Wilfs will send a message

[mansquatch]

My take on the personnel is more mental. I can see guys aging and all of that, but for the most part this defense was the same except Josh Robinson replacing Winfield. (I think EH is a push on Brinkley) Even on that front, I think we traded raw speed for Veteran savvy. Probably not a net positive, but not enough to explain the disaster we are seeing on the field. It is also worth noting that Winfield is not currently playing in the league. Seattle cut him.

A lot of the issues center around tackling, bad angles, guys making minutia level mistakes, etc. The edge is dull. Why is that? I don't see us as getting out talented or out physicaled on the field. I see us not making plays. So I agree the players are under achieving, but who is responsible for making sure they do not do that? That stuff points to leadership, especially when most of this unit was doing this last season.

[PurpleHalo]

This season is over and I'm sure the Wilfs know that. With the most recent embarrassment they now have a golden opportunity to make a statement and change in the current coaching staff. This will send a message to the entire organization that mediocrity will not be accepted.
(Not that this team can even be called mediocre) But IMO if they sit on their pile of money and do nothing then they are still sending a message that they really dont care if the team wins or not and the only thing that matters to them is whether the team is profitable or not. I sure hope they make the correct choice for the team and the fan base.

I'm not sure they have the pick of the liter of high profile coaches even if they offer big money. But it is better to find the next great coach who we don't know. Retreads rarely work, Dick Vermeil situations are rare. It's not the money you spend, this team just needs a fresh young offensive mind, and a high profile defensive cord to back them up. This Chilly 2.0 we have now will go nowhere, it needs to be flushed from the organization.

[Mothman]

My take on the personnel is more mental. I can see guys aging and all of that, but for the most part this defense was the same except Josh Robinson replacing Winfield. (I think EH is a push on Brinkley)

I wonder about henderson being a "push" on Brinkley. There's more to that position than what you see on the field in terms of tackling, coverage, etc. The MLB is the QB of the defense. Is Henderson doing the job as well in that sense or is that part of the problem. They didn't just lose experience, coverage and run-stopping ability with Winfield. They lost leadership on the field and I thin you're right to point to leadership as part of the problem. Perhaps there's been a drop in leadership at the MLB position too. I'm speculating but it would certainly help explain the defense's performance.

A lot of the issues center around tackling, bad angles, guys making minutia level mistakes, etc. The edge is dull. Why is that? I don't see us as getting out talented or out physicaled on the field. I see us not making plays. So I agree the players are under achieving, but who is responsible for making sure they do not do that?

First and foremost? They are. The coaches can teach them where to be, how to tackle, etc. but if players they don't maintain discipline in their assignments when they're out there, if they try to do too much (which often happens when a team starts struggling) it can lead to exactly the kind of problems you're talking about. You're a coach: what do you do to solve that? tell player X to tackle better? Show him how he took the wrong angle and explain the best way to make that play next time. If the player doesn't make the play next time... that's on the coach? At some point, if that sort of thing keeps up, the coach's only option is to replace the player but that will only help if the next guy up does a better job.

That stuff points to leadership, especially when most of this unit was doing this last season.

... at times last season. They had some of the same problems that have killed them this year last season too. They were less pervasive but they were present.

[mansquatch]

Moth your argument on player performance is circular. Yes, on the field the players has to do the job he has been given. However, who is ultimately responsible for the player performance? To some extent, the player himself is, but who is responsible for motivating said performance? That is the coach.

For me it isn't just the fact that guys are sucking it up, it the fact that most of the team is sucking it up. That points to a more general morale issue vs. just one guy beiing a problem. Also, if one guy is the problem, ie Robinson, then it is up to the coach to frame that issue in a way that doesn't make the tanking contagious. That most obviously has not happened. The team is in a funk that is getting worse. The person responsible to take charge and guide the team out of the funk is the HC.

Also, consider the corrolary, by your argument if the HC is not responsible then it is the job of a leader in the locker room to pull the team out of the funk. In that case, what exactly does the HC do? Is the HC the leader? That doesn't seem like a sound place to be when the guy in charge isn't the guy who motivates the organization's success.

IMO, Henderson is at worse a push on Brinkley. Keep in mind, EH ran the Mike role of calling plays, etc last season in all Nickel packages as well as when Brinkely was out hurt. He has experience on that front. That doens't mean he is doing it well, but I wouldn't say I've seen anything that might indicate he is doing it worse.

[psjordan]

[... The coaches can teach them where to be, how to tackle, etc. but if players they don't maintain discipline in their assignments when they're out there, if they try to do too much (which often happens when a team starts struggling) it can lead to exactly the kind of problems you're talking about ... They had some of the same problems that have killed them this year last season too. They were less pervasive but they were present.

What you say of players is certainly true - at the end of the day the players have to make plays. But therein lies the rub with this team - don't accuse me of hyperbole when I say it seems a rather large portion of this team is not making plays. And that points to leadership and how we go about things.

You are being completely disingenuous when you state "Show him how he took the wrong angle and explain the best way to make that play next time." There is a heckuva lot more to being a good coach than that, which conveniently gets glossed over in these discussions. Heck on my HS teams I have to literally find about a dozen ways to explain and practice the same concepts so that the players understand and, outside of physical mistakes, run the plays correctly during games. And if they don't? I go back to the freaking well and either dream something up or call another coach and ask him how he does it.

I simply believe that coaching is a "full package" job and that teaching X's and O's can absolutely be done the wrong, or certainly in an inadequate way. Lord knows I've tried dozens of those too.

But at the end of the day here is the REAL question for me about this staff - over time, is our coaching staff getting better at what they do? Are they improving? Are they constantly learning, applying new things and keeping the good and tossing the bad? People point to Belichick when he was with the Browns and then on to the (Jets) Pats, and how he seemed to get better as a HC. I can tell you through family connections that one of his biggest traits is his desire to analyze and learn new things about being an NFL HC. It shows. He's as comfortable on the bench coaching individual groups (I've seen him coach both the O and D lines during games) as he is frowning in a cutoff with headphones yelling at refs. I don't want to shout, but to emphasize, THESE THINGS MATTER. They matter to the players, they matter to the team, they matter to wins. Players respond to coaches who not only know what they are talking about, but obviously have more of a quest to get better than they are asking of their own players.

I don't want to get off on a rant here, but I simply don't see any of that in our staff. Not in subjective terms, not in eyeball tests, not in player productivity, not in wins, not in anything to be frank.

Frazier IMO is the exact same coach from three years ago. He is destined to be another Mike Tice. Nice guy, has faults, never seems to get better as a HC.

[mondry]

What you say of players is certainly true - at the end of the day the players have to make plays. But therein lies the rub with this team - don't accuse me of hyperbole when I say it seems a rather large portion of this team is not making plays. And that points to leadership and how we go about things.

You are being completely disingenuous when you state "Show him how he took the wrong angle and explain the best way to make that play next time." There is a heckuva lot more to being a good coach than that, which conveniently gets glossed over in these discussions. Heck on my HS teams I have to literally find about a dozen ways to explain and practice the same concepts so that the players understand and, outside of physical mistakes, run the plays correctly during games. And if they don't? I go back to the freaking well and either dream something up or call another coach and ask him how he does it.

I simply believe that coaching is a "full package" job and that teaching X's and O's can absolutely be done the wrong, or certainly in an inadequate way. Lord knows I've tried dozens of those too.

But at the end of the day here is the REAL question for me about this staff - over time, is our coaching staff getting better at what they do? Are they improving? Are they constantly learning, applying new things and keeping the good and tossing the bad? People point to Belichick when he was with the Browns and then on to the (Jets) Pats, and how he seemed to get better as a HC. I can tell you through family connections that one of his biggest traits is his desire to analyze and learn new things about being an NFL HC. It shows. He's as comfortable on the bench coaching individual groups (I've seen him coach both the O and D lines during games) as he is frowning in a cutoff with headphones yelling at refs. I don't want to shout, but to emphasize, THESE THINGS MATTER. They matter to the players, they matter to the team, they matter to wins. Players respond to coaches who not only know what they are talking about, but obviously have more of a quest to get better than they are asking of their own players.

I don't want to get off on a rant here, but I simply don't see any of that in our staff. Not in subjective terms, not in eyeball tests, not in player productivity, not in wins, not in anything to be frank.

Frazier IMO is the exact same coach from three years ago. He is destined to be another Mike Tice. Nice guy, has faults, never seems to get better as a HC.

Unbelievably well said sir!

[The Breeze]

My take is that Fraizer's mentality and coaching style, or at least the way it manifests on the field, is more suited for the college game and players.
He's a great person and character developer but he is patient to a fault when it comes to the NFL and the actual needs for accountability on a game to game basis.

This team has a few clunkers as far as talent goes...but that's not on him. They should be better though and a lot of it seems to flow from the general vibe coming down from the top. There seems to be very little edge to the team... a complacency. Slow and mechanical in may ways from what I see...as well as often being totally overwhelmed by what other teams draw up against them on both sides of the ball. A total lack of imagination. IMO

Spielman has his work to do. And to be fair to Leslie, he has had a pretty significant run of rough luck and sub-par players at key positions....but that's football in a nutshell and this team simply needs some new blood. I would even look at guys like Studwell and the whole scouting department and seriously re-evaluate them if I was the owner.

To me, as rough as it may look, all of this is a good thing going forward. I really believe in Fraizer's character and their style of building this team through the draft....I just have lost faith that he is the guy to mold the pieces. I hate saying that.

[psjordan]

My take is that Fraizer's mentality and coaching style, or at least the way it manifests on the field, is more suited for the college game and players.
He's a great person and character developer but he is patient to a fault when it comes to the NFL and the actual needs for accountability on a game to game basis.

This team has a few clunkers as far as talent goes...but that's not on him. They should be better though and a lot of it seems to flow from the general vibe coming down from the top. There seems to be very little edge to the team... a complacency. Slow and mechanical in may ways from what I see...as well as often being totally overwhelmed by what other teams draw up against them on both sides of the ball. A total lack of imagination. IMO

Spielman has his work to do. And to be fair to Leslie, he has had a pretty significant run of rough luck and sub-par players at key positions....but that's football in a nutshell and this team simply needs some new blood. I would even look at guys like Studwell and the whole scouting department and seriously re-evaluate them if I was the owner.

To me, as rough as it may look, all of this is a good thing going forward. I really believe in Fraizer's character and their style of building this team through the draft....I just have lost faith that he is the guy to mold the pieces. I hate saying that.

I understand that whole sentiment. And perhaps all the current discontent revolves around a large portion of the fans not being happy unless we are in the NFCC or SB. And I don't mean that in the "if we don't make the final four we SUCK" category. I mean for instance if (as in the past) Frazier's teams were currently beating the runts of the league, we'd want them to beat the mediocre teams. As soon as we start beating mediocre teams, we'd want them to beat the better teams. As soon as that happens, we wouldn't be happy short of a NFCC.

Frazier simply can't win no matter what happens against the Giants. If we win, well, the Giants suck yes? If we don't, well, that would be suboptimal now wouldn't it? And let's say we blow the Giants out - guarantee we all will be wondering where the heck THAT came from, why it didn't happen before and what are our chances of repeating it.

Yessir, I would NOT want to be Leslie Frazier for the next 7 days.

[mansquatch]

I agree with your post, but he was part of the leadership team that presided over the current situation. So yes I do not want to be him, but no I do not feel bad for him. Why did he allow it to get to this point?

The real question, isn't whether the coaching is an issue, at least IMO, it is what can the coaching do to get the team out of this position? There is obvious talent on this team. Also, last season they went through a major skid and then something changed they turned it on to win out. If you blame coaching for the current mess, then you have to give them some credit for last December. Can they pull that rabbit out of their hat again? Or did the magic come from elsewhere?

Big time leadership challenges are front and center right now... I hope the coaches recognize that.

[Mothman]

Moth your argument on player performance is circular. Yes, on the field the players has to do the job he has been given. However, who is ultimately responsible for the player performance? To some extent, the player himself is, but who is responsible for motivating said performance? That is the coach.

I disagree. The player is ultimately responsible for his performance and he's more responsible than anyone else for staying motivated too. Nobody has more control over those things than the player himself. i don't see how that's a circular argument. Coaches can instruct, they can influence, they can lead or threaten, they can do all sorts of things but if a player isn't motivated from within to try, no external force is going to make him try. If a player takes bad angles, misses tackles, drops passes, throws interceptions, jumps offsides, etc. nobody can will him to stop doing those things or do them for him. They can point him in the right direction, instruct him as well as possible to do the job and then see if he can do it but they can't make him do it well.

It's the same dynamic as any employee/employer relationship. The boss/coach is responsible for the overall results. If the business/team is doing poorly, that person has to make the necessary changes to help it succeed. The way I see it, a coach is responsible for team performance, not individual performances. His influence and control over the latter is limited and his options if a player's performance is sub-par are basically limited to helping that player improve or replacing him.

For me it isn't just the fact that guys are sucking it up, it the fact that most of the team is sucking it up. That points to a more general morale issue vs. just one guy beiing a problem. Also, if one guy is the problem, ie Robinson, then it is up to the coach to frame that issue in a way that doesn't make the tanking contagious. That most obviously has not happened. The team is in a funk that is getting worse. The person responsible to take charge and guide the team out of the funk is the HC.

I agree with that but that's a different level of responsibility. Each player is responsible for his performance. The coach is responsible for overall team performance and for leading the team.

Also, consider the corrolary, by your argument if the HC is not responsible then it is the job of a leader in the locker room to pull the team out of the funk. In that case, what exactly does the HC do? Is the HC the leader? That doesn't seem like a sound place to be when the guy in charge isn't the guy who motivates the organization's success.

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm trying to delineate the difference between player responsibility and coaching responsibility or, more specifically the difference between what a coach can and can't control. It IS the responsibility of the guy in charge to lead the team to success. However, I don't think that's the same as saying he's responsible for making sure the players don't underachieve. The coach has to prepare the players for success. The players have to succeed. That's where execution comes in and that's why Frazier is talking about it this week. When the opposing RB catches a shovel pass and breaks 3 or 4 tackles for a 10 yard TD, that's not indicative of a coaching problem. Neither are dropped INTs, overthrown passes, missed blocks or stupid penalties. Poor playcalling or strategy? That's on coaches. Poor preparation? That's on coaches. Fundamentally poor performances are on the players, first and foremost. Of course, they might indicate an underlying problem with the coaching...

[Mothman]

What you say of players is certainly true - at the end of the day the players have to make plays. But therein lies the rub with this team - don't accuse me of hyperbole when I say it seems a rather large portion of this team is not making plays. And that points to leadership and how we go about things.

You are being completely disingenuous when you state "Show him how he took the wrong angle and explain the best way to make that play next time." There is a heckuva lot more to being a good coach than that, which conveniently gets glossed over in these discussions.

Disingenuous? Admittedly, it was an overly simplistic way to put it but I wasn't trying to accurately sum up the entire coaching process, just make a quick point, which was that a coach basically has two options: help a player get better or bench him. As you said, if players don't run plays correctly during games, you go back to the well and try to help them get better. That's the point I was making. There's that option or the bench.

I simply believe that coaching is a "full package" job and that teaching X's and O's can absolutely be done the wrong, or certainly in an inadequate way.

I agree 100%.

[Mothman]

I agree with your post, but he was part of the leadership team that presided over the current situation. So yes I do not want to be him, but no I do not feel bad for him. Why did he allow it to get to this point?

The real question, isn't whether the coaching is an issue, at least IMO, it is what can the coaching do to get the team out of this position? There is obvious talent on this team. Also, last season they went through a major skid and then something changed they turned it on to win out. If you blame coaching for the current mess, then you have to give them some credit for last December. Can they pull that rabbit out of their hat again? Or did the magic come from elsewhere?

Big time leadership challenges are front and center right now... I hope the coaches recognize that.

Very well said... and I think they recognize it. Whether they're up to the challenge and can turn this team around, I don't know but I honestly have no doubt that they're aware of the need for leadership.

[The Breeze]

One more thing about Fraizer's predicament is his contract situation and how they finished up last season.

There is a lot of youth on the defense and there are some guys who it would be much more in the long term interest of the team, IMO, to be getting snaps over the current starters...Hodges and Mauti for example. But this would come at the expense of rookie mistakes and more losses, perhaps. I feel we are stuck in limbo with guys the caliber of Henderson and Mitchel. It's not known if Fraizer has the luxury to develop these kids...or at least see what we have in them vs what we know we have in others, without it costing him his job. It may be moot now....I dunno. Alan Williams has a heck of of lot to answer for too IMO.

[S197]

The real question, isn't whether the coaching is an issue, at least IMO, it is what can the coaching do to get the team out of this position? There is obvious talent on this team. Also, last season they went through a major skid and then something changed they turned it on to win out. If you blame coaching for the current mess, then you have to give them some credit for last December. Can they pull that rabbit out of their hat again? Or did the magic come from elsewhere?

I think it was a combination of having an easy schedule (due to coming off a 3-win year) and AD having a career season. I do think the coaches should get some credit for the turnaround as it wasn't just the schedule or that we had the league MVP but it seems more like an anomaly rather than the norm. The vast majority would agree that Childress wasn't a good coach but his record is .500 in 2007, 10 wins in 2008, and 12 wins in 2009. So just because Frazier had one 10 win season doesn't really mean a whole lot to me. There were some really close games in those 10 wins, Carolina is a good example. Newton ran in the winning TD but it was called back on a holding penalty that really had no bearing on the play. They settle for a FG and the guy misses a chip shot. There were multiple games like that where it really could have gone either way, sometimes you win some and sometimes you don't. This team could easily have another win or two this year if one or two plays went differently, but I still see a deficiency in coaching, just like I did when Childress was winning.