DA and QB Depth

[Lucky Luciano]

The peception that a defensive oriented coach doesn't know much about offense sounds a little funny to me especially in order to attack an offense you have to know something about it to stop it. Lovie is no different than Tomlin, Cowher, Fox,De Rio, Belechick,Spagnola,Ryan,Singletary and Schwartz when it comes to all in defensive coaches becoming head coaches. The problem with Lovie is he has come full circle since his first year on offensive philosophy. His first offense was run by Terry Shea a renowned QB guru who was a disciple of the Martz style of offense. That didn't work so then he goes to a run first pass maybe offense under Turner with moderate success until the plays became predictable and teams shut it down. Now enters Martz and there is no way he can say "We get off the bus running" because with Martz and Cutler they are going to throw the ball.

 

i agree with that statement to a certain point and have in fact argued it myself in the past. a good defensive coach SHOULD understand how an offense is run and be able to at the least make educated suggestions on what direction it should take and what it's pitfalls are and at least generally how to change them.

 

my problem with lovie is that i really don't think he does know much about an offense or if he does he hides it very well. the problems we have consistantly faced in the offenses run since lovie arrived is a testimonial of how he either does not want to get involved or doesn't have the qualifications to do so even being a DC by profession. that is the only conclusion i can come up with as to why shay was flying us into the hard turf from 10,000 feet or that turner performed as poorly as he did for so long a period of time. in truth i don't think lovie is a very good DC either. i think he is like the proverbial one trick pony who just doesn't move beyond past success into the nfl future through innovation and change. seemingly very much like dick jauron. if it looks good on paper that is the way it stays whether reality on the field dictates change or not.

 

So I will say that he has to know something about offense in order to have been a successful defensive coordinator but when it comes to sticking to his offensive philosphy he is all over the board. Cowher was no different in the begining of his career and changed OCs like underwear.Most of these guys success is strictly tied to the success of the QB. Where would Belechick be if Bledsoe doesn't get hurt? How did Cowher do when he had O Donnell and Stewart at QB? Tomlin is not coaching the style of defense he coordinated in Minny(Tampa 2) but he does have Big Ben.

 

again, a good HC with a defensive background (or visa-versa) SHOULD be able to make directional changes in how his opposite is performing his duties. i just can't explain with any conviction why he has not done so in the past.

[Lucky Luciano]

While Lovie may not have a great grasp of offense, that doesn't mean he doesn't meddle. Remember who was first to make sure fans knew we would still be a run first offense. Lovie. I am not sure if that will really be the case, but Lovie was the one sticking to the "get off the bus running" mantra even after Martz was hired. I doubt that came from Angelo. So despite Lovie not being an offensive background coach, he still meddles on that side of the ball.

 

IMHO, at the end of the day, I do not believe it is as set in stone as some believe that Hester is a lock as a starter. If Hester stunk it up in camp, while DA did well, I think Hester would be moved to the slot. But Hester, by most reports, has had a very good camp. Thus he likely keeps the starting job. I guess my points are (a) Lovie is the one pushing for Hester and ( despite that, if Hester didn't have a good camp, Martz would have the final say and demote Hester.

 

i can live with either theory. my statements about angelo to balta was in regards as to why lovie might have stated what he did and is really not worth the time we are spending arguing about it as either, both or even neither could be the truth.

 

as far as the running getting off the bus statements by lovie in shays tenure... that was one strange time indeed. whether lovie was meddling or giving misinformation to the press or whatever, it was an odd situation to say the least and i agree wholeheartedly.

[nfoligno]

in truth i don't think lovie is a very good DC either. i think he is like the proverbial one trick pony who just doesn't move beyond past success into the nfl future through innovation and change.

 

This is actually something I argued in the past. Really, has Lovie ever run a good defense? He was a position coach in TB. In Stl he ran the defense, but were they that good. Hell no. They forced a lot of turnovers and generated a solid amount of sacks, which sounds great, but they also gave up a lot of points. Stl had an amazing offense. That offense was so good it quickly made games lopsided, and once that happened, teams were forced to become one dimensional. Once that happened, the DL could pin their ears back and attack the QB, and the secondary could more easily defense as there was little fear of the run. This led to a lot of sacks and turnovers, but this same defense also gave up a lot of points. Stl won a ton of games under Lovie as DC, but they were still giving up a lot of points and winning due to the offense putting up 30+ per game. Hell, at times they would have that many points by halftime.

 

I agree Lovie does not adapt his scheme to the talent around him, either on defense or to adjust to the offense he has. I am only questiong that past success aspect of you post.

[bowlingtwig]

With this offense does it really matter who is labeled the #1 or the #2. Martz is very good about moving players around to get a better matchup. To me as long as the top 3 are Hester, Knox and DA then it doesn't really matter.