Offseason Approaches

[Mr. Scot]

Something I've been pondering for a bit...

There are primarily two different ways teams can approach the offseason process from minicamps and OTAs up through training camp. Each one has it's pros and cons, it's proponents and detractors, and the differences are fairly simple to explain.

Starting off...

NUMBER ONE: EASY DOES IT

Don't go too hard on the players, especially the veterans. Minimize hitting and contact. Try to avoid subjecting the players to the elements when weather is tough. Give the older guys a fair number of "vet days" to rest and have the rookies spend more time on learning the game.

Pros: Less wear and tear. The hits, stresses and sheer exhaustion of playing pro football are cumulative by nature, and so the philosophy behind this approach is that the less damage you have early on, the fewer effects you see late in the season.

 Cons: Slow starts. Less/easier practice time means less gelling. Players and units don't look as sharp, and some can even be downright sloppy.  You don't really get a sense of just how good (or bad) the team truly is until about four or five weeks in, and sometimes they'll have already dug themselves into a hole by then.

THE FLIPSIDE: BOOT CAMP

Go all out from day one. Throw the rookies into the fire and tell the veterans to man up. Hot? Raining? Nasty? Suck it up, you wimps! Football is a game for tough guys, and the tougher you make each other in camp, the harder it's going to be for opponents to get the best of you when the real bullets start flying.

Pros: Being prepared to win right out of the gate. While other teams are still "knocking the rust off", these teams are  clicking like a well-oiled machine on opening day. Those fast starts frequently allow them to get a leg up on divisional races from early on.

Cons: Late season fades. Yes the teams look sharper at the beginning, but by the time game seven or eight rolls around they've taken as much abuse as if they'd played ten or twelve already. Granted, you might be able to coast some late if you've built up a good advantage in wins and losses. But if your division race is still competitive, your opponents being fresher than you can become an issue.

EXAMPLES

Prime examples of coaches who preferred the "drill sergeant" approach are guys like Bill Parcells and Tom Coughlin. Coughlin in particular was legendarily tough on his early Jaguar teams. Once he took over the Giants, they fell into something of a pattern of early season successes and late season/playoff collapses. Coughlin did end up engineering two Super Bowl victories, mind you, though it's also worth noting that people were said to have talked him into softening his approach somewhat around that time.

An example of a more easygoing coach? Well, we don't really have to look very far to find that, do we?

Ron Rivera definitely believes in easing your way into the season, and players love him for it. As you might expect, Rivera's Panther teams have a reputation for being slow starters. It's also worth noting however that Rivera's December win-loss record stacks up pretty well against his opponents. There are plenty of other factors that go into any season, mind you, but the trend is pretty close to what you'd expect it to be.

THE DEBATE

So which where is better?

That's a matter of opinion.

You can win with either of these approaches. You just have to handle it properly. If you're a boot camp guy, try to give your players a little more rest as the season goes on to minimize the exhaustion and injuries. More of a slow and steady coach? Try to avoid being so easy that your teams wind up looking unprepared when the season commences.

Old-school types are probably always going to favor the tougher approach, and there's an argument to be made. A good number of hard ass coaches have Super Bowl rings to show for it, and being able to point to that big gaudy ring on your finger ends a lot of arguments.

But with that said, the league is changing. Concessions have been made to the NFLPA regarding practice and preparation that have limited the ability of coaches to go "Full Metal Jacket" on their squads. Many point to a decline in the quality of the product on the field as a result of this, but the counter argument is that it's better for the players' overall health. As I'm sure Andrew Luck would testify, personal health trumps football success.

One thing that probably needs to be factored into the discussion as well is that with the advances in sports and athletic training, players are now bigger, stronger and faster than they ever were before.

But are they more durable?

The default answer is yes, but I honestly think it's kind offer hard to say.

It's easy to believe that old school players were tougher than the players of today, but those old school players weren't facing opponents with the physical makeup of the modern athlete. Being hit by players who average over 300 pounds and can move isn't going to bring as much force as being hit by guys in the 200 to 250 range. The human body is certainly adaptable oh, but it has its limitations.

Could a guy like Dick Butkus have played as long as he did if his opponents had the size and speed of today's players? Would someone like Sean Lee or even our own Luke Kuechly have been able to avoid the dings and dents they've suffered if they played in the old days?

Obviously no one can say, but it's worth thinking about when you see a situation like that of Andrew Luck or, yes, Cam Newton.

BOTTOM LINE

Just like the question of whether rushing the quarterback or covering the receivers is more effective in pass defense, this is one of those debates that's probably never going to go away. You're going to have hard coaches who take over teams that have gone soft and turn them into winners. You're also going to have more player friendly coaches who take the reins of teams that are feel like they've been put through the wringer start winning more because they're not so badly beaten up.

For Panther fans, it ultimately comes down to two questions.

1) Which approach do you prefer, and why?

2) How confident are you in Ron Rivera's choices and methods on this front?

What are your answers?

[Burnout189]

[Cuttinedge]

It seems whatever the approach that  cheating bastard in New England does works the best. 

It helps they are in a piss poor division but results at the end of the year don’t lie 

[RenoCarolina]

8th graders, take notes.

 

[Mr. Scot]

15 minutes ago, Cuttinedge said:

It seems whatever the approach that  cheating bastard in New England does works the best. 

It helps they are in a piss poor division but results at the end of the year don’t lie 

Brady / Belichick is another one of those debates. Who's really the most responsible for the Patriots success? There are arguments both ways.

Watch Belichick retire the same year Brady does and we'll never know.

[Khyber53]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Something I've been pondering for a bit...

 

Could a guy like Dick Butkus have played as long as he did if his opponents had the size and speed of today's players? Would someone like Sean Lee or even our own Luke Kuechly have been able to avoid the dings and dents they've suffered if they played in the old days?

 

First off, sure have missed you here. Glad to see you back.

Secondly, Dick Butkus, renowned tough guy, only played from 1965-1973 -- a lingering knee injury spelled the end for him, along with a lot of other nagging problems.

And that might be the answer to your question: Easier practices reduce wear and tear, extending careers and possibly team dynasties. I think Rivera is doing it right and has the right approach. Still, the later in the season, the more impact important injuries have, so there are just some bullets that can't be dodged or deflected.

[PurityControl]

1. Bootcamp, I'm a believer in practice, reps, structure & accountability, do it until you get it right, no excuses. 

2. RR played is a old school era player coaching the modern era player and game, I think he has a better handle on it then most other coaches. 

 

IMO/experience injury's can happen no matter how well conditioned you are or how easy you take it.

[mc52beast]

I’m an old school guy. Football isn’t like other sports, you have to put the pads on and hit/get hit... there’s no simulation. Guys who have missed a lot of time will tell you they’re in shape but not football shape.

Im actually surprised that Ron is as easy on the players as he is... dude played old school ball on a ferocious defense.

[Mr. Scot]

6 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

Secondly, Dick Butkus, renowned tough guy, only played from 1965-1973 -- a lingering knee injury spelled the end for him, along with a lot of other nagging problems.

And that might be the answer to your question: Easier practices reduce wear and tear, extending careers and possibly team dynasties. I think Rivera is doing it right and has the right approach. Still, the later in the season, the more impact important injuries have, so there are just some bullets that can't be dodged or deflected.

I know the average NFL career these days is relatively short. I haven't seen a statistical comparison vs earlier decades. It wouldn't surprise me if one has been done, but if so I haven't seen it.

People will say the players of yesteryear were mentally tougher, and maybe they were. But even if you accept that premise, I do honestly believe the physicality of today's players has the potential to do way more damage then in years past.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, mc52beast said:

I’m an old school guy. Football isn’t like other sports, you have to put the pads on and hit/get hit... there’s no simulation. Guys who have missed a lot of time will tell you they’re in shape but not football shape.

Im actually surprised that Ron is as easy on the players as he is... dude played old school ball on a ferocious defense.

Regarding Rivera...

I doubt anybody would question that Rivera now is anything other than a "take it easy" guy. Remembering his early days though, I kind of wonder if he didn't come in planning to be a hard ass and just wound up changing when his early returns weren't what he'd hoped. He's talked about seeking advice for his "existential crisis" at the time, and I think that definitely made him what he is now.

There are a number of folks who think Rivera takes it too easy. There's an argument to be made there and folks could point to how sloppy and unprepared the team looked against the Patriots in what was supposed to be our "dress rehearsal" game as evidence.

But again, December. Not this past one, of course. But in general, yeah.

[BrianS]

I think that a middle road is best.  Obviously you don't want to wear your players out before the season, especially given that the season is longer than it ever has been.  On the other hand, I am *super* concerned that our players just didn't look prepared for the season in the third preseason game.  They looked like they were seeing their first live action of the year . . . which is exactly what was happening.

We hear all the time from players how nothing prepares you for live action like live action . . . welll, we now have a team where the starters will be entering the first regular season game with little to no live action under their belts.  If we look like hot garbage, look no further.

[Black&BlueBubba]

[osd22]

Boot camp all day.

[Go DJ that's my DJ]

welcome back Mr.