ball or special teams, practices being too soft or too tough, etc. 

 

I have a problem with these younger coaches though. Maybe I'm just old and biased. But it seems that the NFL is always looking for this new hot thing, and they REALLY want to emphasize the passing game. We see that in how they are constantly changing the rules to make it more and more difficult to play defense against the pass. That said, there are several variants of "passing" offenses, including the WCO offense, the run-and-shoot offense, and the spread offense, each with their pros and cons.

 

But I still think that the second most important person who can take a game over is a game-changing running back. We saw it last year with AP here, we see it in Dallas with Murray and then Zek, we're seeing it in Carolina with Mac, etc. And its not like these teams are winning SBs like the Brady's, Mannings, Roths, Wilson, etc, but they are keeping their teams in games and helping to develop young QBs. I mean I remember the whole Dak with Zek vs Dak without Zek and it was an amazing comparison. I think this was a big problem with Gruden. He seemed to ignore the running game, except to keep balance. It was never something he leaned on like we did with Portis.

 

And I don't care about how much the game has changed, Gibbs showed that he could take 10+ years off, come back into a new game that had changed, and still put out a philosophy of running the ball first to win games. Gruden showed that same thing last year with AP. So I hope that KOC is not this anti Cal type person that Galdi was trying to make him seem like based on this interview. A caller (I think Pauli - dag this guy calls into a lot of shows), called him on it saying that KOC gave the same response on TV but in more detail and talked about it. If Guice/Love can be a backfield to make us something similar to Philly in the early 200s with Ricky Waters & Charlie Garner and Haskins can be our version of McNabb, then I'll be happy. But if his philosophy is of a Houston Oilers w/ Warren Moon and no real RB, then I say hard pass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

And I don't care about how much the game has changed, Gibbs showed that he could take 10+ years off, come back into a new game that had changed, and still put out a philosophy of running the ball first to win games. Gruden showed that same thing last year with AP. So I hope that KOC is not this anti Cal type person that Galdi was trying to make him seem like based on this interview. A caller (I think Pauli - dag this guy calls into a lot of shows), called him on it saying that KOC gave the same response on TV but in more detail and talked about it. If Guice/Love can be a backfield to make us something similar to Philly in the early 200s with Ricky Waters & Charlie Garner and Haskins can be our version of McNabb, then I'll be happy. But if his philosophy is of a Houston Oilers w/ Warren Moon and no real RB, then I say hard pass. 

 

Not sure if I am reading you right?  Is your main point you aren't digging the PFF, Football Outsiders, Warren Sharp theory of how modern age offenses work best -- and prefer the old school Marty ball types?  Or is it you think our roster so plays to that Marty Ball theme so you want a HC that in your mind caters to it?

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Not sure if I am reading you right?  Is your main point you aren't digging the PFF, Football Outsiders, Warren Sharp theory of how modern age offenses work best -- and prefer the old school Marty ball types?  Or is it you think our roster so plays to that Marty Ball theme so you want a HC that in your mind caters to it?

pretty much. 

 

Is not that I prefer them, I just think they're oversimplified. I think teams with good backs (should) use them, and teams with good QBs should use them, and teams that don't have a good QB should lean more on their back because its easier to find a good back than it is to find a good QB. If we've got a back who's a Barkley who can do it all then sure, but if we've got a back who's a gound and pound CP type then we do that. I loved what Gruden was doing with Thompson in ?2017? as a third down back with the screens and routes, but I don't think he liked the AP style play, which i think can be effective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thinking Skins said:

pretty much. 

 

Is not that I prefer them, I just think they're oversimplified. I think teams with good backs (should) use them, and teams with good QBs should use them, and teams that don't have a good QB should lean more on their back because its easier to find a good back than it is to find a good QB. If we've got a back who's a Barkley who can do it all then sure, but if we've got a back who's a gound and pound CP type then we do that. I loved what Gruden was doing with Thompson in ?2017? as a third down back with the screens and routes, but I don't think he liked the AP style play, which i think can be effective. 

 

I get the point.  I agree you don't want Keenum throwing the ball 40 times because he isn't good.  But alas in this day and age -- everything being equal a good passing game defeats a good running game.   Not always but often enough.  Football Outsiders, Sharp among others have shown that in different forms.  The Giants have arguably the best RB in the game or close enough yet they suck. 

 

I think its' just hard to hide poor Qb play.  You ultimately need to find a QB.  This organization has learned that point that hard way. 

 

 

passerratings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Skinsinparadise, those are good numbers but they just don't add up. Galdi talks about how a lot of running stats are based on a victory formation type of runs. But in the same argument a lot of passing stats (including some of our TDs this year as Russell showed) are in garbage time against prevent or just trying to end the game stats. 

 

But whats the difference between "passer rating" of a Dak with Zek and a Dak without Dek?

 - Look at last night. Derek Carr didn't win that game. Philip Rivers lost it with 3 ints, and Gordon was playing well but they threw it 31 times.

 - Cowboys / Giants - Zek beats Barkley and Cowboys win

 - Seahawks / Bucks - Wilson is an MVP, but Carson also had 100 yards. 

 - Chargers / Packers - Gordon had 80 yards and 2TDs. 

 - Ravens / Patriots - Do I need to go here? 

 - Raiders / Lions - Again Jacobs and pair that with a critical Stafford int. 

 

I'm not saying its a 100% foolproof philosophy but teams with a good running game can lean on those games to take pressure off a QB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

@Skinsinparadise, those are good numbers but they just don't add up. Galdi talks about how a lot of running stats are based on a victory formation type of runs. But in the same argument a lot of passing stats (including some of our TDs this year as Russell showed) are in garbage time against prevent or just trying to end the game stats. 

 

But whats the difference between "passer rating" of a Dak with Zek and a Dak without Dek?

 - Look at last night. Derek Carr didn't win that game. Philip Rivers lost it with 3 ints, and Gordon was playing well but they threw it 31 times.

 - Cowboys / Giants - Zek beats Barkley and Cowboys win

 - Seahawks / Bucks - Wilson is an MVP, but Carson also had 100 yards. 

 - Chargers / Packers - Gordon had 80 yards and 2TDs. 

 - Ravens / Patriots - Do I need to go here? 

 - Raiders / Lions - Again Jacobs and pair that with a critical Stafford int. 

 

I'm not saying its a 100% foolproof philosophy but teams with a good running game can lean on those games to take pressure off a QB. 

It is not the QB but the defense that has less pressure as this strategy tends to keep them off the field more.  A big thing is that you also are more likely to be in position to steal a game or two. While the Washington Snyders have not done it yet, they have been in Q4 to steal wins against some good teams. Several of our 2005 and 2007 wins came because we were just a FG or a lucky play away.  We got a false positive on Zorn in year 1 in part due to a great running game. Our good running game the first half of last season covered a lot of issues both on defense and offense. The running game covered a lot of the Jags issues in 2017 which showed last season. This is the real problem since the Snyders don't have to be much better to finish the season 6-10 and we may see no attempt to solve the rot as Allen keeps making that "we're close" argument and Snyder (along with many Skins fans) keep buying it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

It is not the QB but the defense that has less pressure as this strategy tends to keep them off the field more.  A big thing is that you also are more likely to be in position to steal a game or two. While the Washington Snyders have not done it yet, they have been in Q4 to steal wins against some good teams. Several of our 2005 and 2007 wins came because we were just a FG or a lucky play away.  We got a false positive on Zorn in year 1 in part due to a great running game. Our good running game the first half of last season covered a lot of issues both on defense and offense. The running game covered a lot of the Jags issues in 2017 which showed last season. This is the real problem since the Snyders don't have to be much better to finish the season 6-10 and we may see no attempt to solve the rot as Allen keeps making that "we're close" argument and Snyder (along with many Skins fans) keep buying it.

I agree, and I think this is why there's so much turmoil between the mid tier teams, who's in the play and stuff. There's not much change in terms of the top teams, it takes a really good qb to get there, but getting to a mediocre level is ok and just takes a running game. 

 

The passing game stuff isn't false, but it's just feeding the narrative. It's like, they go into it with the questions like "how can I convince teams to pass more" and then they find and show the stats that justify this. But it doesn't make a running game irrelevant. Just like the rules made it easier to pass, they're not making it harder to run. In fact as we showed in 2017 against the Rams, they're actually making it easier to run because we're seeing more nickel and more smaller lbs on the field to cover the pass, and as Brandon Jacob's did to Landry, it makes it just possible to run those smaller guys over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

@Skinsinparadise

I'm not saying its a 100% foolproof philosophy but teams with a good running game can lean on those games to take pressure off a QB. 

 

Agree but the argument isn't that extreme one way or another.  I'd have to be a moron to argue that the running game doesn't help the QB.  I am arguably the biggest cheerleader on the board for both Guice and Peterson.  So this isn't me hating RBs or hating running games.  It's about who is the lead actor and who is the supporting actor?  Everything helps the bottom line.  The freaking kicker and special teams can help take the pressure off of a QB, too.  It's not an all or nothing argument. 

 

Maybe the easiest way for me to frame this is to do it multiple choice.   For me.

 

A.  Offense built MORE on a strong passing game.  

B.  Offense built MORE on a strong running game.

 

I'd go with A.  But more is the operative word. 

 

A.  Marty ball -- ball control offenses

 

Versus

 

B.  Spread prolific passing offenses

 

Who is more likely to win?

 

I'd go with A.

 

Most of the new school thinkers on offense aren't arguing that the running game doesn't help.  They argue that the running game isn't the lead dance anymore and its prime function isn't to build the lead but to ice the lead in the 2nd half of the game.  Like any stats, there are exceptions, it's not all the time, but more than most. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Who Wants to Be Dan Snyder’s Next Coach ?

 

This is a franchise that had the entire cabal of young, star offensive coaches on one staff (Kyle Shanahan, Sean McVay, Matt LaFleur) and burned it down. This is a franchise that had the offensive rookie of the year at quarterback and burned it down. Even when they trip into something worthwhile, they can’t help but fiddle with the product until the situation is completely untenable.

 

Someone will try and fix up the house because they always do. Coaches are a naturally adventurous—and confident—lot. Someone will believe that all the other guys just couldn’t handle a strong personality on the floor above. But at some point they’ll realize the same thing every other person who tried and failed here has realized: There’s only so much you can do to the place without evicting the owners.

Edited by FrFan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Agree but the argument isn't that extreme one way or another.  I'd have to be a moron to argue that the running game doesn't help the QB.  I am arguably the biggest cheerleader on the board for both Guice and Peterson.  So this isn't me hating RBs or hating running games.  It's about who is the lead actor and who is the supporting actor?  Everything helps the bottom line.  The freaking kicker and special teams can help take the pressure off of a QB, too.  It's not an all or nothing argument. 

 

Yeah, but I'm not trying to really convince you to change your mind. I just think that SECOND most important person on the offense is the RB (particularly among the ball handling positions), but that finding a good RB is MUCH MUCH easier than finding a good QB, so I think building an offense around a RB is an easier philosophy than around a QB. 

 

Your statement about MartyBall vs "Spread prolific passing" offenses is just what you say it isn't - the extremes. Most offenses in the league aren't either of those. Most offenses have components of the set {OL, WRs, RB, TE, and QB}, but not the complete set. And add to that, they are at varying degrees of experience. Running Back is the easiest position in the league to come in and dominate as a rookie. 

 

In my opinion, these new school coaches are just another phase in the evolution of the NFL, but they're not the new norm. The fact still holds that on a day like last Sunday against Buffalo or 2 weeks ago against SF when the weather's a factor the passing game becomes almost irrelevant, and global warming aside, if we have a snowy game in December or January I want my team to be able to run the ball. 

 

Do I think that a team built around say a Guice as the main weapon with little passing attack will be a super bowl threat? Nah. But do I think that that same team led by an Alex Smith or a Kirk Cousins or a Case Keenum or a Colt McCoy or a Dwayne Haskins can be a playoff threat? Yep I sure do.

 

And whats more is that you hear the opposite about running backs than you hear about QBs. We never hear about the "running back learning curve" or the "let him make some mistakes and learn from them" or any of that. If you have a good running back, you can immediately build around him and build an effective passing game. So since we have AP right now, and Guice, Love and Thompson, we have the ability to build an offense around that, and go from there. 

 

But its ok if you disagree. I just hope KOC doesn't hate the running game as much as Gruden did, and can build a better system than Gruden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Started watching a few videos and I kinda like Eric Biemieny.  Seems to have energy, persistence to doing things the right way, and he is learning under Andy R.  Coming from a great offense with a good young QB is a good start.  Makes me feel old because I remember watching him when he played.   I'm at least curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.