Jump to content

Does It Matter Which Side Of The Ball The Head Coach Comes From?


AREA 51
 Share

Recommended Posts

I do not want to debate Smith as a head coach, because I am not pushing his firing yet. I am interested to know what people think on the head coach- quarterback relationship. Would Ryan be in a better situation to reach full potential under a head coach that comes from the offensive side of the ball?

Forget what one thinks of Smith overall, but pertaining to Ryan, is it even a concern that Smith's background comes from the defensive side of the ball? The Falcons' rebuilding started on the drafting of quarterback, and the one thing Ryan has never had is a head coach who truly understands what it is Ryan needs to do his job. I am not saying Smith ingnores offense like June Jones ignored defense. I am saying quarterbacks seem to reach more potential under offensive coaches who may understand better what is needed for quarterback to succeed. If the Falcons had such a coach, maybe he would know that an offensive line is more important to a quarterback then virtually anything else you could give him. He would surely understand that even less than stellar quarterbacks can look quite competent and succeed when given the advantage of a good offensive line, ala Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. I know they were on teams with good defenses, but that does change the question.

This is simplifying I know, and there are certainly many exceptions to every rule, Bellichick is one, but overall, I think it could make difference in a quarterback's development. If a team and offense are established and just need a change, then a defensive minded coach is fine, ala Tony Dungy, but, to me, if a franchise is rebuilding their team and offense around a rookie quarterback, than an offensive minded coach might be a better choice.

Recent examples for debate. Harbaugh- Flacco won a championship, but Flacco is considered pedestrian by many and more the beneficiary of a good defense. McCarthy- Rodgers won a championship, but Rodgers is considered an elite QB. Change it around. Would Harbaugh- Rodgers and McCarthy-Flacco yield the same type of quarterback, or would Rodgers and Flacco play just about the same as they are regardless of coach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest facelessman07

To me? Nope, as long as he utilizes and develops our talent to the fullest extent. A leader of men. Every Sunday is a battle, I want our leader to be a ruthless, intimidating enemy to our opponents.

Oh, and fires our team up come game day. That's important

To the point-Ryan is his own best coordinator, he's reached that level. Having said that, collaboration of two minds is always better than one. In 2008, he very well could've developed faster with an offense-minded coach, but there's no way to know now. But he'll be fine regardless of any coaching changes. I think the OLine issue has become obvious to Dimi, if you, me, and everyone else knows it's an issue, then surely the FO does. It's amazing what you can figure out about your own team once you analyze them instead of spending all that time in front of the mirror gelling your hair

Edited by facelessman07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no right or wrong answers in football. We know what Walsh meant to the 49ers -- that goes without saying but, defensive coaches have built dynasties with Hall of Fame quarterbacks -- see Noll/Bradshaw. Manning had the best seasons of his career under a defensive-minded coach. Conversely, we've seen highly regarded offensive coaches come in to get teams over the hump and fall flat. See San Diego. Norv Turner was brought in to replace the conservative Schottenheimer and he was supposed to be that guy that pushed that loaded offense over the hump.

Well, Rivers had his best statistical years under Norv, but the Chargers... well we know what happened there.

It's more important that the organization be behind the quarterback and is committed to giving him the weapons he needs to succeed. And if you don't have an offensive minded HC, then that puts more priority on the offensive playcaller and the QB meshing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a good question. The NFL of today emphasizes excitement and lots of TD's, so it seems pretty obvious having a HC with his background based on offense would be better. Yet, Mike Smith has posted one of the most incredible regular season won-loss records in history and has no real grasp of offense other than using it to burn up the clock and outscore the opponent by a FG with four seconds left. But it would be nice if the next HC is more aggressive, less risk averse, is a superior offensive strategist and savvy with his in-game decisions.

Edited by PokerSteve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a good question. The NFL of today emphasizes excitement and lots of TD's, so it seems pretty obvious having a HC with his background based on offense would be better. Yet, Mike Smith has posted one of the most incredible regular season won-loss records in history and has no real grasp of offense other than using it to burn up the clock and outscore the opponent by a FG with four seconds left. But it would be nice if the next HC is more aggressive, less risk averse, is a superior offensive strategist and savvy with his in-game decisions.

Mike Smith is the reason the Falcons are only 1-4 in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This also leads to my concern that Ryan is not allowed to give enough input on playcalling during the game unless the Falcons are in the no huddle. That situation is productive and then the Falcons return to Koetter and stall. Ryan would seem to know, better than anyone, what is working and what is not working. Is he able to communicate preferences? If he were, we should not see such a difference between no huddle and regular offense. Would an offensive coach be able to better understand or listen in direct discussions during a timeout or such?

It must be a more comfortable situation for quarterbacks, like Rodgers and Brees, to go to the sidelines during a timeout or before a series and talk, face to face, with their coach/ offensive coordinator. No misinterpretations, and they are dealing directly someone who understands what it is they are trying to do or what they want to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This also leads to my concern that Ryan is not allowed to give enough input on playcalling during the game unless the Falcons are in the no huddle. That situation is productive and then the Falcons return to Koetter and stall. Ryan would seem to know, better than anyone, what is working and what is not working. Is he able to communicate preferences? If he were, we should not see such a difference between no huddle and regular offense. Would an offensive coach be able to better understand or listen in direct discussions during a timeout or such?

It must be a more comfortable situation for quarterbacks, like Rodgers and Brees, to go to the sidelines during a timeout or before a series and talk, face to face, with their coach/ offensive coordinator. No misinterpretations, and they are dealing directly someone who understands what it is they are trying to do or what they want to change.

Why do you think it's the case that Ryan doesn't have input?

Ryan took ownership for a few bad throws in the red zone Sunday. Koetter spoke about addressing those issues with the quarterback.

"That’s one of the great things about being around a guy like Matt: Matt always takes responsibility for his actions," Koetter said. "And if he doesn’t agree with what you’re telling him, you can have a discussion about it. And you’ve got to have some kind of resolution at the end.

"Matt is really good at expressing how he saw it. You either have to say, 'OK, we won’t do those types of plays anymore,' or, 'Here’s how we’re going to try to correct that type of thing.' There’s got to be some kind of common ground to come out of any discussion. … He’s easily the best guy I’ve ever been around as far as being able to communicate and make progress on how we can get things fixed."

http://espn.go.com/b...ent-in-red-zone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think it's the case that Ryan doesn't have input?

http://espn.go.com/b...ent-in-red-zone

The difference in production in the no huddle and when we go back to Koetter calling plays. There just seems to be too big a difference to explain. The Falcons move the ball freely in the no huddle with Ryan directing the play calling, and when the Falcons go back to the huddle, it slows down, whether at mid- field or in the red zone. It is predictable, and I know I hate to see the Falcons' huddle after moving the ball so well, because I know it is about stall again. I am looking for the answer to that.

In my opinion, there should not be a drastic consistent difference between the no huddle production and regular offense production. Especially considering teams know the Falcons run the no huddle and prepare for it. I know defenses get tired and you limit their substitutions, but the plays Ryan calls seem to take better advantage of what the defense is giving. If these are things Ryan sees or he is able to adapt to, than whether the Falcons huddle or not, should not make that big a difference. It is almost like Koetter, despite what was just successful on the field, goes back to what he was doing that was not working in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference in production in the no huddle and when we go back to Koetter calling plays. There just seems to be too big a difference to explain. The Falcons move the ball freely in the no huddle with Ryan directing the play calling, and when the Falcons go back to the huddle, it slows down, whether at mid- field or in the red zone. It is predictable, and I know I hate to see the Falcons' huddle after moving the ball so well, because I know it is about stall again. I am looking for the answer to that.

In my opinion, there should not be a drastic consistent difference between the no huddle production and regular offense production. Especially considering teams know the Falcons run the no huddle and prepare for it. I know defenses get tired and you limit their substitutions, but the plays Ryan calls seem to take better advantage of what the defense is giving. If these are things Ryan sees or he is able to adapt to, than whether the Falcons huddle or not, should not make that big a difference. It is almost like Koetter, despite what was just successful on the field, goes back to what he was doing that was not working in the first place.

The no-huddle inherently puts defenses in a bind. Because of the pace it not only limits the defese's substitutions, but also the defensive calls. Just like every team has a two minute offense, well they also have a two minute defense if you will, and a lot of times the package isn't equipped with the most exotic of calls. Most teams just aren't equipped to get a call in and then rely on the defensive signal caller to check it to match what Ryan is does when he checks and get everyone on the same page. Most defensive coordinators hate when the defense has to rush their communication so they'll keep it simple and focus on getting everyone aligned.

Edited by PeytonMannings Forehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...