All offensive co-ordinators

6 of the 7 head coaching vacancies have been filled (Eagles apparently going with Doug Pederson of Chiefs?) and all have gone to offensive co-ordinators? Big rumor is that Mularkey is going to keep his job in Tennessee too.

That just seems kind of strange to me? Any logical reason why?

Personally I've always thought defensive minded coaches make better head coaches.

bvhawkeye said:

6 of the 7 head coaching vacancies have been filled (Eagles apparently going with Doug Pederson of Chiefs?) and all have gone to offensive co-ordinators? Big rumor is that Mularkey is going to keep his job in Tennessee too.

That just seems kind of strange to me? Any logical reason why?

Personally I've always thought defensive minded coaches make better head coaches.

Keep reading...

I was thinking about this today. There is something intrinsically flawed with the Coryell scheme that generally the Coryell coaches fail over time. The longer the unchanged Coryell scheme goes without new freaky talent, or annual wrinkles or especially a strong running game, the more likely that the scheme begins to repeat and eventually deteriorate the general strength and growth of the team. It's finite. It's a scheme that by itself does not do much over time. A coach has to be able to instill both hope and expectation that the team will grow into something.
I say this because offensive coordinators turned coaches such as Mike McCarthy, Sean Payton, Carroll, and Andy Reid can coach a team and run their preferred offensive scheme because it has a constant expansion of unlimited options. But looking at how Hue Jackson, Cam Cameron, Jason Garrett, Norv Turner etc seem to fall apart as both HC and main apologist for a finite scheme. They all might do better as just OCs where a HC can moderate too much of the scheme and bring in more running or force them to modify the philosophy into something that fits the talent - like Jim Caldwell had to do when Cam Cameron was fired from the Ravens. I think Coryell coaches are probably very good QB coaches but they seem to only have strength for the passing game. It's really only half a scheme but it requires the belief that it is enough. Jason covers that with mantras and excuses but it eventually kills the team. It's one quality that a head coach cannot have: a belief that lacks hope and growth.

It's been 8 years and the scheme basically has been the same excerpt for when the running game gets some momentum. Other than those times, there is no greater complexity or evolution no matter how long the players are in the scheme. The WCO has the opposite effect it seems.

The NFL is a copycat league. Everyone sees the success that having an offensive genius as head coach has had in Dallas, so they want to get in on that.

Omegasupreme said:

But looking at how Hue Jackson, Cam Cameron, Jason Garrett, Norv Turner etc seem to fall apart as both HC and main apologist for a finite scheme.

Keep reading...

I live here in Minnesota. Vikings' fans and the radio talk shows are making rumblings about Norv's Air Coryell. How the scheme is outdated. And while Peterson is comparable to Emmitt back in his heyday, they have no Aikman nor an Irvin. And Norv's far more proficient at running that scheme than Garrett.

bvhawkeye said:

Personally I've always thought defensive minded coaches make better head coaches.

Keep reading...

I dont think this is true, its probably a pretty solid mix.

Don't laugh too hard, because I was 9 when he was hired... But did Jimmy have an offensive or defensive background?

peplaw06 said:

But did Jimmy have an offensive or defensive background?

Keep reading...

Defense was his thing, strictly. He was very flexible on offense and left that pretty much "hands off" and let the coordinators and position coaches handle it.

His great innovation that completely changed the game was what he termed "upfield pressure" where the DL instead of the old "read and react" thing, instead fires off the ball and charges upfield, reading their keys as they charge. That's now standard DL fare, even in Pop Warner today.

It was applied in most devastating effect during his tenure at the U of Miami.

peplaw06 said:

Don't laugh too hard, because I was 9 when he was hired... But did Jimmy have an offensive or defensive background?

Keep reading...

He was a defensive lineman at Arkansas, a defensive line coach at Oklahoma, and defensive coordinator at Arkansas and Pitt.

cmd34 said:

He was a defensive lineman at Arkansas, a defensive line coach at Oklahoma, and defensive coordinator at Arkansas and Pitt.

Keep reading...

This is my point though. Jimmy wanted to run the ball and had a very clear plan on how to attack the other team. Norv's Coryell philosophy was moderated by Jimmys intention to dominate the other team. So it really worked well that Norv could launch an air strike at any point but the team wasn't handcuffed into a scheme that they were not able to escape from during any game. You see Jason needing a situational play to get a crucial first down or score and he just calls the same formation and same play that the team just ran unsuccessfully about 10 minutes earlier in the game. If the Coryell portion was only a flavor of what the offense could do and not the "take what the defense gives" mandatory rigidity, maybe, like in 2014, there would be more options and the inherent issues with the offense would be reduced. Coryell still needs at least two players with deep speed.

dbair1967 said:

I dont think this is true, its probably a pretty solid mix.

Keep reading...

Well, technically it is true, only because it's my opinion.

Granted, I don't think there is the slightest bit of evidence proving that defensive co-ordinators are "better" head coaches. I just think they make better head coaches personally.

With the massive complexity of NFL offenses, I can see the logic of wanting an offensive mind to keep the same difficult system.

Belichick, Carroll, Saban, and Tomlin are some of the better coaches in football now and all have defensive backgrounds.

Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson, and Bill Parcells, three of my all-time favorite coaches, all had defensive backgrounds.

As far as offensive-minded guys, I like Jon Gruden, Urban Meyer, David Shaw, Sean Payton, and Bruce Arians.

Omegasupreme said:

This is my point though. Jimmy wanted to run the ball and had a very clear plan on how to attack the other team. Norv's Coryell philosophy was moderated by Jimmys intention to dominate the other team. So it really worked well that Norv could launch an air strike at any point but the team wasn't handcuffed into a scheme that they were not able to escape from during any game. You see Jason needing a situational play to get a crucial first down or score and he just calls the same formation and same play that the team just ran unsuccessfully about 10 minutes earlier in the game. If the Coryell portion was only a flavor of what the offense could do and not the "take what the defense gives" mandatory rigidity, maybe, like in 2014, there would be more options and the inherent issues with the offense would be reduced. Coryell still needs at least two players with deep speed.

Keep reading...

Jimmy was regarded as a pass happy guy in college at both Oklahoma State and Miami. When he was hired here, many thought he'd be the first college guy to come in and throw it 40-50 times a game

cmd34 said:

Belichick, Carroll, Saban, and Tomlin are some of the better coaches in football now and all have defensive backgrounds.

Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson, and Bill Parcells, three of my all-time favorite coaches, all had defensive backgrounds.

As far as offensive-minded guys, I like Jon Gruden, Urban Meyer, David Shaw, Sean Payton, and Bruce Arians.

Keep reading...

That Bill Walsh guy worked out pretty good, he was an "offensive guy". The guy who's name is on the super bowl trophy was an "offensive" guy. Hank Stram was regarded as an offensive innovator. The guy so many love in this forum (Tom Coughlin) is an "offensive guy". So is Jim Harbaugh. Mike Holmgren is an "offensive guy". Andy Reid is an "offensive" guy. Dick Vermeil was an "offensive" guy. Mike Shanahan won a couple of super bowls and was an "offensive" guy. Dan Reeves might be the best coach in league history to not have won a super bowl, he was an "offensive" guy. Tom Flores was an offensive guy.

Its interesting that both Landry and Shula had backgrounds as defensive coordinators and defensive backgrounds in general, but both (and especially Landry) became extremely well known for their offensive prowess. The stuff Landry was doing was well ahead of the time in the league, especially with the passing game.

Or maybe a great coach is a great coach no matter which side of the ball his expertise lies on.

SixisBetter said:

Or maybe a great coach is a great coach no matter which side of the ball his expertise lies on.

Keep reading...

Bingo

dbair1967 said:

Jimmy was regarded as a pass happy guy in college at both Oklahoma State and Miami. When he was hired here, many thought he'd be the first college guy to come in and throw it 40-50 times a game

Keep reading...

He must have really changed his tune bc his NFL Network biography is all about smashmouth football, in Miami he vowed to have a strong running game (Abdul jabbar, Cecil Collins, jj Johnson, and John Avery), and then most telling is his rather consistent criticism of Jason that they are not committing to the run enough.

Omegasupreme said:

He must have really changed his tune bc his NFL Network biography is all about smashmouth football, in Miami he vowed to have a strong running game (Abdul jabbar, Cecil Collins, jj Johnson, and John Avery), and then most telling is his rather consistent criticism of Jason that they are not committing to the run enough.

Keep reading...

You need to go back and watch some of their games, look at their QB play.

Most of college football was still highly run oriented then, but they had vastly superior NFL style passing attacks.

Edit- thought you were talking about his days at U of Miami.

Yeah, I don't remember him being some pass-happy guy either. Maybe he wanted to be more balanced than some excellent run-heavy teams of that era, like Oklahoma, but he wasn't throwing it all over the yard all the time. It was kind of your basic pro style attack.

Maybe he threw it better because he had good talent like Vinny, but I don't think the frequency was that great.

ThoughtExperiment said:

Yeah, I don't remember him being some pass-happy guy either. Maybe he wanted to be more balanced than some excellent run-heavy teams of that era, like Oklahoma, but he wasn't throwing it all over the yard all the time. It was kind of your basic pro style attack.

Maybe he threw it better because he had good talent like Vinny, but I don't think the frequency was that great.

Keep reading...

Compared to other teams of the time it was.

dbair1967 said:

Jimmy was regarded as a pass happy guy in college at both Oklahoma State and Miami. When he was hired here, many thought he'd be the first college guy to come in and throw it 40-50 times a game

Keep reading...

This is true. It was because of this reason, that Emmit Smith ended up going to the U of Florida, over Miami after being heavily recruited by Johnson. Emmit felt that Johnson passed too much, and not run enough.