Bills Post Game Massacre. U like thats and dislikes

[CRedskinsRule]

The only thing I will say 30 regarding the run game, is that IF (and its a big if) the goal is to move the team in a certain direction, and this year is a known re-building year (for example, SM saying that we may not win a lot of games but teams will know they played the Skins), then altering the run game style midseason, when 4 critical players (2 OL and 2 TE) went out, doesn't make as much sense as getting the team going in the direction that the coach wants it to go. So you deal with crappy run output, but keep teaching your fundamentals, your scheme, your plan, and you keep looking for the players that make that work.

Now I know everyone here will scream a coach should adjust to his players, but is that ALWAYS a valid statement? If as in our case the top 4 options go down, should you adjust the entire offensive structure to fit players who aren't in the long term plan, or should you look toward the future and just acknowledge that we don't have the horses to pull right now.

It's a fine line, and if we were in year 3 of SM/JG, and the whole 53man roster was built with one design in mind I would say yes tweak the offense to the next guy up, but we have players from multiple schemes, and a HC who clearly has a scheme that he thinks he can win with.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The only thing I will say 30 regarding the run game, is that IF (and its a big if) the goal is to move the team in a certain direction, and this year is a known re-building year (for example, SM saying that we may not win a lot of games but teams will know they played the Skins), then altering the run game style midseason, when 4 critical players (2 OL and 2 TE) went out, doesn't make as much sense as getting the team going in the direction that the coach wants it to go. So you deal with crappy run output, but keep teaching your fundamentals, your scheme, your plan, and you keep looking for the players that make that work.

I'm certain there is goal in mind from Scott concerning how/what type of player will be acquired going forward. I'm also sure that another goal is to maximize the available talent. I don't view the 2 as mutually exclusive. You don't need to have a crappy run output to maintain teaching your fundamentals, scheme and plan.

Now I know everyone here will scream a coach should adjust to his players, but is that ALWAYS a valid statement?

For me? Yes. Absolutely.

Is it easy? Nope.

In fact I think very few coaches, are actually good at it. I think the league is filled with good coaches that can basically only coach their scheme in their terminology and their is nothing wrong with that. Its the elite coaches, imo, that have the ability to adapt and its that ability that allows some organizations and teams to have sustained success.

If as in our case the top 4 options go down, should you adjust the entire offensive structure to fit players who aren't in the long term plan, or should you look toward the future and just acknowledge that we don't have the horses to pull right now.

Right now we're talking in broad undefined strokes here and that usually doesn't work well with football. But from my view you don't have to adjust "an entire offensive structure" to adjust to injuries/changes in personnel. Coaching is about adjustments. From play to play from game to game.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm certain there is goal in mind from Scott concerning how/what type of player will be acquired going forward. I'm also sure that another goal is to maximize the available talent. I don't view the 2 as mutually exclusive. You don't need to have a crappy run output to maintain teaching your fundamentals, scheme and plan.

For me? Yes. Absolutely.

Is it easy? Nope.

In fact I think very few coaches, are actually good at it. I think the league is filled with good coaches that can basically only coach their scheme in their terminology and their is nothing wrong with that. Its the elite coaches, imo, that have the ability to adapt and its that ability that allows some organizations and teams to have sustained success.

Right now we're talking in broad undefined strokes here and that usually doesn't work well with football. But from my view you don't have to adjust "an entire offensive structure" to adjust to injuries/changes in personnel. Coaching is about adjustments. From play to play from game to game.

I think Gruden has gotten a lot better about in game adjustments, but I disagree that when 4-5 scheme critical players go out, you adjust your offense to sub-par talent (IN A TRUE REBUILDING YEAR). I disagree for the simple reason that you want to find out which players can and will learn the scheme you are implementing.

I'm really not talking broad strokes. I am saying that the Skins, this year, with this roster should not have adjusted their scheme to include more use of DY as a blocking fullback, IF their goal is to see how players stepped up to the roles they need to fill going forward. Does it make our team record worse this year, yes, does it also fit with SM's mentality of building our team for the future, yes.

Every fan wants to win every game, but I think this year (and maybe only this year) coaching gets a small pass because of three very real factors:
1) the roster is not very deep, I expect that to be a non-issue next year
2) at 2 or 3 key spots that were not top priority areas (TE/Left side OL/WR) we took multiple season impacting injuries
3) the team fundamentals have been lacking for several years, and upper management hasn't helped till SM seemingly stepped in and said that aint the way it's done.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

... but I disagree that when 4-5 scheme critical players go out, you adjust your offense to sub-par talent

Which 4-5 players? And in what part of the scheme do you think they are critical to? And in what way do you mean to adjust your offense? This is what I mean by broad strokes.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I'm really not talking broad strokes. I am saying that the Skins, this year, with this roster should not have adjusted their scheme to include more use of DY as a blocking fullback,

I couldn't disagree more. The goal is to win games. If using a FB helps you win games then that is the direction your offense should move. The function of a coach/team is to win, the form or style or scheme they win with is secondary or a by product of maximizing personnel.

IF their goal is to see how players stepped up to the roles they need to fill going forward. Does it make our team record worse this year, yes, does it also fit with SM's mentality of building our team for the future, yes.

Again, imo are creating a false dichotomy. I doubt Scott's view for the future includes losing winnable games because the coaches chose not to make adjustments.

Good convo anyhow, just another point we disagree on.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Which 4-5 players? And in what part of the scheme do you think they are critical to? And in what way do you mean to adjust your offense? This is what I mean by broad strokes.

Niles Paul, Logan Paulsen, Lauvau, for the year, DJax, Lichtensteiger for substantial parts early. But I really believe you know the players that we lost due to injury, so I don't think it's broadstrokes.

edit: add answer to other questions:

Specifically critical to JG/OL Coach Run Scheme

Specifically, putting DY or FB in or going to a power run scheme that does not rely on 2-3 TE sets.

I couldn't disagree more. The goal is to win games. If using a FB helps you win games then that is the direction your offense should move. The function of a coach/team is to win, the form or style or scheme they win with is secondary or a by product of maximizing personnel.

Again, imo are creating a false dichotomy. I doubt Scott's view for the future includes losing winnable games because the coaches chose not to make adjustments.

Good convo anyhow, just another point we disagree on.

I agree that we disagree, and it's a good back and forth. I think early on, SM set the bar not at the number of wins this team ends with, but with the evaluation of how the players play- football intensity, football smarts, etc. And I think Gruden set the base for what his players need to be able to do. My expectation is that SM and Gruden are on the exact same page, somewhat do to the failures early on.

I disagree with the premise that in a first year full body shakedown and rebuild, you play to subpar talent's ability, and make no mistake by the time we were at the 4th new TE, we are speaking of sub par ability. You set the standard and if players don't meet that standard you move to the next one. But in the current Salary cap based NFL, you can't just do that willy nilly, and you have to take time to evaluate each player. That's what good coaches/GM's do.