Coaching philosophy concern

[panthers55]

I think those making mountains out of molehills on that quote are missing the whole point. He isn't saying we aren't gone to gameplan or exploit other team's weaknesses. Every team does that every week for every opponent.

I think what we is saying is that instead of trying to out scheme a team with exotic looks, we are going to line up and beat them with sound technique, good execution and hard work.  

If your team isn't physical, do you try to scheme around that or do you stress hard work and mental toughness? It is a philosophical approach. Look at 2015. We schemed around poor receivers and a suspect right tackle. It worked for awhile but teams figured it out. Wilks was saying you have to have talent and good fundamentals and that relying on outscheming an opponent doesn't give you consistent results. 

At least that is what I read. All of the other stuff appears to be huddle paranoia and using every opportunity to beat a dead horse all over again.

[AceBoogie]

5 hours ago, Leeroy Jenkins PhD said:

Something was said in Steve Wilks Q&A that has me concerned and I believe it has to do with Ron's overall coaching philosophy.  

 

He stated something along the lines of; were not going to try and out-scheme our opponents.   

 

He said this like it was meant to be a comforting stance.   It really got me thinking about our coaching staff and their overall philosophy.   Does Ron not emphasize individually tailored game plans based on an opponents strengths and weaknesses?  IMO,  it would explain a lot about our predictably and lack of in-game adjustments.   Does that statement concern you or am I reading too much into it? 

Anyone who watches our games can see we aren't game planning to attack an opponent in a specific way or to take something away. We just roll the balls out and play "our game" which is why we struggle once  a team (broncos) figures out the blueprint. 

[Evil Hurney]

I was a bit concerned when I heard him say that as well.

[panther4life]

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

I think those making mountains out of molehills on that quote are missing the whole point. He isn't saying we aren't gone to gameplan or exploit other team's weaknesses. Every team does that every week for every opponent.

I think what we is saying is that instead of trying to out scheme a team with exotic looks, we are going to line up and beat them with sound technique, good execution and hard work.  

If your team isn't physical, do you try to scheme around that or do you stress hard work and mental toughness? It is a philosophical approach. Look at 2015. We schemed around poor receivers and a suspect right tackle. It worked for awhile but teams figured it out. Wilks was saying you have to have talent and good fundamentals and that relying on outscheming an opponent doesn't give you consistent results. 

At least that is what I read. All of the other stuff appears to be huddle paranoia and using every opportunity to beat a dead horse all over again.

I just watched the whole thing and I agree. He basically said the defense is a team effort from all position coaches and that it was "our D" as a whole vs "Mcdermott's D". 

He also mentioned they will add new wrinkles as they always do every offseason after reviewing film. 

To me it was more a confirmation we will see the same basic concept's on defense as we did under McDermott but he personally likes to put the most emphasis on being good at the basics. He specifically mentioned, tackling,takeaway's and points like we did in 2015.

[Salisburysean98]

Fear not ! If wilks can't get the job done. We'll be 6-10 again and Rivera will be on that riverboat to LA with him. 

[Cuttinedge]

I would think with this philosophy we'd be one of less penalized teams in the league. They say one thing but they are putting another on the field.  Good execution, solid tackling , intelligent play. We had none of that last year. Our team played with very little discipline. Stupid penalties ,poor execution, failed assignments. 

So either you are or you aren't. 

I think it's what's RR says cause let's face it he ain't outsmarting a lot of the playoff coaches.

Some coaches evolve and get better RR hasn't shown he has yet.  First off he wont make the tuff choices of canning coaches who ain't cutting it. His loyalty will cost him his job. Eventually 

[SOJA]

This is exactly how Denver won the Superbowl and why we sucked so much at the beginning of this year. 

We go into a game with a gameplan and stick to it, regardless of how the game is going. 

 

That's a recipe for team's catching on to what you are doing. 

Gee I wonder why Atlanta has beat us the last 3x in a row. 

[panthers55]

3 hours ago, stbugs said:

It is splitting hairs, I'll just say NE (and other teams, see GB without Lacy) makes adjustments that we do not. I didn't see the press conference, so maybe it was more of we'll beat you with our strengths. I just get worried because we've shown our non-adjustments/non-learning from mistakes over and over again. It just seems like we win due to individuals making great plays, not due to adjustments and out-coaching.

Most games are won by individuals on one team or the other making critical plays when it matters. It is usually execution not scheme. For example on Sunday with 2 minutes left on third down Ben rolls out on a busted play and throws it to Antonio Brown who outhustles the defender and catches the pass before going out of bounds. New set of downs and game over. No scheming simple out executing. On the other side Kansas City has a chance to tie it on a 2 point conversion and they get it except for a penalty for holding and miss it the second time. Again lack of execution kills them. It is always individuals making or not making plays. Being out coached and adjustments are often over blown. When it works it was a great adjustment or coaching decision. When it fails it was a poor one. We lost 5 games by three points or less. That means we were not outcoached on most games apparently.

[Kevin Greene]

It is what it is.

And we get what we get.

Expect more of the same.

[Fox007]

2 hours ago, Kevin Greene said:

It is what it is.

And we get what we get.

Expect more of the same.

Yea we'll have plenty of 'opportunities' to miss out on come next year.

[Mr. Scot]

Let's look at this practically for a moment...

There is a scheme to this defense, and being that it's a pro level defense, you can safely bet that it's a complicated scheme. Wilks isn't gonna be telling guys "you stand here, you stand there, you cover that guy, etc." If it were that simple, anyone could do it.

So could we take it to mean they're not gonna do fakes, stunts, etc. trying to fool people?  Eh, not really. We did plenty of those things under McDermott. So yes, coverages will still be disguised, pre-snap looks will be ruses, blitzes will be faked, etc. etc.

So what does he mean?

Well, I'd say it's possible he means he's simplifying the approach

As NFL schemes go, there's complex and there's complex. Wilks might just mean he's not wanting to overcomplicate things and stick to teaching his guys to play better and smarter.

Some defensive coaches believe it's better that some of their players react quickly rather than overthinking. Wilks may be one of those guys. We'll see

Here's hoping...

[panthers55]

12 hours ago, stbugs said:

OK, easy to call out a couple plays. How about the double-double run blocking that helped Bell get 170 yards rushing when Roethlisberger had a bit of an underwhelming 224 yards. Or how about using James their TE more than he had ever been used all year. He had 37% of the passing yards on Sunday compared to 8% of the regular season passing yards.

Teams do change things up and take advantage of their opponents weaknesses. Sometimes it doesn't work as you said, but as you pointed out those plays, IMHO we tend to just hope that we make those plays. The more successful coaches hope for execution but also put their teams in better position.

We were absolutely out coached multiple times. I think you and I discussed the Oakland game and you forgot that us not going for it on 4th down led to the game winning FG drive by Oakland. What was our plan? Hope that Olsen makes an amazing play to get in position to tie it because we decide not to go for 1 yard against a D we scored 25 points on in the second half. Also, against KC, we had a 20 play drive got to the KC 20 yard line with a 17-3 lead. Instead of being conservative and getting up 3 scores against Alex Smith in the 4th quarter, we call 3 passes and get knocked out of FG range. Heck, after the first two we were still in 45 yard FG range and we get yet another sack. Stupid play calling, cost us the game. What about Tampa game 1? 1st and goal at the 1 in a 14-14 game with 8 minutes left in the game against a defense without 3 of their 4 DL starters (including their best in McCoy) on a drive where we ran 3 times for 14, 12 and 16 yards. What do we call? A pass and get an INT. Just plain terrible call in that situation. I don't feel like rehashing the season but just because we lost close games doesn't mean we weren't outcoached.

As I said when a play works we all say it was a great play call, when the same play doesn't work it was a poor play. What fans don't see is whether the play was run as called, who made the adjustments or audibles, and if everyone executed as they should have.

On your examples of coaching decisions you ignore execution. For example against KC we have 3 passes called. Why were they not completed? Poor concept or poor execution ? Why did Cam take a sack instead of throwing it away? The same thing you call poor concept I call poor execution. Again, if it works whether it was a great play or not it was a good call and if it doesn't it was a bad one. You can always decide to blame who you want based on your bias and beliefs. Going back and forth hardly makes sense since you rarely if ever change your mind or admit you are wrong. You thinking coaching is the problem, I think it is more complicated and interactional than that and that blaming one person for the issues is simplistic and naive. Sure coaching could improve as both Rivera and Shula have admitted. But it isn't the biggest issue this year and won't be next. 

 

[panthers55]

8 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Let's look at this practically for a moment...

There is a scheme to this defense, and being that it's a pro level defense, you can safely bet that it's a complicated scheme. Wilks isn't gonna be telling guys "you stand here, you stand there, you cover that guy, etc." If it were that simple, anyone could do it.

So could we take it to mean they're not gonna do fakes, stunts, etc. trying to fool people?  Eh, not really. We did plenty of those things under McDermott. So yes, coverages will still be disguised, pre-snap looks will be ruses, blitzes will be faked, etc. etc.

So what does he mean?

Well, I'd say it's possible he means he's simplifying the approach

As NFL schemes go, there's complex and there's complex. Wilks might just mean he's not wanting to overcomplicate things and stick to teaching his guys to play better and smarter.

Some defensive coaches believe it's better that some of their players react quickly rather than overthinking. Wilks may be one of those guys. We'll see

Here's hoping...

Exactly. You can assume that Wilks is a pretty smart guy and has Rivera and the whole coaching staff there to help him. So we will still run many of the same things we ran under McDermott. I think he was assuring everyone that just because McDermott left we weren't going to suffer a drop off. In fact who knows if Wilks might be better. While I won't waste time here, as good as McDermott was, there were some issues and weaknesses he had as a DC. 

[Mr. Scot]

14 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Exactly. You can assume that Wilks is a pretty smart guy and has Rivera and the whole coaching staff there to help him. So we will still run many of the same things we ran under McDermott. I think he was assuring everyone that just because McDermott left we weren't going to suffer a drop off. In fact who knows if Wilks might be better. While I won't waste time here, as good as McDermott was, there were some issues and weaknesses he had as a DC. 

I do believe it's possible he'll run more Cover 2 than zone blitz though.