Just not smart enough

[Mr. Scot]

As I look over the problems of the Panthers, this is the thing that keeps coming to mind.

Some teams (the Patriots are a prime example) make it a priority to go after intelligent, football-smart players. Others, while they may consider intelligence as a factor, put things like athleticism in higher priority.

Likewise, some teams tend to go after coaches who have proven to be smart, adaptive, outside-the-box thinkers. It's said that the NFL is a "copycat" league, but it's those teams who go after the smarter coaches that everyone winds up "copycatting".

Do the Panthers have some smart players? Yes.

Do the Panthers have some smart coaches? Yes.

But if you put the words "not so" in front of the word "smart" in the above sentences, then sadly the answers are still "yes".

One of the things I hope the team commits to in it's future coaching searches and player scouting is a priority on football intelligence. Having guys whose brains are always in action in the film and meeting rooms can make a pretty big difference in the product we see on the field.

[mav1234]

While I agree, the fact that even our head coach says film study isn't so important since "everyone does the same thing against us" makes me sad. assuming that is a true quote.

[Montsta]

It's long been a theory of mine that the cc: portion of emails stems from copycat, not carbon copy as is widely accepted.

[Chaos]

The other team practices too.

[Mr. Scot]

Lemme give you a prime example why it makes a difference.

In an article from this year's SI season preview, Peter King wrote about a conversation he had with Darren Sharper of the Saints. Sharper related a discussion he had with Gregg Williams regarding his former team's scouting tendencies prior to the NFC Championship game.

Sharper said that the Viking coaches didn't generally put all that much time into film analysis. Their belief was that a knowledge of players and general tendencies was enough. Because of that, Sharper believed there were certain things the Saints could do that would catch the Vikes completely off guard. One of them was blitzing through the "A" gaps (near the middle) and sure enough, when the Saints sent Sharper up the middle on a blitz, it resulted in a bone-crunching hit on Favre, one that was a "difference maker" in the overall game.

On the flipside, long-time Steeler guru Dick Lebeau said that he changes about 20% of his defensive playbook every single year, even if the stuff they've been doing in the past was working wonders. LeBeau does it in the interest of being unpredictable. He expects opposing coaches to scout the Steeler defense and their tendencies heavily, so he throws in plenty of changeups that he hopes they won't see coming. He believes this is one of the reasons why the Steeler defense has been a perennial strength of the team.

Now ask yourself this question: Which of those scenarios sounds more like the current Panthers leadership team?

[goodoleboy]

While I agree, the fact that even our head coach says film study isn't so important since "everyone does the same thing against us" makes me sad. assuming that is a true quote.

That's out of context. He was simply saying that studying the teams defense currently isn't doing them much good because everyone is playing us the same way. Its not that they don't do it. Its that teams don't play us the same way they do other teams. Until we burn them with pass plays that won't change.

[magnus]

do people still want some Leslie Frazier after that about the Vikings?

[Mr. Scot]

That's out of context. He was simply saying that studying the teams defense currently isn't doing them much good because everyone is playing us the same way. Its not that they don't do it. Its that teams don't play us the same way they do other teams. Until we burn them with pass plays that won't change.

I'd still consider that a pretty sad statement.

It tells me that teams don't feel the need to study up on us much, probably because they've already seen everything we've got. You can blame that on bad personnel, but unfortunately it also applies to our game planning.

do people still want some Leslie Frazier after that about the Vikings?

One of my first thoughts.

[magnus]

of course, I'd take any offense facing a team with exaggerated blitzes not watching much tape to be an exception, not a rule. But that's just poor.

I don't know. Frazier fits the basic criteria - young, defensive minded with a good fundamental team. He's even Tampa 2, which is a bonus for continuity. But I've never been specifically impressed with him for inheriting Tomlin's D or having a team ballsy enough to trade for Allen.

[goodoleboy]

I'd still consider that a pretty sad statement.

It tells me that teams don't feel the need to study up on us much, probably because they've already seen everything we've got. You can blame that on bad personnel, but unfortunately it also applies to our game planning.

One of my first thoughts.

Not really. It speaks more to being deficient in one phase of the game. Namely the passing game. We are playing college kids there.

[Mr. Scot]

of course, I'd take any offense facing a team with exaggerated blitzes not watching much tape to be an exception, not a rule. But that's just poor.

I don't know. Frazier fits the basic criteria - young, defensive minded with a good fundamental team. He's even Tampa 2, which is a bonus for continuity. But I've never been specifically impressed with him for inheriting Tomlin's D or having a team ballsy enough to trade for Allen.

Minnesota's not his first stint as a DC. I forget where he was before but as I recall, the record wasn't so good (think he was fired).

Mike Zimmer's still my top choice, and I have a feeling he'd being Ken Zampese with him to run the offense. I agree with you on Winston Moss being an option (maybe along with Tom Clements as an OC) and also about being unconvinced on Brian Schottenheimer. Harbaugh is a thought, but I need more convincing there (and I'm just not a big fan of college coaches in general, honestly).

[uncpanther]

You can have all pro talent but it doesn't help any if your all pro stupid.........

Fox has never changed his game plan or the way he approaches a game and never will. That is why it is his time to find a replacement and one that will do EVERYTHING it takes to win.

Which for the Patriots included cheating so maybe they are not as smart as they seem to be.

[magnus]

Minnesota's not his first stint as a DC. I forget where he was before but as I recall, the record wasn't so good (think he was fired).

Mike Zimmer's still my top choice, and I have a feeling he'd being Ken Zampese with him to run the offense. I agree with you on Winston Moss being an option (maybe along with Tom Clements as an OC) and also about being unconvinced on Brian Schottenheimer. Harbaugh is a thought, but I need more convincing there (and I'm just not a big fan of college coaches in general, honestly).

still love Harbaugh, and his run coordinator is a former Panther coach (Mark Roman).

I like Zampese as an OC, but can he be had? Zimmer seems middle of the road, IMO. I haven't thought about Moss this year and who knows what D he'd want to bring. Sorry for the derail.

[Mr. Scot]

still love Harbaugh, and his run coordinator is a former Panther coach (Mark Roman).

I like Zampese as an OC, but can he be had? Zimmer seems middle of the road, IMO. I haven't thought about Moss this year and who knows what D he'd want to bring. Sorry for the derail.

I didn't see it as a derail. It's pertinent to the topic.

We looked at Zampese as an OC candidate before hiring Davidson. He was my first choice for the job at the time.

Zimmer's been part of some pretty successful programs. Honestly, I think the Bengals organization is so poorly run that anything above utter failure there is borderline miraculous.

Heck, if I remember correctly, Zimmer and Zampese's boss is in the same situation as Fox, contract-wise.

(don't know that I'd wanna go that route, but I'm sure his name would come up)