Unlike our idiot HC, Liam has shown the ability to adjust,
During the game the defense did adjust multiple times, often to its detriment because of PLAYERS.
This is Josh Q discussing MISCOMMUNICATION on one of the Pitts TDs
"Fans have long asked for the Bucs to run more man coverage. And I am one of many analysts who have opined for more dime coverage.
Both were happening on this play! Good things would ensue, right?!"
They were actually playing MIXED coverages. As Josh Q goes on to point out WHITEHEAD misplayed his role AND . . .
"This left Merriweather, who played one snap during the game on Sunday, in single coverage against one of the most athletic tight ends in football."
They dont have Dean or Dennis and their PRIZED FREE AGENT SAFETY struggled (so did AWJ)
Anyway, IF you look at the actual game thread you will see the same false claim (defense cannot adjust) at around halftime. Look at the stats. The defense gave up 250ish yards and 12 first downs in the 1st half, but only 8 first downs and 150 yards in the second. Some of that is just game circumstances BUT its also the defense adjusting (as much as it could) at halftime. The defense come sout and makes a few stops. The OFFENSE throws a FIRST DOWN pic with an unnecessary flea flicker.
The very NATURE of Bowles defense is adjusting against tendency to confuse the QB. LITERALLY, it is the carbon copy of one of Coen's core strengths, which is running something the opposite of the pre-snap read. When it works, its pretty awesome. When it does not it gets blasted because it leads to things like Pitts dominating, but its the ADJUSTING that leads to the miscommunication OPPORTUNITY Josh Q mentions above. Its the INTENTIONAL complexity and the breakdowns that occur when players (Whitehead on this one) STRAY from their role. This happens, particularly with safeties, when they dont have faith in their teammates, try to do too much. On offense, this is Mayfield FORCING it.
BOWLES IS 100% the master of the defense so its shortcomings are on him, but he's not some incompetent. . .an affirmative action candidate (yikes) . . . He's just a DC with limited options and a hit/miss style of defense.
The football world is not black/white (no pun) its grey. Coen is awesome but he also calls BAD PLAY. Same with Bowles. The safety . .. . how did the safety happen?
I really do feel that Coen and Baker start feeling the pressure to score every drive as the game goes on. And it forces them to take chances. Can you imagine if this offense had even a middle of the road defense to compliment it?
SPOT ON
While that offense he set up in Kentucky was pretty legit, he still needed a defense that also turned out to be pretty good this season, but I don’t know that he had a lot to do with the defense. Coen really doesn’t have head coaching experience, I’m not sure what the plan is/was - I do think he’s in consideration.
Coen is going to be a target. His offense definitely scores points. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. As you know, I’m not a fan of replacing HC’s - because for me it spells l-o-s-i-n-g, but depends on how Todd responds this season, and whether they wait to get him what he needs, this season.
Coen is going to be a target.
Coen doesnt really have the background to be a HC yet, but as DH and Biggs and I think Fire have correctly pointed out the current trend in the NFL seems to be to go with productive OCs as head coaches. Trends seem to control in the NFL, so that makes me nervous about Coen.
That is why I mentioned Koetter because he was elevated to HC because he was elevated to NOT lose him.
Coen doesnt really have the background to be a HC yet
And what does that entail? Obviously, Head Coaches have come from many different backgrounds.
Yeah, but it does kinda indicate that the teams that target Coen would be teams with less talent and looking for a savior/quick fix, ala Canales/Panthers.Coen is going to be a target.
Coen doesnt really have the background to be a HC yet, but as DH and Biggs and I think Fire have correctly pointed out the current trend in the NFL seems to be to go with productive OCs as head coaches. Trends seem to control in the NFL, so that makes me nervous about Coen.
That is why I mentioned Koetter because he was elevated to HC because he was elevated to NOT lose him.
Depends on how badly Coen want to be a head coach? He’d likely not go to a team that is winning, has a QB situation similar to Baker, and has a good/decent defense already in place - a team like the Saints? They have some cap issues and an aging defense, so there’s always a modifier. Also depends on Coen’s ego and goal.
Not sure any candidate calculates how badly things can go if you get a HC position, but get a bad roster, no cap room and an impatient owner/GM?
He will be a target, but not sure it’s a big leverage point to the Bucs, as they have already kind of proven (at least to themselves?) that you can replace OC’s more effectively than replacing a HC.
Not saying it’s what they’ll do, or that it would yield the same results (NFCS is getting more competitive), but it is something they have successfully accomplished, twice.
Coen doesnt really have the background to be a HC yet but as DH and Biggs and I think Fire have correctly pointed out the current trend in the NFL seems to be to go with productive OCs as head coaches. Trends seem to control in the NFL, so that makes me nervous about Coen.
And what does that entail? Obviously, Head Coaches have come from many different backgrounds.
LETS START WITH THE FULL QUOTE (added in bold above.) . . Mr. Notorious quote clipper lol
In a league where Leftwich was reportedly all but hired as a HC by the Jags, anything is possible but even he was a"SB winning OC" with a legend endorsing him.
But if you take out INTERNAL/INTERIM HIRES (I mentioned that as an option above) and then recognize that HC is very much a LIMITED and a descending opportunities job, the top vacancies are often going (after internal promotions and interims) to a guy with much more overall coaching and coordinator experience than Coen or guys who were OC or DC but for a WINNING team.
Last year --
Raheem Morris - -former HC and successful DC, very well know coach
Mike Macdonald - Super experienced all star Harbaugh guy
Dan Quinn - very experienced very well know coach
Harbaugh - legend
Brian Callahan - NFL coaching FAMILY means hes been all over the league and went to a SB as an OC
Canales - closest parallel to Coen but also a Carroll disciple and "qb whisperer" and he took the WORST job in the league
Definitely exceptions and, in fact, I noted one in the quote you clipped (the current trend). DeMeco Ryans had a fairly limited DC experience but for a LEGENDARY team and he was a SECOND ROUND head coaching hire (he interviewed the year prior) that was ultimately hired by the team that took him in the draft (prodigal son).
Coen has none of that and even has a bit of a reputation as a job flipper. We may still lose him to a HC job.
Coen doesnt really have the background to be a HC yet but as DH and Biggs and I think Fire have correctly pointed out the current trend in the NFL seems to be to go with productive OCs as head coaches. Trends seem to control in the NFL, so that makes me nervous about Coen.
And what does that entail? Obviously, Head Coaches have come from many different backgrounds.
LETS START WITH THE FULL QUOTE (added in bold above.) . . Mr. Notorious quote clipper lol
In a league where Leftwich was reportedly all but hired as a HC by the Jags, anything is possible but even he was a"SB winning OC" with a legend endorsing him.
But if you take out INTERNAL/INTERIM HIRES (I mentioned that as an option above) and then recognize that HC is very much a LIMITED and a descending opportunities job, the top vacancies are often going (after internal promotions and interims) to a guy with much more overall coaching and coordinator experience than Coen or guys who were OC or DC but for a WINNING team.
Last year --
Raheem Morris - -former HC and successful DC, very well know coach
Mike Macdonald - Super experienced all star Harbaugh guy
Dan Quinn - very experienced very well know coach
Harbaugh - legend
Brian Callahan - NFL coaching FAMILY means hes been all over the league and went to a SB as an OC
Canales - closest parallel to Coen but also a Carroll disciple and "qb whisperer" and he took the WORST job in the league
Definitely exceptions and, in fact, I noted one in the quote you clipped (the current trend). DeMeco Ryans had a fairly limited DC experience but for a LEGENDARY team and he was a SECOND ROUND head coaching hire (he interviewed the year prior) that was ultimately hired by the team that took him in the draft (prodigal son).
Coen has none of that and even has a bit of a reputation as a job flipper. We may still lose him to a HC job.
About what I expected. Lots of words without actually answering the question. Very predictable.
Other current HC's that "really didn't have the background to be a HC" when they were hired.
Andy Reid - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by Philly
John Harbaugh - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by Baltimore
Dan Campbell - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by Detroit
Antonio Pierce - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by Las Vegas
Sean McVay - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by LA, as Jay Gruden called the plays in Washington
Mike McDaniel - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by Miami, as Kyle Shanahan called the plays in SF
Kevin O'Connell - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by Minnesota, as Gruden called the plays in Wash & McVay in LA
Jerod Mayo - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by New England
Kevin Stefanski - one year of playcalling experience prior to being hired by Cleveland
Matt LaFleur - one year of playcalling experience prior to being hired by Green Bay, as McVay called the plays in LA
Mike Tomlin - one year of playcalling experience prior to being hired by Pittsburgh
And those are just from current NFL Head Coaches. So I will ask again: what does having the "background" of an NFL HC entail?
Like the first time I asked, I don't really expect a coherent answer.
About what I expected. Lots of words without actually answering the question. Very predictable.
Biggs, here is what is actually expected by anyone who sees you here: you asked the question SOLELY to draft tthat type of follow up. I gave you a detailed answer. In very simple terms MOST (not all) HC hires are way more experienced, using last years coaches as an actual example.
You didnt want that though because the discussion is not your OBJECTIVE in posting to begin with
You didnt want that though because the discussion is not your OBJECTIVE in posting to begin with
To prove this point
Antonio Pierce - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by Las Vegas
Jerod Mayo - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by New England
I addressed this kind of candidate head on.
You just didnt read it BECAUSE you were already drafting your silly, argumentative response lol
Other current HC's that "really didn't have the background to be a HC" when they were hired.
Andy Reid - no playcalling experience prior to being hired by Philly
Biggs, your transparent trolling is comical sometimes.
I said "the background to be a HC" and you changed it to "playcalling experience" and named Reid. Hilarious because of the well-known antics to KEEP Reid in Green Bay and OF COURSE his "background" before going to Philly
A football savant like you (lol) would know that, but a troll like you could NEVER pass up the troll
Like the first time I asked, I don't really expect a coherent answer.
I wasn’t disappointed.
When you add Zac Taylor, Brian Callahan, Dave Canales, & Doug Peterson to the list I put together earlier off the top of my head, you have 15/32 HC’s that had one year or less of play calling experience.
Now that the ignorant gasbag has been educated that damn near half of the current NFL HC’s have had one year or less of play calling experience, maybe it will finally offer an answer as to what “background” is needed to become an NFL HC.
Obviously, it doesn’t have the ability to answer the question. This yet another example of it shamelessly speaking out of its ass.
Like the first time I asked, I don't really expect a coherent answer.
I wasn’t disappointed.
When you add Zac Taylor, Brian Callahan, Dave Canales, & Doug Peterson to the list I put together earlier off the top of my head, you have 15/32 HC’s that had one year or less of play calling experience.
Now that the ignorant gasbag has been educated that damn near half of the current NFL HC’s have had one year or less of play calling experience, maybe it will finally offer an answer as to what “background” is needed to become an NFL HC.
Obviously, it doesn’t have the ability to answer the question. This yet another example of it shamelessly speaking out of its ass.
lmao . . .the bull
Lot of good stuff in this thread.
Just one personal note: I positively hate flea flickers. I love what Coen's been able to do with this offense and with Baker in particular, but please sir, stop with the damned flea flickers. I don't mind a gadget play here and there, but the flea flicker has outlived its usefulness in the NFL. It almost never works these days, and it handcuffs the QB into having one or two targets at best. Please Liam, find another gadget play to run.
That said, I didn't hate Baker's decision to throw to Miller (think that's who was the target on that flea flicker BS); he hit him in both hands. As an NFL WR if the ball hits you in the hands, you have just two jobs. Either 1) catch the damned ball or 2) prevent the defender from intercepting it. Miller failed to do either.
The other INT was entirely on Baker, from what I could see. Haven't seen the A-22, but I doubt it'll tell me anything different. Just a bad throw, and/or a bad decision. It's possible that Baker should've tried to loop it over the top to the corner and let McMillan try to run it down, but I couldn't tell from the broadcast view of it.
