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!

     

The right coaching


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Saw this tweet this morning...

Goff better than Stafford? Nobody would have said that prior to this season.

What's the reason?

Coaching.

There's massive debate going on right now about what quarterback we need to take, and that's fine. But I'd argue the coaching decision is more important. We're going to need someone who can develop that young quarterback, whoever they may be.

Basically, if the Panthers don't get the right offensive coaching in place, we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot...again.

My sentiments exactly.  Coaching makes or breaks.  Just look at the Panthers.  We're doing much better after we moved on from, you know who.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Saw this tweet this morning...

Goff better than Stafford? Nobody would have said that prior to this season.

What's the reason?

Coaching.

There's massive debate going on right now about what quarterback we need to take, and that's fine. But I'd argue the coaching decision is more important. We're going to need someone who can develop that young quarterback, whoever they may be.

Basically, if the Panthers don't get the right offensive coaching in place, we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot...again.

That always stems the great debate about how many "busts" might have been decent had they been drafted by a team that could develop a QB, or at a minimum, put a young QB in a position to succeed rather than almost assure failure.  And how many great good QBs might have been washed out had they gone to a dumpster fire. 

Great QBs probably will always find a way to be great, and bad ones will always find a way to be bad. But that middle group, which is probably the majority, wind up being functions of coaching.  Some manage to salvage careers anyway, but are left wondering what might have been.

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Coaching is incredibly important, but it's not the reason Stafford is physically done.  Weird argument.

Goff was playing better than Stafford before he was hurt.

But setting Stafford aside, the fact that Goff is playing well at all given his history is a testament to the power of coaching.

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 5
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

That always stems the great debate about how many "busts" might have been decent had they been drafted by a team that could develop a QB, or at a minimum, put a young QB in a position to succeed rather than almost assure failure.  And how many great good QBs might have been washed out had they gone to a dumpster fire. 

Great QBs probably will always find a way to be great, and bad ones will always find a way to be bad. But that middle group, which is probably the majority, wind up being functions of coaching.  Some manage to salvage careers anyway, but are left wondering what might have been.

David Carr is the first guy I think of when this topic comes up.

During his first few years in Houston, they didn't even bother teaching him how to read a defense. They just designed to play, told him to throw the ball to a specific spot and left it at that.

How the hell do you not teach a professional quarterback how to read a defense?

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 3
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Goff was playing better than Stafford before he was hurt.

But setting Stafford aside, the fact that Goff is playing well at all given his history is a testament to the power of coaching.

Stafford fell off big time this year, which is what I meant by physically done.  Goff has posted similar numbers before under McVay and is a 2 time pro bowler.  Goff's not that bad, he's just not good enough.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PNW_PantherMan said:

Stafford fell off big time this year, which is what I meant by physically done.  Goff has posted similar numbers before under McVay and is a 2 time pro bowler.  Goff's not that bad, he's just not good enough.

He's way better than he used to be.

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

10 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

He's way better than he used to be.

He's really not.  He's performing very similarly to his first year under McVay, or slightly worse.  I don't think that's a coincidence - I imagine Goff benefits quite a bit from a new innovative offensive system and doesn't quite have the elite ability for sustained success.  So he'll most likely get figured out at some point next year and his production will drop off like it did with the Rams.

2017: 28 TDs, 7 INTs, 62.1 Completion %, 253.6 YPG, 8.0 Y/A, 100.5 rating

2022: 19 TDs, 7 INTs, 64.9 Completion %, 251.8 YPG, 7.5 Y/A, 95.7 rating

  • Pie 6
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I am genuinely perplexed by this "development" idea on Goff. Can someone point out why this season he seems more "developed" than in previous seasons??

Statistically, he is basically doing the exact same thing he has done his entire NFL career.

I was wondering the same thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...