Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

iDash

Falcons #3 and #8 on top 10 list of Worst offseason moves!

159 posts in this topic

13 minutes ago, insight said:

I don't like him paired with Matt Ryan and I don't think the hire was a good fit. 

Just curious then who would you have hired as OC ... and HC, since DQ wanted KS.   DQ might have picked another WCO OC.  Would that have been better?  Or which other HC/OC combination - which was available - would you have chosen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, falcoatlantae said:

Just curious then who would you have hired as OC ... and HC, since DQ wanted KS.   DQ might have picked another WCO OC.  Would that have been better?  Or which other HC/OC combination - which was available - would you have chosen?

Hard to say because Seattle was using a wco  zone blocking scheme up there so I can see why Quinn paired with Kyle but it seemed like a very poor fit with the existing personnel in Atlanta. I would say stay with Dirk but those guys could not be comfortable working together. We kept Robiskie and Keith Armstrong, so maybe Quinn would not have taken the job without pairing with Kyle.  I don't pretend to have the answers for that question even with the benefit of hindsight. However I doubt Quinn or the front office anticipated such a rough transition. 

 

datboilando likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, insight said:

You are trying to oversimplify my opinion. 

I don't like him paired with Matt Ryan and I don't think the hire was a good fit. Attempting to transform Ryan into a different type of QB in  year 8 makes little sense to me. This is not the 1st time Matt had to deal with a new offensive coordinator, 2012 provided a blueprint of how you transition to a new offense.  The 2015 transition was a huge disappointment turning a very good QB into a below average signal caller. 

But your reasons why you think it wasn't a good fit are silly and ever-changing, and they boil down to "I just don't like him."

Which is fine.  I don't like mushrooms.  But I don't pretend that everyone ought to share my opinion on that, and I sure don't go around telling people mushrooms cause diverticulitis just to get other people to stop eating them.

2012 we didn't transition to an entirely new offense.  Koetter kept a lot of Mularkey's terminology and a lot of the same plays.  He could do that because the systems were similar enough to pull it off.  You can't really do that going from a Martz-type Coryell system to a WCO though.  It's conceptually different enough that it would be impossible to keep the same terminology, especially when Koetter/Mularkey weren't using traditional Coryell terminology to begin with.  We went from a system with a conceptual play call system to the WCO, which uses clunky, long terminology to ensure each player knows his exact responsibility.  So Shanahan could (and did) keep some of the same PLAYS, since most offenses are using the same basic play concepts anyway, but the call and the concepts are going to be different, and in this system, the footwork is vastly different.  Look at the article where Ryan and Schultz break down film -- Ryan gives Schultz specific examples of play calls that meant one thing under Koetter and something completely different under Shanahan.  Did we have to do that?  No.  Is it legitimate to suggest doing that set us back for 1 season?  Yes.

But that isn't all you're doing.  You're also saying that because Ryan had to learn new terminology and we had a "growing pains" season that Shanahan's offense isn't a good fit for Ryan.  That's silly.  Especially when you're talking about "transforming Ryan into a different type of QB in year 8," something we are NOT doing at all.  The reality is, this offense fits his strengths to a T and minimizes his weaknesses.  The fact that he has to get it under his belt is a legitimate complaint -- it's harder to win when the QB is learning a new offense.  But you're conflating two different things to try to explain your dislike.  My guess is you're doing that because you know the "growing pains" issue is a 1-season thing, whereas if you can convince people Shanahan's offense is just not something Ryan will ever be able to run, they might agree with your dislike of Shanahan.

The problem is the last part isn't true, so it makes you look like you're grasping at straws.  Hence, "you could just distill this to 'I don't like Kyle Shanahan.'"  Because it's really obvious that's what's going on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JDaveG said:

But your reasons why you think it wasn't a good fit are silly and ever-changing, and they boil down to "I just don't like him."

Which is fine.  I don't like mushrooms.  But I don't pretend that everyone ought to share my opinion on that, and I sure don't go around telling people mushrooms cause diverticulitis just to get other people to stop eating them.

2012 we didn't transition to an entirely new offense.  Koetter kept a lot of Mularkey's terminology and a lot of the same plays.  He could do that because the systems were similar enough to pull it off.  You can't really do that going from a Martz-type Coryell system to a WCO though.  It's conceptually different enough that it would be impossible to keep the same terminology, especially when Koetter/Mularkey weren't using traditional Coryell terminology to begin with.  We went from a system with a conceptual play call system to the WCO, which uses clunky, long terminology to ensure each player knows his exact responsibility.  So Shanahan could (and did) keep some of the same PLAYS, since most offenses are using the same basic play concepts anyway, but the call and the concepts are going to be different, and in this system, the footwork is vastly different.  Look at the article where Ryan and Schultz break down film -- Ryan gives Schultz specific examples of play calls that meant one thing under Koetter and something completely different under Shanahan.  Did we have to do that?  No.  Is it legitimate to suggest doing that set us back for 1 season?  Yes.

But that isn't all you're doing.  You're also saying that because Ryan had to learn new terminology and we had a "growing pains" season that Shanahan's offense isn't a good fit for Ryan.  That's silly.  Especially when you're talking about "transforming Ryan into a different type of QB in year 8," something we are NOT doing at all.  The reality is, this offense fits his strengths to a T and minimizes his weaknesses.  The fact that he has to get it under his belt is a legitimate complaint -- it's harder to win when the QB is learning a new offense.  But you're conflating two different things to try to explain your dislike.  My guess is you're doing that because you know the "growing pains" issue is a 1-season thing, whereas if you can convince people Shanahan's offense is just not something Ryan will ever be able to run, they might agree with your dislike of Shanahan.

The problem is the last part isn't true, so it makes you look like you're grasping at straws.  Hence, "you could just distill this to 'I don't like Kyle Shanahan.'"  Because it's really obvious that's what's going on here.

The reasoning is silly to you because you want to believe what you want to believe which is fine with me. Many of the very things I have talked about were eventually were picked up echoed by mainstream media, ex players and local beat writers.  No matter the source the messenger is always attacked around here. Brian Billick stated the Atlanta defense lacked talent but you guys refused to acknowledge he could be right, and proceeded to criticize him because of his ties to Mike Smith. . Tony G stated he didn't feel Matt Ryan was elite had something to learn and you guys trashed the future Hall of Famer  for his perspective.  Roddy White spoke out about the Kyle's offense and he is crucified by you guys some claiming he was the reason the offense began to struggle.   

On with your other comments.

We ran the WCO here in Atlanta under Jim Mora, and used zone blocking under Alex Gibbs for many years. I NEVER witnessed such a poor transition between offensive schemes that took place in 2015.  You made a very good point that plays are often similar but use different names it very common for coordinators to adjust terminology, shorten verbiage to dumb down the offense until everyone is up to speed. It's up to the coaches to realize when something is not working and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Too many reports are surfacing about how poor the communication was last season, no excuses for the receivers and QB being on different pages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, insight said:

The reasoning is silly to you because you want to believe what you want to believe which is fine with me. Many of the very things I have talked eventually were picked up echoed by mainstream media, ex players and local beat writers.  No matter the source the messenger is always attacked around here. Brian Billick stated the Atlanta defense lacked talent but you guys refused to acknowledge he could be right, and proceeded to criticize him because of his ties to Mike Smith. . Tony G stated he didn't feel Matt Ryan was elite had something to learn and you guys trashed the future Hall of Famer  for his perspective.  Roddy White spoke out about the Kyle's offense and he is crucified by you guys some claiming he was the reason the offense began to struggle.   

On with your other comments.

We ran the WCO here in Atlanta under Jim Mora, and used zone blocking under Alex Gibbs for many years. I NEVER witnessed such a poor transition between offensive schemes that took place in 2015.  You made a very good point that plays are often similar but use different names it very common for coordinators to adjust terminology, shorten verbiage to dumb down the offense until everyone is up to speed. It's up to the coaches to realize when something is not working and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Too many reports are surfacing about how poor the communication was last season, no excuses for the receivers and QB being on different pages. 

No, the reasoning is silly because it doesn't make sense.  I never said the defense was stocked with talent and I wanted Dimitroff fired, for example.  

You should go back to that first season -- 2004 -- under Mora.  Vick was great on busted plays, but EVERYONE complained about his footwork, taking off after his first read and his inability to throw to space.  It wasn't until 2006 that I saw him start to do the latter on any kind of consistent basis.  So yeah, there was a huge learning curve, masked by the best athlete to ever line up under center making plays with his feet.

I do think the terminology was a problem, but not nearly as big a problem as Ryan's footwork.  When that gets sorted out, we'll be fine.  So if your point is you hate that we weren't fine last season, good.  If you still think (as you've said a lot) that this scheme is a bad fit and doesn't suit Ryan's skillset, you're still wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JDaveG said:

No, the reasoning is silly because it doesn't make sense.  I never said the defense was stocked with talent and I wanted Dimitroff fired, for example.  

You should go back to that first season -- 2004 -- under Mora.  Vick was great on busted plays, but EVERYONE complained about his footwork, taking off after his first read and his inability to throw to space.  It wasn't until 2006 that I saw him start to do the latter on any kind of consistent basis.  So yeah, there was a huge learning curve, masked by the best athlete to ever line up under center making plays with his feet.

I do think the terminology was a problem, but not nearly as big a problem as Ryan's footwork.  When that gets sorted out, we'll be fine.  So if your point is you hate that we weren't fine last season, good.  If you still think (as you've said a lot) that this scheme is a bad fit and doesn't suit Ryan's skillset, you're still wrong.

I can't argue with the majority of this post other than the proclamation that the scheme fits Ryan's skill set unequivocally.  The jury is still out on this. You will have an opportunity to say I told you so if he thrives in Kyle's system so lets just see how it unfolds.

 I remain skeptical with Kyle's rigid interpretation of the west coast offense. He seems more concerned with doing things his way than adjusting his scheme to fit with existing  personnel which is very Chip Kelly like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, insight said:

I can't argue with the majority of this post other than the proclamation that the scheme fits Ryan's skill set unequivocally.  The jury is still out on this. You will have an opportunity to say I told you so if he thrives in Kyle's system so lets just see how it unfolds.

 I remain skeptical with Kyle's rigid interpretation of the west coast offense. He seems more concerned with doing things his way than adjusting his scheme to fit with existing  personnel which is very Chip Kelly like. 

You keep saying "rigid interpretation."  That's silly.  We're talking about the dude who installed a ton of read option plays for RG3, and then kept them and/or adjusted them (as with turning them into give/pass options instead of give/keep options for Ryan).  He's the opposite of rigid and inflexible.

This is just more **** people say when they don't like Shanahan.  

TheFatboi and falconidae like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, insight said:

I can't argue with the majority of this post other than the proclamation that the scheme fits Ryan's skill set unequivocally.  The jury is still out on this. You will have an opportunity to say I told you so if he thrives in Kyle's system so lets just see how it unfolds.

 I remain skeptical with Kyle's rigid interpretation of the west coast offense. He seems more concerned with doing things his way than adjusting his scheme to fit with existing  personnel which is very Chip Kelly like. 

He's definitely a fit. I was wanting him to be in the wco when we drafted him because he's the perfect candidate. He actually came out of a wco in college so he's done it before. But when you unlearn something for 8 years and have to re unlearn what you learned for the previous 8 it's a little trying. 

 

As for rigidness every wco OC is "rigid" about the scheme because it's so technical that you have to do things as he needs it done. It's not a shanny thing it's a scheme thing. There will be little tweaks here and there but you will NEVER change the basic principles of the wco. To do that you basically change the whole scheme. It will always be predicated on the horizontal passing and running game. 3-5 step drops Tailor made for short to intermediate passes and play action.

 

Matt is a play action surgeon so I don't know why everybody is tripping about him turning his back. He's done that his whole career. It's why he's so good at play action. He sells the run really well. His footwork is the main issue followed by verbiage or terminology. I'm 110% positive all that has improved from last year. The only thing I'm skeptical about is balance. If we remain balanced the offense is off and running. My fave offensive system is the wco. I grew up in SF. Saw it first hand. Heard all the complaints like yours before social media and such. The system works . It's won the most SB's out if any offensive system. TRUST the system. Not shanahan. 

JDaveG and falconidae like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want you real Football heads to remember the Todd Haley transistion to the WCO in Pittsburgh. Compared to the turmoil there, this is nothing. Remember how much Big Ben improved in year 2? Pittsburgh now has the best offense in the league from a balance standpoint!

Falconsfan567 and JDaveG like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites