Jump to content

Can Someone With Falcologic Explain To Me Why We Need A Dc As Hc?


Recommended Posts

Our defense sucks, we all know that, but with that said, how does hiring a DC as HC make a perfect match?

At the end of the day the HC will delegate duties to his DC, so in that respect, it does not really matter if we hire a OC or DC as HC. Rarely does a HC take over a coordinator's duties.

What matters is the HC's vision for the team, as that will affect who he brings in as OC/DC. That will affect the culture of the team. Does the HC prefer to run the ball more, pass the ball more? Power run? Zone blocking. Focus on secondary or d-line? Man CBs? Zone CBs? etc...

Can someone explain to me this. It is well known that DCs generally prefer a ball control, power run offense. However, our offense and personnel are made to be more finesse, zone blocking, and air it out. So inherently, there will be a mismatch in philosophies. How do we reconcile that?

On top of that, Falcons FO have been pushing to air the ball out and be more explosive. How that does that type of philosophy match a DC's philosophy?

Based on that, wouldn't it make more sense for the FO to hire a OC? As history has shown, the prior position of the HC does not matter in boosting that side of the ball.

Gary Kubiak - OC - Texans

Tony Dungy - DC - Colts

Brian Billick - OC - Ravens

MIke Smith - DC - Falcons

All examples where the coach was on one side of the ball but the other side flourished. So this shows it's not the position of the HC that matters, but his vision and how it aligns with the team.

Edited by Genius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because 1) our defense absolutely SUCKS; and 2) A simple history lesson will show that a strong defense is the key to winning the Superbowl.

Once again you are using Falcologic. I need it broken down.

A bad defense does not necessitate a DC turned HC. There are many examples where a DC/HC has a bad defense and a OC/HC has a bad offense.

Please explain to me the link between the two. I need a good cause and effect laid out for me that says, hiring DC as HC will improve defense. Because I don't see it. I see the vision of HC being the same as vision of FO more important. Because a HC can always hire a good DC.

It's more important that everyone is on the same page from the top down.

Edited by Genius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the guy. Kubiak has an eye for the game as a whole. Was noted for that when he was Elway's back-up and one of the few who has been thanked by Elway. Dungy relied on his people for offense. Than man has a molecule sized ego. Billick is a grinder known for listening to his defensive coaches. Another non-ego. Smith was a grind it out guy who was turned into a big play guy and could not handle it. Bad example. But still...

They all have one major thing in common. Willing to defer to someone else who knows better what they are doing than they.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the guy. Kubiak has an eye for the game as a whole. Was noted for that when he was Elway's back-up and one of the few who has been thanked by Elway. Dungy relied on his people for offense. Than man has a molecule sized ego. Billick is a grinder known for listening to his defensive coaches. Another non-ego. Smith was a grind it out guy who was turned into a big play guy and could not handle it. Bad example. But still...

They all have one major thing in common. Willing to defer to someone else who knows better what they are doing than they.

Exactly. HC can defer their duties. So it doesn't really matter which position our HC has back ground in. It's more important that his vision, culture, and philosophy aligns with the FOs because that HC can always bring in a good coordinator and defer. Edited by Genius
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that I think it has to be a DC, but the candidates at DC seem far better than the candidates at OC. I think Gase is riding on Peyton's coat tails, and I want nothing to do with Josh McDaniels.

Ok that's a good argument and I think that's definitely true. Just annoys me that many people think we need a DC just because our defense sucks. The two are pretty much independent.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. HC can defer their duties. So it doesn't really matter which position our HC has back ground in. It's more important that his vision, culture, and philosophy aligns with the FOs because that HC can always bring in a good coordinator and defer.

That's why its important to get someone who can defer. Sometimes it doesn't happen and causes more trouble than it is worth, or you bring in a coordinator who isn't that good. Main thing is, the game is 90% mental and whether we get an offensive or defensive guy its going to be a different team for the most part.

How many offensive guys are out there? Who? How many defensive guys are out there? Who? How do you see them running the team as is no change? What do they specialize in? Is that the fit? Etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why its important to get someone who can defer. Sometimes it doesn't happen and causes more trouble than it is worth, or you bring in a coordinator who isn't that good. Main thing is, the game is 90% mental and whether we get an offensive or defensive guy its going to be a different team for the most part.

How many offensive guys are out there? Who? How many defensive guys are out there? Who? How do you see them running the team as is no change? What do they specialize in? Is that the fit? Etc...

I think Austin was smart in pitching Gase as OC, assuming he'd defer to Gase. The risk is the HC starts telling OC to be more ball control, power run, (because that's his background and nature and the culture he wants to set), when our FO wants to air the ball out. Or if that HC in the draft room wants transform the team in one way while the FO wants it to go another way.

FO sees the offense going through Ryan, not through a ground game. Ground game will definitely help Ryan but end of the day, it's Ryan to Julio and his many weapons.

Edited by Genius
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Austin was smart in pitching Gase as OC, assuming he'd defer to Gase. The risk is the HC starts telling OC to be more ball control, power run, (because that's his background and nature and the culture he wants to set), when our FO wants to air the ball out. FO sees the offense going through Ryan, not through a ground game. Ground game will definitely help Ryan but end of the day, it's Ryan to Julio and his many weapons.

Tell me why you think a DC would want to run the ball more. Really power run is a style. You can zone block and run the ball a bit. Power run is really more based on a blocking style. Meh...depend who you ask, but technically that's how it goes. They use so many terms out of place now...ie Game Manager means you cannot carry a team when you have to...far from the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me why you think a DC would want to run the ball more. Really power run is a style. You can zone block and run the ball a bit. Power run is really more based on a blocking style. Meh...depend who you ask, but technically that's how it goes. They use so many terms out of place now...ie Game Manager means you cannot carry a team when you have to...far from the truth.

Impression has always been that DCs like to:

-win the trenches

-control the ball and clock

-tend to be more conservative

-preach physicality

And thus, that generally translates to running the ball, pounding the ball down the throat, with a physical runner. Plus, ball control always helps out your own defense.

I tend to think that OC's are more like

-they probably don't preach win the trenches as much

-they probably play to score points as opposed to control ball and clock

-probably are more aggressive and risky when it comes to playcalling and offense

-indifferent about physicality, not a big priority

That's just generally my impression.

Edited by Genius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Impression has always been that DCs like to:

-win the trenches

-control the ball

-tend to be more conservative

-preach physicality

And thus, that generally translates to running the ball, pounding the ball down the throat, with a physical runner. Plus, ball control always helps out your own defense.

That's just generally my impression.

You answered your own question. People think of DCs as preaching a nasty, hard nosed brand of football, which is what our fanbase wants. Of course you could end up with Chuck Pagano, whose team threw it deep, threw it deep, and for good measure threw it deep again. Or you could end up with a guy like Smitty who isn't a strong enough personality to be unyielding in his committment to a certain style of play, and your team's identity changes from year to year but not in a good way like New England.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Impression has always been that DCs like to:

-win the trenches

-control the ball

-tend to be more conservative

-preach physicality

And thus, that generally translates to running the ball, pounding the ball down the throat, with a physical runner. Plus, ball control always helps out your own defense.

That's just generally my impression.

I know and that's an easy perception to make as the majority seem to go that way. Take Belichick for example. He specializes in ST's and defense. Thing is, he subs the run for short passes even though he prefers a RB to work the ball. He still uses clock management in the forward pass and goes down the field methodically no matter who the OC is. Kubiak is a running guy (ex-QB though) who specializes in zone blocking in his runs, but gets a wild hair and will go 5 wide and give you options short and long. It just depends man.

Most defensive guys will want some good running and passing in order to get down the field, but to give the defense a break. The best defense is to keep the offense off of the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean Peyton > Rex Ryan

Dan Quinn > Josh McDaniels

Teryl Austin > Adam Gase

The quality for one is greater this year on DCs than OCs. The fact that our biggest weakness can be addressed by our head coach is also important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean just think Mike McCarthy, Sean Payton, Chip Kelly, and Andy Reid's teams and how they are built. Not generally known for physicality, ball control, etc...

All of those guys will run it down your throat if given the chance. What we see is a lot of passing, but each of those guys will run on you if the game provides the opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know and that's an easy perception to make as the majority seem to go that way. Take Belichick for example. He specializes in ST's and defense. Thing is, he subs the run for short passes even though he prefers a RB to work the ball. He still uses clock management in the forward pass and goes down the field methodically no matter who the OC is. Kubiak is a running guy (ex-QB though) who specializes in zone blocking in his runs, but gets a wild hair and will go 5 wide and give you options short and long. It just depends man.

Most defensive guys will want some good running and passing in order to get down the field, but to give the defense a break. The best defense is to keep the offense off of the field.

Well Belichick is one of the greatest coaches of all time, and I know Brady, who's also greatest of all time, helps alot but I'm more impressed by his ability to adjust and just constantly change the offense up. With Moss and Welker, they aired it out. Then with Gronk and Hernandez he went to mostly two TE sets. Sometimes, Belichick feels like he needs to run the ball 40 times. Other times, he does what you say, substituted running game with short passes.

I kinda treat Belichick as an exception.

Edited by Genius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Belichick is one of the greatest coaches of all time, and I know Brady, who's also greatest of all time, helps alot but I'm more impressed by his ability to adjust and just constantly change the offense up. With Moss and Welker, they aired it out. Then with Gronk and Hernandez he went to mostly two TE sets. Sometimes, Belichick feels like he needs to run the ball 40 times. Other times, he does what you say, substituted running game with short passes.

I kinda treat Belichick as an exception.

It really just depends. Fox likes to throw it if he has the QB for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it makes much more sense to bring in a DC as your HC if you have major issues on defense as we do. And it makes even more sense if said DC has a rep for having a good eye for talent and for how to create a scheme that will play to the strengths of his players. Also, if that DC has been head of a top-tier defensive unit, they know how things should and should not be done. He's going to delegate many tasks to his DC, of course, but he's going to make sure his DC is using the players correctly, and featuring a style and schemes he has confidence in, knows will work and which fits the players. An HC with A DC background is just naturally going to be able to hold the defensive unit to a higher, more exacting standard of performance and accountability, and that's what we need most.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those guys will run it down your throat if given the chance. What we see is a lot of passing, but each of those guys will run on you if the game provides the opportunity.

Yeah but I don't consider their teams 'tough' teams in terms of physicality. They'd run, but I feel like only after they are up by a decent amount. Or the running game is just working out too well that day. But if the running game is so so, I see them err more on airing the ball out.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but I don't consider their teams 'tough' teams in terms of physicality. They'd run, but I feel like only after they are up by a decent amount. Or the running game is just working out too well that day. But if the running game is so so, I see them err more on airing the ball out.

Reid has Charles, Kelly has Shady, Peyton took Ingram in the first and expected a better run game from him, also Bush. He will run you under and many times they have used Pierre to get us. I seriously expect them to address RB this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our defense sucks, we all know that, but with that said, how does hiring a DC as HC make a perfect match?

At the end of the day the HC will delegate duties to his DC, so in that respect, it does not really matter if we hire a OC or DC as HC. Rarely does a HC take over a coordinator's duties.

What matters is the HC's vision for the team, as that will affect who he brings in as OC/DC. That will affect the culture of the team. Does the HC prefer to run the ball more, pass the ball more? Power run? Zone blocking. Focus on secondary or d-line? Man CBs? Zone CBs? etc...

Can someone explain to me this. It is well known that DCs generally prefer a ball control, power run offense. However, our offense and personnel are made to be more finesse, zone blocking, and air it out. So inherently, there will be a mismatch in philosophies. How do we reconcile that?

On top of that, Falcons FO have been pushing to air the ball out and be more explosive. How that does that type of philosophy match a DC's philosophy?

Based on that, wouldn't it make more sense for the FO to hire a OC? As history has shown, the prior position of the HC does not matter in boosting that side of the ball.

Gary Kubiak - OC - Texans

Tony Dungy - DC - Colts

Brian Billick - OC - Ravens

MIke Smith - DC - Falcons

All examples where the coach was on one side of the ball but the other side flourished. So this shows it's not the position of the HC that matters, but his vision and how it aligns with the team.

I know why you are confused, Genius. You are confused because you have watched Mike Smith - whose background was as a Defensive Coordinator - and his defenses sucked azz for 7yrs. So this is confusing you to believe there is no relationship between a team hiring a defensive coach to be head coach leading to having a good defense - because once that guy becomes HC, he will hire a DC and will stay out of the defense.

The confusion is you must have thought that Mike Smith was actually a defensive guru - clearly he is not.

Getting a head coach who has a great defensive system, demands the most out of his coordinators and players and sets the defensive standard - you can get all of that from a head coach with a defensive background - even if they are not the DC.

Look at Pete Carroll/Seahawks

Look at Nick Saban/Bama

etc. Quinn may run Seattle defense but it is Pete's system and he sets the standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know why you are confused, Genius. You are confused because you have watched Mike Smith - whose background was as a Defensive Coordinator - and his defenses sucked azz for 7yrs. So this is confusing you to believe there is no relationship between a team hiring a defensive coach to be head coach leading to having a good defense - because once that guy becomes HC, he will hire a DC and will stay out of the defense.

The confusion is you must have thought that Mike Smith was actually a defensive guru - clearly he is not.

Getting a head coach who has a great defensive system, demands the most out of his coordinators and players and sets the defensive standard - you can get all of that from a head coach with a defensive background - even if they are not the DC.

Look at Pete Carroll/Seahawks

Look at Nick Saban/Bama

etc. Quinn may run Seattle defense but it is Pete's system and he sets the standard.

No fair. You brought the Croatian Foundation man. All was left is Belichick and you have the hat trick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No fair. You brought the Croatian Foundation man. All was left is Belichick and you have the hat trick.

thought about mentioning him but did not want to hear "Beli-cheat". Heck, you could use Rex Ryan as well as another head coach who sets the tone for a defense even though he had a DC under him.

Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...