The Problem with "Rudys"

[Razeyfingers]

On what picks, do you think? I do remember Gettleman saying in an interview post draft that there were players that he wanted that didn't fit the coaches scheme, so he didn't draft them. I wonder if it was, like you said, a "you make your bed, now lie in it" kind of things. (Obviously they agreed on the first pick, I'm willing to bet Gettleman picked the second)

 

I think round 2 was the big one, but what happened in round 4 and 5? I wonder if Kugzilla was Gettles pick or not. Round 5. . well I like AJ but we had some serious pressing needs on the o line.

[Mr. Scot]

I generally agree with Scott. Rivera values high effort guys, sometimes to his detriment.

But it's not just the underachievers. Last preseason, Luke played excellent at MLB. Regular season rolls around and we had to watch too many weeks of Beason trying his best but just not getting the job done. I often wonder how long Luke would have stayed on the outside if Beason hadn't gone on IR.

And as Scott pointed out, Captain is another great example. He is very good close to the line of scrimmage, but put him outside and he's going to get abused.

Of course the ultimate high-effort guy without a lot of talent (sorry App St fans) was Armanti. Every roster spot is valuable in the NFL, and he held one too long.

I don't think this tendency is Ron's greatest problem, but I agree it is a problem.

I've asked the same question about Beason last year. And yes, I do consider Armanti one of the guys that falls under this theory.

To be clear, I think this tendency is one aspect of Rivera's biggest problem, the larger problem being that he's not good at the coaching side of roster building.

I know most will probably say game management is the bigger problem. I consider this to be the larger though, and for one primary reason: a talented roster is capable of overcoming coaching deficiencies (how else do you explain Barry Switzer having a Super Bowl ring?)

.

[Mr. Scot]

I think round 2 was the big one, but what happened in round 4 and 5? I wonder if Kugzilla was Gettles pick or not. Round 5. . well I like AJ but we had some serious pressing needs on the o line.

I buy into thinking this could have had an effect on who we drafted. And specifically, it is some of the 'underdog' picks like Amini Silatolu, Josh Norman (guess that one backfired, huh) and Edmund Kugbila, all guys from lesser programs who fit easily into the 'we try harder' mold.

As to A J Klein, if you want further evidence of Rivera being a poor talent evaluator who overvalued effort, think back to his comments on Klein. Remember him calling Klein "Kuechly 2.0"? I like the kid, but does anybody really believe he's the next Kuechly? I don't. That's not an insult to him. It's just honest evaluation.

[panthers55]

I've asked the same question about Beason last year. And yes, I do consider Armanti one of the guys that falls under this theory.

To be clear, I think this tendency is one aspect of Rivera's biggest problem, the larger problem being that he's not good at the coaching side of roster building.

I know most will probably say game management is the bigger problem. I consider this to be the larger though, and for one primary reason: a talented roster is capable of overcoming coaching deficiencies (how else do you explain Barry Switzer having a Super Bowl ring?)

.

How can you say that when he has consistently taken poor defenses and built them into top 5 units in a couple of years.  Don't you think that a defensive coordinator has to evaluate the talent he wants or is given and has to plug them into the spots he wants and then has to coach them to get the most out of them?  Isn't that the coaching side of roster building.  Either getting who you want or making the best out of who you were given.  How many guys like Dwan Edwards who were castoffs come here and perform pretty well when not injured.  He has taken a secondary that has practice squad guys and undrafted rookies and turned then into a pretty good unit.

You could argue that we haven't done that on offense but that isn't his side of the ball so you could make the case he can't do that on offense, but I don't see how you can say that on the defensive side of the ball.    

 

I again am not trying to defend Rivera and his decisions because I just can't.  But his pedigree as a defensive coordinator and therefore a good judge of defensive talent and a roster builder on that side of the ball is not even in question.

[Mr. Scot]

For some strange reason when I try replying to the post, I can't get underneath it to write. It keeps extending the quote.

But to answer your post Mr Scot, I am not clear that Rivera was the determining factor. Sure Gettleman said it was collaborative but of course he would say that. He also said that he was the ultimate decision-maker and that he would listen to input but the decision was ultimately his.

Look I understand the need to paint all of this on Rivera. he is likely gone after the season while Gettleman is staying. I also understand that we all need to think that the problem is with Rivera and that once he and Shula are gone, things will turn around. Trust me I am not a big fan at this point of Rivera but this is not all on him. Sure he supports and says good things about Bell. What else could he do? He has Bell whether he wants him or not.

Gettleman prides himself on being a good film evaluator and knowing talent when he sees it. He saw the same thing Rivera did watching coach's film of every player and every position. He should have been in the best position to know what he saw and what he wanted. He had no attachment to Bell or any other pick. What he had was a 15 million cap problem to fix and didn't have the money for a fix at right tackle in the draft. So he was left with the draft. The D line was so awful that those 2 positions were the biggest necessity in his book. And since he let Hangman go who could certainly be called a Rudy, he had virtually no one at Right guard so we went there. After that there were no right tackles that were come in and be better than Bell so we brought in a few guys for depth and decided to do the best we could.

Honestly I just don't see how you can say that bell was a Rudy when we got rid of a number of Rudys in the offseason and during camp and only kept him because of the cap problems and needing to draft at positions of huge need whereas replacing Bell was considered a need. Maybe they both were wrong but honestly the psychology of the whole thing suggests it is gettleman pulling the strings not Rivera.

This new forum software does that sometimes. I think it helps to make sure you start a few lines below the quote.

As to the response, I don't really have a need to absolve Gettleman. This is how I see it. Specific evidence that it's more of a Rivera problem than a Gettleman problem can be found in the fact that these things were already happening before Gettleman ever got here.

Did Gettleman play a role in enabling it? Yes he did, and I think it's because when he says it's a collaborative effort and when he said that he was going to give Rivera a fair shot and full cooperation, he meant those things.

I've never ought into the notion that Gettleman undercut Rivera with his roster choices. Just the opposite. I believe he gave Rivera exactly what he wanted under his philosophy and his evaluation of what the team needed.

And I'd say everyone, Gettleman included, can now see that was a mistake.

[panthers55]

I buy into thinking this could have had an effect on who we drafted. And specifically, it is some of the 'underdog' picks like Amini Silatolu, Josh Norman (guess that one backfired, huh) and Edmund Kugbila, all guys from lesser programs who fit easily into the 'we try harder' mold.

As to A J Klein, if you want further evidence of Rivera being a poor talent evaluator who overvalued effort, think back to his comments on Klein. Remember him calling Klein "Kuechly 2.0"? I like the kid, but does anybody really believe he's the next Kuechly? I don't. That's not an insult to him. It's just honest evaluation.

Norman, Silatolu and Kugbilla were not drafted as underdogs or guys who are just hard workers.  They were drafted as guys with huge potential who were needing work to develop them.  All three were considered talented guys who were devalued based on going to lesser schools in lower divisions not guys who were long shots or underdogs.  They were supposedly diamonds in the rough. Perhaps it is semantics but I think the underlying issue is very different. You seem to make the assumption that they were chosen as underdogs because Rivera has a soft spot for Rudys.  I think we were looking for talented upside guys who were overlooked due to their circumstances and therefore diamonds in the rough. There is a big difference between the two.

[Mr. Scot]

How can you say that when he has consistently taken poor defenses and built them into top 5 units in a couple of years. Don't you think that a defensive coordinator has to evaluate the talent he wants or is given and has to plug them into the spots he wants and then has to coach them to get the most out of them? Isn't that the coaching side of roster building. Either getting who you want or making the best out of who you were given. How many guys like Dwan Edwards who were castoffs come here and perform pretty well when not injured. He has taken a secondary that has practice squad guys and undrafted rookies and turned then into a pretty good unit.

You could argue that we haven't done that on offense but that isn't his side of the ball so you could make the case he can't do that on offense, but I don't see how you can say that on the defensive side of the ball.

I again am not trying to defend Rivera and his decisions because I just can't. But his pedigree as a defensive coordinator and therefore a good judge of defensive talent and a roster builder on that side of the ball is not even in question.

A defensive coordinator is more of a schemer than an evaluator. Plus you'd figure in that role he'd have less of a voice in the talent acquisition (and in who they keep vs who they let go) than he has as head coach.

The head coach job is just too big for him, and I see this as a major reason.

[Mr. Scot]

Norman, Silatolu and Kugbilla were not drafted as underdogs or guys who are just hard workers. They were drafted as guys with huge potential who were needing work to develop them. All three were considered talented guys who were devalued based on going to lesser schools in lower divisions not guys who were long shots or underdogs. They were supposedly diamonds in the rough. Perhaps it is semantics but I think the underlying issue is very different. You seem to make the assumption that they were chosen as underdogs because Rivera has a soft spot for Rudys. I think we were looking for talented upside guys who were overlooked due to their circumstances and therefore diamonds in the rough. There is a big difference between the two.

When it comes to the draft, I don't see much difference between "underdogs" and "diamonds in the rough". So yeah, it's semantics to me. Regardless of what you call it, the practical aspect of it is that you're taking Amini Silatolu over Cordy Glenn, Edmund Kugbila over other options, etc.

Honestly, when you look at the 2012 and 2013 draft, even though they're under different GMs, there are definite similarities (defensive guy at the top, small school guys in later rounds). The common link certainly isn't the talent evaluation skills of the GM since Gettleman and Hurney are worlds apart there. No, the thread that links the two is Ron Rivera.

What's really going to tell the tale on this will be the first draft under the next head coach.if we see major differences there, we'll know all of this was true.

[panthers55]

This new forum software does that sometimes. I think it helps to make sure you start a few lines below the quote.

As to the response, I don't really have a need to absolve Gettleman. This is how I see it. Specific evidence that it's more of a Rivera problem than a Gettleman problem can be found in the fact that these things were already happening before Gettleman ever got here.

Did Gettleman play a role in enabling it? Yes he did, and I think it's because when he says it's a collaborative effort and when he said that he was going to give Rivera a fair shot and full cooperation, he meant those things.

I've never ought into the notion that Gettleman undercut Rivera with his roster choices. Just the opposite. I believe he gave Rivera exactly what he wanted under his philosophy and his evaluation of what the team needed.

And I'd say everyone, Gettleman included, can now see that was a mistake.

 

I understand that sentiment and I am sure he valued Rivera's input and did want to work cooperatively.  But there is plenty of evidence that he is exerting his will on this team and making Rivera do things his way as well.  The fact that he came out and said that Newton was going to be a pocket passer and we weren't going to be doing the read option as much was Gettleman's desire not Rivera who had pretty good success with Chud who was Rivera's choice not Hurney's.  Secondly Gettleman has a long term approach not a short term like Rivera must have.  So if anything, Rivera would have wanted quick fixes and bringing in veterans who could shore things up right away.  It would have been Gettleman who would have brought in a guy like Kugbilla knowing it would take years to develop.  It would have been Gettleman who wanted to stay with a young secondary instead of bringing in instant upgrades which is what Rivera would have done.  Truth is that with Gettleman so focused on reducing the cap, he clearly was going to neglect certain areas knowing he couldn't fix everything.  As we know now perhaps the O line was one of those areas where injuries and poor place surprised both of them and they were wrong.  But I can't see where Rivera would be the one to go with rookies and unproven guys. Someone whose seat is on fire would be going for sure things and veterans not guys who will need time to develop.  

 

Rivera doesn't have the time to wait while Gettleman surely does,

[Mr. Scot]

I understand that sentiment and I am sure he valued Rivera's input and did want to work cooperatively. But there is plenty of evidence that he is exerting his will on this team and making Rivera do things his way as well. The fact that he came out and said that Newton was going to be a pocket passer and we weren't going to be doing the read option as much was Gettleman's desire not Rivera who had pretty good success with Chud who was Rivera's choice not Hurney's. Secondly Gettleman has a long term approach not a short term like Rivera must have. So if anything, Rivera would have wanted quick fixes and bringing in veterans who could shore things up right away. It would have been Gettleman who would have brought in a guy like Kugbilla knowing it would take years to develop. It would have been Gettleman who wanted to stay with a young secondary instead of bringing in instant upgrades which is what Rivera would have done. Truth is that with Gettleman so focused on reducing the cap, he clearly was going to neglect certain areas knowing he couldn't fix everything. As we know now perhaps the O line was one of those areas where injuries and poor place surprised both of them and they were wrong. But I can't see where Rivera would be the one to go with rookies and unproven guys. Someone whose seat is on fire would be going for sure things and veterans not guys who will need time to develop.

Rivera doesn't have the time to wait while Gettleman surely does,

See above.

I don't think urgency is a problem for Rivera.

I think competence is.

[panthers55]

When it comes to the draft, I don't see much difference between "underdogs" and "diamonds in the rough". So yeah, it's semantics to me.

Honestly, when you look at the 2012 and 2013 draft, even though they're under different GMs, there are definite similarities (defensive guy at the top, small school guys in later rounds). The common link certainly isn't the talent evaluation skills of the GM since Gettleman and Hurney are worlds apart there. No, the thread that links the two is Ron Rivera.

What's really going to tell the tale on this will be the first draft under the next head coach.if we see major differences there, we'll know all of this was true.

I see a lot of difference between underdogs and diamonds in the rough. Underdogs are typically guys not expected to do well who have to rely on will or effort to make up for distinct talent disadvantages like a Rocky Balboa type guy.  Diamonds in the rough are guys like Flacco, Silatolu, or Kugbila who have good measurables and are considered talented but will need time to develop.  You get them at somewhat at a discount although Flacco was still taken 18th so not that great of a discount but if he went to a bigger school might have gone higher.

 

Silatolu was clearly not an underdog, he was considered a big strong guy who was a great run blocker but needed to develop over time. He wasn't an underdog to make the roster at all.  It was just a matter of when he started not if. 

 

The point here for me is that your whole premise is that Rivera's has the tendency to favor Rudy's and underdogs which has clouded his judgement and hurt the team.  I think he has been willing to gamble on smaller school guys who show great measurables and trusts his staff to be able to develop them and coach then up to be good players.  We will see whether he has been right or wrong.  I just don't agree with your premise of why he is going after who he is or that it is largely his decision.  After all this whole discussion also negates the scouts roles in bringing these guys up to begin with.  Gettleman or Rivera will typically just make decision about the guys they are given to evaluate.  I doubt they have time to do the scouts job as well. And certainly not small school guys.

[panthers55]

See above.

I don't think urgency is a problem for Rivera.

I think competence is.

I don't think you can separate one from the other.  Presence or lack of competence breeds urgency.

[Mr. Scot]

I see a lot of difference between underdogs and diamonds in the rough. Underdogs are typically guys not expected to do well who have to rely on will or effort to make up for distinct talent disadvantages like a Rocky Balboa type guy.  Diamonds in the rough are guys like Flacco, Silatolu, or Kugbila who have good measurables and are considered talented but will need time to develop.  You get them at somewhat at a discount although Flacco was still taken 18th so not that great of a discount but if he went to a bigger school might have gone higher.

 

Silatolu was clearly not an underdog, he was considered a big strong guy who was a great run blocker but needed to develop over time. He wasn't an underdog to make the roster at all.  It was just a matter of when he started not if. 

 

The point here for me is that your whole premise is that Rivera's has the tendency to favor Rudy's and underdogs which has clouded his judgement and hurt the team.  I think he has been willing to gamble on smaller school guys who show great measurables and trusts his staff to be able to develop them and coach then up to be good players.  We will see whether he has been right or wrong.  I just don't agree with your premise of why he is going after who he is or that it is largely his decision.  After all this whole discussion also negates the scouts roles in bringing these guys up to begin with.  Gettleman or Rivera will typically just make decision about the guys they are given to evaluate.  I doubt they have time to do the scouts job as well. And certainly not small school guys.

 

Going by your definitions, let me frame it this way:

 

When they are picked, they are underdogs.

 

If they pan out, then they are diamonds in the rough, but you can't call them that unless they actually prove to be so.

 

And yeah, by that classification, Silatolu was an underdog.  Could he also be a diamond in the rough?  Conceivably, but will he be better than Cordy Glenn (taken with the net pick by the Bills)?  If not, then it's still ultimately a mistake.

 

And to be clear, I'm not negating any of the people who are part of the process.  I'm evaluating how Rivera does his part of the whole thing.

 

My verdict: He's not very good at it.

[PantherGuy]

Said elsewhere that I think one of Rivera's biggest failings as a coach is his talent evaluation and depth chart building. 

 

Here's a little something within that same vein.

 

Fans love "underdog" players, guys who overcome limitations to become great at their position.  They're the "Rudys", the ones nobody thinks can be good enough, yet somehow they manage by hard work or sheer force of will to mold themselves into great players who make their teams better.

 

Two guys like that are beloved by all Panther fans, namely Steve Smith and the late Sam Mills.  Neither came into the league with expectations they'd be world beaters, but both proved better than anyone imagined they could be.

 

Those stories are always fantastic...

 

...but the reality is they're also fairly rare.

 

More often than not, "effort" guys make their way onto practice squads and maybe lower tiers of depth charts, but the reality is that ultimately they're just not good enough to be starters or impact players.  You love their heart and their drive - and sometimes you wish your more talented players had even half as much of those qualities - but in most cases, the fairy tale ending you'd absolutely love to see just doesn't happen.

 

Unfortunately, I think head coach Ron Rivera has a real soft spot for the "Rudy" type players.

 

And sadly, I think it's clouded his judgment when it comes to some positions on this team.

 

I love the effort that Byron Bell gives every Sunday, but let's be real.  He just isn't an NFL starter.  And kudos to Sione Fua for giving it his all, but his all isn't enough.  He shouldn't even be on an NFL roster, but thanks to the injury hampering Dwan Edwards right now, here he is.

 

And then there's Captain Munnerlyn,  I absolutely love Captain and would be happy to have him as a nickel back, but he shouldn't be a starting corner.  Rivera once called him a "Sam Mills" in the secondary.  When I heard that, I winced.  That statement, while a great compliment, is sadly some of the best evidence that the theory I'm putting forth here is true.

 

No doubt there are other names I could add to this (Armond Smith comes to mind) but the bottom line is that Rivera has allowed his coaching decisions to be affected by sentiment for players who try really hard, but just don't have the talent.  In a vacuum, it'd probably be an admirable quality to want to reward the guys who try the hardest to make themselves, and the team, better.

 

But Rivera doesn't coach in a vacuum.  He coaches in the NFL, the most competitive football league in existence.  And in the NFL, you win or you go home.

 

Thanks to his sentiment, Rivera will probably be doing the latter come January.

 

Had never thought about it this way, but I think it makes a lot of sense. Why else would we be keeping these players that most of us have realized don't belong on an NFL roster? Thanks for the insight.