I like the DC hire. Mainly, because he is a DL guy that MikeMac can lean on at that position group while grooming him for more control to free himself up for more things down the road. NFL real estate is measured in yards, and defense is all about the location.... in the Trenches, trenches, trenches!
It seems to me that the position coaches need to know the fundamentals of that position and all of the nuances that it brings. How else can someone coach a player that has been playing that position for his whole life? You can't really coach players that know more than you very well, except to have an outside perspective to offer. Also, you can't teach players well who have recently switched positions. So, how can we reasonably expect our QBs to improve on their past performances just by hiring a different coach? Especially, if we are if we are hiring coaches who have only a year, or two, experience coaching that position? We hired Olsen because he was considered one of the best QB coaches a few years back, now we're hiring London, who was a RB coach up until 2yrs ago. Are we really expecting that hiring him will help either of our QBs more than Olsen did/could, and possibly develop a rookie better than Olsen would have?
I think we be attributing a QBs performance in a particular year to their coach too much. What exactly did London teach Tannehill, an experienced vet, that he didn't already know? What tweak in his game did he make? Some footwork, arm angle, mental approach, order of progression, practice habit, or what? I hope John found out and didn't look at "Tannehill was expected to throw for X stats, and ended up with Y, so therefore London is good." I know Tannehill transitioned to QB entering the NFL, one of the few who ever has. So, for him to be as serviceable for as long as he has been, he needed some pretty good coaching to develop, I would think. But, I just have a hard time seeing how great a job was done by London, himself specifically, that caused Tannehill to way overperform from the expected top-25 QB to the top-20 guy he ended up being.... maybe he can get Geno from top-10 to top-9.
McVay is an exceptional coach. What he did with that team last year was pretty impressive. I still remember the SSJ post about how horrid the Rams were ahead of the first game, and then they pulled our pants down in the second half and spanked us.
Shannahan is also very good, but he's also got an excellent roster with a number of difference makers on both sides of the ball. Could he have been as successful with the Rams roster last year? I think not, but that's total speculation.
Gannon needs time. Not a great roster, but they fought for him, especially later in the year. And they beat Dallas, so that's not nothing. He might be a very good coach as well, which would suck for us if we have 3 top tiered coaches in our division.
MacDonald I have high hopes for, for obvious reasons, but he's largely an unknown as a head coach. He seems very bright, and clear in his mind about what he wants his team to look like. That's a great place to start. Fingers crossed that we discover sometime this year or next that he's the real deal.
I shared in SSJ point of view that the Rams would be terrible. They did work to us in week 1 and never looked back on what was a very difficult schedule.
I think that was the best coaching of McVay's career. And the best year of Stafford's career.
Hats off to those guys, I would like to see Shanny perform with less talent before I consider him a very good or great coach.
I think most people thought the Rams would be pitiful. I thought they'd be battling with Arizona for the NFC West basement. Turns out, not so much. They've obviously drafted very well, and coached the heck out of those guys.
And now for the dumbest NFL head coach for the 23 season ( drum roll please ) the award goes to Mike Shanahan for not telling the 49ers team captain, " if we win the coin toss say defer." In yhe immortal words of Forest Gump, " stupid is as stupid does."
"Without being caught up in the mystique, the simplest way for Shanahan to weigh things would have been to consider two key factors. Would it be worse for him to send a tired defense back on the field after it had just run around during an 11-play two-minute drill, or to give Mahomes an extra play to work with if the Chiefs needed a touchdown to tie the game?"
Bill Barnwell has his limitations but I thought this was a really good article. This is no simple decision and overall it is probably pretty even.
The only thing that I would push back on a bit is that it is not an outright negative EV decision to go for 2 if you have the first possession. It just depends on what you think your chances of getting 2 are and what the other teams chances are.
IE, if you believe the Chiefs convert at 60% or higher the Niners should go for 2 if they scored a TD.
Overall, the big winner is the NFL. Great rule change. Very debatable what to do. Which makes for great entertainment. I think I would take the ball second as I want to be the team going for 2, but, if I thought my D was gassed then I would take the ball first (and I would go for 2).
Admittedly, it’s instinctual for me. Giving the ball to Mahomes two straight times when my D is tired sets off alarms. I get that he would be in four-down territory no matter what, but what’s keeping me from looking at it the same way?
Great report. You distilled a lot of information into a very readable piece. It's a pretty wild life for all of these assistant coaches. They have to be ready to jump cities and teams almost every year. JS really gathered power simply by making the Hawks pretty brand new in almost every coaching position.
Neither. Myers’ cap hit is 5.5M means that he is not a trade candidate, and cutting him would actually give the Hawks less cap room now that his 2024 salary is guaranteed. Anyway, Myers is a reliable kicker who has solidified a position that had been in flux.
For all of McVay and Shannys strategic strengths on offense. Both are bad in game coaches and consistently make mistakes managing the game when it comes to 4th downs, TOs, and in game decisions.
This would be a great way for Mac to lean into the analytics department JS talked about.
I’ve always said, pay a 16 year old madden player minimum wage to sit in a booth and tell Pete what to challenge, how to use TOs and when to go for 4th downs and 2 points. Easy way to gain an edge on the division.
Getting in-game calls right is hard because in pro football there's not much of a book to go by. There aren't many times when an individual outcome hinges on a call or two, and football by nature is highly conditional and situational. Mike Holmgren had a reputation for winning games that he had control of, but I can't think of a current coach who has that rep.
At least nowadays you have such advanced stats such as Expected Points Added so you can build models to help with decision making.
In general, people are naturally far too risk adverse. You can see this in all sports especially golf right now as players are more aggressive off the tee than ever, why? Becuase the stokes gained metric has proven it correct.
NFL has been moving towards more 4th down and 2-point conversions ... Why? Because the metrics prove it to be correct.
Even if you don't want to follow a model strictly, which is fine, in my opinion you should at least know what the correct decision is based on historical averages.
I love Pete, but I really hope I don't see another punt on 4th and 1 from the 50 especially when your offense is significantly better than your defense like in the Pittsburgh game with the season on the line.
Low hanging fruit for Mac to be better than his predecessor.
Really, what I hope with this, is that Seattle DOES NOT do the Dan Campbell dance. Meaning: you don’t “go for it because that’s who we are” since that’s as sane as saying every circumstance is identical. The Lions screwed themselves out of a Super Bowl that way and the pontificators trying to gauge the “personality” of the Seahawks on offense or defense would ideally just shut up. Being a “pass-first” team or a “run-first” team shouldn’t be a thing. This whole column was about how McVay harnessed the talent he had — he CHANGED with the circumstances. Maybe he’s not perfect in-game, but man, he’s really good. Because he’s flexible. Pete was not, and your “gut” isn’t the best measure of what to do. Matchups, matchups, matchups! That’s the game.
Mcvay had the best QB in the NFC, in my opinion by a little bit of a margin too, someone I would have voted for MVP. Got the ball, all be it on his own 5 yard line, but with an MVP level QB, a WR that was on fire, 3 timeouts and 59 seconds in a game you are down 21-17 and decided not to try and score.
Whats worse? Your offense scored 17 points on 3 possessions and hadn’t been stopped.
McVay took the ball out of a red hot offenses hands.
That is losing the game.
I do not believe that Dan Campbell cost his team anything. I believe the opposite. He adds to his teams chances of winning.
Mcvay does a ton of things great and should be commended … but it doesn’t mean he is perfect. That was a terrible decision that may have cost his team the win.
I hope our new coach does not make bad decisions, and rather makes optimal decisions to gain an edge on Shanny and McVay who make bad decisions.
I like the DC hire. Mainly, because he is a DL guy that MikeMac can lean on at that position group while grooming him for more control to free himself up for more things down the road. NFL real estate is measured in yards, and defense is all about the location.... in the Trenches, trenches, trenches!
It seems to me that the position coaches need to know the fundamentals of that position and all of the nuances that it brings. How else can someone coach a player that has been playing that position for his whole life? You can't really coach players that know more than you very well, except to have an outside perspective to offer. Also, you can't teach players well who have recently switched positions. So, how can we reasonably expect our QBs to improve on their past performances just by hiring a different coach? Especially, if we are if we are hiring coaches who have only a year, or two, experience coaching that position? We hired Olsen because he was considered one of the best QB coaches a few years back, now we're hiring London, who was a RB coach up until 2yrs ago. Are we really expecting that hiring him will help either of our QBs more than Olsen did/could, and possibly develop a rookie better than Olsen would have?
I think we be attributing a QBs performance in a particular year to their coach too much. What exactly did London teach Tannehill, an experienced vet, that he didn't already know? What tweak in his game did he make? Some footwork, arm angle, mental approach, order of progression, practice habit, or what? I hope John found out and didn't look at "Tannehill was expected to throw for X stats, and ended up with Y, so therefore London is good." I know Tannehill transitioned to QB entering the NFL, one of the few who ever has. So, for him to be as serviceable for as long as he has been, he needed some pretty good coaching to develop, I would think. But, I just have a hard time seeing how great a job was done by London, himself specifically, that caused Tannehill to way overperform from the expected top-25 QB to the top-20 guy he ended up being.... maybe he can get Geno from top-10 to top-9.
Am I too skeptical of London?
Please excuse my typos and grammar errors. I think the meaning still holds.
McVay is an exceptional coach. What he did with that team last year was pretty impressive. I still remember the SSJ post about how horrid the Rams were ahead of the first game, and then they pulled our pants down in the second half and spanked us.
Shannahan is also very good, but he's also got an excellent roster with a number of difference makers on both sides of the ball. Could he have been as successful with the Rams roster last year? I think not, but that's total speculation.
Gannon needs time. Not a great roster, but they fought for him, especially later in the year. And they beat Dallas, so that's not nothing. He might be a very good coach as well, which would suck for us if we have 3 top tiered coaches in our division.
MacDonald I have high hopes for, for obvious reasons, but he's largely an unknown as a head coach. He seems very bright, and clear in his mind about what he wants his team to look like. That's a great place to start. Fingers crossed that we discover sometime this year or next that he's the real deal.
I shared in SSJ point of view that the Rams would be terrible. They did work to us in week 1 and never looked back on what was a very difficult schedule.
I think that was the best coaching of McVay's career. And the best year of Stafford's career.
Hats off to those guys, I would like to see Shanny perform with less talent before I consider him a very good or great coach.
I think most people thought the Rams would be pitiful. I thought they'd be battling with Arizona for the NFC West basement. Turns out, not so much. They've obviously drafted very well, and coached the heck out of those guys.
ICE TOWN!
Sorry, I meant Kyle .
And now for the dumbest NFL head coach for the 23 season ( drum roll please ) the award goes to Mike Shanahan for not telling the 49ers team captain, " if we win the coin toss say defer." In yhe immortal words of Forest Gump, " stupid is as stupid does."
"Without being caught up in the mystique, the simplest way for Shanahan to weigh things would have been to consider two key factors. Would it be worse for him to send a tired defense back on the field after it had just run around during an 11-play two-minute drill, or to give Mahomes an extra play to work with if the Chiefs needed a touchdown to tie the game?"
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39541332/49ers-chiefs-super-bowl-2024-decision-coin-toss-kyle-shanahan-mistake
Bill Barnwell has his limitations but I thought this was a really good article. This is no simple decision and overall it is probably pretty even.
The only thing that I would push back on a bit is that it is not an outright negative EV decision to go for 2 if you have the first possession. It just depends on what you think your chances of getting 2 are and what the other teams chances are.
IE, if you believe the Chiefs convert at 60% or higher the Niners should go for 2 if they scored a TD.
Overall, the big winner is the NFL. Great rule change. Very debatable what to do. Which makes for great entertainment. I think I would take the ball second as I want to be the team going for 2, but, if I thought my D was gassed then I would take the ball first (and I would go for 2).
Admittedly, it’s instinctual for me. Giving the ball to Mahomes two straight times when my D is tired sets off alarms. I get that he would be in four-down territory no matter what, but what’s keeping me from looking at it the same way?
Great report. You distilled a lot of information into a very readable piece. It's a pretty wild life for all of these assistant coaches. They have to be ready to jump cities and teams almost every year. JS really gathered power simply by making the Hawks pretty brand new in almost every coaching position.
I would only ask, re special teams, you think Myers might get cut or traded?
Neither. Myers’ cap hit is 5.5M means that he is not a trade candidate, and cutting him would actually give the Hawks less cap room now that his 2024 salary is guaranteed. Anyway, Myers is a reliable kicker who has solidified a position that had been in flux.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MyerJa00.htm
https://overthecap.com/player/jason-myers/4628
You don't need to convince me. SJ raised the question.
For all of McVay and Shannys strategic strengths on offense. Both are bad in game coaches and consistently make mistakes managing the game when it comes to 4th downs, TOs, and in game decisions.
This would be a great way for Mac to lean into the analytics department JS talked about.
I’ve always said, pay a 16 year old madden player minimum wage to sit in a booth and tell Pete what to challenge, how to use TOs and when to go for 4th downs and 2 points. Easy way to gain an edge on the division.
Getting in-game calls right is hard because in pro football there's not much of a book to go by. There aren't many times when an individual outcome hinges on a call or two, and football by nature is highly conditional and situational. Mike Holmgren had a reputation for winning games that he had control of, but I can't think of a current coach who has that rep.
At least nowadays you have such advanced stats such as Expected Points Added so you can build models to help with decision making.
In general, people are naturally far too risk adverse. You can see this in all sports especially golf right now as players are more aggressive off the tee than ever, why? Becuase the stokes gained metric has proven it correct.
NFL has been moving towards more 4th down and 2-point conversions ... Why? Because the metrics prove it to be correct.
Even if you don't want to follow a model strictly, which is fine, in my opinion you should at least know what the correct decision is based on historical averages.
I love Pete, but I really hope I don't see another punt on 4th and 1 from the 50 especially when your offense is significantly better than your defense like in the Pittsburgh game with the season on the line.
Low hanging fruit for Mac to be better than his predecessor.
FWIW, I'd regard 1st-and-10 inside the 50 as four-down territory and call plays accordingly.
Really, what I hope with this, is that Seattle DOES NOT do the Dan Campbell dance. Meaning: you don’t “go for it because that’s who we are” since that’s as sane as saying every circumstance is identical. The Lions screwed themselves out of a Super Bowl that way and the pontificators trying to gauge the “personality” of the Seahawks on offense or defense would ideally just shut up. Being a “pass-first” team or a “run-first” team shouldn’t be a thing. This whole column was about how McVay harnessed the talent he had — he CHANGED with the circumstances. Maybe he’s not perfect in-game, but man, he’s really good. Because he’s flexible. Pete was not, and your “gut” isn’t the best measure of what to do. Matchups, matchups, matchups! That’s the game.
Mcvay had the best QB in the NFC, in my opinion by a little bit of a margin too, someone I would have voted for MVP. Got the ball, all be it on his own 5 yard line, but with an MVP level QB, a WR that was on fire, 3 timeouts and 59 seconds in a game you are down 21-17 and decided not to try and score.
Whats worse? Your offense scored 17 points on 3 possessions and hadn’t been stopped.
McVay took the ball out of a red hot offenses hands.
That is losing the game.
I do not believe that Dan Campbell cost his team anything. I believe the opposite. He adds to his teams chances of winning.
Mcvay does a ton of things great and should be commended … but it doesn’t mean he is perfect. That was a terrible decision that may have cost his team the win.
I hope our new coach does not make bad decisions, and rather makes optimal decisions to gain an edge on Shanny and McVay who make bad decisions.