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!

     

All aboard the Wilks Wagon


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Icege said:

Wilks is clearly leading the team and bringing back the culture that fans know and love. The defense is playing well, the team as a whole seems galvanized, and they're finding ways to win or at least keep games close with the exception of the Bengals beatdown.

I wouldn't hate the hire. The big question mark for me is going to be the offense. Campen has earned his job as far as I'm concerned, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Wilks bring over Cameron Turner from Arizona. Turner is a former QB/WR for The Citadel that was an assistant WR coach for the Panthers from 2015 - 2016 and the assistant QB coach in 2017. He followed Wilks out to Arizona as an offensive assistant (2018), assistant QB coach (2019), assistant QB coach + offensive assistant (2020), QB coach (2021), and is now the QB coach/co-passing game coordinator. He's also Norv Turner's nephew, Scott Turner's cousin. It would fit given Wilks' background in SD + CAR with Ron. 😮

This would make sense. The resignation of Dave Shaw from Stanford is also interesting. Would he be worth considering by Wilks since he has NFL experience on offense and a native to boot? 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jackie Lee said:

I'd rather have another year of Wilks while we await our freedom of 2024 cap space. Wilks has the culture in the right direction, he deserves a full offseason. I know people want a great OC as head coach but calling good plays doesn't have anything to do with managing a room of 53 grown men. If Wilks can get a legit OC and let him do his thing I'm down with it. The players love him even though he holds them accountable, no one is playing half assed like the Rhule era

The thing about NFL HC is the job is so different than an OC or DC job that it can negate the talent of a coordinator, or inhibit the talent from being applied by that individual. 
IOW you taking the main asset that person has, that attracted you in the first place, and putting it under a thick layer of unrelated poo that will likely obscure it. 

They are just two very different jobs. 

And, if you go with the trends, you are a follower not an innovator.

Something to slow down the young offensive-genius-bandwagon-trend -following and consider. 

Edited by stratocatter
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So some want wilks because you don’t want to take a “chance” on another head coach. But have stated that he’d need a great OC. What are the chances we land a good/great HC (Only 32 jobs, candidates get it when one is open) vs. wilks chances of getting an all-star OC that we likely lose IF we do land him/her. 
 

I do believe we could do worse than wilks. But we can definitely do better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not specifically for Wilkes but addressing the OC aspect where people say you get a great OC he is gone to be a HC… Or DC  like when we lost McD it hurt a lot too. More than losing Chud for instance. Surely more than losing Turner. Anyhow…

I think before I hired a guy I would be sure to make some kind of agreement in advance of this anticipated situation, that would protect the team. 
Like, you can’t take the entire O staff with you to be your OC and staff. Deal breaker. 

Negotiate that stuff. One pick for them to take and it can’t be the guy you would promote to his now old job. Or specify who on the staff is fair game and who isn’t. 
Figure something out that is agreeable to both parties and proceed. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is Wilks I'd be fine with that as right now who out there is worth a risk aside from Reich, just because an OC may be available, that doesn't mean they are a fit to come in and be the head coach. 

We all know Wilks got the short end in ARI, and he did well enough as a DC to get a HC opportunity even if short lived. 

You have LeFleur our here stinking it up with Rodgers, Kingsbury stinking it up with Kyler, McVay and the Rams and their struggles even when they were healthy, we've now seen a guy in McDaniels struggle two separate times, etc.

We could look at the success in MIA, and in MIN, then you have to consider the ROSTER those teams have which are as good a roster as anyone, both with QBs most considered average with first year coaches with offensive backgrounds.  

There's more to this than just getting an ''offensive'' minded guy, can he lead a group of grown men and get the most out of them as well. 

You can avoid the offensive changes by having a succession plan in place for the OC. 

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

With guys like, PJ, Sam, and Baker...not like we are trotting out a world beater on offense. 

Both teams just couldn't stop the run.  It's not like he went outside the box to "outcoach" either struggling franchise.  Baker hasn't looked any better, PJ was just as streaky, and now Sam was 11/19 which somehow means he was great?  We need a coach that can develop young QBs be it Corral or our rookie.  

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firmly on the Wilks train. Going beyond just what the record is right now, the team has done a 180 in terms of how they play. We were looking as soft as the Saints of old on D and it's very worrisome during Rhules time. Now the players play like they care again and that alone has been refreshing. Gimme a good to great OC to pair and watch this team get something they have always lacked, a bit of consistency.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

We need a coach that can develop young QBs be it Corral or our rookie.  

This was a topic in a thread on the huddle in the offseason. HC does not develop QBs... QB/OC coaches do. There can not be a thought process in the world that thinks that HC has enough time to build and manage a team while also mentoring and fostering a young QB. 

This is why franchises hire "QB gurus" when they draft young talent for their rosters. 

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SetfreexX said:

If it is Wilks I'd be fine with that as right now who out there is worth a risk aside from Reich, just because an OC may be available, that doesn't mean they are a fit to come in and be the head coach. 

We all know Wilks got the short end in ARI, and he did well enough as a DC to get a HC opportunity even if short lived. 

You have LeFleur our here stinking it up with Rodgers, Kingsbury stinking it up with Kyler, McVay and the Rams and their struggles even when they were healthy, we've now seen a guy in McDaniels struggle two separate times, etc.

We could look at the success in MIA, and in MIN, then you have to consider the ROSTER those teams have which are as good a roster as anyone, both with QBs most considered average with first year coaches with offensive backgrounds.  

There's more to this than just getting an ''offensive'' minded guy, can he lead a group of grown men and get the most out of them as well. 

You can avoid the offensive changes by having a succession plan in place for the OC. 

I'm looking more for a guy that can develop a young QB.  Jim Harbaugh did it well with Colin K, Pep Hamilton has done with with Luck (at Stanford and the Colts) and Herbert, The Eagles OC is doing it with Hurts, Lions OC has revived Goff, and the Seahawks OC has revived Geno.  

If we are convinced we want a defensive guy (which I am against), DeMeco Ryans should be the target.  But we will have trouble sustaining a successful offense because the good OCs get plucked away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheCasillas said:

This was a topic in a thread on the huddle in the offseason. HC does not develop QBs... QB/OC coaches do. There can not be a thought process in the world that thinks that HC has enough time to build and manage a team while also mentoring and fostering a young QB. 

This is why franchises hire "QB gurus" when they draft young talent for their rosters. 

They know what to look for in QB development and how to help them succeed.  It's no coincidence that Tua looks 10x better with McDaniel than he even did with Flores (even when healthy) and Flores was a good coach IMO.  Eagles HC is also an offensive guy and Hurts is developing well under his watch.  Of course there is always Reid and Mahomes.  Look at Colin K with and without Harbaugh. They know what system they want, what players they need, and the right people to hire to help a young QB (of their choice) to develop. I understand what you are saying in the fact that they aren't meeting with the QB and watching every snap of his practice, but they definitely have a part in the development of the potential franchise QB.  

Sustainability helps a lot too.  I think Allen has come back down to Earth a little because Daboll left and he was peaking at the end of last season.  Which also reminds me Daniel Jones (while still not great) is looking better with Daboll as his HC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The wins will be a factor but I believe it will be more about how he progresses. If he's pulling a Darnold and making the same mistakes over and over again the wins won't mean that much. They say he's a smart QB. He'll have weapons this season so we'll see if he uses them.
    • I'm going to give my 2 cents after a long hiatus. I'm not going to focus on the player's ability as I can now admit that I don't really know so much about that. I will focus on the way the draft was run based on said objectives and how those objectives were obtained. It's not based on what I wanted but what they said they wanted. Whether or not that's a good thing remains to be seen but Dan Morgan was a bad ass on the field and I'm happy with the idea of looking for badasses moving forward. I know the key word is dawgs but I have to deal with key words in my work all the time and they make me sick so I'll just use old terms like badass.  I wasn't high on Legette, I wanted another but he was gone so it doesn't matter. I understand why they wanted him and they got him. More importantly to me is the way they got him. People like to say it was for the 5th year option but I doubt that was the main reason because if he's really good they will want to sign him long term and not use that tag as it's expensive anyway. It's more of an emergency thing and usually not a good sign of a healthy relationship. It was more likely because someone else wanted him and we knew it so we used our connections to move up and take him from another team. Yes, we traded up but it cost us practically nothing overall. A (We got our target) Next, I would like to include the part of the draft that impressed me most. Whether or not the pick was right or wrong I have know idea yet and neither does anyone else but these moves were brilliant. Morgan traded pick 39 for 52 and 155 PLUS a 2nd next season. I know people say a second next year has a 3rd year value this year and that's true but next year it has a 2nd round value and for a team without a 2nd round pick that's huge even if it's likely later in the round. For a team rebuilding that's great.  Even better, is they then traded up at a low cost, once again increasing draft value to get their 2nd target and it worked. Again, I'm not judging the pick but the execution. It appears that they had targets early in this draft and they got both of them and at the same time improved next season draft and put themselves in position on the board to grab other targets even if from this point on it's not the primary target necessarily at that pick but someone they are ok with but they got their first 2.  A (drafted first 2 primary targets and improved this year's draft and next years)  At this point, I assume it becomes more difficult to pinpoint specific targets as they did in rounds 1 and 2. However, it looks to me like once again they worked this out well overall. The next trade back may have cost them their 3rd target and they may have had to take the back-up pick here. I don't know how they valued the LBs but I think it's possible that they selected their 2nd choice here but, because of what they get next from that trade , it was worth it to them. Instead of 1 player they wanted as a primary target, they got the back-up 3rd pick target and still got their 4th primary target. Meaning they got their 2nd LB target but still got their primary TE target instead of getting only one primary target at one position. IMO, this is when we can really see how each trade was well thought out to give the Panthers the best chance to improve the roster with their guys. Again, it's not an evaluation of the players themselves but what they wanted. Although this time I will say that I LOVE the Sanders pick personally and the fact that they could get him and a much needed LB in this part of the draft is better than I had hoped for. B+ (I don't think they got their first target at LB but got their 2nd and yet still got their first target at TE and) The last 3 picks are usually anyone's guess and I think the last 2 are just that. Throw a hail mary and maybe you score a TD. But I think the 5th pick is from the 25 yard line instead of the 50. It's still a long shot but possible which is why we ran a play to get us here for 1 shot instead of 2 from further away. I can understand both lines of thought but I'm partial to percentages and therefore I agree with the process that got us the pick here as I think this player has a chance. Could we have got a player with a better chance of being our long-term nickle in draft?  Probably. Would I take that player over either of our previous 2 picks? Absolutely not. LB and TE are more important to me than nickle db. It's a 5th rounder so if he looks bad we can try again but if he shows promise, which I think is possible in this defense then day 3 is at least a FG. The last 2 picks are throws from the 40 or 45 after a penalty but if either one hits the board then day 3 was a TD.  B- (I upped the score because the trades that improved day 2 hurt day 3 but overall I think the moves were good value so I increased the day 3 rating from a C to a B-)  Overall, A-. I think Morgan did a masterful job targeting specific players, which I approve of, and manipulating trades to acquire those players. I'm actually very impressed.             
    • I'm back and without, much fanfare, 4 games into Round 1 we finally have a winner! Technically, there are no "standings" since only 1 person has picked a winner. Nonetheless... organicrusty1201              ... and everyone else.... nothing.
×
×
  • Create New...