Changing the coaching and GM philosophy

[Mr. Scot]

Seems like a good time to revisit this topic...

Why are the Panthers what they are now? And when I ask that, I'm not talking primarily about our record. I'm talking about the profile of the team.

Roster building in the NFL starts with the head coach. They and their assistants decide what kind of system they want to run and what kind of players they need to run them successfully. That information goes to the GM and the scouts, whose job it is to acquire those types of players.

Since their inception, the Panthers have only had defensive coaches. Heck, we've hardly ever even interviewed offensive coaches. And since 2000, we've had two coaches who were essentially the same guy.

Both John Fox and Ron Rivera were believers that defense is what wins games and championships. The offense only needed to be able to do just enough. The defense was always going to be tasked with the heavy lifting.

The major difference between them is how they viewed the quarterback position.

Fox didn't believe in franchise quarterbacks. He saw that position pretty much the same as he did the rest of the offense. They only needed to do just enough. That's why a guy like Jake Delhomme was perfect for him. Not great, but at least decent, as were a lot of the pieces around him.

Rivera, on the other hand, took his cues about the quarterback position from Buddy Ryan. Cam Newton is essentially Rivera's version of Randall Cunningham, a big play quarterback. And so all that was necessary to win games was for the big play quarterback to make two or three big plays a game while the defense handled the rest.

One other key point about that kind of quarterback: Since they're mobile, you don't necessarily have to invest huge resources in the offensive line. You can just count on the QB to scramble and run when they get in trouble. That frees up those resources to be used on more important things...

...like the defense.

That's how this team was built. Bringing Norv Turner aboard did result in a little more attention being paid to that side of the ball, but we're still basically the same kind of team we were before.

Only now we don't have a big play quarterback. And as a result, our offensive line doesn't look as good as they did. The reality of that of course is that they weren't actually that good, but Newton's mobility covered a multitude of sins. Turner teaching him to get rid of the ball sooner helped out even more.

That's all moot now.

My hope is that if we do see a coaching and / or GM change, we will for the first time look at someone who'll give a higher priority to the offensive side of the ball (and for the love of all that's holy, the offensive line). The need for that is one of the reasons why, while I would support a change in GM, that by itself isn't enough.

To use an old Bill Parcells metaphor, the guy who shops for the groceries would still be looking for the same things if we don't change who's writing the grocery list.

So here's hoping for a house cleaning, a solid GM and most of all, an offensive coach.

I've already seen what the alternative brings us enough times. I'm ready for something different.

[Mr. Scot]

Related Note: The one offensive coach that I remember it being documented as interviewing here was Steve Spurrier. It wasn't widely reported at the time (which always struck me as odd). The interview was later said to have been an absolute disaster.

Word was that at the time we went after George Seifert, we were also potentially interested in Mike Holmgren. I don't think anything ever came of it though.

I do know the Seifert experience soured Jerry Richardson on retreads.

[trueblade]

I would offer the Indianapolis Colts as a case study for the idea that building a solid OL, and getting a smart head coach can allow you to survive, perhaps even thrive, even when your all world quarterback gets hurt (or suddenly retires).

[Waldo]

I would love to see an offensive background HC but when they become HC they have to change roles from a coordinator to someone that can manage the entire team and support their under-coaches, which includes their develpoment as well as the players. I would like to see someone who can manage and understand the Offense and Defense without having to be a coordinator, which effectively means they either couldn't find a good one or hired the wrong one. I would also like to see a strategist and not an ex player. I think a competent GM that has people skills and scouting ability coupled with a HC that can do all of the things we lack now: strategy, adaptation and finding ways to get the most out of the players by putting them in a position to succeed and develop would be a winning strategy for us. 

I am cautious to retreads. No newly fired retreads but would be intrigued by a guy that ate humble pie for a few years and shows improvement and growth as a coordinator. 

And for fug sake, this is 2019 and not the 1970s or 1980s. Please find someone that knows and comprehends the past while looking to the future. 

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, trueblade said:

I would offer the Indianapolis Colts as a case study for the idea that building a solid OL, and getting a smart head coach can allow you to survive, perhaps even thrive, even when your all world quarterback gets hurt (or suddenly retires).

Yes, because they have actually played well with Brissett and even Brian Hoyer starting. Shocking how a team that is actually built well can overcome even an injury to a star player. See this week's opponent the New Orleans Saints as another example of that.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, Waldo said:

I would love to see an offensive background HC but when they become HC they have to change roles from a coordinator to someone that can manage the entire team and support their under-coaches, which includes their develpoment as well as the players.

Not if you hire one who hasn't been a coordinator but has been and assistant head coach and even a head coach before (only too temporarily to truly be called a retread) 

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

Yes, because they have actually played well with Brissett and even Brian Hoyer starting. Shocking how a team that is actually built well can overcome even an injury to a star player. See this week's opponent the New Orleans Saints as another example of that.

Chris Ballard is a way better GM than Ryan Grigson ever was.

I was really hoping we'd get Frank Reich. Would have been great to have him go from being this team's first quarterback to its next head coach.

[LinvilleGorge]

A lot of the anti-Cam crowd doesn't want to admit it, but honestly his injury struggles over the past few years exposes what many of us were saying all along - Cam Newton was completely carrying this offense. We have a RB who is having one of the all-time great RB seasons and it's still not enough. Without CMC, this would likely be a bottom 5 NFL offense. We're tied for second to last in passing TDs.

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Chris Ballard is a way better GM than Ryan Grigson ever was.

I was really hoping we'd get Frank Reich. Would have been great to have him go from being this team's first quarterback to its next head coach.

Yeah, if he wins that division, I don't think we will be getting him in our next coaching search....

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

A lot of the anti-Cam crowd doesn't want to admit it, but honestly his injury struggles over the past few years exposes what many of us were saying all along - Cam Newton was completely carrying this offense. We have a RB who is having one of the all-time great RB seasons and it's still not enough. Without CMC, this would likely be a bottom 5 NFL offense. We're tied for second to last in passing TDs.

What makes that worse for me though is it's by design.

It's why I bring up Buddy Ryan. It's the exact same philosophy. So is skimping on the offensive line because he can run.

If that infuriates people, it probably should.

[Soul Rebel]

I do agree success and failure starts at the top, so a competent, forward thinking GM is crucial...something we have lacked for over a decade now.

For coaching, I want the coaches that will win and compete year in, and year out. I'm okay with an offensive-minded HC, but I also believe that coordinators and who is hired by the HC is so important. I would honestly prefer someone like Kris Richard or Robert Saleh just as quickly as a Riley or Roman. 

I think our franchise prior to Tepper's arrival has been more concerned with status quo in the eyes of the NFL and the fans vs. putting together a competitive team year in and year out, and doing what it takes. We held onto players for too long.... we didn't surround Cam with adequate OL or WRs for way too long.... we held onto Fox and Rivera for too long. 

I do believe 2020 offseason is arguably the most important in franchise history.

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

A lot of the anti-Cam crowd doesn't want to admit it, but honestly his injury struggles over the past few years exposes what many of us were saying all along - Cam Newton was completely carrying this offense. We have a RB who is having one of the all-time great RB seasons and it's still not enough. Without CMC, this would likely be a bottom 5 NFL offense. We're tied for second to last in passing TDs.

It's been obvious to anyone with half a brain. Predominantly garbage OL and little to no above average NFL receivers over his entire career here. It's crazy. He has had good running backs but that is the only help he has gotten. Hell, he's the third leading rusher in franchise history, so he even has had to carry a bunch of that load as well.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

What makes that worse for me though is it's by design.

It's why I bring up Buddy Ryan. It's the exact same philosophy. So is skimping on the offensive line because he can run.

I'm not sure I'd give the Colts much credit like someone did earlier in this thread. Sure, they've finally put together a solid OL, but Luck got beaten into early retirement because their OL struggled similarly to ours for most of his career.

I know a lot of people around here don't like Luck, but the guy was a VERY talented QB. It's a damn shame that mismanagement drastically altered the careers of two guys who should be perennial MVP candidates in Cam and Luck. Instead, one is already retired and the career of the other is in question, both due to injuries.

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

It's been obvious to anyone with half a brain. Predominantly garbage OL and little to no above average NFL receivers over his entire career here. It's crazy. He have had good running backs but that is the only help he has gotten. Hell, he's the third leading rusher in franchise history, so he even has had to carry a bunch of that load as well.

I'm pretty sure he led the team in rushing yardage and/or rushing TDs in every single season that he was healthy. That's unreal. I've said it before and I'll say it again, no player in NFL history has ever been saddled with consistently carrying as much of the offensive burden as Cam was for us in his prime. A bunch of naysayers always said that we were completely reliant on which Cam showed up, good Cam or bad Cam. I say, well no poo. That's the way it works if you put all of your eggs in one basket. Plan A was for Cam to be Superman and there was no plan B.