Has there been a "great" coach who is clearly conservative?

[BringBackOrton]

3 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I'm talking both sides of the ball though. He's conservative on defense too. A very good coach but bend but not break and he doesn't Blitz a lot. When we have we have been much better. The combination of a conservative offense with a bend but not break defense has VERY little room for error and almost all of our losses including today show that. I'm not just talking offense. It's both sides, time management, special teams, etc. 

The Broncos had a great defense. 

Yep the Broncos has a great defense. And against a prime Tom Brady and Gronk, they blitzed a SEASON LOW that game. By your definition, they weren’t aggressive at all. 

 

So we have a conservative offensive and defensive gameplan that beat a great team in the game before the Super Bowl. 

 

Its about matchups Kelly. That’s all the NFL is. The only guy to have success blitzing a lot against Brady was Rex and that’s didn’t last because Brady figured out his disguises. 

 

Offenses play better, aggressive or no, when the personnel is better. Defenses play better, aggressive or no, when the personnel is better. 

 

If you want to beat Brady, you need pressure with your front 4 without blitzing. It’s not a question of aggressiveness, it’s a question of getting pressure while flooding zones so he can’t get the ball out in a second to Edelman for an easy 7 yards. If Josh could make defenses pay enough for blitzing like Brady does, we’d see a lot less “aggressive” defenses. 

[Coach Tuesday]

If John Brown keeps running instead of inexplicably turning the other way, we likely hit a second long bomb TD and the talk this morning is about how aggressive McD coached...

[oldmanfan]

The Devils and their neutral zone trap stuff comes to mind.

 

In football Ground Chuck, Lombardi.  We do need to open things up more though, and that’s hard to say for a conservative, love running the ball and defense guy like me.

 

McD said play fearless.  Live up to that in the playoffs.

[Beast]

The funny thing is I don’t think the Bills were conservative on offense. I liked their game plan and they should have had at least 24 points, if not 28, yesterday. Player mistakes, not coaching, is why they ended up with only 17.

 

Now, the surprise. The Bills played way too conservatively on defense yesterday.They gave Tom Brady way too much respect. He can’t handle the blitz like he once was able to. The Bills rushed 4, gave him all day, and he probably had one of his best games of the year.

 

A conservative game plan on defense and some missed plays by the players on offense cost us big time yesterday.

 

Whatever the case may be I still believe the Bills are the better team and if they played again next Sunday I’d expect the Bills to come out with the win.

[ganesh]

12 hours ago, whatdrought said:

I mean, we’re a young team who doesn’t make mistakes. That’s largely because of the conservativism. There are times it will cost us, but other times it helps us. We need to play fearless. We’ve forgotten that lately.

We threw the ball deep quite a bit today and succeeded in some of those shots.  

[dave mcbride]

12 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Neither of those were. Staubach was one of the most revolutionary QBs. Bob Hayes was the opposite. 

 

Knox was not an overly conservative coach. On either side of the ball. When he had Ferguson and Cribbs here we were not conservative. 

 

 

Chuck Knox was an EXTREMELY conservative coach. His Bills years were a minor part of his career, btw. It’s the Rams years where he made his well-deserved rep as a conservative coach.

[BADOLBILZ]

48 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Chuck Knox was an EXTREMELY conservative coach. His Bills years were a minor part of his career, btw. It’s the Rams years where he made his well-deserved rep as a conservative coach.

 

 

What Knox did with the Rams in the regular season is nothing short of amazing......and it wasn't all on the ground there either he made John Hadl and NFL MVP at QB and then traded him for a kings ransom and kept winning.

 

But he was ultimately a big loser in the playoffs so to Kelly's point I'm not sure he can be called "great".

 

Knox is by far the best football coach the Bills have ever had though.

 

Maybe if he stayed with the Rams he would have eventually broke thru like Cowher did in Pittsburgh.

[Kirby Jackson]

13 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I'm trying to think of one. In any sport. 

 

Don't make this a hate McDermott stance or thread. I like him. I'm glad we have him. But it's arguable that his blatant conservative nature holds this team back. 

 

There are no facts. This is ALL opinion. And some of his conservative nature surely helps. We're 10-5 and will likely finish 11-5. 

 

But the object is to win it all. Josh is a unique talent. We need to score more points or there is little chance to win it all and that is the object. 

 

I think he needs to relinquish some of his dearly held nature in order to be great. I don't think you can be great without a killer instinct. 

I think it’s an interesting topic. A lot of guys have started that way and loosened as time went on. I think that will happen more as McDermott grows more comfortable with Josh and himself.
 

We need to be more aggressive with the challenge flag in addition to the play calling. Sometimes it may be close but the situation massive. That is of equal importance when it comes to using it. As an example he ABSOLUTELY should have challenged that 4th down run. They may not have overturned it (although I believe he was short) but the play was too important to look the other way. He should have been all over the refs about no call on the Brady intentional grounding. You do that stuff so the next close one goes your way. It’s all a part of game management. 

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think it’s an interesting topic. A lot of guys have started that way and loosened as time went on. I think that will happen more as McDermott grows more comfortable with Josh and himself.
 

We need to be more aggressive with the challenge flag in addition to the play calling. Sometimes it may be close but the situation massive. That is of equal importance when it comes to using it. As an example he ABSOLUTELY should have challenged that 4th down run. They may not have overturned it (although I believe he was short) but the play was too important to look the other way. He should have been all over the refs about no call on the Brady intentional grounding. You do that stuff so the next close one goes your way. It’s all a part of game management. 

you never challenge a spot. That has been proven. If he did Knox catch ends the half and there is no Tying TD

[dave mcbride]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

What Knox did with the Rams in the regular season is nothing short of amazing......and it wasn't all on the ground there either he made John Hadl and NFL MVP at QB and then traded him for a kings ransom and kept winning.

 

But he was ultimately a big loser in the playoffs so to Kelly's point I'm not sure he can be called "great".

 

Knox is by far the best football coach the Bills have ever had though.

 

Maybe if he stayed with the Rams he would have eventually broke thru like Cowher did in Pittsburgh.

In his five seasons as Rams coach, they were, in succession, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 2nd, and 2nd in rushing attempts. 

[Maine-iac]

14 hours ago, SirAndrew said:

Marty Schottenheimer, he always made the playoffs fun. 

This.  In the era I started watching football as a kid Marty and Okoye and Word would grind you into the dirt.  Marty won a lot of games but never got to the big dance.

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

you never challenge a spot. That has been proven. If he did Knox catch ends the half and there is no Tying TD

...and if he is ruled short New England doesn’t get points on that drive. You can’t use results from later in the game to justify the move at the time. The situation dictates your decision.

 

Also, that runoff rule needs to change. Would they have gotten another play off? Probably not, but if the refs rule it a TD and then change their mind the Bills shouldn’t be penalized. It is much, much worse if it’s at like the 2 because a team COULD conceivably get another snap off. It happened earlier this year but don’t remember the game. I don’t know the answer but it’s something other than what it is now. 

[JoeF]

Thoughtful topic and great thread content. I can't think of a head coach who has been this conservative who has won a SB.

 

Two things:

 

1) I think the first quarter of the season where Josh was loose with the football led to some of this conservative nature on both O and D.  If you are aggressive on D -- you are going to leave large areas of the field uncovered at times and potentially give up big plays and points and there is little faith that the O can score points consistently.  So I think one thing feeds into another and creates something that is self-fulfilling.'

 

2) This needs to be one of the self-evaluation things McD looks at in the off-season.  Playing aggressive situational football and executing on aggressive plays is the next step for this team.  Just like they worked on goal-line last off-season, aggressive play calling on both O and D need to be the focus this off-season.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by JoeF

[Buffalo Barbarian]

11 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

We no huddle. We don't hurry up. There is a difference. But the bigger difference is when we put DiMarco and or Lee Smith in. That makes the defense put an extra defender or even two into the box. That hurts us way more than helps for numerous reasons. 

 

You will notice that we do hurry up and there is a lot of time on the play clock and that's what is giving us the advantage.

 

 

10 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

It really is a question and you’re wrong.

 

The Broncos won in 2015 by going into a shell punting how many straight times with a lead in the AFCCG? You might say “oh Kubiak was always aggressive the rest of the time in his career,” but guess what? Those Peyton Manning aggressive offenses never won in Denver. The crappy conservative offense did. Because you have to play to your PERSONNEL.

 

we are not that team, man people are thick around here. What works for us is the hurry up Not slowing down trying to burn clock.

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

9 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

Not the way I remember it and I remember it well. They had 2 basic plays. The famed ‘Packer Sweep’ and fake the sweep through down the middle of the field. Boyd Dowler, Carrol Dale & Max McGee? None were speedsters and all  of them loped as the ran. The pass patterns were backyard variety. A quick trip to Canton will introduce you to numerous OL, DL, DB, RB and a conservative QB. HOFer Lombardi wouldn’t have it any other way. J. Ringo (exBill HC), F. Gregg, J. Kramer, J. Taylor, P. Hornung (flashy college QB and great shiftiness, but a grinder), D. Robinson, W. Wood, R. Nitschke, H. Adderly, W. Davis, H. Jordan were all Excellent, conservative players in an excellent, conservative scheme. They rarely blew anyone out. This was an era where Defense had all the upper hands and games were slugfests. They had no flashy, ‘Must Take This Guy out of the Game’ type players. Just well disciplined Sunday warriors.

 

It’s fairly obvious you’re searching for the premise of this weeks’ article, but you won’t find it creating an alternative reality of a glitzy Packer era. There were zero pass routes like the one Smoke burned Gilmore on or Beasley pulled on the Cowboys. 

Yes, Hornung would occasionally throw off the sweep, but so do we. 

 

Here’s what you’ve lost track of; there’s only 3 players left from the start of ‘17. Tinkering continues with the OL, TE’s, RB & Receivers while a still raw but promising QB learns the ropes. Plus, the final pieces aren’t here yet. But, they’ll be playing in their second straight meaningless game next Sunday. No potential playoff opponent is going to see anything remotely considered unconservative.

61-66 which was their prime they were 1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 2nd in scoring. They had an aggressive defense. Yes the game was way different but he was not at all a conservative guy. He attacked all game, just sometimes it was with a powerful running attack that bulldozed opponents. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

8 hours ago, FeelingOnYouboty said:

He’s legit done it in every game this season. Take the lead and then go conservative in the next drive.

 

 

...then why do some TBD posters cower at the comparisons to Dopey Dickie Jauron and "turtle ball"?......wherein do the differences lie if the comparisons are not valid?...just curious..........

[Kelly the Dog]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

In his five seasons as Rams coach, they were, in succession, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 2nd, and 2nd in rushing attempts. 

He was ground chuck then for sure but the Rams had putrid quarterbacking. And their defense was killer. He was basically a conservative guy on offense, and a good coach. But that is kind of the point. He's Marty Scottenheimer. His limitations stopped him from being a great coach. 

[MJS]

I think most coaches are conservative, including Bill Belichick, arguably the best coach of all time. Remember in the super bowl against the Falcons where he kept settling for field goals even though they were way down? He just kept plugging along, taking the points that were there. And they won.

 

The Falcons, on the other hand, kept throwing the ball instead of playing conservative to run out the clock, and they lost.

 

Remember the Seahawks in the super bowl who should have run the ball to score? Instead they were "aggressive" and threw the ball. How did that end?

 

I disagree that a coach should be aggressive Or conservative. The coach should do what's best in the moment. Just be smart.

[Kelly the Dog]

6 minutes ago, MJS said:

I think most coaches are conservative, including Bill Belichick, arguably the best coach of all time. Remember in the super bowl against the Falcons where he kept settling for field goals even though they were way down? He just kept plugging along, taking the points that were there. And they won.

 

The Falcons, on the other hand, kept throwing the ball instead of playing conservative to run out the clock, and they lost.

 

Remember the Seahawks in the super bowl who should have run the ball to score? Instead they were "aggressive" and threw the ball. How did that end?

 

I disagree that a coach should be aggressive Or conservative. The coach should do what's best in the moment. Just be smart.

Bellichick is conservative? That's hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. 

[MJS]

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Bellichick is conservative? That's hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. 

Absolutely he is.