Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Coaching philosophy concern


Leeroy Jenkins PhD

Recommended Posts

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...