You guys are right.
Just by getting older the last 5 years he is instantly better at play calling and game planning. I mean, there is a huge different between a 42 year old and a 47 year old. He was just a kid!
Some of you seem absolutely certain he has improved a great deal, which is insanity.
I can admit I am not 100% positive he will stink it up, all I can go on is his resume, (I know some of you choose to completely ignore it. I doubt you have actually done any hiring in your life)
1996-1999 OC of the Bucs. One of the worst NFL offenses in the league. Could not move ball inside red zone. (OMGZ it was the players fault!) - Fired
2000 - 2002 QB Coach of Miami Dolphins thanks to the Don making a phone call.
2003-2006 Alabama Head Coach went 6-6 in his final year when generally people expected at least 9 wins. Could not move ball inside red zone. Fired. (OMGZ it was the players!)
2007-2010 - Jax QB coach - Does a solid job with Garrard
2011-2012 - QB coach Carolina,does a solid job with Cam.
Looking at his past I see a guy that is a great talent at QB coaching. One on one communication and encouragement. It is, however, a completely different skill set than offensive coordinator.
Then I ask myself a few more questions...
1) Was Shula in the running for any OC job in the league including one that Chud may have open in Cleveland? No
2) Were the Panthers quick to promote him as the obvious choice to replace Chud? No
So why was he hired? I feel he was hired as Rivera's last ditch effort as a winning season. We all know he is fired if they do not win this year. His choice was a) risk a slow start with a brand new OC or B ) promote from within system and hope for the best. He chose B. Can't blame him really. So who on his staff would need the least amount of time adjusting to being an OC? Well, the guy that has done it before, even if he failed at it.
Will Shula be a failure as OC of the Panthers? Dunno
Will Shula be an awesome OC of the Panthers? Dunno
If you had to wager your life on either of these, which would it be? Sadly, based on all this info, I would have to choose the former.
<derp>OMGZ, Zod is sucha troll! he just wants teh hits< /derp>
You seem determined to ignore the fact that those Tampa Bay rosters were almost devoid of offensive talent. Take the name Shula off your mind, go back and look at those rosters, remember that they were Dungy-led squads (and therefore his offensive philosophies, not Shula's) and explain to me how they could have ever been more than mediocre.
And as for Alabama, again, show me the loads of squandered talent at his disposal. They were a down program that has NEVER been all that offensive-minded.
And why on earth would Shula been in the OC running anywhere else? He's been out of the scene for years, and teams have zero interest in a guy who might have only done as well as could reasonably be expected with mediocre talent.
Just like you don't know if he's improved, you also don't know how he would do with actual talent to work with. Perhaps that's all he'll need.
The reality is that we're not changing offenses. Rivera was very specific in keeping an Air Coryell system and elements of the read option, with perhaps more emphasis on power running and play action. Shula interviewed and showed he had the best understanding of that.
You keep implying that Shula's playcalling was responsible for the poor offenses he oversaw, yet make no mention of the very different schemes he was working with. To use your kitchen analogy, you'll never be able to make a good Italian dish reading from a Chinese cookbook.
To be frank, only two people have had any experience with Chud's playbook, and Chud is gone. That left Shula.
I don't think Shula will ever be one of the top offensive minds in the game. But we didn't have too many options at our disposal; Turner rebuffed us and Hue Jackson wasn't a disciple of the Coryell.
I completely understand that there are huge red flags with Shula. But I really think he's being undersold when the reality of his situations is observed in an impartial light. He did poorly with poor offensive talents; that could speak to either a poor offensive approach or an inability to outperform his offensive limitations. There's a key difference between the two: the first would squander our talent , the second might make good if not spectacular use of it.
And the key to all of this is that, no matter what you think of Shula, his track record for winning despite bad offenses is something we should hope to enjoy.