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!

     

How about Steve Wilkes?


WarHeel
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

No one is blaming Wilks. He just didn’t perform some miracle nor does this make him a great HC candidate. He let his loaded DL do work and did drop back coverages. That worked great. KC just adjusted to it in the end. It is what it is. 

Yeah, I'm not stumping for Wilks as a HC but he's a good DC. Not elite, but good. I put significantly more blame on Shanny for that L than Wilks.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheBigKat said:


 

at this point Reid is just trolling DC’s

 

 you’d think Wilks would be prepared for this

Honestly, teams run the same basic concepts over and over again. They just throw in small tweaks to throw the D off. Slight formation variances, maybe a different guy in motion. It's the same concepts at the end of the day but just enough variations to disguise it. That's where Shula dropped the ball in SB50. He changed NOTHING so the Broncos basically knew our plays before the ball was snapped and said as much after the game.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Honestly, teams run the same basic concepts over and over again. They just throw in small tweaks to throw the D off. Slight formation variances, maybe a different guy in motion. It's the same concepts at the end of the day but just enough variations to disguise it. That's where Shula dropped the ball in SB50. He changed NOTHING so the Broncos basically knew our plays before the ball was snapped and said as much after the game.

Agreed

 

but this play was also at the most crucial time of the game like last year, not like it was run randomly in the second quarter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, frankw said:

Some just like him because CMC plays for them.

Some are dug in on Purdy because they like his "Rudy" story of ascendance from a QB not in the usual physical mold who can show QB's like Lamar Jackson who don't actually deserve MVP how to play the position. Call it what it is.

What are we calling it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Spag also called a great game and is a terrible HC. Being a good DC doesn’t make you a good HC. He mostly called drop back coverages and let his loaded front 4 handle the pressure. KC adjusted in the end and SF did not. That’s all part of it. 

I believe he’d actually make a better HC simply based off his leadership ability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Always love it when folks reach for narratives to fit their biases. And it's usually both camps pointing at each other like the Spiderman meme.

Yeah I’m not sure what narrative I was trying to spin by saying some people admire humble athletes who have an underdog story. I’m not even a Purdy fan but his story is essentially Hollywood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, jamos14 said:

Wilks called a good game in the first 2.5 quarters.  Then he started playing soft zone and Mahomes picked them apart.   Changed it to heavy cover 0 and got picked apart there. 

Which, if we're honest, is pretty much vintage Wilks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I really just don't understand folks blaming Wilks. They held KC to 19 points in regulation. The Niners didn't score enough points.

The mistake is only blaming one and not both.

Wilks did what he frequently does; got conservative in the latter part of the game and allowed the other team back in.

Shanahan called a poor game putting it on the back of Purdy rather than McCaffrey.

Hell, even special teams had miscues.

Nobody comes out of this looking like a hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Which, if we're honest, is pretty much vintage Wilks.

Didn’t Shanahan call a timeout to “overrule” Wilks on one play? At least that’s what I thought I heard Nantz say. But yeah, that last drive in OT was vintage Wilks and why I didn’t want him as HC. Great guy, aggressive scheme, but he doesn’t show up when the game is on the line. Kind of like, Ron. 

  • Pie 1
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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • LOL... Yet again proving you can't look below anything than what you see on the surface Mock drafts ARE NOT draft grades They are what people think will happen.  They are mocking teams taking QB's in the top 5 of the draft because that's just historically how drafts go regardless of the grades on the QBs.  Almost every draft expert, even those mocking QB's going high, have said time and time again that none of these QB's actually grade out as those type of picks. This is again, where I say you don't like to actually read what I have to say, because I already explained it. 2022 the exact same thing happened, mock drafts had guys like Pickett and Willis going in the Top 5 because that's just what teams usually do, but GM's listened to their prospect grades and knew they weren't worth taking that high, so they didn't. It's not to say QB's won't go that high this year, but it's to say that they aren't graded out as elite QB prospects.  Mock drafts 
    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
×
×
  • Create New...