Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why is it all Rivera's fault?


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#46 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,779 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:59 PM

I think every panthers fan expects a quick turn around because of John Fox and probably a couple of coaches around the league that made that happen. So patiences is thrown out the proverbial window.

That rarely happens by the way.

i think it's expected because teams that can win are doing it quickly lately. it's becoming more common. we just find excuses for not doing it.

#47 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,407 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:08 PM

The 2011 offense got exposed. Teams were playing the read option and keeping Newton in the pocket. They doubled Smitty and played tight man on everyone else. That was different than they did last year and it showed. I don't think the offense run last year was much different than what we debuted this year.


I beg to differ:

1) Last year, we were in shotgun just over 60% of the time. This year, at least for the first 7 games, we were in shotgun closer to 85%.
2) Last year, we used 2 TE sets frequently. Early this year, we almost never used 2 TE
3) As stated by others, we relied much more heavily on read option plays early this year. Yes, we used it last year after mid-season, by not nearly as much as this year.

The first Tampa game was a perfect example of what was wrong with our offense. We were in 1/1 formations nearly the whole game, and the 1 TE was typically sent out on a pass pattern along with the 3 wide receivers. Tampa applied consistent pressure, and we didn't have enough blockers to counter. The result? We couldn't run the ball (and frankly didn't even try), and Newton was under pressure the whole game.

That type approach continued almost unabated until Hurney got fired. Then out of the blue, Chud decides maybe he should start to change things up a bit. Funny how that worked. That's why I don't know if I'll ever trust Chud completely.

#48 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,779 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:10 PM

The 2011 offense got exposed. Teams were playing the read option and keeping Newton in the pocket. They doubled Smitty and played tight man on everyone else. That was different than they did last year and it showed. I don't think the offense run last year was much different than what we debuted this year.

there were two offenses last year.

the first half of the season was the pass heavy one. when teams keyed in on that and started running more cover 2 (which seemed to work better against cam's passing game than blitzing him), they started running the ball and killing defenses with that. they adjusted what they did. it wasn't about the read option as much as people make it out to be.

#49 bigdog10

bigdog10

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:10 PM

This team has enough talent to be in the NFC playoff race this year, and potentially be the NFC South champion.

The argument that we don't have enough talent was valid last year, this year it is not.

#50 csx

csx

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:13 PM

It's not. We several games because of breakdowns in execution as well.

#51 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,389 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:19 PM

i think it's expected because teams that can win are doing it quickly lately. it's becoming more common. we just find excuses for not doing it.


Depends on what you want for results.

Want to build a team that can become a contender quickly, but fade just as quickly? That's relatively easy, easy enough that even a guy like Marty Hurney could do it.

Want to change the entire culture and build a perennial contender? That's not quite as simple, and generally takes a little more time.

I'd prefer option two.

#52 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,779 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:35 PM

It's not. We several games because of breakdowns in execution as well.

i think most understand that. highlighting rivera's role in it, just like highlighting cam's or the defenses or whatever, to some means laying all the blame on one.

i think rivera does bear more of the burden, though, because it's his responsibility to make sure that they can win with who they have. it's up to him and that coaching staff to put together a plan that fits the personnel if they don't have the personnel to fit their plan.

it's the coaching staff's responsibility to change what they do when what they do doesn't work so that it's something that their personnel can do well. they eventually did, but they did it too late. it's that reluctance to change and adapt that gets some and that helped in us losing games.

the players shouldn't have messed up, but they did. were they coached up enough to carry out the plan the coaches had for them? were they even capable of doing it well? did they do it well? did they adjust what they did to suit the players where they were? these are questions that have to be answered.

the players have their own questions to answer. need to know why they missed assignments. why they were out of position. why they dropped the ball, missed tackles, missed blocks, etc.

rivera has had plenty of mistakes these past two years. has he learned from them? it's up for debate, obviously. the question now is if he hasn't learned enough from them, can he? how long will it take? if he has learned from them, it the ceiling high enough to warrant us not looking at other options? of course you don't just outright fire the guy without looking at other coaches, but with a new GM he has to be able to make his case for remaining in that capacity. i would hope that the new GM doesn't just come in and look at the last few games of the season and say, "meh....he'll do. no need to look elsewhere." he'd be doing this team no favors by not looking at all options.

it could be that better options would be too expensive (though if JR was completely serious about winning he'd have no problems opening up that checkbook) or don't want to come here for some reason. rivera should be retained for another year to see what he can do with a third year. there's lots of factors that would go into the decision. rivera would absolutely have to make his case, though, and i don't think it's a great one.

#53 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,779 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

Depends on what you want for results.

Want to build a team that can become a contender quickly, but fade just as quickly? That's relatively easy, easy enough that even a guy like Marty Hurney could do it.

Want to change the entire culture and build a perennial contender? That's not quite as simple, and generally takes a little more time.

I'd prefer option two.

i prefer one that people buy into right away and that continues to work. they don't have to be mutually exclusive. you put something together right away that works and then mold your team the way you want. this whole "it's a process" thing just bugs me. how long is that process supposed to take? what's your vision of the end results? can you win and build your vision at the same time? the answer should be yes.

and if that's considered unrealistic, it's only because people think that a good team takes years to build when the evidence is quite to the contrary lately.

#54 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,389 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:55 PM

i prefer one that people buy into right away and that continues to work. they don't have to be mutually exclusive. you put something together right away that works and then mold your team the way you want. this whole "it's a process" thing just bugs me. how long is that process supposed to take? what's your vision of the end results? can you win and build your vision at the same time? the answer should be yes.

and if that's considered unrealistic, it's only because people think that a good team takes years to build when the evidence is quite to the contrary lately.


It doesn't have to take forever.

But with that said, I want a guy with a long term plan, not just a quick fix.

That's probably why I like Gettleman as an option over Ross. Older folks tend to be more patient and think long term.

#55 cbarrier90

cbarrier90

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,161 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:09 PM

I think every panthers fan expects a quick turn around because of John Fox and probably a couple of coaches around the league that made that happen. So patiences is thrown out the proverbial window.

That rarely happens by the way.


The Indianapolis Colts and Washington Redskins would like a word...

The two best starting seasons in NFL HISTORY for a quarterback and both end in losing seasons while Andrew Luck and RG3 are in the playoffs in their first seasons.

As a Panthers fan, that is infuriating.

#56 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,779 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:29 PM

It doesn't have to take forever.

But with that said, I want a guy with a long term plan, not just a quick fix.

That's probably why I like Gettleman as an option over Ross. Older folks tend to be more patient and think long term.

again, i don't know why it has to be either/or.

quick fix and long term plan.

i do think that gettleman is the better pick, but it's got nothing to do with his age or a greater likelihood that he'll have a long term plan than some younger fellow. being older doesn't make you more likely to see the long view.

and considering how long it's been since we've had a winning season and how few actual winning seasons there's been here, patience isn't exactly something that is needed.

#57 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,407 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:40 PM

being older doesn't make you more likely to see the long view.


It makes you more patient, no doubt. And certain types of wisdom do come with age. But younger people tend to be more decisive and innovative.

I know my long term planning is not necessarily improving as I get older. What the hell do I care what happens 25 years from now if I'm not going to be around to worry about it? It's different when you're talking about your children's future, but on the job, older guys may have a shorter view than younger guys.

#58 Cyberjag

Cyberjag

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,613 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:00 PM

Depends on what you want for results.

Want to build a team that can become a contender quickly, but fade just as quickly? That's relatively easy, easy enough that even a guy like Marty Hurney could do it.

Want to change the entire culture and build a perennial contender? That's not quite as simple, and generally takes a little more time.

I'd prefer option two.

I like option three, where you win right away and keep on winning. Option two only seems to work for guys who luck into a franchise QB late in the draft.

If you look at the best franchises out there right now, the ones that win and win big year in and year out, you'll see that most of them started winning under a regime right away and continued to do so.

Pittsburgh started winning again consistently under Cowher, and in his first season.
Green Bay started winning again under Holmgren
Ravens under Billick
Eagles under Reid, starting in his second season
Colts under Dungy won immediately (having Manning as a soph didn't hurt)
Saints started winning immediately under Payton
Falcons started winning immediately under Smith.
Then there's New England, which started winning in Belichick's second season, and it was his second stop.

I guess I'm saying that a good coach will change the culture all by himself, he doesn't need a GM to build it through several years of roster tweaking.

Who are you looking at in modern-era football that took years to build a consistent winner?

#59 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,518 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:04 PM

The read option wasn't the base offense last year, it was peppered in. Chud tried to run every play out of that formation for the first few games this year.


It was still a big staple of Stewart's work last year. I think we all noticed it a lot more this year because teams shut it down. I don't think it was really that different.

#60 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,779 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:07 PM

It makes you more patient, no doubt. And certain types of wisdom do come with age. But younger people tend to be more decisive and innovative.

I know my long term planning is not necessarily improving as I get older. What the hell do I care what happens 25 years from now if I'm not going to be around to worry about it? It's different when you're talking about your children's future, but on the job, older guys may have a shorter view than younger guys.

don't really buy that at all, but whatever. i know just as many impatient older people as i do patient ones. i haven't really gotten more patient than i already was (or wasn't) when i was younger.

i think it's like saying older people are wiser. just because you are older doesn't make you wiser or more patient. it should, but it's far from being a rule...at least one that i accept.

you have to have a balance of both patience and decisive and innovative and if you've got the HC job you should have all of those qualities.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.