12-05-2021, 02:06 PM
4-star edge David Bailey from Mater Dei committed today--how does this work with the 4-3, would he be a DE or an LB?
Rethinking Stanford Football
4-star edge David Bailey from Mater Dei committed today--how does this work with the 4-3, would he be a DE or an LB?
12-05-2021, 02:52 PM
OLB, and hopefully a great one. With Cooper and Aybar, the position is going to be loaded.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(12-05-2021, 02:05 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-05-2021, 11:04 AM)lex24 Wrote:(12-05-2021, 09:58 AM)gailtate Wrote:(12-04-2021, 03:36 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Cmon OF you know you need a thicker skin than that!
Your original post, and SamuelMcF’s reply, are very interesting and informative. My main takeaway is that it’s important to keep one eye on the NFL’s requirements and to be able to adapt both recruiting and S&C accordingly.
I think Phogge and gailtate are implying that Stanford has a high degree of inertia (both institutionally and at Shaw’s level) that prevents us from being as nimble as we need to be to compete these days. (And that doesn’t even factor in the $NIL universe, as CI often points out).
So there. Avengers assemble!
Until David Shaw publicly reveals evidence that he recognizes the full extent of his program's deficiencies and how he intends to re-establish a program as competitive as the one he inherited 11 years ago, I remain doubtful about his suitability for what the job as head coach demands today. He must reverse a multi-year decline, evidenced in part by the recent record of 11-20, and the stunningly low national rankings in team-wide performance. Yes, current recruiting seems like a good start. Still, I am skeptical that he can recruit enough of the talent he needs, develop more of the talent he recruits and demand more from the coaches and staff who are accountable. His his now years-long performance on all three fronts is not encouraging. While I hope for the best, today I'm no longer sure that "his best" will suffice.
Publically? So, what will meet your expectations of a mea culpa. Perhaps a Seppuku ceremony? If there is a staff shakeup, you have your answer that he gets the need. If there isn’t, you have your proof he doesn’t.
But he doesn’t need to provide you or anyone else with some kind of public “confession “.
Nah, mea culpas are not my thing. Just looking for an occasional public statement, especially after another shellacking, that acknowledges the significance of the deficiencies we see, rather than what he's comfortable with, as in mouthing the delusions of a coach in terminal denial. Yo! Your program's in the ditch, coach! Called for a tow-truck yet? Triple-A maybe? (GT)
I don't want a confession or an acknowledgement . . . a resignation would do nicely. Bernard and Shaw should be working on a severance package that puts a nice bow on top of the tens of millions already paid to Stanford's head football coach.
(I, obviously, am further entrenched in Camp Negative than is Gail, in terms of seeing no hope for the program unless and until there is a change at the top - which we all know is NOT happening this year and probably not next year, either).
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(12-05-2021, 02:05 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-05-2021, 11:04 AM)lex24 Wrote:(12-05-2021, 09:58 AM)gailtate Wrote:(12-04-2021, 03:36 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Cmon OF you know you need a thicker skin than that!
Your original post, and SamuelMcF’s reply, are very interesting and informative. My main takeaway is that it’s important to keep one eye on the NFL’s requirements and to be able to adapt both recruiting and S&C accordingly.
I think Phogge and gailtate are implying that Stanford has a high degree of inertia (both institutionally and at Shaw’s level) that prevents us from being as nimble as we need to be to compete these days. (And that doesn’t even factor in the $NIL universe, as CI often points out).
So there. Avengers assemble!
Until David Shaw publicly reveals evidence that he recognizes the full extent of his program's deficiencies and how he intends to re-establish a program as competitive as the one he inherited 11 years ago, I remain doubtful about his suitability for what the job as head coach demands today. He must reverse a multi-year decline, evidenced in part by the recent record of 11-20, and the stunningly low national rankings in team-wide performance. Yes, current recruiting seems like a good start. Still, I am skeptical that he can recruit enough of the talent he needs, develop more of the talent he recruits and demand more from the coaches and staff who are accountable. His his now years-long performance on all three fronts is not encouraging. While I hope for the best, today I'm no longer sure that "his best" will suffice.
Publically? So, what will meet your expectations of a mea culpa. Perhaps a Seppuku ceremony? If there is a staff shakeup, you have your answer that he gets the need. If there isn’t, you have your proof he doesn’t.
But he doesn’t need to provide you or anyone else with some kind of public “confession “.
Nah, mea culpas are not my thing. Just looking for an occasional public statement, especially after another shellacking, that acknowledges the significance of the deficiencies we see, rather than what he's comfortable with, as in mouthing the delusions of a coach in terminal denial. Yo! Your program's in the ditch, coach! Called for a tow-truck yet? Triple-A maybe? (GT)
I don't want a confession or an acknowledgement . . . a resignation would do nicely. Bernard and Shaw should be working on a severance package that puts a nice bow on top of the tens of millions already paid to Stanford's head football coach.
(I, obviously, am further entrenched in Camp Negative than is Gail, in terms of seeing no hope for the program unless and until there is a change at the top - which we all know is NOT happening this year and probably not next year, either).
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
12-05-2021, 05:48 PM
Just curious who we are planning to play at DL next year. We have Tobin Phillips and ? To play as DT’s. Presumably that will be a converted DE moving inside, but it’s not like we have a ton of DE’s either; next year will be all freshmen and sophomores.
BC
BC
Just curious who we are planning to play at DL next year. We have Tobin Phillips and ? To play as DT’s. Presumably that will be a converted DE moving inside, but it’s not like we have a ton of DE’s either; next year will be all freshmen and sophomores.
BC
BC
12-05-2021, 07:39 PM
(12-05-2021, 05:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Just curious who we are planning to play at DL next year. We have Tobin Phillips and ? To play as DT’s. Presumably that will be a converted DE moving inside, but it’s not like we have a ton of DE’s either; next year will be all freshmen and sophomores.
BC
Sounds like the perfect time to bring in a new DL coach!
(12-05-2021, 05:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Just curious who we are planning to play at DL next year. We have Tobin Phillips and ? To play as DT’s. Presumably that will be a converted DE moving inside, but it’s not like we have a ton of DE’s either; next year will be all freshmen and sophomores.
BC
Sounds like the perfect time to bring in a new DL coach!
(12-05-2021, 07:39 PM)winflop Wrote:(12-05-2021, 05:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Just curious who we are planning to play at DL next year. We have Tobin Phillips and ? To play as DT’s. Presumably that will be a converted DE moving inside, but it’s not like we have a ton of DE’s either; next year will be all freshmen and sophomores.
BC
Sounds like the perfect time to bring in a new DL coach!
+1,000,000,000
The 3 one-true-DL classes in a row are finally coming home to roost. Truly jaw-droppingly stupid roster management, at least on par with (and probably worse than) signing just 1 OL in 2018. I do hope Pakola comes back to the team.
It really is a good time to bring in a new coach with such a young room. The growing pains are going to suck bad regardless, and we've already seen Reynolds' (lack of) development track record.
(This post was last modified: 12-05-2021, 07:52 PM by SamuelMcF.)
(12-05-2021, 07:39 PM)winflop Wrote:(12-05-2021, 05:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Just curious who we are planning to play at DL next year. We have Tobin Phillips and ? To play as DT’s. Presumably that will be a converted DE moving inside, but it’s not like we have a ton of DE’s either; next year will be all freshmen and sophomores.
BC
Sounds like the perfect time to bring in a new DL coach!
+1,000,000,000
The 3 one-true-DL classes in a row are finally coming home to roost. Truly jaw-droppingly stupid roster management, at least on par with (and probably worse than) signing just 1 OL in 2018. I do hope Pakola comes back to the team.
It really is a good time to bring in a new coach with such a young room. The growing pains are going to suck bad regardless, and we've already seen Reynolds' (lack of) development track record.
12-05-2021, 10:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-05-2021, 10:49 PM by BostonCard.)
(12-05-2021, 07:51 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: +1,000,000,000
The 3 one-true-DL classes in a row are finally coming home to roost. Truly jaw-droppingly stupid roster management, at least on par with (and probably worse than) signing just 1 OL in 2018. I do hope Pakola comes back to the team.
It really is a good time to bring in a new coach with such a young room. The growing pains are going to suck bad regardless, and we've already seen Reynolds' (lack of) development track record.
I would add that you can draw a straight line between lack of recruiting of defensive linemen (quantity, or quality, aside from Booker) and poor on-the-field results. But if there is one reason I am more sanguine than many other posters on this board about the post 2023 future, it’s that for the first time in forever, we have recruited solidly in the defensive line in back-to-back classes. Three DL recruits last year, plus three this year, means that once those guys mature, and contingent on not taking 2023 off, we will actually have enough guys to run a two deep at DL.
However, trying to make a two-deep out of 7 recruited defensive linemen for a 4-3, six of whom will be freshmen or sophomores who will have a combined seven games of experience between them, and none of whom will have collegiate starting experience is a recipe for a long season next year. You feel a little better if Pekola comes back, but that still barely gets you a two-deep if no one gets injured.
BC
(This post was last modified: 12-05-2021, 10:49 PM by BostonCard.)
(12-05-2021, 07:51 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: +1,000,000,000
The 3 one-true-DL classes in a row are finally coming home to roost. Truly jaw-droppingly stupid roster management, at least on par with (and probably worse than) signing just 1 OL in 2018. I do hope Pakola comes back to the team.
It really is a good time to bring in a new coach with such a young room. The growing pains are going to suck bad regardless, and we've already seen Reynolds' (lack of) development track record.
I would add that you can draw a straight line between lack of recruiting of defensive linemen (quantity, or quality, aside from Booker) and poor on-the-field results. But if there is one reason I am more sanguine than many other posters on this board about the post 2023 future, it’s that for the first time in forever, we have recruited solidly in the defensive line in back-to-back classes. Three DL recruits last year, plus three this year, means that once those guys mature, and contingent on not taking 2023 off, we will actually have enough guys to run a two deep at DL.
However, trying to make a two-deep out of 7 recruited defensive linemen for a 4-3, six of whom will be freshmen or sophomores who will have a combined seven games of experience between them, and none of whom will have collegiate starting experience is a recipe for a long season next year. You feel a little better if Pekola comes back, but that still barely gets you a two-deep if no one gets injured.
BC
12-06-2021, 07:46 AM
I am definitely beyond hungry for some "new blood" coaching news!
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
I am definitely beyond hungry for some "new blood" coaching news!
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
12-06-2021, 09:47 AM
Seemed odd to me, at first blush, to switch to a 4-3 at precisely the same time as having the most depleted defensive line. However, perhaps that is why they want to make the change now: lots of fresh blood to learn a new system in a season that is going to be a rebuild anyway...
-m.
-m.
Seemed odd to me, at first blush, to switch to a 4-3 at precisely the same time as having the most depleted defensive line. However, perhaps that is why they want to make the change now: lots of fresh blood to learn a new system in a season that is going to be a rebuild anyway...
-m.
-m.
12-06-2021, 11:08 AM
(12-05-2021, 10:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote: However, trying to make a two-deep out of 7 recruited defensive linemen for a 4-3, six of whom will be freshmen or sophomores who will have a combined seven games of experience between them, and none of whom will have collegiate starting experience is a recipe for a long season next year. You feel a little better if Pekola comes back, but that still barely gets you a two-deep if no one gets injured.
Will Aristotle Taylor be able to contribute next season?
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
(12-05-2021, 10:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote: However, trying to make a two-deep out of 7 recruited defensive linemen for a 4-3, six of whom will be freshmen or sophomores who will have a combined seven games of experience between them, and none of whom will have collegiate starting experience is a recipe for a long season next year. You feel a little better if Pekola comes back, but that still barely gets you a two-deep if no one gets injured.
Will Aristotle Taylor be able to contribute next season?
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
12-06-2021, 11:46 AM
I would like to hear "the story" on switching to a 4-3. First, are we really committed to doing it or is it a discussion point? Second, does anybody know the rationale for this change? One possibility is that we believe we can recruit more effectively for that approach. Maybe we just can't get an appropriately athletic NT anymore, and our DEs are too small. For quite a while we have in effect been using just 2 defensive linemen (we are always in "nickle"). It could also be that there is a technical reason why the 4-3 is more appropriate against the teams we play. It could also be this is a temporary expedient to match the expected roster for the next two years but not really a change in philosophy. It would be interesting to know what we are actually doing and why.
I really have no opinion regarding this change. If I knew the reasoning behind it, I might form one. What I certainly hope is NOT the case is that we need to change "something" and this is something.
I really have no opinion regarding this change. If I knew the reasoning behind it, I might form one. What I certainly hope is NOT the case is that we need to change "something" and this is something.
I would like to hear "the story" on switching to a 4-3. First, are we really committed to doing it or is it a discussion point? Second, does anybody know the rationale for this change? One possibility is that we believe we can recruit more effectively for that approach. Maybe we just can't get an appropriately athletic NT anymore, and our DEs are too small. For quite a while we have in effect been using just 2 defensive linemen (we are always in "nickle"). It could also be that there is a technical reason why the 4-3 is more appropriate against the teams we play. It could also be this is a temporary expedient to match the expected roster for the next two years but not really a change in philosophy. It would be interesting to know what we are actually doing and why.
I really have no opinion regarding this change. If I knew the reasoning behind it, I might form one. What I certainly hope is NOT the case is that we need to change "something" and this is something.
I really have no opinion regarding this change. If I knew the reasoning behind it, I might form one. What I certainly hope is NOT the case is that we need to change "something" and this is something.
12-06-2021, 12:04 PM
When Hardballs was at the Farm he used a 4-3 until he hired Fangio as DC who is a 3-4 dude. But even with Fangio and the 3-4 at times one of the outside linebackers played with their hand on the ground, so basically you have a 4-3, with a NT over or just off the center vs two DT over the guards. Both DC's that have followed Fangio have had the outside linebackers play with their hand down.
Based on the struggles the Stanford defense has experience lately they might be best suited to a to a 6-6-6 alignment if they have enough healthy players at each level of the defense.........yes that is 18 defensive players on the field at the same time, any more than that they would just get in each other's way.
Based on the struggles the Stanford defense has experience lately they might be best suited to a to a 6-6-6 alignment if they have enough healthy players at each level of the defense.........yes that is 18 defensive players on the field at the same time, any more than that they would just get in each other's way.
When Hardballs was at the Farm he used a 4-3 until he hired Fangio as DC who is a 3-4 dude. But even with Fangio and the 3-4 at times one of the outside linebackers played with their hand on the ground, so basically you have a 4-3, with a NT over or just off the center vs two DT over the guards. Both DC's that have followed Fangio have had the outside linebackers play with their hand down.
Based on the struggles the Stanford defense has experience lately they might be best suited to a to a 6-6-6 alignment if they have enough healthy players at each level of the defense.........yes that is 18 defensive players on the field at the same time, any more than that they would just get in each other's way.
Based on the struggles the Stanford defense has experience lately they might be best suited to a to a 6-6-6 alignment if they have enough healthy players at each level of the defense.........yes that is 18 defensive players on the field at the same time, any more than that they would just get in each other's way.
12-06-2021, 02:45 PM
Switching to 4-3 could entail moving some players from OLB to DE. And it may end up not being quite as big a change as it sounds like, because as has been mentioned we already sometimes had an OLB line up in a 3-point stance on the line.
Switching to 4-3 could entail moving some players from OLB to DE. And it may end up not being quite as big a change as it sounds like, because as has been mentioned we already sometimes had an OLB line up in a 3-point stance on the line.
12-06-2021, 02:55 PM
(12-06-2021, 02:45 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Switching to 4-3 could entail moving some players from OLB to DE. And it may end up not being quite as big a change as it sounds like, because as has been mentioned we already sometimes had an OLB line up in a 3-point stance on the line.You certainly could be correct. We did shift to a "4-3" for the last two games this year. However, I am hoping that it is more than a name-change. We need to greatly improve at stopping the run and pressuring the QB. We are going to have all new personnel (more or less) on the DL next year. I was actually hoping for a targeted change in ethos that would utilize our players better. A name change just isn't going to do that.
(12-06-2021, 02:45 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Switching to 4-3 could entail moving some players from OLB to DE. And it may end up not being quite as big a change as it sounds like, because as has been mentioned we already sometimes had an OLB line up in a 3-point stance on the line.You certainly could be correct. We did shift to a "4-3" for the last two games this year. However, I am hoping that it is more than a name-change. We need to greatly improve at stopping the run and pressuring the QB. We are going to have all new personnel (more or less) on the DL next year. I was actually hoping for a targeted change in ethos that would utilize our players better. A name change just isn't going to do that.
(12-06-2021, 02:55 PM)Goose Wrote:(12-06-2021, 02:45 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Switching to 4-3 could entail moving some players from OLB to DE. And it may end up not being quite as big a change as it sounds like, because as has been mentioned we already sometimes had an OLB line up in a 3-point stance on the line.You certainly could be correct. We did shift to a "4-3" for the last two games this year. However, I am hoping that it is more than a name-change. We need to greatly improve at stopping the run and pressuring the QB. We are going to have all new personnel (more or less) on the DL next year. I was actually hoping for a targeted change in ethos that would utilize our players better. A name change just isn't going to do that.
+1. There have also been some players recruited that were/are "tweeners" that didn't quite fit the 3-4 OLB mold well but were too small to be full-blown 3-4 DL. Andres Fox and Lance Keneley (who would've both fit the 4-3 DE mold much better at ~260lb) come to mind. Thinking of older examples, Casey Toohill and Peter Kalambayi were for all intents and purposes 4-3 DEs already. A younger Thomas Booker at ~290 had a quicker first step and would've been more effective as a 4-3 DL alongside someone else of a similar size. Solly was a total beast regardless but same with him at 280.
230lb OLBs should be playing SAM (strong-side, on-ball LB who tends to rush the passer or become the 5th guy on the line in run situations) in a 4-3. They should not be effectively playing DE in a base nickel, which has been happening for years. You want larger 260lb bonafide edge rushers doing that. Think Nick Bosa, Myles Garrett, or some of today's college examples like Aidan Hutchinson at Michigan, Thibodeaux at Oregon, ZTF at UW, etc.
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2021, 03:31 PM by SamuelMcF.)
(12-06-2021, 02:55 PM)Goose Wrote:(12-06-2021, 02:45 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Switching to 4-3 could entail moving some players from OLB to DE. And it may end up not being quite as big a change as it sounds like, because as has been mentioned we already sometimes had an OLB line up in a 3-point stance on the line.You certainly could be correct. We did shift to a "4-3" for the last two games this year. However, I am hoping that it is more than a name-change. We need to greatly improve at stopping the run and pressuring the QB. We are going to have all new personnel (more or less) on the DL next year. I was actually hoping for a targeted change in ethos that would utilize our players better. A name change just isn't going to do that.
+1. There have also been some players recruited that were/are "tweeners" that didn't quite fit the 3-4 OLB mold well but were too small to be full-blown 3-4 DL. Andres Fox and Lance Keneley (who would've both fit the 4-3 DE mold much better at ~260lb) come to mind. Thinking of older examples, Casey Toohill and Peter Kalambayi were for all intents and purposes 4-3 DEs already. A younger Thomas Booker at ~290 had a quicker first step and would've been more effective as a 4-3 DL alongside someone else of a similar size. Solly was a total beast regardless but same with him at 280.
230lb OLBs should be playing SAM (strong-side, on-ball LB who tends to rush the passer or become the 5th guy on the line in run situations) in a 4-3. They should not be effectively playing DE in a base nickel, which has been happening for years. You want larger 260lb bonafide edge rushers doing that. Think Nick Bosa, Myles Garrett, or some of today's college examples like Aidan Hutchinson at Michigan, Thibodeaux at Oregon, ZTF at UW, etc.
12-06-2021, 08:39 PM
I agree with those who say that the difference is somewhat overstated, especially with the recruited “tweeners” who would now move down to be defensive ends instead of outside linebackers. The big issue is defensive tackles versus nose tackles. Ultimately, the question is whether it is easier to recruit one big space eating NT for a 3/4 or two large but not quite as big DTs. Either way, we struggle to recruit interior defensive linemen.
BC
BC
I agree with those who say that the difference is somewhat overstated, especially with the recruited “tweeners” who would now move down to be defensive ends instead of outside linebackers. The big issue is defensive tackles versus nose tackles. Ultimately, the question is whether it is easier to recruit one big space eating NT for a 3/4 or two large but not quite as big DTs. Either way, we struggle to recruit interior defensive linemen.
BC
BC
12-07-2021, 01:19 PM
You really can't play a true 4-3 if you don't have a stud middle linebacker.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(12-06-2021, 08:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I agree with those who say that the difference is somewhat overstated, especially with the recruited “tweeners” who would now move down to be defensive ends instead of outside linebackers. The big issue is defensive tackles versus nose tackles. Ultimately, the question is whether it is easier to recruit one big space eating NT for a 3/4 or two large but not quite as big DTs. Either way, we struggle to recruit interior defensive linemen.
BC
It seems easier for us to recruit smaller guys who will fill out, but that's based on a relatively small sample size. You'll note almost all our DL offers this year and last year were on the smaller side. The true hog mollies tend to reside in SEC country and don't leave. Of the 15 2022 4-5* DL that weigh 290+, 10 of them are from the South and all but one of those are committed to SEC schools. (The other is committed to UNC.) Just two are from west of the Rockies, and both of those are projected to commit to national powers east of the Rockies.
Also, you don't want the one space gobbler to be on the field every snap. There has to be a rotation.
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2021, 01:25 PM by SamuelMcF.)
(12-06-2021, 08:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I agree with those who say that the difference is somewhat overstated, especially with the recruited “tweeners” who would now move down to be defensive ends instead of outside linebackers. The big issue is defensive tackles versus nose tackles. Ultimately, the question is whether it is easier to recruit one big space eating NT for a 3/4 or two large but not quite as big DTs. Either way, we struggle to recruit interior defensive linemen.
BC
It seems easier for us to recruit smaller guys who will fill out, but that's based on a relatively small sample size. You'll note almost all our DL offers this year and last year were on the smaller side. The true hog mollies tend to reside in SEC country and don't leave. Of the 15 2022 4-5* DL that weigh 290+, 10 of them are from the South and all but one of those are committed to SEC schools. (The other is committed to UNC.) Just two are from west of the Rockies, and both of those are projected to commit to national powers east of the Rockies.
Also, you don't want the one space gobbler to be on the field every snap. There has to be a rotation.
Not sure whether this has been said elsewhere, but there is an opportunity to restructure the coaching assignments, not just replace existing coaches with new coaches handling the same assignments. In a 4-3 defense, ILB coach is a pointless position. And given the team’s decreased usage of TEs, that position doesn’t need its own coach. I wonder whether, on offense, it might make sense to have an OC who isn’t at all burdened by position coach responsibilities.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2021, 02:27 PM by TrumpCard.)
Not sure whether this has been said elsewhere, but there is an opportunity to restructure the coaching assignments, not just replace existing coaches with new coaches handling the same assignments. In a 4-3 defense, ILB coach is a pointless position. And given the team’s decreased usage of TEs, that position doesn’t need its own coach. I wonder whether, on offense, it might make sense to have an OC who isn’t at all burdened by position coach responsibilities.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
12-07-2021, 02:40 PM
(12-07-2021, 02:26 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Not sure whether this has been said elsewhere, but there is an opportunity to restructure the coaching assignments, not just replace existing coaches with new coaches handling the same assignments. In a 4-3 defense, ILB coach is a pointless position. And given the team’s decreased usage of TEs, that position doesn’t need its own coach. I wonder whether, on offense, it might make sense to have an OC who isn’t at all burdened by position coach responsibilities.
Why is ILB a pointless position in a 4-3? I'm not sure Dick Butkus or Ray Nitschke would agree.
I think we've had multiple TEs on the field a lot. Unfortunately only one of them, Yurosek, is a proven pass-catcher.
(12-07-2021, 02:26 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Not sure whether this has been said elsewhere, but there is an opportunity to restructure the coaching assignments, not just replace existing coaches with new coaches handling the same assignments. In a 4-3 defense, ILB coach is a pointless position. And given the team’s decreased usage of TEs, that position doesn’t need its own coach. I wonder whether, on offense, it might make sense to have an OC who isn’t at all burdened by position coach responsibilities.
Why is ILB a pointless position in a 4-3? I'm not sure Dick Butkus or Ray Nitschke would agree.
I think we've had multiple TEs on the field a lot. Unfortunately only one of them, Yurosek, is a proven pass-catcher.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »