Coaching philosophy concern

[Leeroy Jenkins PhD]

Something was said in Steve Wilks Q&A that has me concerned and I believe it has to do with Ron's overall coaching philosophy.  

 

He stated something along the lines of; were not going to try and out-scheme our opponents.   

 

He said this like it was meant to be a comforting stance.   It really got me thinking about our coaching staff and their overall philosophy.   Does Ron not emphasize individually tailored game plans based on an opponents strengths and weaknesses?  IMO,  it would explain a lot about our predictably and lack of in-game adjustments.   Does that statement concern you or am I reading too much into it? 

[Mr. Scot]

I like Wilks, but that gave me pause as well.

It gives credence to the "playing checkers while others are playing chess" perception a lot of people have of the coaching staff.

[top dawg]

Yeah, I caught that as well. I don't quite know what to make of it. Is it standard operating procedure, or just hubristic machismo?

[csx]

What is the quote? I don't see it on the Steve Wilks Q&A

[billionairemonk]

hey, ron

if you want to be like New England (what you said before 2015 season), you're doing it wrong.

[Leeroy Jenkins PhD]

13 minutes ago, csx said:

What is the quote? I don't see it on the Steve Wilks Q&A

Sorry the quote came from his press conference.  I am at work, so I can't find the exact moment.  If you have the time, feel free to let me know when and the exact quote and I will update the OP

http://www.panthers.com/media-vault/videos/Wilks-Im-ready-to-step-into-this-role/2faf748f-6d02-412b-a2dd-8819959a5888

[billionairemonk]

3 minutes ago, stbugs said:

I've always thought that we won more based on talent than doing anything to exploit the opponents weaknesses. I think that is why we are so damn inconsistent at times. When other teams figure something out or in some cases get lucky guessing right, we have no answer. In 2015, we had enough takeaways and Cam made enough throws that it worked, but in 2016, almost the same team gets hit by injuries and doesn't get the luck and we finish last in the division.

exactly, 2015 was because of hurney and gman.  Ron and staff were along for the ride.

 

ron is the antithesis of belichick

[top dawg]

34 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Yep, and unfortunately, the one area in 2016 where we actually seemed to adjust and do better was defense after the bye and our DC is now gone. Some was health (we did lose Kuechly for 6 of the last 10 and Addison for a few), i.e. having Bradberry, Johnson and Worley playing CB instead of  Bene, Teddy and Sanchez made a big difference as witnessed in the Atlanta/NO games the second time around. Also, the scheming that Ealy mentioned that they worked on during the by helped us go from little pass rush to among the top sack teams. Our offense didn't adjust at all.

I really have very little confidence in our coaching and honestly, unless Gettleman knocks it out of the park in FA and the draft, I'd be worried about getting back to the top based on comments like that. It shows me that evolve and get better turns into Shula's request for more talent to be able to maintain the #1 scoring offense. Not being able to out-scheme leaves very little margin for error and gets you a loss in the Super Bowl.

Do the Pats out-scheme people, or does Belichick acquire smart players that fit his scheme, observe tendencies, and use specific players to exploit specific things that he sees as weaknesses in opponents' schemes from week to week? There is a difference, even if subtle.

[beastson]

There's a reason we've had only 2 over .500 seasons under Ron. Next year = no playoffs, = no Ron

[DaveThePanther2008]

Personally I think it was meant that our scheme isn't going to beat you but our execution will. 

[PanthersBigD]

I interpreted that statement as, "We're not going to get cute with fancy schemes." I don't think it's necessary to be flashy if everyone keeps their assignments and ACTUALLY TACKLES THE BALL CARRIER with consistency. We've used plenty of creative schemes on defense, and we have the smartest MLB in the NFL, but that hasn't been the problem. The problem has been poor tackling and guys being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's fundamental stuff. 

[OldNorthPowell]

The fact that Shula was kept as OC should be a red flag. This franchise is okay with poor scheming and poor coaching. I am face palming over here.

[top dawg]

5 minutes ago, PanthersBigD said:

I interpreted that statement as, "We're not going to get cute with fancy schemes." I don't think it's necessary to be flashy if everyone keeps their assignments and ACTUALLY TACKLES THE BALL CARRIER with consistency. We've used plenty of creative schemes on defense, and we have the smartest MLB in the NFL, but that hasn't been the problem. The problem has been poor tackling and guys being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's fundamental stuff. 

Yeah, the feeling that I left away with, despite thinking that perhaps Wilks was just being bad-ass, is that players are going to have to execute their assignments, and if they don't, then they won't see the field.

[motocross_cat]

To me he is saying that we want to be so good at what we do we dont have to adjust.   Nothing cute just fundamental defense.  Works for me.

Now how can we not run up the gut for no gain twice in a row then set up third and long.