MHS831

That is awesome. If you love your job, you do it better. I deal with issues, but in private, without emotion, and in a positive way---here is my leadership theory (I invented this and put it in my book): I compare leaders to dogs. You have your lead dog--the alpha at the front, showing everyone his ass, barking commands with his vision determining the direction--not a shared vision. You have the police dog, waiting for an error, sniffing around to find violations, and attacking the wrong doers; you have the companion dog--everyone's friend and not taken seriously so when you have to bark, everyone thinks its cute (and ineffective); the lap dog--a puppet from HQ sent down to represent authority and not the people that leader serves---we are a bit of all at times, but I tell my people that I am the sheep dog. I rule from behind so I can see everyone and assist the stragglers while allowing for leadership up front. I know where to cross the rivers and I know where the wolves are and I protect them. If a member of the flock falls or veers from the fold, I guide them back. I work harder than the others, and they know I am there to support them, to guide them, and to protect them. There is no attrition or filtering process; we reach the corral on time and I do not rest until the gate is locked. The sheep trust me, they feel that they belong in the herd, and they know my expectations. So when it comes to leadership, I am not a show dog, not a police dog, not a lead dog- just a sheep dog. So Pootie is wrong. You hold people accountable for their mistakes by helping them fix them in a one-on-one setting. You do not do it behind a microphone at a press conference using humiliation. Nope--totally wrong. The leader takes responsibility for the mistakes his followers makes--you do not distance yourself from that. Your job was to make sure they don't make mistakes--they execute.

So he is Stidham because his team was good--as if he had nothing to do with it. So tell me, what results would a good QB have accomplished? And if Smith did not win the Heisman, does that make Jones better? Your argument is confusing. Seriously--put Lance on this Alabama team and tell me how many yards per game he would have completed in your mind, and what percentage he would have completed. Then tell me that he would have won the Heisman or caused Smith NOT to win it--which is what you are saying. Here is your argument: 1. Alabama was "head and shoulders" above every other team in football. (They were ranked #3 preseason--are you practicing a bit of 20/20 hindsight here? The reason? Jones was basically an unknown--limited experience--but they went to #1 and not #10, if that helps. And they became so good, you called them "head and shoulders" better--Jones was the key variable in that. 2. Smith won the Heisman as a WR with an average to poor QB. 3. Bama had 3 first round WRs--only 2 were active most of the season. How did they accomplish that with a bad QB? 4. Stidham was drafted in the 4th round, had 24 fewer TDs his senior year, and his completion percentage was 17% lower. Uncanny similarities. Facts are your friend. Details matter. Nobody is saying that Jones is going to be great, but nobody should be saying that his record numbers and awards means that his team was so good it covered his sucking. That is ludicrous. Remember your opinion are no more than that--and repeating them does not make them facts. You are not a football expert, and I am not either--which is why I support my arguments with relevant facts. You don't.

Psychological empowerment. I teach future principals. Find the good stuff and promote it, then see what bad stuff (in a teacher) remains--then address it positively. It works EVERY TIME. It is quintessential coaching. It is how we learn and develop. It is simplistic brilliance.

Yeah, because Ohio State at Clemson did not have that. Yet Jones won the national title, completed nearly 80% of his passes (Waddle injured), and averaged 350 yards a game--all higher than Fields and Lawrence. But your stats are good too. You make a compelling argument.

Let's take a look at the genius behind the concept of a smokescreen here: 1. Trevor---LOCKED IN 2. Wilson---LOCKED IN Jets were not trading out unless it was for a team willing to pay for Wilson. 3. OH, we better do some head bobbing and weaving here---maybe a juke step. That is like trying to bluff with 4 aces. If they played Jones to fool people, I hope Jones scalds their asses when they play. So maybe they wanted teams to invest time into bringing in Lance etc. after they supposedly took Jones. Who? The Falcons? The Bengals and Dolphins were set at QB---Philly? Detroit? Denver? I do not understand the strategy.

The thing I cant find info on---do they revert back to a power scheme in goal line or fourth and 1? Splits are so tight, this may be obvious. Do they simple rule block (head up, inside, LB...)

I will tell you what I seem to observe in Rhule--he is very smart about people--not just motivation--he knows how to communicate with someone in a manner that makes them feel significant and important--He is often tired, and very patient. I would say the opposite of Bill Blechick, he is not condescending. We all want respect, we all want to be valued. When you are respected and valued, you perform at a higher level. Whether this is from being the son of a preacher or his education psychology courses, he gets it. To Rhule, the term "fit" means more than skill set/system. It means as a person, how well will you fit into the culture. Your attitude, work ethic, dispositions, and ability to collaborate. It is not about finding the best players but it is about getting the most out of the players he has. Rhule is very smart---so much smarter than Rivera or Fox--we are seeing a psychologist at work--a master motivator. I do not know if he knows less about football than his assistants, but he knows enough to let them do their jobs. I see the chemistry between Rhule and Dave Moore, the G from Grambling. The Senior Bowl experience may have won that prize. It is also how he got to know a few more players we drafted--and a few we didn't. Rhule is a people person, and it will pay off.

camp fodder. Or would that be, "camp mudder?"

I read that too--could not find it. Of course, the facts get very clouded and distorted.

Our LT and QB have been called first round busts. Sam and Cam. However, if we can help them reach their potentials, it will send us up the board very quickly.

The book on Pride is that he is a good athlete who must keep the game in front of him--explains the cushion for a man with his skill set. I think he is a free safety, and I would not be surprised to see him given a look there.

Some of y'all are making good points and sharing valid concerns etc. that is making me more curious about it. I will say this---Pat Meyer has his work cut out for him, but from what he did last year with that group, I have faith.

I can tell you that I will be so focused on preseason this year, I might get nervous before the games.

And what I do not know is this--were Denver and Washington running outside zone schemes or wide schemes? I imagine there is a combination of both---but I am not that familiar with other teams.

I struggled with the same concerns about our newest guards. However, I am less concerned about Moore than Brown. We shall see, but I LOVE Moore and hope he can get there. And you have to run the ball in A gap too, so maybe their strengths will offset. I wish I knew more about this Blitz. I am just trying to piece it together and look at it all as they might be-- FWIW I think I can change your mind about Moore:

That is absolutely right. Forgot about that.

I am on a leave of absence that started right before the draft. I am doing this on meds. When I go back to work and stop popping pills, I will revert back to the old, one-dimensional stuff. I think people like Linville and Mr Scot do it so regularly, they go underappreciated. And your contributions have been solid. The only person who is bad for the huddle is Fua (see my pic for explanation).

You hear a lot about fit, and recently, the effervescent Black and Blue Bubba posted a podcast by Brett Kollman and EJ Snyder, where they made some pretty good analyses that helped me understand some of the personnel moves (draft picks, free agent signings) we made. First of all, we are running the "Wide Zone" blocking scheme, which is is form of zone blocking nor to be confused with "outside zone" scheme, as opposed to man or inside zone. First, it is important to understand fit. Why we went after players we did in free agency and in the draft. The difference between an outside zone scheme and a wide zone scheme is detailed, and the differences are rather subtle. Basically, in the inside zone, the lane the OL creates is designed to be inside the playside Guard's hip--the outside zone goes outside the guard's hip. An outside zone attacks an area of the defense, while the wide zone stretches the defense and relies on the back reading the blocks and making the earliest and most effective cut or burst through the hole. I used this link with embedded videos because it is from Oklahoma State, famous for the wide zone blocking attack. It also explains a draft pick we made (and it was NOT because Rhule's wife called) and is probably why we liked Chuba Hubbard: https://pistolsfiringblog.com/film-study-oklahoma-states-wide-zone-rpo/ In this Jets article, (run the wide zone scheme, but they did not have the personnel to do it) they list 6 linemen in this draft that fit that scheme. We signed Pat Elflien from the Jets, by far their best IOL in the wide scheme and a perfect fit, based on what I have seen of him as a Jet (G) and Viking (C). But the article focused on drafting players, and one of the top 6 wide zone OL mentioned was Brady Christensen, OT, BYU: https://jetswire.usatoday.com/lists/2021-nfl-draft-offensive-linemen-new-york-jets-wide-zone-blocking-scheme/ So why draft Tommy Tremble in the third round? Yes, he will run some stuff from an hback set, but it is wrong to limit him that way. The strong side wide zone is the easy answer to why we drafted an athletic beast of a blocker in the open field: (Watch the strong side wide zone scheme description on this video by Alex Gibbs--very informative. Note that the most important block on the OL is arguably the TEs) And then there is this: So what characteristics does the wide zone blocking OL need to be successful? 1. Communication/Intelligence. They work as a unit, and they must know where their teammates will be. Trust the system. The must react on the fly and take good angles, predicting where the defender will be. 2. They need to be mobile and have good feet, balance and coordination. Often they will have to block DBs and LBs in the open field. I provide a video that shows Cam Erving as a guard, and although the chiefs do not run the Wide zone very much (inside zone, man 25% of the time, outside zone 75%) note in the video how well Erving moves and pursues blocks in the open field. In fact, David Moore is a GREAT fit for this system, and I seriously think he will make the team and start within a year. He is short, which is less of a disadvantage for an IOL in this system but he has 34" arms, he can move, and he is a bit nasty. He can pull, has light feet, a huge anchor if needed, and he does a great job of rolling his hips into the block in the open field. Finally, there has been some criticism of the reason we drafted Deonte Brown as a G if we are running the zone scheme. However, I think that is based on his size, not his tape. He shows that he can be a lot of things, not simply a man blocker. If a G can pull and see the need to slip off his block to pick up a bigger threat, then he has the intelligence. Brown is not going to lead a sweep or anything, but he is going to be able to reach and get to the second level. I think he needs to lose 15 more lbs, but he can have a role in this offense because he can take smart angles and he has the strength to turn folks on reach and scoop blocks, etc. I feel much more understanding of the Elflien and Erving signings now. I get the Brady and Tremble picks--we should be awesome at strong side running to the left--we could not really run left last year. I am excited about Paradis as a fit more than before. And I think we have the RBs and QB to do this. I think the focus on stopping the run will open things up for our secondary. Darnold will not be forced to throw all the time and he will have a great screen game (Think about Christensen, Tremble, and Elflien leading CMC on a screen). I get it. I think I understand now why we did what we did. Did we need Sewell? Not as much as we probably needed a Slater or Christensen. I will say that we will not be as strong in pass protection, but if you have a good screen game and stretch the field all day, and there are 4 WRs who can spank your butt on any given play---you are less likely to blitz. Stunts are not as effective either. I am getting pumped.

I would like to point out 1 other point that made me feel this guy could be the steal of the draft--and he was not drafted. They started mentioning David Moore (G) in about the third round. Called him a "Tree stump." They kept mentioning his name. If DJ would take off his Bears ears and stop talking 80% of the time, this could be a damn good draft show. DJ probably needs to put the cup down until a bit later. Seriously, I really did not know this existed, and I spent about 2 hours yesterday watching the panther sections. Appreciate it.

I was not aware, but I was not saying that he cannot play RG--the point I probably did not make was that he can play in the wide zone scheme--they were treating him as if he is a power run blocking RG only, and it did not fit the scheme. My point was that he can pull--he did it a lot--as a LG, which is usually the most agile, mobile G. Thanks for the link and the thread.

Based only on what they said about Nixon, I see Nixon as a situational DT only. It was as if they said he cannot recognize the run and gets blown out. He needs to be shooting gaps---and frankly, DTs do not make that many tackles anyway--they simply clog lanes--so I will be anxious to see how he develops.

They made me feel really better about the first four picks. I think they love Horn, Terrace, (so do I) and Christensen at LT---they helped me see how he is a perfect fit there-I hope they are right. Tremble: They underestimated him, in my opinion, but value his blocking. No mention of special teams. I did not like the Chuba pick either. I am not as pumped about Nixon as before, but there is a difference between playing every down and being situational. Shi Smith just made our WR corps potentially the best in the NFL. "Darnold has no excuses." I did not like the Taylor CB pick when it happened, but I do now. They love him, along with DJ. Enough for me. They made good points and were spot on. I disagree about D.Brown, however. He was a LG at Bama and pulled and was able to move. As a RG, he should be fine.

I love this guy, and EJ was tolerable, but he needs to be less "Da Bears" and more focused on all teams. He talked too much as well, but I think he was squeezing the bottle a bit.

Gonna hold you to that. TY When I saw who replied, I knew this would be a good thread--some very good counterpoints being made.

he is a better fit--so I could see it.