soxfan121 said:
Don't forget Eric Decker in the 3rd round either. Set up the Bronco offense for years.
Belichick and Carroll didn't have great runs their first time around as coaches, also - people can learn from what they did wrong and improve.
Why is McDaniels here?
- Thread starter TomRicardo
- Start date
Don't forget Eric Decker in the 3rd round either. Set up the Bronco offense for years.
Belichick and Carroll didn't have great runs their first time around as coaches, also - people can learn from what they did wrong and improve.
Andy Hart on with Dale & Holley: For 2 straight weeks, Pats have opened in the shotgun and gone 3-and-out vs. two teams giving up 5 yards/carry.
Soxfan, my critique was not based on his GM decisions. If he were to be given BB level control, when he has not demonstrated he can handle it and when very, very few have it in the League right now, then we're likely in much more trouble than anyone could imagine.
It was based primarily on the team spinning entirely out of McDaniels' control near the end of his term in Denver. Look it up. It was substantially beyond Carroll's last year in Fox -- and even then Carroll had Bobby Grier undermining him at every turn as an excuse. As for BB in Cleveland, he out together a HOF level scouting and coaching staff there. It just so happened that the owner announced he was moving the damn team a few weeks into the final season.
It was based primarily on the team spinning entirely out of McDaniels' control near the end of his term in Denver. Look it up. It was substantially beyond Carroll's last year in Fox -- and even then Carroll had Bobby Grier undermining him at every turn as an excuse. As for BB in Cleveland, he out together a HOF level scouting and coaching staff there. It just so happened that the owner announced he was moving the damn team a few weeks into the final season.
dcmissle said:
He was not the GM; Brian Xanders was the GM in Denver before Elway ousted him in 2012.
That said, I'd be surprised if the three offensive first-round picks made while McDaniels was the HC were made without his input or recommendation. Thus, squarely placing the blame for Tebow on McDaniels. And earning him a good deal of the credit for Thomas and Moreno. (Ayers, as a defensive player, might also have some % of blame for McDaniels, but I would be inclined to say "offensive coach" and suggest Xanders deserves most of the blame on that pick.)
And since Nick Caserio is in charge of player evaluation and scouting in New England, I'm not sure even BB has the level of control that most think. The Pioli drafts/Caserio drafts suggest SOMETHING changed when Pioli left, and for the better...but I digress.
There is no doubt McDaniels was in quicksand in 2010; the taping thing, the locker room issues. It was poor. Perhaps this is just a definitional issue: I tend to reserve "atrocious" for Rod Marinelli (in Detroit) or Bruce Coslet (everywhere). Poor is poor - McDaniels deserved to be fired. Almost everyone does when they are 3-9 and have multiple off-field, self-created distractions.
But you can't just wave away the fact that Belichick was also fired (in totally different circumstances) after his first job as HC ended with a poor record (5-11) and many self-created distractions (Kosar, right or wrong, was a self-created distraction that didn't pay off the way Brady-over-Bledsoe did).
And that's really the point; Belichick learned many lessons from failing in Cleveland that served him well in his next HC job. I see no reason to think McDaniels won't improve, if given a second chance either here or elsewhere. It's not like McDaniels doesn't know football or is such an obnoxious jerk that he can't work well with players. Norv Turner - given THREE chances - has proven he can't "rise above" coordinator level. I don't think you can definitively state that McDaniels is an "atrocious" head coach based on the facts or won't learn from the mistakes made in his first go-around.
Caserio reports to Belichick. That's not to say Caserio's job doesn't matter or that his input doesn't affect results. Maybe I'm just nitpicking the word "control," but there's no question who the ultimate authority is in Foxboro.soxfan121 said:
Stitch01 said:
This I agree with; you never want to follow a legend. Better to the guy AFTER the guy who replaced the legend. So tumult there will be.
And I have no idea if Josh will be good either. I just know no one else has any idea either.
With regards to McDaniels' playcalling, I'm not convinced it's been as atrocious as it's being made out to be. Sometimes the play calls become a victim of the circumstances the offense finds itself. And the offense really didn't have that many plays to begin with in the early part of the game. Some of that was due to the offense; but some of that falls on the poor performance of the defense as well.
Let's take a closer look at the first half. The Pats get the ball about 6 minutes into the first quarter, and the first series results in 3 straight passes, 2 of which are incomplete. OK, initially that seems curious. However, it's not that difficult to see why that happened. The first pass to Vereen gained 4 yards, probably about the same as a run. That was followed by a deep pass, where the play worked had Brady not overthrown Edelman. The reality is that is a play that Brady does need to make from time to time, and that was not the worst time for a lower percentage play. Had it been complete, the Pats would have moved the ball into KC territory with a fresh set of downs to continue the drive. Next play they need to gain 6, so McDaniels calls a pass. Again, Brady should have made the play at that point. But, whatever, it's still very early in a scoreless game, so the Pats will certainly get more possessions. Move on to the next series....
The first play of the next series is a bit more curious, as it's an inside run to Vereen. I'm with those that would much rather have Ridley take the inside handoff. Then again, there could have been some intentional misdirection there. It doesn't work, but next play is 2nd-and-8 and Brady completes the first down pass to LaFell. Then there's 2 running plays: a nice one by Ridley, and another inside run to Vereen. OK, that 2nd attempt to have Vereen go inside is, IMO, a bad play call. But not fatal, as Brady connects with LaFell again to convert the 3rd down, and Vereen redeems himself with a 7 yard run. Now, here is where I do believe most of us would have a problem with the play calling: there was the useless pass to Vereen for 1 yard, then another Vereen run that goes nowhere. Ridley should have gotten the ball for one of those plays. Then there was the decision to punt in KC territory, but I'm not sure that's on McDaniels. But, the 2nd quarter is only 3 minutes old, and it's only 7-0. Still plenty of time if the defense can at least tackle the players on the next series....Ooops....
Next series starts with 5 straight passes. But the Pats do move the ball to near midfield. Then Ridley carries for 2. Then the Pats attempt 2 more passes, and the fun begins as they find themselves at 4th-and-2 again. Again, Ridley should have gotten one more carry. But the Pats again do the offense no favors by punting again on 4th-and-short while inside KC territory.
Final series of the half begins after the D actually makes a stop. The first 2 plays go as well as could be hoped: Brady gets the ball to Gronk to get the ball out of the inverse red zone. Then Ridley makes a nice 7 yard gain on first down. Then the OL goes to sleep, and Brady is forced into 2 straight incompletions. Not sure I can blame the play calling; the OL has to do their job there. In any event, the defense fails again as the half ends with the KC FG.
Bottom line is that there just weren't that many plays. And there was plenty of blame to spread around: Brady, the receivers, the OL, Belichick (calling for 2 punts on 4th-and-short) and, in a couple of places, the play calling. Had the Pats been able to convert an extra first down in one of those series, then perhaps you would have seen more runs.
In the 3rd quarter: I don't understand why McDaniels called 2 straight passes to start. I can understand the pass play on 3rd-and-6, but I would have been much happier if the first 2 plays were Ridley runs. That's on McDaniels; then again, the players didn't execute either. In the next series, I can understand the play call on a 2nd-and-7 deep in NE territory. But I'm not sure why they tried to run Vereen on the inside again on the prior play. The 3rd series disaster is on Brady, although I can still see an argument to run Ridley on the 2nd-and-5; even down 24-0 there's still time to make it a game for the 4th quarter. The next series is a quick NE TD; of course, the defense never comes on the field when KC gets the ball; instead, they make Alex Smith look like the SF incarnation of Joe Montana as the rest of the game becomes essentially an academic study. So, yes, McDaniels did have a really bad 2nd half. Then again, the play of Brady and the OL didn't do him any favors either. The reality is a bit more nuanced than the number of running plays called early in the game; there weren't many passing plays called either.
Let's take a closer look at the first half. The Pats get the ball about 6 minutes into the first quarter, and the first series results in 3 straight passes, 2 of which are incomplete. OK, initially that seems curious. However, it's not that difficult to see why that happened. The first pass to Vereen gained 4 yards, probably about the same as a run. That was followed by a deep pass, where the play worked had Brady not overthrown Edelman. The reality is that is a play that Brady does need to make from time to time, and that was not the worst time for a lower percentage play. Had it been complete, the Pats would have moved the ball into KC territory with a fresh set of downs to continue the drive. Next play they need to gain 6, so McDaniels calls a pass. Again, Brady should have made the play at that point. But, whatever, it's still very early in a scoreless game, so the Pats will certainly get more possessions. Move on to the next series....
The first play of the next series is a bit more curious, as it's an inside run to Vereen. I'm with those that would much rather have Ridley take the inside handoff. Then again, there could have been some intentional misdirection there. It doesn't work, but next play is 2nd-and-8 and Brady completes the first down pass to LaFell. Then there's 2 running plays: a nice one by Ridley, and another inside run to Vereen. OK, that 2nd attempt to have Vereen go inside is, IMO, a bad play call. But not fatal, as Brady connects with LaFell again to convert the 3rd down, and Vereen redeems himself with a 7 yard run. Now, here is where I do believe most of us would have a problem with the play calling: there was the useless pass to Vereen for 1 yard, then another Vereen run that goes nowhere. Ridley should have gotten the ball for one of those plays. Then there was the decision to punt in KC territory, but I'm not sure that's on McDaniels. But, the 2nd quarter is only 3 minutes old, and it's only 7-0. Still plenty of time if the defense can at least tackle the players on the next series....Ooops....
Next series starts with 5 straight passes. But the Pats do move the ball to near midfield. Then Ridley carries for 2. Then the Pats attempt 2 more passes, and the fun begins as they find themselves at 4th-and-2 again. Again, Ridley should have gotten one more carry. But the Pats again do the offense no favors by punting again on 4th-and-short while inside KC territory.
Final series of the half begins after the D actually makes a stop. The first 2 plays go as well as could be hoped: Brady gets the ball to Gronk to get the ball out of the inverse red zone. Then Ridley makes a nice 7 yard gain on first down. Then the OL goes to sleep, and Brady is forced into 2 straight incompletions. Not sure I can blame the play calling; the OL has to do their job there. In any event, the defense fails again as the half ends with the KC FG.
Bottom line is that there just weren't that many plays. And there was plenty of blame to spread around: Brady, the receivers, the OL, Belichick (calling for 2 punts on 4th-and-short) and, in a couple of places, the play calling. Had the Pats been able to convert an extra first down in one of those series, then perhaps you would have seen more runs.
In the 3rd quarter: I don't understand why McDaniels called 2 straight passes to start. I can understand the pass play on 3rd-and-6, but I would have been much happier if the first 2 plays were Ridley runs. That's on McDaniels; then again, the players didn't execute either. In the next series, I can understand the play call on a 2nd-and-7 deep in NE territory. But I'm not sure why they tried to run Vereen on the inside again on the prior play. The 3rd series disaster is on Brady, although I can still see an argument to run Ridley on the 2nd-and-5; even down 24-0 there's still time to make it a game for the 4th quarter. The next series is a quick NE TD; of course, the defense never comes on the field when KC gets the ball; instead, they make Alex Smith look like the SF incarnation of Joe Montana as the rest of the game becomes essentially an academic study. So, yes, McDaniels did have a really bad 2nd half. Then again, the play of Brady and the OL didn't do him any favors either. The reality is a bit more nuanced than the number of running plays called early in the game; there weren't many passing plays called either.
lexrageorge said:
Maybe this is just my opinion, but I completely disagree that this was a not a bad time to take this type of shot. It's your opening drive of a Monday night game in a raucous stadium and you have an offense that has not only failed to hit a deep ball all season, but also has failed to establish any type of rhythm or consistency this season. I get the reward would be huge if they hit it. They flip the field position, gut punch the crowd and establish that they can execute the deep ball. But to me the recent trend of offense's inability to hit this throw, the risk of leaving a 3rd and medium which has been a huge struggle for this team and the risk of giving KC a short field at home just doesn't make sense to me. Too low percentage a play to outweigh the risks at this point in the game.
I am not saying the Patriots should never try to throw deep. Clearly they have to take a few shots a game to keep defenses honest and potential receive the rewards of hitting a big play. If it had been 2nd and short or if the ball was closer to the Pats 40 yard line then their 20 yard line then I would have had a lot less of a problem with this call. But given the field position, the down and distance, the previous lack of execution on this play and the need to establish some type of offense early in this game, I think that this call showed a ghastly lack of awareness from the coaching staff. I think this was poor situational football.
One of the reasons it's so hard to evaluate playcalling is that we only know the result, not the playcall. Brady ended up throwing the ball deep, but was that McDaniels' / Belichick's intent, or was it what the defense dictated? If you watch the tape, the Chiefs showed press man coverage with one deep safety, a classic Cover 1 look. It's a common sight adjustment to Cover 1 press to run a fade route, as the cornerback doesn't have help to the middle of the field, and since he's not giving much of a cushion he's going to end up with his back to the throw. The playcall might have been designed to throw something quick to LaFell or Amendola on the other side, or to throw a post to Edelman or something, but the defensive look dictated that they throw the deep ball. Unfortunately, Edelman didn't get much separation and Brady didn't make a good enough throw. This play does illustrate plenty of problems with the offense, but I'm not sure playcalling is one of them.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Lex, that's a great breakdown. Unforunately I think it still shows the inability of the offense to change what's not working. The plan is and has been stubborn.
This is also pretty damning.Harry Hooper said:
Super Nomario said:
I understand what you are saying and I get that there is a "fog of war" element between what play is called and what play is ultimately executed. But consider this from a write up at nepatsdraft. Reading this makes me wonder if the Cheifs were in cover 1 because thats what they wanted to do or if they were in cover 1 because the Pats put them into cover 1 through formation. I don't know if both WRs running the same pattern would be due to the same sight adjustment or not. The whole thing just sits wrong with me though given down, distance, history, etc...
Soon, though, the Chiefs put eight in the box and played Cover-1. The defense had reason to, as the Patriots shipped only two eligible receivers – Julian Edelman and Brandon LaFell – on routes for the second pass play of the game. Both were deep patterns in single coverage situations. Both were low-percentage alternatives. Brady delivered a pass over the head of Edelman less than two seconds after he handled the snap. It hit the grass.
(credit to http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2014/10/monday-night-massacre-a-patriots-pictorial-essay-of-tom-bradys-26-pass-plays-vs-chiefs.html )
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
I understand what you are saying and I get that there is a "fog of war" element between what play is called and what play is ultimately executed. But consider this from a write up at nepatsdraft. Reading this makes me wonder if the Cheifs were in cover 1 because thats what they wanted to do or if they were in cover 1 because the Pats put them into cover 1 through formation. I don't know if both WRs running the same pattern would be due to the same sight adjustment or not. The whole thing just sits wrong with me though given down, distance, history, etc...
Soon, though, the Chiefs put eight in the box and played Cover-1. The defense had reason to, as the Patriots shipped only two eligible receivers – Julian Edelman and Brandon LaFell – on routes for the second pass play of the game. Both were deep patterns in single coverage situations. Both were low-percentage alternatives. Brady delivered a pass over the head of Edelman less than two seconds after he handled the snap. It hit the grass.
(credit to http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2014/10/monday-night-massacre-a-patriots-pictorial-essay-of-tom-bradys-26-pass-plays-vs-chiefs.html )
This may have been a mistake. I believe Brady audibles out of a run when the Chiefs showed 8 in the box. Amendola blocks downfield, but he may have just missed the audible.
I get why it sits wrong with you, but that's why Kansas City did it. Look at their defense. They're taking away the middle run, and they're taking away the short pass. They're giving the Patriots the deep sideline throw - if they can hit it. These teams aren't stupid; they know what the Patriots do well and don't do well just as well as we do, and they're going to take away what they do well and force them to do what they don't do well. Teams are going to keep defending the Patriots this way until they prove they can defeat it.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:I understand what you are saying and I get that there is a "fog of war" element between what play is called and what play is ultimately executed. But consider this from a write up at nepatsdraft. Reading this makes me wonder if the Cheifs were in cover 1 because thats what they wanted to do or if they were in cover 1 because the Pats put them into cover 1 through formation. I don't know if both WRs running the same pattern would be due to the same sight adjustment or not. The whole thing just sits wrong with me though given down, distance, history, etc...
I really respect Oliver Thomas' film work, but I think he's wrong here. The Patriots are showing a pass look: they're in the shotgun, they have 3 WR on the field, and Gronk is in a two-point stance. The Chiefs can't know the Pats are only going to send out two receivers, but by putting eight in the box they show that they don't really give a shit how many receivers New England sends out, because they don't respect them (/ the Patriots passing game as a whole). And with good reason.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Could the play calling be a victim of some new rules?
I admit I didnt see the KC game....and really are not chomping at the bit to see it....but in the other games a couple things kept happening.
We kept trying the "Pick Plays" which always served us well in the past.....
and
We kept getting penalized.
(Did we run any "pick plays" that worked in the KC game?)
It doesnt seem like a stretch to say "ok we need to scale back the Picks". And if we do that maybe we cant get open underneath as much as we have in the past. That combined with Bradys less then stellar deep balls, short windows to scan because of the OL, defenses able to "sit in the 5-15 yard window" and here we are.
I admit I didnt see the KC game....and really are not chomping at the bit to see it....but in the other games a couple things kept happening.
We kept trying the "Pick Plays" which always served us well in the past.....
and
We kept getting penalized.
(Did we run any "pick plays" that worked in the KC game?)
It doesnt seem like a stretch to say "ok we need to scale back the Picks". And if we do that maybe we cant get open underneath as much as we have in the past. That combined with Bradys less then stellar deep balls, short windows to scan because of the OL, defenses able to "sit in the 5-15 yard window" and here we are.
I'm not sure what people are advocating to be honest. Come out in the I and power up the middle? This team doesn't do that well against 8 in the box. Run out of the shotgun? As shown above teams aren't respecting the outside WR (or even more likely they see the same stats as we do and don't respect Brady to make a deep throw) and are still bringing the safety down.
I think the passes early in games is because that is what the defense is giving them. The problem is Brady and the WR aren't executing. If you can't complete passes downfield the defense is not going to worry about them and position themselves to take away the run and short middle.
I also think the idea that the Chiefs are particularly bad against the run is overblow.
They had 3 games before us, The Dolphins shredded them on the ground. The Titans and Broncos both had decent running numbers, but did a lot more damage in the air.
I think the passes early in games is because that is what the defense is giving them. The problem is Brady and the WR aren't executing. If you can't complete passes downfield the defense is not going to worry about them and position themselves to take away the run and short middle.
I also think the idea that the Chiefs are particularly bad against the run is overblow.
They had 3 games before us, The Dolphins shredded them on the ground. The Titans and Broncos both had decent running numbers, but did a lot more damage in the air.
There have been a lot of really interesting breakdowns of specific plays from that game, but this is by far the most interesting. Whether a McD call or a Brady audible (which makes the point very hard to simply pin things on the OC), this strikes me as exactly the right call. If the Pats were going to win this game, they had to be able to beat this defense. Cover 1 with Edelman essentially 1-on-1, Brady with enough time to throw, the Chiefs saying we're going to take away the run even if you're in a pass formation. The Pats would have been idiots to ignore what they were being given: a run would have been likely stuffed, anyway, and the Pats would have been saying we won't even try to throw deep even if the Chiefs openly dare them to.
But they just couldn't execute. The problem wasn't the call. It was the players. The OL did its job okay. But Edelman only sorta beat his guy, but not by a lot. Would have taken a terrific throw by Brady to complete the pass, but he didn't make it. That's the problem. Just like the issue against the Broncos in the playoffs last year was just the right play call that sprung Edelman wide open deep, but Brady missing him.
But they just couldn't execute. The problem wasn't the call. It was the players. The OL did its job okay. But Edelman only sorta beat his guy, but not by a lot. Would have taken a terrific throw by Brady to complete the pass, but he didn't make it. That's the problem. Just like the issue against the Broncos in the playoffs last year was just the right play call that sprung Edelman wide open deep, but Brady missing him.
Art Shell had a career 56-52 record as a HC. He belongs nowhere near this group.Devizier said:
Art Shell is sad you guys forgot about him.
I think you're overstating the case for momentum.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Yes, it was a relatively low percentage play. But when the D is giving you that play, you at some point have to be able to execute it. Their failing to hit that pass wasn't that harmful to the Pats chances. They should have made the subsequent 3rd-and-6. That play was clearly on the players. And the Pats followed that up with 2 drives into KC territory; had they kept both of those drives alive, or even one of them, the game may have looked very different. The miss on the long pass play had nothing to do with what happened on the subsequent drives.
lexrageorge said:
You, Super Nomario and KFP bring up good points. I might just be more risk adverse and conservative in my ideas of play calling and when to take downfield shots. This is why I don't coach in the NFL.
