PFT article about the problem with having defense-minded head coaches

[dubs]

Offensive vs Defensive coach is the ultimate TBD binary. There can be no in between. 

[BADOLBILZ]

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

You're crediting them with an offensive TD even though it came in *late* garbage time (1:08 left in the fourth) in a ritual stomping?

 

 

This is TSW..........If I didn't give McD credit for that garbage time TD........after some 45 consecutive drives against the Patriots under McD without one..........then someone would call me out for it like my point was entirely wrong.

1 hour ago, Logic said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/01/08/lafleur-hire-leaves-mike-vrabel-without-an-offensive-coordinator/

 

"NFL teams are looking for offensive coaches, and Monday’s decision by the Packers to hire Titans offensive coordinator Matt LaFleur underscores it.

With the pendulum squarely pointed in the direction of the Os not the Xs (solid defensive performances from wild-card weekend notwithstanding), teams have placed great importance on having in place a staff of offensive coaches who can develop quarterbacks and hone playbooks and strategies and concepts and otherwise get the most out of the collection of 11 players charged with moving the ball and scoring the points.

The fact that the Titans, one year after hiring a defensive coach, find themselves looking for a new offensive coordinator underscores the problem that teams will face when hiring defensive coaches. If your offensive coordinator has any degree of success (and, frankly, the Titans didn’t have much last year, finishing 25th in total yards and 29th in passing yards), he’ll be gone and your defensive head coach will be stuck looking for a replacement."


There's been a lot of talk the past couple of days about the difficulties of revolving-door OC situations around the NFL, as highlighted by the recent hiring of Matt LeFleur by the Packers. Basically, as mentioned in the article, the notion is that if your head coach is a defensive specialist, any time his OCs start to have success, they're going to get poached by another team. This, in turn, leads to constant turnover at the position, which can hinder the development of young QBs. Marcus Mariota is a great example, as he's about to be on his 5th OC in 5 seasons. 

Obviously, the same can happen in reverse. If you have an OFFENSE-minded head coach, its possible that his DEFENSIVE coordinators routinely get poached. However, this is theoretically less damaging to a team and, in particular, does not affect the most important position on the team, the quarterback. Furthermore, as more and more teams hire offensive-minded head coaches, defensive coordinators that have success are less likely to be stolen away after a good season.

So my question, as a fan of a team with a head coach whose specialty is defense and who has just drafted a young QB, is should we be worried about this phenomenon? How will we feel if Daboll has a good season next year and then gets stolen away, leaving Josh Allen to have to learn a brand new offense just as he's beginning to hit his stride? I happen to like Sean McDermott quite a lot. I also tend to think that finding a quality leader and tone setter is the most important thing, and that McDermott fits the bill. Nevertheless, this year's coaching cycle has my mental wheels turning. Are the Bills gonna be cycling through OCs and stunting Allen's growth by virtue of the direction that the league seems to be going in terms of head coach preferences? Is this a legitimate concern or much ado about nothing?

 

 

 

There is no doubt it's better to have the offensive mind for the reasons you've mentioned.

 

What teams with defensive minded HC's like McD must do is work HARD to develop young offensive minds in assistant roles behind their OC so they can step in and keep their systems in place.

 

That hasn't been done enough but I expect the focus on that to grow extensively.

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, jeremy2020 said:

What is the sun burns itself out tomorrow? Do we have a succession plan in place?

I have a generator. Fingers crossed.

[ThurmasThoman]

What a meaningless discussion. Offense and defense are contingent upon one another--an offensive mind schemes against the defense, a defensive mind schemes to stop the assault. Both require a knowledge of how the other works. Neither one background nor the other guarantees success or failure--it simply informs the philosophy that person will likely bring to hiring coaches for both sides of the ball. A head coach has many, many, many other responsibilities that transcend mere Xs and Os, and some of these guys just don't have it, while others do. Beliceck does, because he has a military upbringing, is detail oriented, is a savant with understanding the strategy of the game, and does what any (smart) person does while playing a game--he studies the rules and looks for the gamebreaking options. Rex Ryan was the antithesis of that--he could motivate men in a ra-ra sense, but had no attention to detail, was sloppy, and has been out of work for a few years now. Give that man a defense to run? He's exceptional, because he can strategize in that specific capacity. Leading men is different than strategizing to overtake or defend a position, and a specialty in one of those latter areas does not preclude excellence in the former.

 

 

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, H2o said:

Unless Allen loses his mind and goes Mahomes next year I don't believe we have to worry about Daboll

I dunno...Daboll did pretty well once we got some speed...averaged 24 PPG in the last half of the season...thats not top tier but its not bad for what he had to work with this year.

[Niagara Dude]

2 hours ago, Logic said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/01/08/lafleur-hire-leaves-mike-vrabel-without-an-offensive-coordinator/

 

"NFL teams are looking for offensive coaches, and Monday’s decision by the Packers to hire Titans offensive coordinator Matt LaFleur underscores it.

With the pendulum squarely pointed in the direction of the Os not the Xs (solid defensive performances from wild-card weekend notwithstanding), teams have placed great importance on having in place a staff of offensive coaches who can develop quarterbacks and hone playbooks and strategies and concepts and otherwise get the most out of the collection of 11 players charged with moving the ball and scoring the points.

The fact that the Titans, one year after hiring a defensive coach, find themselves looking for a new offensive coordinator underscores the problem that teams will face when hiring defensive coaches. If your offensive coordinator has any degree of success (and, frankly, the Titans didn’t have much last year, finishing 25th in total yards and 29th in passing yards), he’ll be gone and your defensive head coach will be stuck looking for a replacement."


There's been a lot of talk the past couple of days about the difficulties of revolving-door OC situations around the NFL, as highlighted by the recent hiring of Matt LeFleur by the Packers. Basically, as mentioned in the article, the notion is that if your head coach is a defensive specialist, any time his OCs start to have success, they're going to get poached by another team. This, in turn, leads to constant turnover at the position, which can hinder the development of young QBs. Marcus Mariota is a great example, as he's about to be on his 5th OC in 5 seasons. 

Obviously, the same can happen in reverse. If you have an OFFENSE-minded head coach, its possible that his DEFENSIVE coordinators routinely get poached. However, this is theoretically less damaging to a team and, in particular, does not affect the most important position on the team, the quarterback. Furthermore, as more and more teams hire offensive-minded head coaches, defensive coordinators that have success are less likely to be stolen away after a good season.

So my question, as a fan of a team with a head coach whose specialty is defense and who has just drafted a young QB, is should we be worried about this phenomenon? How will we feel if Daboll has a good season next year and then gets stolen away, leaving Josh Allen to have to learn a brand new offense just as he's beginning to hit his stride? I happen to like Sean McDermott quite a lot. I also tend to think that finding a quality leader and tone setter is the most important thing, and that McDermott fits the bill. Nevertheless, this year's coaching cycle has my mental wheels turning. Are the Bills gonna be cycling through OCs and stunting Allen's growth by virtue of the direction that the league seems to be going in terms of head coach preferences? Is this a legitimate concern or much ado about nothing?

 

I agree and this is why Bills should have moved on from loser Sean

[MJS]

It goes both ways. Ask Drew Brees if he would have liked a defensive coach to fix their terrible defense a few years ago.

 

Turnover on the defensive side of the ball can also take it's toll.

[oldmanfan]

In a few years when defenses figure out how to stop these offenses then everyone will want to hire young defensive geniuses.

 

[JaCrispy]

2 hours ago, Albany,n.y. said:

Imagine if the Patriots had an offensive minded head coach instead of a defensive minded head coach: Brady's development never would have been stunted with all the OC changes through the years. 

Sensational! ?

[racketmaster]

I remember posting about this topic earlier in the football season. I believe hiring an offensive minded head coach is better in most circumstances. But there was an exception that I had not thought about at the time and that was having an elite qb. If a team has an elite qb then it is less important to have an offensive minded head coach. In fact it might even be better having the defensive minded head coach. 

 

Think the Steelers, Patriots and Seahawks have defensive coaches and have done quite well. Others that come to mind are Tony Dungy (Indy) and John Fox at Denver. What is the common denominator? The answer is having an elite Qb.

 

its easy to see why, and that is that over time the elite  quarterback becomes the de facto offensive coordinator. Also, excellent offensive minds will be much more willing to take the job if it comes with an elite qb because they will make them look good. So having an elite qb will give a team a ready pool of talented offensive minds year after year. 

 

The hope here is that Allen becomes that and he will have Daboll for another year to help him get to the level he needs. So if Allen can get to elite status, having McDermott will be a good thing to make the defense good enough even if assets are being diverted to the offensive side of the ball. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Logic said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/01/08/lafleur-hire-leaves-mike-vrabel-without-an-offensive-coordinator/

 

"NFL teams are looking for offensive coaches(....) teams have placed great importance on having in place a staff of offensive coaches who can develop quarterbacks and hone playbooks and strategies and concepts and otherwise get the most out of the collection of 11 players charged with moving the ball and scoring the points.  The fact that the Titans, one year after hiring a defensive coach, find themselves looking for a new offensive coordinator underscores the problem that teams will face when hiring defensive coaches. If your offensive coordinator has any degree of success (and, frankly, the Titans didn’t have much last year, finishing 25th in total yards and 29th in passing yards), he’ll be gone and your defensive head coach will be stuck looking for a replacement."
 

 

 

Mike Lombardi in The Athletic has an article titled "Stop Trying to Find the Next Sean McVay" on how/why the NFL head coach hiring process is flawed (subscription, but free trial available) that goes beyond the question of just "look for an offensive-minded HC":

https://theathletic.com/754125/2019/01/07/nfl-hiring-coaching-process-2019-frank-reich-sean-mcvay/?redirected=1

 

Basically, it makes the point that getting hired as a HC has become a PR game - that last year at this time, despite being the OC on the winning Superbowl team, Reich was not a hot candidate, in part because he is not a self-promoter:

" In order to get “elected” as an NFL head coach these days, you must have a great public relations machine, as the days of being selected on coaching merit alone are over."  

 

The article makes the point that like Reich, there are a number of guys out there who seem to know what they're doing, but aren't getting looks:

" How is Ravens defensive coordinator Don Martindale not on everyone’s list to be a head coach? (...) Martindale has worked for Al Davis of the Raiders, and as a result he knows how players fit and how schemes work, which is the essence of what a great coach brings to the table. Davis wanted his coaches to understand fundamentals as well as scheme, and his belief in team building was shared throughout the coaching staff. When an assistant worked for Davis, he was expected to know the whole game, from offense to defense. (...) Davis taught many the nature of game management as he was obsessed with that aspect of football."

 

Bottom line, makes the point that what seems to be the hot property in head coaches these days is a record untarnished by failure and that's not necessarily a good thing:

" There are plenty of others out there (...) who have great backgrounds of success and failures. The key word in the last sentence is a failure. When a team wants a young coach, they primarily want an unblemished coach, a coach who has never made a mistake. A coach that has never made a mistake is doomed to fail. We all learn from our mistakes, our mistakes teach us, our mistakes help us grow, and instead of killing a coach for a failure, find out if that failure has allowed him to develop and get better. "

 

Daboll has certainly gotten multiple looks as an OC, despite failures.  So the question for the Bills is: has he developed and gotten better for them?

 

And of course, for the rest of the league, the question is: do they need to change the HC search process to change the odds of success?

 

 

[Alphadawg7]

2 hours ago, BillsVet said:

There's no need to worry about losing Daboll right now because I doubt he winds up with one of the 6 remaining HC jobs.  Whatever happens, happens and it's out of their control.     

 

The real issue is how bad OC's getting hired to be HC's will affect the league.  Everyone's looking for the next McVay, but those guys aren't growing on trees.  I can see some undeserving types getting HC jobs and not being ready and/or not talented enough to handle the gig.   

 

Developing an offense is harder than ever with HC turnover, new schemes to implement, free agency moving players around, and the demand for instant results.  And, they require incredible precision, not to mention an excellent QB. 

 

Right now, there are 6 HC vacancies.  Of installed HCs, 1 who comes from the special teams side, 9 from the defensive side, and 16 offensive.  The supply of great offensive minds will not, as with QBs, keep up with demand.  Something's gotta give eventually.  18 teams have changed HCs since the beginning of the 2017 off-season (BUF, MIA, NYJ, CIN, CLE, IND, TEN, DEN, LAC, OAK, NYG 2x, CHI, DET, GB, TB, AZ 2x, LAR, SF) 

 

 

Not only are McVay's hard to find, but why is McVay suddenly the barometer in the first place?  I mean McVay still today has zero playoff wins and goes into this weekend with his team not playing its best ball late in the year against a stout defense.  I was at the game when Eagles beat this Rams team...as a Ram fan too I am worried about this Cowboy game.  If they lose, McVay would be 0-2 in the playoffs with all that talent and explosive offense. 

 

Said this in another thread...what came along WITH McVay was 2 new OL to shore up pass protection and open up holes for Gurley, a new rookie TE to form an effective duo, and 3 new WRs in Watkins, Woods, and Kupp.  Yet people seem to treat it like he took the same roster as Fisher and turned it around when it was grossly different.  Dont get me wrong, I like McVay, but I just think he is getting more credit than he has truly earned yet.  

[Perry Turtle]

42 minutes ago, MJS said:

It goes both ways. Ask Drew Brees if he would have liked a defensive coach to fix their terrible defense a few years ago.

 

Turnover on the defensive side of the ball can also take it's toll.

Are you implying that Drew Brees would want Sean Payton replaced by a defensive-minded coach?  Because I seriously doubt that would be true. 

 

The offensive-minded coach trend is heavily influenced by the rule changes over the last decade that have favored the passing game. Teams realize that offensive-minded coaches are better able to take advantage of those changes than defensive-minded coaches.

 

 

[MJS]

32 minutes ago, Perry Turtle said:

Are you implying that Drew Brees would want Sean Payton replaced by a defensive-minded coach?  Because I seriously doubt that would be true. 

 

The offensive-minded coach trend is heavily influenced by the rule changes over the last decade that have favored the passing game. Teams realize that offensive-minded coaches are better able to take advantage of those changes than defensive-minded coaches.

 

I didn't imply. I stated just that. The Saints were a losing team while Drew Brees was throwing for 5000 yards a season. The defense was a serious problem.

[formerlyofCtown]

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

You're crediting them with an offensive TD even though it came in *late* garbage time (1:08 left in the fourth) in a ritual stomping?

Wow youre actually ignoring the talent difference between the two teams.

1 hour ago, Niagara Dude said:

I agree and this is why Bills should have moved on from loser Sean

Actually the Patriots function as a collective much like the Bills do.  So sick of the ignorant bashing a team thats going through a rebuild.

 

Go cheer on the Patriots Mr. LukeWarm, fairweather fan.  All of you guys that refuse to acknowledge that we are in a rebuild and refuse to acknowledge the positives are a sad lot.

[Thurman#1]

Same can happen with an offensive head coach.

 

Your OC will tend to be given less credit than you, so will be less likely to be chosen as a potential head coach candidate. But at the same time, your OC will be looking to move on to a different OC job where he can be given more of the credit for offensive success.

 

Either way, teams with very successful offenses are more likely to lose their OCs and teams with very successful defenses are more likely to lose their DCs.

 

4 hours ago, Perry Turtle said:

Are you implying that Drew Brees would want Sean Payton replaced by a defensive-minded coach?  Because I seriously doubt that would be true. 

 

The offensive-minded coach trend is heavily influenced by the rule changes over the last decade that have favored the passing game. Teams realize that offensive-minded coaches are better able to take advantage of those changes than defensive-minded coaches.

 

 

 

 

Nah. Head coaches who aren't experts in taking advantage of offensive rule changes can hire OCs who are.

 

More, head coaches from defensive backgrounds are also experts on how teams take advantage of various defensive moves. You can learn a ton about offenses by being a good DC, and a ton about defenses from being a good OC.

 

And yeah, Brees likes Payton and wouldn't want to see him go. But if he went, I doubt Brees'd want an offensive HC more than a defensive guy willing to hire an excellent OC and seriously consider Brees' advice on doing so.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

4 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Not only are McVay's hard to find, but why is McVay suddenly the barometer in the first place?  I mean McVay still today has zero playoff wins and goes into this weekend with his team not playing its best ball late in the year against a stout defense.  I was at the game when Eagles beat this Rams team...as a Ram fan too I am worried about this Cowboy game.  If they lose, McVay would be 0-2 in the playoffs with all that talent and explosive offense. 

 

Said this in another thread...what came along WITH McVay was 2 new OL to shore up pass protection and open up holes for Gurley, a new rookie TE to form an effective duo, and 3 new WRs in Watkins, Woods, and Kupp.  Yet people seem to treat it like he took the same roster as Fisher and turned it around when it was grossly different.  Dont get me wrong, I like McVay, but I just think he is getting more credit than he has truly earned yet.  

 

 

Yup, this is a good point too.

 

A year or two from today, the trend could easily switch back to DCs being the flavor of the week.

[Mrbojanglezs]

If you have a good OC just pay him more to stay. 

[NoSaint]

4 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Not only are McVay's hard to find, but why is McVay suddenly the barometer in the first place?  I mean McVay still today has zero playoff wins and goes into this weekend with his team not playing its best ball late in the year against a stout defense.  I was at the game when Eagles beat this Rams team...as a Ram fan too I am worried about this Cowboy game.  If they lose, McVay would be 0-2 in the playoffs with all that talent and explosive offense. 

 

Said this in another thread...what came along WITH McVay was 2 new OL to shore up pass protection and open up holes for Gurley, a new rookie TE to form an effective duo, and 3 new WRs in Watkins, Woods, and Kupp.  Yet people seem to treat it like he took the same roster as Fisher and turned it around when it was grossly different.  Dont get me wrong, I like McVay, but I just think he is getting more credit than he has truly earned yet.  

 

I don’t know that it’s fair to knock a guy for not winning a playoff game this year due to having secured a bye week. 

 

And yes, he gets some credit for changing the direction of that team.

[BillsVet]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

In a few years when defenses figure out how to stop these offenses then everyone will want to hire young defensive geniuses.

 

Better change the rules to reduce PI and RTP calls because defenses are playing not to be flagged.  This has permanently influenced how the game is being played from emphasis on positional value (reducing RB, LB, DT for example) to the rise in passing as part of a team's offense, to coach selection, et al.