I think it will be interesting to see what they come up with for an offensive scheme. I dont expect it to be as vertical as some expect. And Zimmer has shown he gets very conservative in the second half.
Just go back on their board and point out that their D sucked so bad that it gave Cousins multiple chances to chuck the rock from deep in their own zone and not much of a running game to take the pressure off of him doing all the lifting. Better yet---tell one player don't win games but one player can lose games. 4000+ yds and 34 tds /yr over that several year stretch tells me which player he is.
That sets my mind at ease. I was worried that after spending all that money they might try to force Cousins into a role he's not a good fit for.
Quote: @pumpf said:
It concerns me that we only hear about tailoring the offense to what Cousins likes to do... without any mention of what DeFilippo likes to do (especially the part about keeping alot of terminology the same). That tells me- in my opinion- that they don't expect "Flip" to be around very long (and,therefore, why bother to change alot of things... when we'll probably go to Stepanski in a year or 2).
I see this as a good thing. The best offensive coaches utilize the strengths of their QB to run the offense. This doesn't mean that Flip is here to stay or gone tomorrow though. You're just not used to seeing it...
This is contrary to what we have seen prior to AP leaving, where they ran everything through him instead of the QB. The problem with that was we were one dimensional and did not allow our offense to flow but allowed defenses to stack the box against while we tipped our hand.
Quote: @NodakViking said:
@ Riphawkins said:
@ NodakViking said:
@ pumpf said:
It concerns me that we only hear about tailoring the offense to what Cousins likes to do... without any mention of what DeFilippo likes to do (especially the part about keeping alot of terminology the same). That tells me- in my opinion- that they don't expect "Flip" to be around very long (and,therefore, why bother to change alot of things... when we'll probably go to Stepanski in a year or 2).
IMO coaches who can adapt their philosophy/system to the players they have are the best ones. I don't think coaches that have to clean house and bring in 'their style' of player are necessarily good coaches they just have an effective system they are intimately familiar with. I think coaches that can adapt are the ones that are successful long term.
I would hope that is what they are trying to do, put good talent on the roster and hire coaches that can get the most out of it.
I agree, Norv Turner wanted to fit square pegs into round holes. Didn’t matter that the O line blocked like shit, or didn’t block at all, but dammit my QB is taking a 7 step drop and slinging the ball downfield!
Good coaches use the skills of individuals and tweak their schemes to go with those players.
Or that his RB couldn't pass protect, or that his QB preferred and played his best in shotgun and quick rhythm style offenses. It's a shame Bridgewater got hurt in 2016 because I think Shurmur would have benefitted him greatly if he would have had the chance to play in that style of offense.
That's an interesting thought, but has it occurred to anyone that, if Bridgewater had NOT suffered his knee injury, Norv Turner might have remained OC and Pat Shurmur would hot have been given the chance to call plays and eventually take over as OC?
Yes, Shurmur was hired before Bridgewater's injury, but it was not until we traded for Bradford that he was more than a TE coach. A Bridgewater+Shurmur combo might have never happened.
If Bridgewater hadn't torn up his knee, Turner probably would not have become mad about Shurmur's involvement in the offense, never fought with Zimmer and quit, and loyal Zimmer probably would have kept him as OC. Would 13-3 have happened last year with Turner as OC?
Quote: @Jor-El said:
@ NodakViking said:
@ Riphawkins said:
@ NodakViking said:
@ pumpf said:
It concerns me that we only hear about tailoring the offense to what Cousins likes to do... without any mention of what DeFilippo likes to do (especially the part about keeping alot of terminology the same). That tells me- in my opinion- that they don't expect "Flip" to be around very long (and,therefore, why bother to change alot of things... when we'll probably go to Stepanski in a year or 2).
IMO coaches who can adapt their philosophy/system to the players they have are the best ones. I don't think coaches that have to clean house and bring in 'their style' of player are necessarily good coaches they just have an effective system they are intimately familiar with. I think coaches that can adapt are the ones that are successful long term.
I would hope that is what they are trying to do, put good talent on the roster and hire coaches that can get the most out of it.
I agree, Norv Turner wanted to fit square pegs into round holes. Didn’t matter that the O line blocked like shit, or didn’t block at all, but dammit my QB is taking a 7 step drop and slinging the ball downfield!
Good coaches use the skills of individuals and tweak their schemes to go with those players.
Or that his RB couldn't pass protect, or that his QB preferred and played his best in shotgun and quick rhythm style offenses. It's a shame Bridgewater got hurt in 2016 because I think Shurmur would have benefitted him greatly if he would have had the chance to play in that style of offense.
That's an interesting thought, but has it occurred to anyone that, if Bridgewater had NOT suffered his knee injury, Norv Turner might have remained OC and Pat Shurmur would hot have been given the chance to call plays and eventually take over as OC?
Yes, Shurmur was hired before Bridgewater's injury, but it was not until we traded for Bradford that he was more than a TE coach. A Bridgewater+Shurmur combo might have never happened.
If Bridgewater hadn't torn up his knee, Turner probably would not have become mad about Shurmur's involvement in the offense, never fought with Zimmer and quit, and loyal Zimmer probably would have kept him as OC. Would 13-3 have happened last year with Turner as OC?
It is all just speculation, but interesting anyway. I think the writing was on the wall for Turner even before Teddy got hurt and Bradford was acquired. Bradford and Shurmurs familiarity probably hastened Turner's exit, but I think Zim saw the need to move to a more dynamic offense. I had hoped Turner could be the offensive genius to pair with Zimmer, but I think the previous year had exposed Turner's offense with his deep drops and poor protection.
Just speculation, but many thought Shumur's hire was to replace Turner. I didn't see that initially, but looking at the way it went down, it probably was.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ NodakViking said:
@ Riphawkins said:
@ NodakViking said:
@ pumpf said:
It concerns me that we only hear about tailoring the offense to what Cousins likes to do... without any mention of what DeFilippo likes to do (especially the part about keeping alot of terminology the same). That tells me- in my opinion- that they don't expect "Flip" to be around very long (and,therefore, why bother to change alot of things... when we'll probably go to Stepanski in a year or 2).
IMO coaches who can adapt their philosophy/system to the players they have are the best ones. I don't think coaches that have to clean house and bring in 'their style' of player are necessarily good coaches they just have an effective system they are intimately familiar with. I think coaches that can adapt are the ones that are successful long term.
I would hope that is what they are trying to do, put good talent on the roster and hire coaches that can get the most out of it.
I agree, Norv Turner wanted to fit square pegs into round holes. Didn’t matter that the O line blocked like shit, or didn’t block at all, but dammit my QB is taking a 7 step drop and slinging the ball downfield!
Good coaches use the skills of individuals and tweak their schemes to go with those players.
Or that his RB couldn't pass protect, or that his QB preferred and played his best in shotgun and quick rhythm style offenses. It's a shame Bridgewater got hurt in 2016 because I think Shurmur would have benefitted him greatly if he would have had the chance to play in that style of offense.
That's an interesting thought, but has it occurred to anyone that, if Bridgewater had NOT suffered his knee injury, Norv Turner might have remained OC and Pat Shurmur would hot have been given the chance to call plays and eventually take over as OC?
Yes, Shurmur was hired before Bridgewater's injury, but it was not until we traded for Bradford that he was more than a TE coach. A Bridgewater+Shurmur combo might have never happened.
If Bridgewater hadn't torn up his knee, Turner probably would not have become mad about Shurmur's involvement in the offense, never fought with Zimmer and quit, and loyal Zimmer probably would have kept him as OC. Would 13-3 have happened last year with Turner as OC?
It is all just speculation, but interesting anyway. I think the writing was on the wall for Turner even before Teddy got hurt and Bradford was acquired. Bradford and Shurmurs familiarity probably hastened Turner's exit, but I think Zim saw the need to move to a more dynamic offense. I had hoped Turner could be the offensive genius to pair with Zimmer, but I think the previous year had exposed Turner's offense with his deep drops and poor protection.
Just speculation, but many thought Shumur's hire was to replace Turner. I didn't see that initially, but looking at the way it went down, it probably was.
Right, speculation in either case. But a lot of people, if they had a time machine, would undo one bad event (Bridgewater's injury). They might find they didn't get the benefit of a related event (Shurmur becoming OC).
|
