Bring me your tired, your hungry, your stories...

[Vintage]

I just don't agree with that. Of course players can be used in ways that don't suit their talents. Is that really arguable? Do you really think that the only way Spears will produce more is if he dedicates himself more?

Or is this semantics? I hear all the time that a pass rush makes corners better. I've always said that it doesn't really make them cover any better, it just might expose them less. Is that the kind of thing you're getting at?

A better pass rush exposes the CBs less....doesn't make them better.

A one gap scheme may expose Spears less; but it doesn't mean he is a better player. And considering we spent a 1st rounder (cue the "it doesn't matter what round he was drafted in"), we should expect more from him than Canty. And I am not sure that has happened.

We drafted Spears to be a dominant DE. He has all the tangibles to do so. He just hasn't.

Scheming isn't going to alleviate that. Spears putting forth the extra effort, would.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Of course there is scheme that can hide talent. Put Roy Williams in Darren Woodson's old spot where he's covering slot WRs in man coverage and he will look terrible. Put LaDanian Tomlinson at fullback and he'll look like he can't play at all. Put Tom Nalen in our 90s power blocking scheme and he'll make Al Johnson look like Larry Allen.

No amount of "dedication" would change the fact that those players would be in schemes that don't fit their talent, either... They would simply be asked to be do jobs that don't fit their skills.

I guess you can say those players aren't really worse, just that they aren't being used correctly. But isn't that the whole crux of the argument anyway, that the coach isn't putting their talents to best use?

 

[superpunk]

Of course there is scheme that can hide talent. Put Roy Williams in Darren Woodson's old spot where he's covering slot WRs in man coverage and he will look terrible. Put LaDanian Tomlinson at fullback and he'll look like he can't play at all. Put Tom Nalen in our 90s power blocking scheme and he'll make Al Johnson look like Larry Allen.

No amount of "dedication" would change the fact that those players would be in schemes that don't fit their talent, either... They would simply be asked to be do jobs that don't fit their skills.

I guess you can say those players aren't really worse, just that they aren't being used correctly. But isn't that the whole crux of the argument anyway, that the coach isn't putting their talents to best use?

If you have talent, it will show regardless of scheme. That's why I put adverbs in there liek "completely". Roy might not be being used to the best of his ability last year or years prior - that couldn't keep him from making plays. We didn't put Ware in great positions to rush the passer - did that stop him? Or was the "scheme" only capable of holding certain players down? Or does the whole notion that this terrible scheme was hamstringing certain players while exalting others seem kind of silly when you apply a little objective analysis to it?

Julius has shown us what he is. Spears has shown us how far he's come thus far. And it's not the fault of the scheme that we watch these players every week and say "You know something - that guy's not playing very well." And that's disregarding any stats. When you look on the field, you can see these players playing poorly, just as you can see Newman playing well. That's because one palyer has honed and developed his talent while the other has yet to do so. It's not because the scheme suits Newman so much better than everyone else.

 

[Vintage]

You put LT at FB and he won't disappear the way Spears has done....

You'd still see LT excel when handed the ball, coming out of the backfield, and even in blocking. What you wouldn't see is him getting 25 touches a game.

This "handcuffing" scheme handcuffed Roy Williams to another Pro Bowl; Demarcus Ware to being one of the best LBers in the league, allowed Bradie James to produce well enough in '05 to earn a contract extension, made Ayodele progress as the season went along, allowed Newman to develop into a fine cover CB.....Ratliff has been impressive; Ferguson's played well...

For a "handcuffing" scheme, it sure allows quite a few players to progress nicely.

 

[dallasfaniac]

Let me get this straight.

We can't use players that move teams, even though most new coaches bring in new players as well.
We can't use players that may have only been in the league a few years because any improvement will be attributed to limited starting exp. and finally getting it.
We can't use players that excelled under new defensive coordinators, even though when a new coach comes in so does a new defensive coordinator.
We can't use players that excelled but then are no longer in the league for whatever reason.

Basically, you are trying to trim it down to a very limited set of players to prove that it can't be done.

In today's NFL, veterans are released or unsigned because teams can go a cheaper route. Coaches may change teams more than their underwear so they bring in their own players. A coach can come in and have the team double it's sacks from the previous year, but since it gets spread out to the whole team it doesn't appear that anyone played much better.

Roy Williams and Derek Ross haven't been the same since Clancy Pendergast left. The one year Pendergast was in Cleveland, Andra Davis had his best year. Pendergast took AZ from a 26th ranked defense to 12th, from 20 sacks to 38. But Pendergast is a defensive coordinator so we can't use any players that played under him. How about Gruden? He took the Bucs to the Superbowl his first year there, but nope, no one really had 'breakout' years so nothing there either.

Improved performance doesn't always mean noticably improved stats because we don't keep track of pressures, fewer penalties or drawing penalties, etc. so it's easy to look at the sack column and keep a player off the list.

 

[superpunk]

Let me get this straight.

We can't use players that move teams, even though most new coaches bring in new players as well.
We can't use players that may have only been in the league a few years because any improvement will be attributed to limited starting exp. and finally getting it.
We can't use players that excelled under new defensive coordinators, even though when a new coach comes in so does a new defensive coordinator.
We can't use players that excelled but then are no longer in the league for whatever reason.

Basically, you are trying to trim it down to a very limited set of players to prove that it can't be done.

In today's NFL, veterans are released or unsigned because teams can go a cheaper route. Coaches may change teams more than their underwear so they bring in their own players. A coach can come in and have the team double it's sacks from the previous year, but since it gets spread out to the whole team it doesn't appear that anyone played much better.

Roy Williams and Derek Ross haven't been the same since Clancy Pendergast left. The one year Pendergast was in Cleveland, Andra Davis had his best year. Pendergast took AZ from a 26th ranked defense to 12th, from 20 sacks to 38. But Pendergast is a defensive coordinator so we can't use any players that played under him. How about Gruden? He took the Bucs to the Superbowl his first year there, but nope, no one really had 'breakout' years so nothing there either.

Improved performance doesn't always mean noticably improved stats because we don't keep track of pressures, fewer penalties or drawing penalties, etc. so it's easy to look at the sack column and keep a player off the list.

It's not an impossible criteria. Find examples of players like Spears and Jones and James and find examples of where a new coaching staff turned their career around. After all, Wade is allegedly about to "unleash" them, as though they were being held back before. If this is such a universally accepted truth, there ought to be precedent, right?

Gruden took a good team and got them to the next step. We're not talking about an entire team here - individual players. And the simple fact is, that regardless of scheme or coaching staff or other intangible effect, most players REALLY just are what they have already proved to be.

 

[dallasfaniac]

Like I said, if you are only talking about coach, you are seriously limiting the pool of players. If you are referring to a new Coordinators, I could probably come up with a nice sized list.

Scheme matters and talent matters. It's how a receiver can look all world as a #2, but a scrub when used as the #1.

Let's look at all world RB Steven Jackson.

I am going to compare Jackson's 2005 season to Julius's 2006.

Jackson - 254 att 1046 yds 4.1 avg
Jones - 267 att 1084 yds 4.1 avg

Now fast forward to 2006 for Jackson when Scott Linehan was brought in and focused on rushing the ball with Jackson rather than throwing it deep every play like Martz.

Jackson - 346 att 1528 yds 4.4 avg

This is the year that everyone looks at for Jackson and whines that we took Jones instead, and it was all because he was the center of the offense, not because he got suddenly got better.

Now Martz left the Rams and goes to Detroit as Offensive Coordinator, bringing Mike Furrey with him. Furrey, who had less than 30 receptions and 200 yards over a 3 year period with Martz all of a sudden breaks out with 98 catches for 1086 yards. What happened there? Did he suddenly get better tallent-wise? Was it because he moved to a new team?

 

[superpunk]

Let's look at all world RB Steven Jackson.

I am going to compare Jackson's 2005 season to Julius's 2006.

Jackson - 254 att 1046 yds 4.1 avg
Jones - 267 att 1084 yds 4.1 avg

Now fast forward to 2006 for Jackson when Scott Linehan was brought in and focused on rushing the ball with Jackson rather than throwing it deep every play like Martz.

Jackson - 346 att 1528 yds 4.4 avg

This is the year that everyone looks at for Jackson and whines that we took Jones instead, and it was all because he was the center of the offense, not because he got suddenly got better.

That's precisely the point. Jackson already flashed that talent, everyone could already see how good of a RB he was. Linehan didn't really make him into anything more, he just gave him more opportunities. Jackson wasn't some reclamation project like we have here with Spears and Julius. He was already a stud.

Now Martz left the Rams and goes to Detroit as Offensive Coordinator, bringing Mike Furrey with him. Furrey, who had less than 30 receptions and 200 yards over a 3 year period with Martz all of a sudden breaks out with 98 catches for 1086 yards. What happened there? Did he suddenly get better tallent-wise? Was it because he moved to a new team?

Mike Furrey was a safety in STL. although he is a pretty cool story.

 

[Vintage]

You could have found Furrey in St Louie
Playing Safety
Rained all day

na na na na

 

[dallasfaniac]

So the scheme of him playing safety didn't work out but schemed as WR does. I thought scheme didn't matter, that a player should accell in any scheme.

Jones looked all world breaking ankles his first year, but then struggled with injuries. Most only wanted him to stay healthy an entire season, which he did. He started off this last year pretty good, but then went down hill. Perhaps he didn't match the scheme, and draws, sweeps etc. would boost up those stats you are looking for. We'll soon find out.

 

[Vintage]

So the scheme of him playing safety didn't work out but schemed as WR does. I thought scheme didn't matter, that a player should accell in any scheme.

Jones looked all world breaking ankles his first year, but then struggled with injuries. Most only wanted him to stay healthy an entire season, which he did. He started off this last year pretty good, but then went down hill. Perhaps he didn't match the scheme, and draws, sweeps etc. would boost up those stats you are looking for. We'll soon find out.

WR and S are different positions?

 

[dallasfaniac]

And being a FB and RB are completely different positions, yet you think LT would stand out? Blocking and running are two different things. Just like, purposely engaging and driving the OL back while watching 2 gaps is different than just trying to penetrate past the OL as fast as you can.

 

[L-O-Jete]

You can find many examples of players who changed teams got to a diffrent scheme and had a breakout performance, almost all those "middle-tier" FA's Biellichek brought to NE to win those SB's.
Every player in a Norv Turner as OC offense seems to have career years, even Aikman broke out under Turner... Most of the turnaround stories like NO last year feature a new HC. Maybe you should check how many guys went to their first ProBowl in a year with a new HC.

 

[superpunk]

And being a FB and RB are completely different positions, yet you think LT would stand out? Blocking and running are two different things. Just like, purposely engaging and driving the OL back while watching 2 gaps is different than just trying to penetrate past the OL as fast as you can.

You guys are getting way off track with this changing positions, stuff.

No matter what the scheme, when LT has the ball in his hands, it would be apparent that he has serious skills in that department. His skill would most certainly shine through. It's likely that we didn't put TO in the best position to succeed last year, or Roy Williams for that matter. Did that stop either of them from showcasing their talent? No way. Did the scheme stop Marion Barber from looking dynamic? Why did it hold Julius back the past two years, but not against Carolina, Seattle, or in 2004?

The simple answer is - it's not the scheme hiding the talent, or holding these players back. It's that they're just not that good. Spears, maybe he can turn it on in his third year - maybe. But he hasn't shown anything on the field that would make you believe that. Julius - he is what he's proven to be over three years - a mediocre RB that can occasionally bust a game.

Coaches go to new teams, and in general, the disappointments continue to disappoint, the stars continue to shine, and the average players continue to be average. Once a player is a veteran, if he's been on the field alot, you genereally know what you're getting.

 

[burmafrd]

One has to remember that LT also has had a much better O line. And they were pretty well set in the QB department with Brees then Rivers.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

SP, why did Parcells try to run Dexter Coakley out of town? Or, to be less dramatic, try to replace him with Bradie James?

Dexter had been a good player before, right? So why would the scheme change warrant replacing him?

 

[Vintage]

SP, why did Parcells try to run Dexter Coakley out of town? Or, to be less dramatic, try to replace him with Bradie James?

Dexter had been a good player before, right? So why would the scheme change warrant replacing him?

Old, costly, and Parcells wanted someone bigger.

He tried it with Dat too. Didn't work. Dat simply performed.

 

[superpunk]

SP, why did Parcells try to run Dexter Coakley out of town? Or, to be less dramatic, try to replace him with Bradie James?

Dexter had been a good player before, right? So why would the scheme change warrant replacing him?

You obviously know the answer to that. Coakley's body type does not fit the responsibilities of a 3-4 OLB. That is hardly the issue with the players in question here. These players are not aging, either.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Okay, why did he want someone bigger?

And he wasn't that old or costly. He was less than two years older than Jason Ferguson and several months younger than Aaron Glenn.

And SP, why does body size matter? Maybe because the skills required to play that position are different? But in both schemes he's a "linebacker", right?

 

[Vintage]

Okay, why did he want someone bigger?

And he wasn't that old or costly. He was less than two years older than Jason Ferguson and several months younger than Aaron Glenn.

To play the 3-4.

You are talking about an ENTIRE overhaul of a defense versus players not performing.

Parcells needed players to be big enough to play the 3-4.

That's different than Spears not performing in the 3-4 as of yet and magically expecting him to do so this year because of Wade.