Albert Breer Believes The Panthers Would Have Selected McCaffrey Over Fournette

[bobsfoodbasics]

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/05/11/indianapolis-colts-andrew-luck-chris-ballard-nfl-notebook

If the Panthers’ vision plays out, their offense will be breaking the huddle at some point soon, and the defense won’t have any clue where No. 22 and No. 10 are going.

First-round pick Christian McCaffrey (22) is a back who can play receiver, and is good enough at it for teams to have regarded him as a starting-level slot prospect. And second-rounder Curtis Samuel (10) is a receiver who can play tailback, and he’s good enough there to have rushed for 771 yards last year at Ohio State, a total punctuated by his iconic game-winning touchdown against rival Michigan.

Truth is, these guys are where offensive football has been going for a while. So our offseason lesson for this week is simple: NFL coaches who can adapt to the do-everything weapon will thrive. We’ve heard NFL coaches gripe about the college spread offense for years. Well, the upshot of it is now wearing Carolina blue.

For now, consider Panthers offensive coordinator Mike Shula, on one hand, a beneficiary of the growing trend and, on another, charged with figuring out how to best use two players whose listed positions seem more like suggestions.

“That’s the thing that’s good about these guys—they’re good at a lot of things,” Shula said Wednesday afternoon. “In my opinion, you can’t just say, ‘well, Christian’s a smaller guy, he’s a good outside and receiver out of the backfield.’ No, he’s a lot more than that. And you can’t say Curtis is just a screen guy. No, he’s a good route runner, he’s gonna get better, and he’s proven he can carry the football as a runner.”

Over the past couple months, Shula and his coaches ramped up their study of college offenses, including the ones Samuel and McCaffrey played (and others like Texas Tech and Virginia Tech) to find ways to build on a scheme that already carries perhaps the NFL’s most complex run game. Part of it was in evaluating players like McCaffrey and Samuel. But another was figuring out how they’d use them.

“We looked at, not just Christian and Curtis, but all those guys and how to plan if guys were available,” said Shula. “It’s important for us as offensive coaches, to present to Ron (Rivera) and to (GM) Dave (Gettleman)—‘OK, if he’s available and we draft him, this is how we’re going to use him. And here’s our plan early, we’ll start this way and grow from there.’”

Now, the good news is that, in some ways, the Panthers gradually have been built, in the growth of their option game, to absorb versatile weapons like McCaffrey and Samuel, even with more traditional position-specific guys like Greg Olsen, Kelvin Benjamin and Jonathan Stewart making up their skill group.

It’s why the Panthers probably would’ve taken McCaffrey, even if Leonard Fournette had fallen to them, and it’s why they double-downed by taking another Swiss Army knife in the second round. It evolved like this: The more they looked for ways to use Newton, the more they saw how versatile weapons from spread schools would fit, and it became apparent how dangerous Carolina could be with all of it put together.

“Cam was a trigger in that regard. Because of him, we looked at more college stuff in our research projects every year than we ever would have,” Shula said. “Now, we didn’t draft these guys to have a bunch of gimmick plays for them. That’s not why we drafted them. We drafted them because we feel like they can produce within our offense the way we have it now, and then we can add to that.

“It’s a little bit like when we drafted Cam. We weren’t going to just change everything, because he did a lot of different things than NFL teams were doing in college. We felt like he was going to be really good in what we do offensively, and then we could add to that with his ability. And each year, he’s grown and gotten better, and we’ve learned to become more flexible.”

Shula’s doing his best, for now, to not overload either McCaffrey or Samuel. “You don’t want them to be a jack of all trades, master of none,” Shula says. The goal is to make sure they’re reacting, and not thinking, on the field, and that means taking the learning process ahead step by step.

But he’ll also acknowledge that to get most out of either of these guys, the idea will be to have each doing a lot of different things. So the hope is to get there as fast as possible.

And the result, if it works, could be bringing what’s been happening in college and high school for some time to the NFL on a more regular basis.

[Shocker]

Thats because he is better.  

[Dex]

If CMC can perform he has longevity.

[SOJA]

Interesting that's not what Jeremy reported

*stirs pot*

[tiger7_88]

24 minutes ago, bobsfoodbasics said:

Over the past couple months, Shula and his coaches ramped up their study of college offenses, including the ones Samuel and McCaffrey played (and others like Texas Tech and Virginia Tech) to find ways to build on a scheme that already carries perhaps the NFL’s most complex run game. Part of it was in evaluating players like McCaffrey and Samuel. But another was figuring out how they’d use them.

I've never understood why the NFL are always the last ones to adapt to future trends.  Well, in a way I understand, because the NFL is about money and when you're dealing with money, the common trend is to be low-risk.

In general, innovation in football comes from the bottom up and trickles at a slow rate up-hill to the NFL.

But trickle up-hill it does (eventually).

So for years we've been hearing the "oh, woe is us" complaint from NFL coaches about how college teams no longer prepare players for the "NFL level".   Which is a bit of an inaccuracy because (1) its not a college coaches job to prepare their players to work for NFL coaches, its a college coaches job to win games where he is at in order to keep HIS job and (2) the college coaches were/are preparing players, its just that NFL offensive coaches preferred to remain with their staid "pro-sets" instead of innovating and adapting.

As the article makes clear, the NFL coaches who are innovating and adapting to this trend are going to be the ones who have success in the present and the future.  Nice to see that we're one of the teams that have jumped on that trend.

Now if only Shula can accomplish it.  Fingers crossed.

[therealmjl]

That's fine.

[panthers55]

This is exactly what I have said to the critics that said Shula wouldn't know how to use McCaffrey or Curtis. I said they already knew how they would use him well before they drafted them.  This article just proves my point to those constant critics. Rivera and Gettleman would never have drafted them if he wasn't sure already how they would fit in the offense already.

[Cary Kollins]

 After last season I promised myself I wouldn't get too hyped ever again, and then we HAD to go and draft CMC and Samuel. Now barring injuries, I don't see how the Panthers don't field a top 3 offense.

[LinvilleGorge]

10 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

I've never understood why the NFL are always the last ones to adapt to future trends.  Well, in a way I understand, because the NFL is about money and when you're dealing with money, the common trend is to be low-risk.

In general, innovation in football comes from the bottom up and trickles at a slow rate up-hill to the NFL.

But trickle up-hill it does (eventually).

So for years we've been hearing the "oh, woe is us" complaint from NFL coaches about how college teams no longer prepare players for the "NFL level".   Which is a bit of an inaccuracy because (1) its not a college coaches job to prepare their players to work for NFL coaches, its a college coaches job to win games where he is at in order to keep HIS job and (2) the college coaches were/are preparing players, its just that NFL offensive coaches preferred to remain with their staid "pro-sets" instead of innovating and adapting.

As the article makes clear, the NFL coaches who are innovating and adapting to this trend are going to be the ones who have success in the present and the future.  Nice to see that we're one of the teams that have jumped on that trend.

Now if only Shula can accomplish it.  Fingers crossed.

Yep, the HS and college levels have been driving the innovation in the game for awhile now. 

[tiger7_88]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yep, the HS and college levels have been driving the innovation in the game for awhile now. 

The really shocking thing to me is that there are still a large portion of coaches and fans that would prefer moving backwards rather than to innovate and adapt.

I guess innovating and adapting is kinda scary.

[Jangler]

meh..

[dpm0409]

15 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

(2) the college coaches were/are preparing players, its just that NFL offensive coaches preferred to remain with their staid "pro-sets" instead of innovating and adapting.

Very true statement.  What is the reasoning behind NFL OC's not adapting and solely sticking to "pro style offenses" you think?  Just curious as to what your take on it is because you bring up a very good point there.

[dpm0409]

3 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

I guess innovating and adapting is kinda scary.

Maybe you already answered the question before I could post it. haha

[tiger7_88]

23 minutes ago, dpm0409 said:

Maybe you already answered the question before I could post it. haha

Yeah, like I said, its kinda "scary" to some coaches/fans.

But why?

Specifically to coaches, RISK means "scary".  And RISK means "putting your job on the line to innovate and adapt".  And not all innovations and adaptations turn out successfully.  Ergo, what that ultimately means is "you're fired".

And that's the main reason coaches don't do it.

So why are the Carolina coaches now moving toward "innovating"?  Because they are on the hot seat anyway and at this point have nothing to lose.  I have little doubt that if Carolina had ended last season at 8-8 and picking in the middle of the 1st round instead of the Top 10 that Ron and Shula would have had ZERO motivation to innovate or adapt.  They would have stayed with what they knew.

So our struggles last year COULD ultimately be a blessing.  I say "could" because innovating and adapting is always a roll of the dice.  The dice don't always fall the way you want'em.  Ron and Mike's attempt to innovate COULD fail.

But I'd always prefer rolling the dice for a chance at greater success rather than standing at the table watching and never placing a bet.

Now when it comes to fans?  Why do some FANS prefer remaining static or (god forbid) getting more conservative? I think its more an attitude of how they think offenses that are adapting to more spread formations aren't as physical or hard-hitting, which is what they like out of the game (and I can't disagree that being a fan of football usually means you are a fan of the physical nature of the game).  And some spread offenses ARE kinda "soft", as it were.

But they don't have to be.  My college team's coach (Auburn's Gus Malzahn) runs an extremely physical, between-the-tackles rushing offense with a down-field passing game (sound familiar?).  Many of the spread/shotgun plays that Carolina has run over the past 6 years have been straight out of the Malzahn playbook.  But at Carolina AND Auburn, that offense has become stale as the opposing defenses caught up and adjusted.  Malzahn at Auburn brought in a new OC this year to install a more multiple and varied passing attack along with his power-running scheme, much like DG/Rivera/Shula (though no coaching changes were made) drafted players to achieve that same goal.

But make no mistake, both the Auburn offense and Carolina offense will remain extremely physical and will run the ball between the tackles (ever since Malzahn has been either OC or HC at Auburn (since 2009), Auburn has had a running back that has been a 1000 yard rusher).

That's a lot of words to say one thing: shotgun/spread offense does not HAVE to = "soft".