OC - Scott Turner incoming

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Some have a negative connotation of a HC hiring people they are comfortable with because of the Tampa connections from the past.    But by and large, I get it.  Yeah I don't love passing over a Wade Phillips for Joe Berry.  But we haven't seen those types of moves at least not, yet. 

 

So I wanted to ask you about this since you mentioned it. You said you work in your professional life with groups that are put together specifically to take on a task. Im curious how that works out. Like do you notice that the extra steps skipped in learning who each other are, strengths, working style and continuity really help put them ahead of a newly formed squad that doesn't know much about each other?  I wonder if that ever leads to complacency. Or a lack of competition because everything is already known from the jump. 

 

I havent had the opportunity to put my own team together in my professional life yet, though im getting closer to that. And I have been thinking about how to handle it when it do (its an inevitability at this point). I like to think I would do something similar to what Obama did with his cabinet. Not making this political, just an example, so if this triggers anyone please just move on, its not my point. But what O did was put together a team of his political rivals that shared a common goal, but were not afraid to push back and say 'this is what I think would be better'. It worked to some success for him, and I think I would prefer to be that kind of leader myself. But having never had a supervisor who works that way, and never actually being able to do it in my professional life, im not sure how successful something like that would be. 

 

Then apply that same thing to a coaching staff. I actually understand why Ron would not want to do that here in DC. There is nothing from the past you want to hold on to or emulate. It was all bad. And so if you are going to come in and change everything, you are going to need help while you steady the ship. You dont need to be worried about what is happening in every room when your main goal is the right the ship, so you have people you know are already on the same page with you. I get it 100% in this case. So I guess what Im asking you is just theoretical and only really because you said you have some experience in it. 

 

sorry thats alot

 

 

[KDawg]

47 minutes ago, Llevron said:

But what O did was put together a team of his political rivals that shared a common goal, but were not afraid to push back and say 'this is what I think would be better'. It worked to some success for him, and I think I would prefer to be that kind of leader myself. But having never had a supervisor who works that way, and never actually being able to do it in my professional life, im not sure how successful something like that would be. 

 

So, I'll take a stab at this before SIP slides in and proves he knows more about this than I do

 

I don't know that there is a right or wrong way. Hiring rivals is dodgy. People are... fickle. And true rivals, people who may have been personally hurt by you, despite being on the same page, is a slippery slope.

 

But then I think about defining terms and I come to the conclusion that enemy = person who you have/has wronged you and could potentially be a threat, whereas a rival is someone who you disagree with but have respect for.

 

So then I go through my thought process again... And I am still not sure I want someone I disagree with regularly on my team, let alone a team of people I disagree with on a common basis.

 

I have not had a chance to hire my own staff, either. But I've been close several times in head coaching positions. I had gotten to the stage where I assembled a staff, twice, in the case I was hired. Other than those opportunities, I was never really interested in being in the head role, these positions fit me. One of them I had, until another coach, who's son(s) went to the school (and who's son(s)) played in the NFL and now XFL, applied for the job. It was a spot where recruiting mattered and he won out... Which I can't gripe, as he is also an excellent coach and a great man. But up until that, we were moving in the direction like I was going to get the position. So I went through a process myself.

 

So what did I look for:

 

People who aligned similarly as me from a philosophical and team building process. People who knew me, at least well enough to know my style. People who were flexible in their beliefs, but smart enough to be resistant to change for the sake of change. People who weren't afraid to question decisions, but also people that I knew would respect decisions that I made in the end and continue to help us work towards a common goal. This is why I wouldn't rely on a "rival" in those roles. If we disagree, I make a decision and you turn on me, then I have undermined myself. 

 

After I had installed my system (I would oversee the totality of special teams, defense, offense, recruiting [private school, so you're looking for enrollments], and in-game I'd look for openings, make suggestions to the coordinators [who could veto me, but if they make a different decision and it doesn't work I'd want to understand their rationale] and manage the personnel/clock.) my role would transition. At no point was I going to call plays. So my offense and defense would have been dictated by my OC and DC hires. My job, there, was to look for holes and fix them. It was also to install a common terminology. Little things people don't think about... I had coached on teams where the OC called a defender lined up on the shoulder of the center a shade, and the DC a 1-technique. It's not all that confusing, but for HS kids who are just learning the intricacies of football, it makes things more confusing than necessary. And there are examples of this across the board. Even route patterns and concepts were different for some OCs/DCs I worked with on the same staff.

 

That stuff is overlooked.

 

The people I initially would bring in would be the people I knew and trusted. Minus perhaps a position coach who my people knew and trusted and recommended. After the initial install, though. Where I was sure I had the right people in place, I would be much more open to bringing in "outsiders" to indoctrinate. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by KDawg

[Bunny Kelly]

I think I remember from an interview a while back Haskins saying Meyer coached him hard in college & that is what he responded well to, people getting in his face etc.

 

Club Jay was obviously the opposite to this hence he didn't appear to respond to it, if this was true then the tighter ship under coach Callahan could have had as much to with Haskins improvement as KOC?

 

RR initial comments about liking DH but him needing to step up are very similar to what Callaghan said when he got the reigns, obviously Haskins is further in his development at this stage but I'm guessing those comments are the way make sure he doesn't rest on his recent improvements

 

 

And to get back on topic, any info on personality wise we are getting from Turner or Zampese? 

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

So, I'll take a stab at this before SIP slides in and proves he knows more about this than I do

 

I don't know that there is a right or wrong way. Hiring rivals is dodgy. People are... fickle. And true rivals, people who may have been personally hurt by you, despitte being on the same page, is a slippery slope.

 

But then I think about defining terms and I come to the conclusion that enemy = person who you have/has wrong you and could potentially be a threat, whereas a rival is someone who you disagree with but have respect for.

 

People who aligned similarly as me from a philosophical and team building process. People who knew me, at least well enough to know my style. People who were flexible in their beliefs, but smart enough to be resistant to change for the sake of change. People who weren't afraid to question decisions, but also people that I knew would respect decisions that I made in the end and continue to help us work towards a common goal. This is why I wouldn't rely on a "rival" in those roles. If we disagree, I make a decision and you turn on me, then I have undermined myself. 

 

 had coached on teams where the OC called a defender lined up on the shoulder of the center a shade, and the DC a 1-technique.

That stuff is overlooked.

 

The people I initially would bring in would be the people I knew and trusted. Minus perhaps a position coach who my people knew and trusted and recommended. After the initial install, though. Where I was sure I had the right people in place, I would be much more open to bringing in "outsiders" to indoctrinate. 

 

That all actually makes alot of sense. Like as far as execution and actual work being done, you would want to be on the same page 100% and with not much room for variables if any at all. Football being an execution type of profession, where your results actually matter so much more than the plan, I can see little things like the "shade" or the "1tech" making a difference in learning and that extending to performance. Where 1 extra second thinking can result in a loss. Typically we are a results driven society anyway, so maybe I need to rethink this a bit. 

 

Maybe the planning phase is where more competing ideas would be acceptable. Like between a GM and a HC but eventually they settle on a goal that they both think is best. But like you alluded to that requires alot of trust that we are both working toward the same goal. Lots to think about here. 

[Skinsinparadise]

I was just listening to Joe Banner who worked with Rivera, Scott Turner among other hires.

 

He likes Rivera a lot.  His one concern is does he put too much on his plate, he doesn't think most coaches operate well when they do it all.  He's a strong personality he says but not very confrontational.  He's a little concerned that he might be too into surrounding himself with people he's comfortable -- saying you want to have some people like that but some people who you haven't worked with before.  He was critical for example of letting Schaffer go if that's what goes down, saying he's really good at his job. 

 

He thinks Del Rio is a good hire at D coordinator.

 

He knows Scott Turner.  He thinks he's a sold hire but nothing special.  He says in spite of his age, if you are thinking you are getting a youngish wiz kid inventive type -- that's not Scott.  He was dancing around it a little but it wasn't hard to see that he's not blown away by the dude.  He flat out suggested Scot wasn't as good hire as some of the others.  He thinks he's just ok.  Not bad.  Not great.

 

He likes Zampese a lot as Qb coach.  He started gushing when the conversation moved from Scott to him.

 

Overall he likes what they are doing, he likes Rivera from his experience dealing with him.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[MariusVT]

I now introduce to you the 2020 Washington RedPantherskins.  I am cautiously optimistic but I want to see an improvement on the field before I even consider putting on any skins gear or remotely considering buying something that puts money into Daniel's pocket.

[skinny21]

3 hours ago, ntotoro said:

In all fairness, that sample window was so narrow, I don’t even know if a stiff breeze would get through it. Haskins went from just plain awful to literally 1.5 games where he looked like an NFL starter. Nothing more.

Because of the state of the Eagles and Giants defenses are the time, I’m not putting too much stock into this... but Haskins was rated like top 3 in the league over those 2 games (ie, better than just starting caliber).

[ntotoro]

Just now, skinny21 said:

Because of the state of the Eagles and Giants defenses are the time, I’m not putting too much stock into this... but Haskins was rated like top 3 in the league over those 2 games (ie, better than just starting caliber).

 

Believe me... I'm taking the competition and where they were at those times into account when tempering how I feel about him. He wasn't playing against Our Lady of the Worthless Miracle, but he sure as hell wasn't playing Baltimore, either.

[HTTRDynasty]

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

So I wanted to ask you about this since you mentioned it. You said you work in your professional life with groups that are put together specifically to take on a task. Im curious how that works out. Like do you notice that the extra steps skipped in learning who each other are, strengths, working style and continuity really help put them ahead of a newly formed squad that doesn't know much about each other?  I wonder if that ever leads to complacency. Or a lack of competition because everything is already known from the jump. 

 

 

Sometimes yes.  Sometimes not as for how well it works.  If I had to pick a side, I'd pick the side of comfort with working with people you are familiar with but there are drawbacks to that, too.  I am fortunate that my friends in the business are mostly really good at their jobs.  So I don't have the Joe Barry-Wade Phillips dynamic much cooking in how I operate.

 

 I used to run campaigns.  Now, I just do the communications.  So I used to be the guy who would put the teams together.  Now I am one who is brought by the person running the team to do the direct mail.   And like a sporting event, your job is to help win.  it can be tense and the media sometimes covers it just like a sporting event.  So it does have some parallels to sports.  I actually enjoy sports much more than politics (I can tell some stories that would turn off plenty about what happens in politics) but that's a different story.  Like sports there is a lot of nepotism in the business.  It used to bother me -- now I just realize it just comes with the turf. 

 

When I started in the business, I didn't care too much about familiarity and just wanted the best people I can find.  But what I've learned (as many as my colleagues did), it can get tense and the product can come off scattered and unfocused if you have different cooks in the kitchen with different philosophies.  Then you got people sometimes with competing agendas which can lead to scapegoating among other things.   

 

Part of the reason why I despise Bruce Allen is I've seen many dudes like that in my business.  People that will run you over if you get in their way either directly or behind your back.  And you get consumed with managing your position in the campaign  and surviving versus focusing on helping the candidate to win.

 

If I am working with a team I know, typically who are also friends of mine.  I know at the very least they get how I like things and I get how they like things.  And it's much easier to manage any outside drama because everything is copacetic on the inside of the organization.   In an environment where there is a win or loss looming and you got built in tension based on that fact alone -- over time (I and many of my colleagues) really place a high value on minimizing stress and distractions and focusing on the bottom line.  That's much easier to do with people you know will have your back. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Koolblue13]

4 hours ago, Probos said:

 

Great come back bro -- super creative,...good job!

Thanks. Glad you got the joke.

[Llevron]

28 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Sometimes yes.  Sometimes not as for how well it works. 

 

If I am working with a team I know, typically who are also friends of mine.  I know at the very least they get how I like things and I get how they like things.  And it's much easier to manage any outside drama because everything is copacetic on the inside of the organization.   In an environment where there is a win or loss looming and you got built in tension based on that fact alone -- over time (I and many of my colleagues) really place a high value on minimizing stress and distractions and focusing on the bottom line.  That's much easier to do with people you know will have your back. 

 

See this is why I like asking you guys stuff. You and KDawg are basically saying the same thing. It could work, but the balance of being rivals and trusting is hard to get right, basically. And that you can avoid a whole set of issues by working with people you know, and thats if thats how the business works anyway, then it helps if you use it to your advantage rather then not. 

 

I appreciate the feedback gents. One of the things I like most about ES are these random lessons I get 

[Bunny Kelly]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

See this is why I like asking you guys stuff. You and KDawg are basically saying the same thing. It could work, but the balance of being rivals and trusting is hard to get right, basically. And that you can avoid a whole set of issues by working with people you know, and thats if thats how the business works anyway, then it helps if you use it to your advantage rather then not. 

 

I appreciate the feedback gents. One of the things I like most about ES are these random lessons I get 

 

The downside of this is group think, if you everyone has the same perspective then you can all be missing the same thing, while you want everyone to be able to work together you do need fresh blood not to get stuck in a rut

[SoCalSkins]

Basically KOC was Dan's dude, Dan's KOC if you will. Ron couldn't outright dismiss Dan's KOC immediately. So he inspected him then teased him for a couple days, but he was never going to let him enter his coaching staff. That would have been a nonconsensual penetration of his staff by Dan's KOC. Ron wasn't having it.

[SkinFanInMinn]

1 hour ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

 

Wasn't this at the end of the year?  I know they lost the last several games.  I'm guessing being behind that much may have skewed the numbers somewhat.

[Vanguard]

I don’t think anybody here was saying OConell was great.  It could have been Yo Semite Sam calling the plays, didn’t matter.  I think people just wanted continuity with Haskins.

[joeken24]

Scott Turner seems to be a no frills, down to earth football guy. I was watching his first called game against the Falcons. Actually saw a freaking pick play in the red zone for a touchdown. What a ****ing concept. Lots of crossing routes which I like. He had a nice mix of plays.  

 

[SoCalSkins]

Just now, Vanguard said:

I don’t think anybody here was saying OConell was great.  It could have been Yo Semite Sam calling the plays, didn’t matter.  I think people just wanted continuity with Haskins.

 

But if Haskins isn't Ron's priority and even his QB why does it matter? His words and actions pretty much show that's the case. This is a replay of Patrick Ramsey with Joe Gibbs. Some people are going to be very upset...

[Thinking Skins]

13 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I stopped my Rocky at 2.  

And I thought so highly of you. 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[mistertim]

3 hours ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

incorrect. Ron never wanted KOC. He would have never hired him as I stated. Albert Breer confirmed it.  Those are the facts. Therefore starting with those facts and KOC still was retained, it would have to involve meddling. Nothing about that argument is flawed.
 

You either can’t handle being wrong or me being right or are jealous of genius or a combination of those. Too bad. I was 100% vindicated. So in the future just accept my words as gospel. Thanks. 😂
 

 

 

Dude, you have no clue what Ron did or didn't think about KOC; it isn't a "fact" unless Rivera comes out and says it. What is it with you and stating something as fact as long as you believe it and one other person has said it on Twitter? You did the same thing with Haskins when one person said that there were guys in practice who didn't pick him off when they probably could have. And suddenly that one person saying that turned into some sort of absolute and unassailable proof of your belief that Haskins was a 100% bust and there could be no question about it because guys constantly don't intercept him in practice (or are told not to)...because one person said it once. 

 

But you've since changed your tune about Haskins somewhat. Which is weird, because you said before that Haskins was a bust, plain and simple. It was a fact. Anyone who said differently was an idiot or had no clue what they were talking about. It cannot be questioned. Except when it can be....but only when the infallible source (aka you) says it can be. It's like you're some sort of football fundamentalist nutter. 

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

15 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

What has Scott Turner proven? I have no problem moving on from KOC but using the reason that he did not have enough experience can't be the reason since Scott has less. So why is Scott a better candidate? 

 

Not directed at you - more a continuation - 

 

I have no problem with Scott if that's who Ron R wants. But let's not pretend it's because he had a better resume than KOC. He has a longer resume but no more OC experience - in fact over a 15 yr period, his first chance at OC at any level was the last 4 gms of this season. And he did a pretty crappy job of it then - in fairness it was under less than ideal circumstances but the same could easily be said for KOC. Also, Turner, dad or not, has never lasted more than 3 yrs at one place and that was just one time - the Vikings who kicked him to the curb despite coaching up several QBs including Keenum with Bridgwater out, but as QBs coach not OC.  

 

I really wanted a grizzled veteran. But in Ron we trust for now. I will root my ass of for Scott to be awesome! 

 

One thing I've been focusing on since it became apparent that we wouldn't be getting KOC was what this means for the rest of the offense. Now I have no real knowledge of KOC, but I do know Norv and I love a Norv offense. The thing about KOC offenses (rooted in Bellichick and Gruden offenses) is that they have never been really good running games. So in my opinion, that's putting a lot on the shoulders of a young QB. Maybe Haskins can handle that but we saw the slow growth that Cousins went through. We saw the greatness of Brady (which Haskins is nothing near), but also the reliance on the TE in those offenses (which we have none). 

 

Norv's offenses also rely on the TE but I think the work that was done with building up McCaffery as the number 1 threat of that offense is a big thing. How much of that goes on Son of Norv vs Norv himself is a big question, but I think part of this may be in line with Rivera being more of a Callahan type coach vs a Gruden type coach. Did we ever see what the running game would look like under KOC? I don't think so because in our best running game - against Carolina, that's when KOC was reportedly being held back by Callahan. 

 

I don't want Haskins to be in a Campbell type thing, but I think the bigger question is how good of an OC S. Turner is. Because they can easily grow together still. And from the reports I'm hearing the guy like Zampese is really a boost for Turner because (according to the Redskins Talk podcast) Tim Rattay wasn't doing so well as QB Coach. Its interesting because I NEVER heard his name  in any of the conversations about up and coming. And I was always like, isn't he a recently retired QB who can help Dwayne? But Zampese has a history of doing these development things that can really help Dwayne. Not to mention the work Turner did helping to develop the QBs you mention above. 

23 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

But if Haskins isn't Ron's priority and even his QB why does it matter? His words and actions pretty much show that's the case. This is a replay of Patrick Ramsey with Joe Gibbs. Some people are going to be very upset...

Not to piggy back too much on this, but lets not forget that the year before Ron went to Carolina they had drafted Jimmy Clausen. Now, he totally sucked as a pro and the next year when Ron came, they drafted Cam as number 1 overall. Had Haskins not shown the potential in those last 6 quarters, or even maybe the steady progress throughout after the 2 second half stints, I'd think this is a more likely scenario, but its not unheard of in Ron's history. 

[Est.1974]

33 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

But if Haskins isn't Ron's priority and even his QB why does it matter? His words and actions pretty much show that's the case. This is a replay of Patrick Ramsey with Joe Gibbs. Some people are going to be very upset...

 

This is very possible. I mean we don't know for sure either way, but for me all bets are off and almost anything is possible. You could be wrong, but I won't bet against you because it's far from clear cut. 

 

I mean, the Panthers moving on from Cam and him being here is equally as plausible to me. Ron is here to win and win soon in the manner he sees fit.

[RandyHolt]

#29 Scott Turner DB? No relation.

 

I can't be the only one to remember.  Damn, he now works in the white house.

 

 

 

 

[Est.1974]

17 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Not to piggy back too much on this, but lets not forget that the year before Ron went to Carolina they had drafted Jimmy Clausen. Now, he totally sucked as a pro and the next year when Ron came, they drafted Cam as number 1 overall. Had Haskins not shown the potential in those last 6 quarters, or even maybe the steady progress throughout after the 2 second half stints, I'd think this is a more likely scenario, but its not unheard of in Ron's history

 

I did nearly reference this myself yesterday. Clausen was their opening pick, albeit a second rounder, the year before Ron was hired and picked Cam.