No quit in the Saints

xan · 12-22-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote from JKool:
________________________________________________________
Third, Xan, well put point about counterpoint. I am still left wondering what you you have to say about the coaching points that were made earlier before this thread was hijacked for pretty prose. You do agree that any particular (singular?) fumble, dropped pass, offsides penalty, etc. should not be attributed to the coach, right? I think that is all that Saintfan was pointing out. We, I\'m sure, are all in agreement that there is no one who can\'t benefit from coaching (barring some inability to learn) - enjoy the double negative
________________________________________________________

In isolation, no event (fumble, dropped pass, missed tackle, etc) can be attributable to anyone other than the culprit. The effort not to do those things continue to be present in the players. However, when the same bad things keep happening, it\'s up to the coaches to figure out a cure because the football athlete isn\'t going to know how to fix the problem without help, no matter how smart he is. This is a game of angles, timing and technique. Coaches at this level have to ensure that the players have the fundamentals instilled to execute even the simplest play.

I was noting that Peyton Manning purposely throws over the trailing shoulder (behind) on all sideline \"go\" routes so that the only one who can catch the pass is the wideout. The receiver is obviously aware that this is the plan and the footwork and handwork have been coached and coordinated to make this an executable play. This is not a casual stragegy as each receiver that runs this kind of route has the same technique. It\'s a remarkable coaching achievement.

My point in this is, is there anything evident in the \"high powered\" Saints offence that even remotely resembles this kind of attention to strategy and detail? In that sense, it\'s not a matter of \"a little coaching.\"

JKool · 12-22-2004, 02:29 PM

Well xan, it seems you and I agree then.

On the other hand, players who are smart do learn on their own. I think coaching has a huge hand in the precision that you note in the Colts, but it is also the case that mere practice reps can get that kind of precision (at least in some cases). People talk about WRs and QBs learning to play together, and when they say that, they don\'t mean that ONLY the coaches contribute to this kind of learning. Experience is a great teacher too.

Just because it is a game of angles, timing, and technique (news flash) doesn\'t mean that coaching is the only mechanism for learning and improvement. I\'m sure you\'ll agree?

xan · 12-22-2004, 02:44 PM

I agree with you JK in the same way that we should help the poor. I know it\'s vague, but.. to explain,

Quote from the T-P article \"Stayin\' Alive\" from 12/20/2004:
________________________________________________________
The play, called \"Fake-10 Dive,\" is unique in that it calls for Brooks to unload on a one-step drop. It was put into the game plan during the week by quarterbacks coach Mike Sheppard after he saw Kansas City use it with similar success against Tampa Bay earlier in the season.

\"It happens so fast that nobody can react up front to get a hand up,\" Sheppard said. \"It\'s almost like playing 7-on-7. We executed the thing pretty well.\"

McCarthy was so certain of the play\'s success that he turned to Haslett on the sideline and predicted a touchdown. Others weren\'t as certain.

\"That was a great call by Mike McCarthy,\" Bentley said. \"All week, the offensive linemen were looking at each other saying, \"I hope he never calls that play.\" We have so many other play-action passes, we thought, why would we put this one in? That\'s why it\'s the coach\'s job to coach, and the players\' job to play.\"
________________________________________________________

The winnig score came from analysis, yielding strategy, requiring VERY specific technique, setting up timing and ultimately execution. (Note that it wasn\'t McCarthy who either designed or called the play in the most critical game of the year. ) Even Bentley had no idea what was going on, but he\'s got the right sentiment.

But Bently\'s quote does call the question as to whether this coaching staff is communicating its strategy to the players! It explains why so many in this board wonder why some players look lost...

JKool · 12-22-2004, 02:53 PM

xan, I\'ve been very impressed with your work in the short time you\'ve been here, but this time you lost me a little - maybe I\'m not so bright...

So we agree that there are many ways a player can improve, but a major one is coaching.

You feel then that our coaching staff isn\'t communicating ideas to the players very well, our players aren\'t getting it, or there is something else making plays work along side coaching - I can\'t tell which it is (or if it is something else altogether)?

An interesting citation though; nice find.

RDOX · 12-22-2004, 03:21 PM

xan, I\'ve been very impressed with your work in the short time you\'ve been here, but this time you lost me a little - maybe I\'m not so bright...

So we agree that there are many ways a player can improve, but a major one is coaching.

You feel then that our coaching staff isn\'t communicating ideas to the players very well, our players aren\'t getting it, or there is something else making plays work along side coaching - I can\'t tell which it is (or if it is something else altogether)?

An interesting citation though; nice find.

I think that if you read Xan\'s example of Peytom Manning and his aiming of his passes, that it is a great example of a coach telling a player what to do, where to go, and how to do it; then the player(s) putting that into execution.

I have said on other boards(and got killed with the AB DA MAN Crap) that Brooks is lacking in fundamental skills, and is either unable to or unwilling to change his method of doing things. I lay this directly at the feet of two people: Mike McCarthy and Mike Sheppard. If he is unwilling to change, then here comes the old school discipline thingy and on the bench he would sit. If he is unable to change, then he gets retired or traded. Most folks believe that \"old school\"/\"Ditka era\" coaching is about shouting and berating players. It\'s not! It is about telling a player what is needed to be done, teaching him if they don\'t know or helping them to develop a new skill or set of skills, and bringing down a set of consequences if they fail to perform.

Yes, Brooks has raw talent. BUT!! Brooks is immature, childish, and refuses to listen; or, he is really, really dumb. We can talk for hours on his lack of leadership skills and all of the other BS that we\'ve talked about in that arena. I personally believe that Brooks is uncoachable because he isn\'t smart enough to learn from his mistakes (and, NO, this isn\'t about his race). There are three examples of young quarterbacks in this league who are African American who I believe personify what I\'m talking about:

1. Steve McNair
2. Donovan McNabb
3. Daunte Culpepper

When all three got into this league they were \"raw talent.\" But, they were able to receive coaching and change their behaviors to fit the way that the coaching staff knew that they needed to play. Brooks has been in the league as long as McNabb and his W-L record isn\'t close. I know about the defense and all of the other excuses, but on a FUNDAMENTAL football skills level needed to be an NFL QB, McNabb far outshines Brooks. Same is true for the other two.

Coaching needs to put repetition to create habit so that the player can execute the game plan designed to the best of their ability. McNabb, Culpepper, McNair, Palmer, Carr, Harrington, Delhomme, McKown, Brees, Manning, and Brady are all pretty much the same age as Brooks. Why are they respected and mostly successful? Because they listen and rely on what\'s between their ears, not how fast they can run, how long they can throw the ball, or how accurate they are. It takes smarts AND desire to be a QB. Brooks lacks both. My blame to the coaches is that they refuse to see this, and believe that he\'ll \"show up\" from game to game. He won\'t because he hasn\'t the brain power, therefore he can\'t.

JKool · 12-22-2004, 04:24 PM

RDOX,

I took xan\'s point to be this: here is an example of good coaching. I just couldn\'t tell if that is really what he wanted people to take away from that.

Here is the response I gave: there are many ways to learn precision, timing, etc. These ways include - learning by experiencing/doing, learning by listening, and simply knowing a priori (e.g. the guys who do things on instinct before being told). I agree that learning by listening (coaching) is of critical import, but I refuse to think that is the only way to learn football skills.

I agree with you 100% that this coaching staff is failing our players. It is difficult to conclude which coaches are to blame exactly, and may just be easier to blame them as a group, I\'m not sure what to say about that yet.

Also, if \"old school\" means making sure that players are held accountable for their poor play, then I\'m 100% behind it. My point earlier was that there is reason to think this style of coaching may be much less effective in today\'s \"soft\" NFL. What do you think of that point (since I think I got it from you)?

xan · 12-22-2004, 04:44 PM

Thanks. That article\'s segment jumped out at me. I was lamenting during the game on this site\'s chat room that the Saints never throw that slant...

To capitalize on RDOX\'s critique of Brooks, the key that is missing is the strategy.

I\'m a chief executive (on hiatus, thankfully), and my most important function is formulating and then communicating the strategy to my key staff and employees. We all have bosses, and the good ones make your job as easy as they possibly can. The good ones primarily are clear, specific and supportive, yet additionally are peering 2 steps into the future to avoid danger.

Brooks runs a fairly decent 2-Minute offense. His record is pretty good at last minute drives. Obviously, the goal is clear and the options are limited. Plus they run 2 minute scenarios to death in practice. Given Brooks\' \"strength\" maybe the coaching staff would do better by running the 2-Minute Offince the entire game... Certainly beats letting Brooks\' weaknesses creap into the mix.

Danno · 12-22-2004, 04:51 PM

Brooks runs a fairly decent 2-Minute offense. His record is pretty good at last minute drives. Obviously, the goal is clear and the options are limited. Plus they run 2 minute scenarios to death in practice. Given Brooks\' \"strength\" maybe the coaching staff would do better by running the 2-Minute Offince the entire game... Certainly beats letting Brooks\' weaknesses creap into the mix.

A caller brought up the exact same thing on the Jim Haslet show. Haslet laughed it off like it was loony.

I think it would be a great change of pace to start the game that way. Try something different that has been shown to work a lot more than what their trying now. Let Brooks (and everyone else) get into that sense of urgency that appears lacking at the start of EVERY game this year. I\'ll admit, when Brooks is on, he looks downright awesome.

Whats the worst that could happen? Three-and-out? Pick? Fumble? Been there, done that, for about 14 straight games.

xan · 12-22-2004, 10:36 PM

Haslett laughing at successful strategies that Jim Kelly (Marv Levy), Dan Marino (Don Shula), John Elway (Mike Shannahan), and Brett Farve (Mike Holmgren) used to cover up deficiencies in personnel and exploit the athleticism of its qbs is somewhat ironic and exactly to the point of my contention. If the head of the organisation cannot adapt to the realities of his market conditions, he should be shown the door.

mutineer10 · 12-23-2004, 04:22 AM

I was noting that Peyton Manning purposely throws over the trailing shoulder (behind) on all sideline \"go\" routes so that the only one who can catch the pass is the wideout. The receiver is obviously aware that this is the plan and the footwork and handwork have been coached and coordinated to make this an executable play. This is not a casual stragegy as each receiver that runs this kind of route has the same technique. It\'s a remarkable coaching achievement.

Indeed. I watched something on one of the pregame shows (FOX perhaps) that discussed this very thing. In the snippets of interview, Manning largely attributed this technique to the chemistry developed between himself and his WR\'s. Most of us agree AB hasn\'t had the coaching, and his chemistry with the WR\'s could be questioned as well. But thirdly, I wonder if AB has the talent to consistently place the ball so strategically, whether coached to do so or not. If not, that isn\'t necessarily a bash on him ... very few QB\'s have the accuracy of a Peyton Manning (not to mention the dedication, instincts, leadership, etc.).

This is NOT intended to begin another QB comparison battle, only to gather opinions on AB\'s ability to consistently place the ball accurately. I have my doubts, not to mention similar doubts about the WR\'s abilities to adjust to catching the ball this way. Of course, this is all assuming the O-line even allows enough time for the play to develop properly!

[Edited on 23/12/2004 by mutineer10]

12-22-2004, 02:14 PM	#41
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,368 Blog Entries: 34	No quit in the Saints Quote from JKool: ________________________________________________________ Third, Xan, well put point about counterpoint. I am still left wondering what you you have to say about the coaching points that were made earlier before this thread was hijacked for pretty prose. You do agree that any particular (singular?) fumble, dropped pass, offsides penalty, etc. should not be attributed to the coach, right? I think that is all that Saintfan was pointing out. We, I\'m sure, are all in agreement that there is no one who can\'t benefit from coaching (barring some inability to learn) - enjoy the double negative ________________________________________________________ In isolation, no event (fumble, dropped pass, missed tackle, etc) can be attributable to anyone other than the culprit. The effort not to do those things continue to be present in the players. However, when the same bad things keep happening, it\'s up to the coaches to figure out a cure because the football athlete isn\'t going to know how to fix the problem without help, no matter how smart he is. This is a game of angles, timing and technique. Coaches at this level have to ensure that the players have the fundamentals instilled to execute even the simplest play. I was noting that Peyton Manning purposely throws over the trailing shoulder (behind) on all sideline \"go\" routes so that the only one who can catch the pass is the wideout. The receiver is obviously aware that this is the plan and the footwork and handwork have been coached and coordinated to make this an executable play. This is not a casual stragegy as each receiver that runs this kind of route has the same technique. It\'s a remarkable coaching achievement. My point in this is, is there anything evident in the \"high powered\" Saints offence that even remotely resembles this kind of attention to strategy and detail? In that sense, it\'s not a matter of \"a little coaching.\"
	Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger." Hobbes: "Common lament."

12-22-2004, 02:29 PM	#42
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	No quit in the Saints Well xan, it seems you and I agree then. On the other hand, players who are smart do learn on their own. I think coaching has a huge hand in the precision that you note in the Colts, but it is also the case that mere practice reps can get that kind of precision (at least in some cases). People talk about WRs and QBs learning to play together, and when they say that, they don\'t mean that ONLY the coaches contribute to this kind of learning. Experience is a great teacher too. Just because it is a game of angles, timing, and technique (news flash) doesn\'t mean that coaching is the only mechanism for learning and improvement. I\'m sure you\'ll agree?
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

12-22-2004, 02:44 PM	#43
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,368 Blog Entries: 34	No quit in the Saints I agree with you JK in the same way that we should help the poor. I know it\'s vague, but.. to explain, Quote from the T-P article \"Stayin\' Alive\" from 12/20/2004: ________________________________________________________ The play, called \"Fake-10 Dive,\" is unique in that it calls for Brooks to unload on a one-step drop. It was put into the game plan during the week by quarterbacks coach Mike Sheppard after he saw Kansas City use it with similar success against Tampa Bay earlier in the season. \"It happens so fast that nobody can react up front to get a hand up,\" Sheppard said. \"It\'s almost like playing 7-on-7. We executed the thing pretty well.\" McCarthy was so certain of the play\'s success that he turned to Haslett on the sideline and predicted a touchdown. Others weren\'t as certain. \"That was a great call by Mike McCarthy,\" Bentley said. \"All week, the offensive linemen were looking at each other saying, \"I hope he never calls that play.\" We have so many other play-action passes, we thought, why would we put this one in? That\'s why it\'s the coach\'s job to coach, and the players\' job to play.\" ________________________________________________________ The winnig score came from analysis, yielding strategy, requiring VERY specific technique, setting up timing and ultimately execution. (Note that it wasn\'t McCarthy who either designed or called the play in the most critical game of the year. ) Even Bentley had no idea what was going on, but he\'s got the right sentiment. But Bently\'s quote does call the question as to whether this coaching staff is communicating its strategy to the players! It explains why so many in this board wonder why some players look lost...
	Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger." Hobbes: "Common lament."

12-22-2004, 02:53 PM	#44
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	No quit in the Saints xan, I\'ve been very impressed with your work in the short time you\'ve been here, but this time you lost me a little - maybe I\'m not so bright... So we agree that there are many ways a player can improve, but a major one is coaching. You feel then that our coaching staff isn\'t communicating ideas to the players very well, our players aren\'t getting it, or there is something else making plays work along side coaching - I can\'t tell which it is (or if it is something else altogether)? An interesting citation though; nice find.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

12-22-2004, 03:21 PM	#45
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264	No quit in the Saints xan, I\'ve been very impressed with your work in the short time you\'ve been here, but this time you lost me a little - maybe I\'m not so bright... So we agree that there are many ways a player can improve, but a major one is coaching. You feel then that our coaching staff isn\'t communicating ideas to the players very well, our players aren\'t getting it, or there is something else making plays work along side coaching - I can\'t tell which it is (or if it is something else altogether)? An interesting citation though; nice find. I think that if you read Xan\'s example of Peytom Manning and his aiming of his passes, that it is a great example of a coach telling a player what to do, where to go, and how to do it; then the player(s) putting that into execution. I have said on other boards(and got killed with the AB DA MAN Crap) that Brooks is lacking in fundamental skills, and is either unable to or unwilling to change his method of doing things. I lay this directly at the feet of two people: Mike McCarthy and Mike Sheppard. If he is unwilling to change, then here comes the old school discipline thingy and on the bench he would sit. If he is unable to change, then he gets retired or traded. Most folks believe that \"old school\"/\"Ditka era\" coaching is about shouting and berating players. It\'s not! It is about telling a player what is needed to be done, teaching him if they don\'t know or helping them to develop a new skill or set of skills, and bringing down a set of consequences if they fail to perform. Yes, Brooks has raw talent. BUT!! Brooks is immature, childish, and refuses to listen; or, he is really, really dumb. We can talk for hours on his lack of leadership skills and all of the other BS that we\'ve talked about in that arena. I personally believe that Brooks is uncoachable because he isn\'t smart enough to learn from his mistakes (and, NO, this isn\'t about his race). There are three examples of young quarterbacks in this league who are African American who I believe personify what I\'m talking about: 1. Steve McNair 2. Donovan McNabb 3. Daunte Culpepper When all three got into this league they were \"raw talent.\" But, they were able to receive coaching and change their behaviors to fit the way that the coaching staff knew that they needed to play. Brooks has been in the league as long as McNabb and his W-L record isn\'t close. I know about the defense and all of the other excuses, but on a FUNDAMENTAL football skills level needed to be an NFL QB, McNabb far outshines Brooks. Same is true for the other two. Coaching needs to put repetition to create habit so that the player can execute the game plan designed to the best of their ability. McNabb, Culpepper, McNair, Palmer, Carr, Harrington, Delhomme, McKown, Brees, Manning, and Brady are all pretty much the same age as Brooks. Why are they respected and mostly successful? Because they listen and rely on what\'s between their ears, not how fast they can run, how long they can throw the ball, or how accurate they are. It takes smarts AND desire to be a QB. Brooks lacks both. My blame to the coaches is that they refuse to see this, and believe that he\'ll \"show up\" from game to game. He won\'t because he hasn\'t the brain power, therefore he can\'t.
RDOX 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 264

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

12-22-2004, 04:24 PM	#46
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	No quit in the Saints RDOX, I took xan\'s point to be this: here is an example of good coaching. I just couldn\'t tell if that is really what he wanted people to take away from that. Here is the response I gave: there are many ways to learn precision, timing, etc. These ways include - learning by experiencing/doing, learning by listening, and simply knowing a priori (e.g. the guys who do things on instinct before being told). I agree that learning by listening (coaching) is of critical import, but I refuse to think that is the only way to learn football skills. I agree with you 100% that this coaching staff is failing our players. It is difficult to conclude which coaches are to blame exactly, and may just be easier to blame them as a group, I\'m not sure what to say about that yet. Also, if \"old school\" means making sure that players are held accountable for their poor play, then I\'m 100% behind it. My point earlier was that there is reason to think this style of coaching may be much less effective in today\'s \"soft\" NFL. What do you think of that point (since I think I got it from you)?
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

12-22-2004, 04:44 PM	#47
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,368 Blog Entries: 34	No quit in the Saints Thanks. That article\'s segment jumped out at me. I was lamenting during the game on this site\'s chat room that the Saints never throw that slant... To capitalize on RDOX\'s critique of Brooks, the key that is missing is the strategy. I\'m a chief executive (on hiatus, thankfully), and my most important function is formulating and then communicating the strategy to my key staff and employees. We all have bosses, and the good ones make your job as easy as they possibly can. The good ones primarily are clear, specific and supportive, yet additionally are peering 2 steps into the future to avoid danger. Brooks runs a fairly decent 2-Minute offense. His record is pretty good at last minute drives. Obviously, the goal is clear and the options are limited. Plus they run 2 minute scenarios to death in practice. Given Brooks\' \"strength\" maybe the coaching staff would do better by running the 2-Minute Offince the entire game... Certainly beats letting Brooks\' weaknesses creap into the mix.
	Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger." Hobbes: "Common lament."

12-22-2004, 04:51 PM	#48
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,713	No quit in the Saints Brooks runs a fairly decent 2-Minute offense. His record is pretty good at last minute drives. Obviously, the goal is clear and the options are limited. Plus they run 2 minute scenarios to death in practice. Given Brooks\' \"strength\" maybe the coaching staff would do better by running the 2-Minute Offince the entire game... Certainly beats letting Brooks\' weaknesses creap into the mix. A caller brought up the exact same thing on the Jim Haslet show. Haslet laughed it off like it was loony. I think it would be a great change of pace to start the game that way. Try something different that has been shown to work a lot more than what their trying now. Let Brooks (and everyone else) get into that sense of urgency that appears lacking at the start of EVERY game this year. I\'ll admit, when Brooks is on, he looks downright awesome. Whats the worst that could happen? Three-and-out? Pick? Fumble? Been there, done that, for about 14 straight games.

12-22-2004, 10:36 PM	#49
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,368 Blog Entries: 34	No quit in the Saints Haslett laughing at successful strategies that Jim Kelly (Marv Levy), Dan Marino (Don Shula), John Elway (Mike Shannahan), and Brett Farve (Mike Holmgren) used to cover up deficiencies in personnel and exploit the athleticism of its qbs is somewhat ironic and exactly to the point of my contention. If the head of the organisation cannot adapt to the realities of his market conditions, he should be shown the door.

12-23-2004, 04:22 AM	#50
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	No quit in the Saints I was noting that Peyton Manning purposely throws over the trailing shoulder (behind) on all sideline \"go\" routes so that the only one who can catch the pass is the wideout. The receiver is obviously aware that this is the plan and the footwork and handwork have been coached and coordinated to make this an executable play. This is not a casual stragegy as each receiver that runs this kind of route has the same technique. It\'s a remarkable coaching achievement. Indeed. I watched something on one of the pregame shows (FOX perhaps) that discussed this very thing. In the snippets of interview, Manning largely attributed this technique to the chemistry developed between himself and his WR\'s. Most of us agree AB hasn\'t had the coaching, and his chemistry with the WR\'s could be questioned as well. But thirdly, I wonder if AB has the talent to consistently place the ball so strategically, whether coached to do so or not. If not, that isn\'t necessarily a bash on him ... very few QB\'s have the accuracy of a Peyton Manning (not to mention the dedication, instincts, leadership, etc.). This is NOT intended to begin another QB comparison battle, only to gather opinions on AB\'s ability to consistently place the ball accurately. I have my doubts, not to mention similar doubts about the WR\'s abilities to adjust to catching the ball this way. Of course, this is all assuming the O-line even allows enough time for the play to develop properly! [Edited on 23/12/2004 by mutineer10]