From Snow to Wilks

[PanthersGTI]

If I was to attempt to read the tea leaves....I would suspect that Wilks not moving on from Holcomb to bring in someone with the Fangio 2 shell scheme played a big role. If they had the in depth discussion as a committee we are lead to believe I think at some point they zeroed in on this scheme currently being the most successful in the NFL and most adept at stopping modern offenses. 

[PleaseCutStewart]

5 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Mike Kaye on a discussion we've had here before...

Agree or disagree?

Random stat with the middle of the field passes. My counter argument to that is why throw it down the middle of the field when you can just throw it over the top against CJ & Taylor...

I think our defense didn't look any better the back half of the schedule,which is surprising since our offense was actually somewhat competent and not a trainwreck like the first half of the year.

[Basbear]

6 hours ago, t96 said:

I mean, even aside from this year as interim HC, he was never even that good of a defensive coordinator. His 2017 season left a ton to be desired considering the amount of talent we had on D, and he clearly was nowhere near as good as McD was in his years here under Ron. Then he was pretty bad coordinating the D in Cleveland after AZ fired him. 

 

I think Wilks is an incredible leader of men, has generally solid football sense despite being very conservative in his coaching and is a great secondary coach. But he's not some defensive Xs and Os guru. Rivera honestly was, the game is passing him by a bit at this point (and Wilks too as he's from the same mold) but he got some incredible seasons from his defenses, getting more out of the talent than most other coaches would by coaching to their strengths and putting guys in a position to succeed within his scheme. 2013 is a great example. Yes we had prime Luke and TD and Hardy was dominating, but the secondary talent level was an absolute joke and our entire interior DL was rookies who still needed developing. 

 

Wilks will lead the guys as well as anyone but I don't consider him a great coach for running a great D whether as HC or DC. I really think the best spot for him on a contending team would be what he was initially brought in to be here : assistant HC and secondary coach. If he gets the 49ers DC job I'll be happy for him and that'll be a good spot considering the talent level but it'll be a considerable downgrade from Ryans for them.

6 hours ago, Khyber53 said:

Considering the firing of the HC in a busted season, perhaps we should judge his impact based on how bad it COULD have gotten. Interim coaches and low player effort go hand in hand.

Somehow, Wilks kept the team competitive. That's worth a tip of the hat, at least.

 

Steve fired those guys, right?? I mean before you fired someone at a important spot, you need to confirm a replacement.....to me this is another bad look on steve

6 hours ago, Kentucky Panther said:

Mike Evans and Tom Brady on the verge of retirement killed us in the biggest game of the season. Before that, it was Mitch fugging Trubisky. We saw enough of Wilks defense to know we didn’t want him 

As another said, the bad was soooo bad......

5 hours ago, Mage said:

Watching the two defenses play, I felt like they looked better under Phil Snow. Maybe I'm wrong but that is just how viewed it.  I think the defense under Wilks benefited from the offense self-destructing less.  But I preferred how aggressive Snow's defense was.

This is me as well. You maybe be able to quote some stats that show a improvement, but on the field there was no such thing.....Plus another big deal is it seemed the players played HARDER for Steve&al, but results didnt show it. 

[Peon Awesome]

The guy tries to argue us giving up more yards is because the team was more competitive. I don't buy it. We were a ball control, run heavy, turnover minimizing offense under Wilks. If anything that could have skewed our defensive numbers favorably because the opposing offense had less chances to score and fewer short fields. And being the victim of a blow out doesn't mean less yardage given up necessarily as the Bengals game proved.

[Basbear]

3 minutes ago, Peon Awesome said:

The guy tries to argue us giving up more yards is because the team was more competitive. I don't buy it. We were a ball control, run heavy, turnover minimizing offense under Wilks. If anything that could have skewed our defensive numbers favorably because the opposing offense had less chances to score and fewer short fields. And being the victim of a blow out doesn't mean less yardage given up necessarily as the Bengals game proved.

You got it figured out, this is weak bait thats one week too late to cash on race BS.....

[Basbear]

2 hours ago, frankw said:

"Well you see if you remove three of the most important games of the season which were losses and ended our postseason hopes things actually weren't that bad."

Up 14-0 and