mav1234

Your first post said "[Wilks] has zero knowledge of offensive football." Then it was "Ok, he knows a little, but McAdoo knows more." Then it was, "The reason Wilks has had any success is because of McAdoo and Holcomb. [Wilks isn't some] ultra multitasking HC." I never said he was ... multitasking as an OC, or knew more than the OC, or whatever. My point in every post has been this: Wilks knows more than "zero" about an NFL offense. As is the cast for most HCs, he likely has a vision that he works with his coordinators to implement. You're the one that called me an idiot and whatever else just for replying to you. I clearly struck a nerve, which is pretty funny, given I've never had a problem admitting when I was wrong here before. I wouldn't now. I agree - and always have - that Wilks is going to need a good OC to have any sustained success. Doesn't mean I agree he "has zero knowledge of offensive football."

Burns... Hasn't been a resounding success? What? I understand thinking we shoulda traded him but how you can call him unsuccessful here as a draft pick is beyond me .

Not to mention in the NFL going on a 6 game winning streak is hard no matter the opponents...

It's very possible we don't draft a QB, but if we do not, we are probably going to bring in a veteran bridge QB (honestly likely regardless). Trading up doesn't really factor in as much as lack of productivity in the previous preseason and his injury IMO in terms of factors contributing to how the team views him next year. He will be here, but it won't change any moves they make at QB either way.

Snake arguing with himself, in three posts: "[Wilks] has zero knowledge of offensive football." "He may have some understanding of offenses" "You idiot don't you read posts he's not some mastermind!" What's so funny about this is if your stance is, "he knows about NFL offenses but not enough to run an offense and needs an OC to do that," we agree! I just disagreed with your initial *unqualified* statement that he has zero knowledge of offensive football. But I like I struck a nerve and now I understand the bag wearing a bit better. Edit: and having a coordinator doesn't mean "zero knowledge" either.

Nobody said backup was his ceiling. We said backup is a success for a 3rd round QB. Ceiling for any rookie is usually very high. But the floor is very low. He wasn't groomed as a starter last year and he won't be next year. He'll get a shot in camp, but hell, teams use back to back first rounders on QBs in rare circumstances, they won't blink at using another draft pick after a 3rd rounder. Not to say we didn't believe he had (has) potential - but this is gonna be a new regime or a coach that can't go into the season with this QB room...

You legit said "Wilks doesn't know anything about NFL offenses," then admitted right after he did have an understanding of them when it was pointed out how dumb that is. Of course he's letting his coordinators coordinate. Are you saying he doesn't know anything about NFL defenses, either? . Saying HCs need good coordinators is not the same as saying an HC needs a coordinator because they "know nothing about" the offensive/defensive side of the ball. See, the Huddle is a place you can't just interpret everything ridiculous as hyperbole. You can admit you were exaggerating for effect, it's ok.

I have no doubt McAdoo has more fine scale knowledge of an NFL offense than Wilks, but that isn't what you said. Regarding comparisons with Rhule, I don't think it's fair to put Rhule and Wilks in the same category of knowledge on the offense... If nothing else than having been around the NFL for longer I suspect Wilks picked up more... But I also think good defense coaches do need to know the offense well... They have to scheme against them after all. It doesn't mean he can come up with great new schemes on his own, or has the same knowledge as an OC that's been in the league since probably before half our posters were born etc but this is again not what you said...

Its very hard to call a 3rd round QB a bust if they aren't a starter - as you say, if he makes it to a backup that's a successful 3rd round pick... And he'll definitely have an opportunity to do that and more... I think he will definitely get 2nd team reps and any smart coach will give him a chance to show he deserves more, but not rely on him ofc. If he performs well there and in the preseason for what time he's had, one never knows, and definitely we would keep him around (giving him more opportunities). I mean look at the namesake of this thread - opportunity comes in unexpected times.

Do we know this for sure ? Not saying he'd ever run an offense himself, but he's a smart dude and has been around the NFL for some time...

If he finishes with a convincingly winning record with this crew of QBs even if we miss the playoffs, I think he at least gets a real chance in an interview. I think it's likely we have one loss down the stretch and miss the playoffs but he gets brought back on a 2 year deal. My huge concern with Wilks is and will be the offense - but, I am very impressed with him as a coach so far. I just really wanted an offensive minded coach last time and I still do.

The fact they don't say he's a bust. He could still end up a backup for sure or, long shot starter, based on that quote... Corral has a VERY hard road to climb to be starter but it'll be possible for him to at least make #2 if not more if he's half as good as some of our posters believe. I can't judge since he has the tools but hasn't shown he can use them effectively yet in the NFL (and yes I understand why). Corral is a later round QB, that's hard even without injuries or shitty coaches or coaching changes...

A great o line is definitely rare and it's pretty awesome pff even considers us 11th, just surprised by the stat snippet - I wouldn't really have expected so few pressures, but as stbugs said we don't exactly have many pass attempts. but sacks given up aren't all on the OL. All our QBs have def given some up at times.

So we're #11 despite allowing the fewest pressures, and with our run game performing how it is? Wild.

Depending on where the win probability is sourced from, it may only include the first few minutes of the Bengals game, as our win probability tanked to less than 20% after the first drive, which would make the vast majority of that game be excluded.

The figure seems to suggest it is when a game is between win probability of 20 and 80% for either team. (in this case, not in general usage obviously)

One major problem - "problem" - Sam routinely trusted receivers to make plays when he could have with his legs. I actually think a few of those plays were on the receiver for not making, but at the goal line he really shoulda taken off and he had a couple first downs he could have had if he didn't throw on the run. But the long pass down the sideline to Sullivan should have been a reception, but alas, our TEs... Anyway, Wilks is clearly a legit NFL coach. Whether or not he is the best option long term, I'm much less sold on.

I really thought it was intercepted and TMJ was rolling on the ground hurt live on the play... Absolutely phenomenal effort by the young WR to make that catch.

Josh Norman had at least one year where he was more than adequate in that regard, I think... But we will have Jaycee for much longer...

Really a great day for him. He's just so good. Only a single low effort play at the end of the game, but he gave it his all the rest of the day, and deserved that sideline pick that ended up "just" a breakup...

He definitely is. He's exciting out of the backfield. Really fun to watch, and teams need to account for him because it takes more than one guy to take him down.

Oh he's much better than Rhule. If he keeps winning, then yes, he's HC next year. He's got these guys playing hard. But I'm not ready to offer him a contract until we see the rest of the season is all.

Plenty of games left in the season. He's what, .500?

we're now arguing how many are/ours and the's are in a press conference of a coach that just won a game, lol.

The players have no control over the HC changes. That is what he means by an "it". Did you actually listen to the interview, or just the sound bite?