Why did a couple of players call this offense a WCO

[-X-]

Yeah, I know all that. What I asked was, can you show me a quote from a player or player(s) that you're disputing as it relates to this whole topic. I think context is going to be key to what I'm trying to communicate to you.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I know all that. What I asked was, can you show me a quote from a player or player(s) that you're disputing as it relates to this whole topic. I think context is going to be key to what I'm trying to communicate to you.

? I know all the quotes you do. I just said they mis-spoke. The way to translate what they said is that Brian S incorporated plays and play designs familiar from 2010 and is using that as a basis for bring them into the offense. In essence he's taking advantage of what they've already done.

It's just not correct to say that that means the offense has WCO roots. That's just Bradford finding a way to say something, and while it's not accurate about the system, it does nevertheless express the fact that Brian S is adapting his playbook to fit what the Rams, particularly Bradford, already did well. It's just a vocabulary thing.

The mistake on OUR part is to take Bradford literally and then assume Brian S runs a WCO or even that he has WCO roots.

What I get out of what Bradford said is that Brian S is really and genuinely making an effort to build around the 2010 base. Which is good. It's smart. McD was SUPPOSED to do that and then as we know, pretty much didn't.

Schottenheimer defends his system

BY JIM THOMAS
Wednesday, January 25, 2012

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...icle_6955b714-b6a0-594f-8b0e-a595be8ce1fe.html

Schottenheimer grew up in coaching with the "digit" system of play-calling, a staple of the "Air Coryell" offense of former coaching great Don Coryell. In that system, for example, pass routes are called by numbers. Hence the game-winning touchdown pass to Isaac Bruce in Super Bowl XXXIV, against Fisher's Tennessee Titans, was "9-9-9 H balloon." (Mike Martz, Rams offensive coordinator at the time, was a Coryell disciple.)

At the Senior Bowl on Tuesday, one coach familiar with the Jets' offense said Schottenheimer actually altered the way plays were called — using more concepts and fewer digits in the system — to help quarterback Mark Sanchez.

Schottenheimer, who met Bradford on Monday, said Bradford should have no trouble getting the verbiage down.

"Sam and I, as we work through the process and get things going here in a few months, it will not be a problem," Schottenheimer said. "I understand how smart he is and how much he wants to work and is excited about the opportunity."

In reality, Schottenheimer said there are only so many kinds of routes you can run and so many kinds of running plays.

"We all have the same plays," he said.

Over the years, he has been exposed to enough systems that he'll be able to quickly "translate" any differences in terminology while Bradford is learning the playbook.

"I know some of the things that Josh (McDaniels) was doing," Schottenheimer said of the man he is replacing. "I know some of the things that Sam did his first year under (former offensive coordinator) Pat Shurmur, so I can kind of translate a lot of those languages. But it will be certainly different."

Schottenheimer is working his way through tape of Bradford's Rams games; he's about 12 to 14 games through 2010, Bradoford's rookie year. He had yet to delve into 2011.

"Obviously, he's extremely gifted, extremely talented," Schottenheimer siad. "I'm watching the film, getting a sense of how accurate he is with the football and how well he actually moves around and has made plays.

"That was one of the things that jumped off the film at me. But it'll be a fun process going through and looking at all the games and just getting a sense of where he's at. I've been around a lot of young quarterbacks, but I think this guy's got a chance to be real special."

As he studies Bradford, Schottenheimer also is going through the process of finding a quarterbacks coach, something the Rams didn't have last season.

"That was one of the first things Jeff and I talked about," Schottenheimer said. "It's something that I really, truly believe in as well. The quarterback needs to be taught no different than everybody else. There's fundamentals, there's techniques that need to be taught and stressed. ... We will obviously look at a lot of different people and it will be a very, very important hire just like all the staff hirings will be for us."

 

[-X-]

Yeah, I know all that. What I asked was, can you show me a quote from a player or player(s) that you're disputing as it relates to this whole topic. I think context is going to be key to what I'm trying to communicate to you.

? I know all the quotes you do. I just said they mis-spoke.

:grr: Who? Who misspoke?

If I see what they said, it could add context and clear everything up. I have seen just about every quote since Schottenheimer was hired, and I don't remember anyone saying it's a WCO offense. Check your title again. "Why did a couple of players call this offense a WCO?" So ... who did that?

I get that you're offering a history lesson here, but I don't think the title of your thread helps that.

And I get that it's a Coryell offense that Schottenheimer runs, as he's a branch of the tree. But it's not that simple, IMO. Joe Gibbs was not Coryell, and Pat Shurmur was not Walsh. At some point the system gets reconstructed to the point that it becomes only a Walsh/Coryell system by reference, and I think that's what the player or player(s) were referring to.

 

[-X-]

Never mind. Here we go. Per your quote in the J.T. article --

"I know some of the things that Josh (McDaniels) was doing," Schottenheimer said of the man he is replacing. "I know some of the things that Sam did his first year under (former offensive coordinator) Pat Shurmur, so I can kind of translate a lot of those languages. But it will be certainly different."

This is what I'm saying. Schottenheimer's plays aren't necessarily that different, but the terminology is. He already has in his playbook, plays from both coordinators that are similar in nature, but the terminology of those plays is different. The terminology is the same as Coryell, but the scheme itself has been bastardized to fit Schott's offensive philosophy. So that's why Bradford (and I assume others) have said it has some WCO wrinkles. That's all I was trying to point out.

That said, I'd still like to see which player or players called it a WCO system.

 

[Anonymous]

Never mind. Here we go. Per your quote in the J.T. article --

"I know some of the things that Josh (McDaniels) was doing," Schottenheimer said of the man he is replacing. "I know some of the things that Sam did his first year under (former offensive coordinator) Pat Shurmur, so I can kind of translate a lot of those languages. But it will be certainly different."

This is what I'm saying. Schottenheimer's plays aren't necessarily that different, but the terminology is. He already has in his playbook, plays from both coordinators that are similar in nature, but the terminology of those plays is different. The terminology is the same as Coryell, but the scheme itself has been bastardized to fit Schott's offensive philosophy. So that's why Bradford (and I assume others) have said it has some WCO wrinkles. That's all I was trying to point out.

That said, I'd still like to see which player or players called it a WCO system.

No player called it a WCO system that I know of. That was me just trying to explain something. What he said, basically--translated--was Brian's playbook has WCO plays in it. That's inaccurate of course. There's no such thing as a "WCO Play."

And the reason Bradford says it has WCO wrinkles and roots is because he's putting something true the wrong way.

It's a Coryell system. Yeah, revised and all that, but that's a given. They're all revised. But it's a Coryell system.

"This offense does have some West Coast wrinkles," Bradford said. "So I think at the base level some of the things that this offense does are similar."

What Bradford really meant was that it has some plays in it he recognizes---and he recognizes them from having been in a WCO. To me all that says is that Shottenheimer deliberately and with pragmatism aforethought puts plays in there he saw on film from 2010. Bradford just talks about that as being like a WCO, or having WCO wrinkles, and so on. But then he's just talking that way cause he has no other way to put it. He's not an historian of offensive systems, he's a Rams qb who knows what he knows about the WCO from having played in it.

That's still Shottenheimers offense, but it deliberately includes things he put there because they were in the 2010 film and worked well with Bradford's skill set. That is, this return to the past thing is quite deliberate. It's a return to something familiar that worked. It's obviously not the whole of Brian S's offense but it looks to me like he put core things in there deliberately that he saw on 2010 film. Which is smart.

And frankly I am a little lost now because we seem to be saying similar things yet you seem to think there's some big debate.

My guess is that's what happens when the whole confusing thing about the difference between a system and a playcalling approach (and the plays in that approach) get mixed up.

 

[-X-]

Never mind. Here we go. Per your quote in the J.T. article --

"I know some of the things that Josh (McDaniels) was doing," Schottenheimer said of the man he is replacing. "I know some of the things that Sam did his first year under (former offensive coordinator) Pat Shurmur, so I can kind of translate a lot of those languages. But it will be certainly different."

This is what I'm saying. Schottenheimer's plays aren't necessarily that different, but the terminology is. He already has in his playbook, plays from both coordinators that are similar in nature, but the terminology of those plays is different. The terminology is the same as Coryell, but the scheme itself has been bastardized to fit Schott's offensive philosophy. So that's why Bradford (and I assume others) have said it has some WCO wrinkles. That's all I was trying to point out.

That said, I'd still like to see which player or players called it a WCO system.

No player called it a WCO system that I know of. That was me just trying to explain something. What he said, basically--translated--was Brian's playbook has WCO plays in it. That's inaccurate of course. There's no such thing as a "WCO Play."

And the reason Bradford says it has WCO wrinkles and roots is because he's putting something true the wrong way.

It's a Coryell system. Yeah, revised and all that, but that's a given. They're all revised. But it's a Coryell system.

"This offense does have some West Coast wrinkles," Bradford said. "So I think at the base level some of the things that this offense does are similar."

What Bradford really meant was that it has some plays in it he recognizes---and he recognizes them from having been in a WCO. To me all that says is that Shottenheimer deliberately and with pragmatism aforethought puts plays in there he saw on film from 2010. Bradford just talks about that as being like a WCO, or having WCO wrinkles, and so on. But then he's just talking that way cause he has no other way to put it. He's not an historian of offensive systems, he's a Rams qb who knows what he knows about the WCO from having played in it.

That's still Shottenheimers offense, but it deliberately includes things he put there because they were in the 2010 film and worked well with Bradford's skill set. That is, this return to the past thing is quite deliberate. It's a return to something familiar that worked. It's obviously not the whole of Brian S's offense but it looks to me like he put core things in there deliberately that he saw on 2010 film. Which is smart.

And frankly I am a little lost now because we seem to be saying similar things yet you seem to think there's some big debate.

My guess is that's what happens when the whole confusing thing about the difference between a system and a playcalling approach (and the plays in that approach) get mixed up.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page here mostly. And no, I don't think it's some big debate.

This is what happens that causes misunderstandings though. Now watch.

Here's you.
And the reason Bradford says it has WCO wrinkles [hil]and roots[/hil] is because he's putting something true the wrong way.

Bradford didn't say it was rooted in the WCO. Not that I know of anyway. He said it had some wrinkles. That's different than what you said. Rooted in the WCO would mean it's a WCO system. He said it had some playcalling from the WCO (by saying it had some wrinkles).

You also said that a couple of players call this offense a WCO (hence your title). So I, naturally, wanted to know who said THAT. See, this isn't contentious for me. Not at all. I'm very focused on the literal and that's mainly because of my profession. You write it, you're contractually bound to it. And believe me, I take that stuff VERY seriously at work. To the tune of costing people tens of thousands of dollars and also as a means of breaking contracts that were in place for years. So, naturally, that translates to this (mah hobby) sometimes.

But yeah, on the whole, I agree with your characterization of Schottenheimer's offense.

 

[Anonymous]

Never mind. Here we go. Per your quote in the J.T. article --

"I know some of the things that Josh (McDaniels) was doing," Schottenheimer said of the man he is replacing. "I know some of the things that Sam did his first year under (former offensive coordinator) Pat Shurmur, so I can kind of translate a lot of those languages. But it will be certainly different."

This is what I'm saying. Schottenheimer's plays aren't necessarily that different, but the terminology is. He already has in his playbook, plays from both coordinators that are similar in nature, but the terminology of those plays is different. The terminology is the same as Coryell, but the scheme itself has been bastardized to fit Schott's offensive philosophy. So that's why Bradford (and I assume others) have said it has some WCO wrinkles. That's all I was trying to point out.

That said, I'd still like to see which player or players called it a WCO system.

No player called it a WCO system that I know of. That was me just trying to explain something. What he said, basically--translated--was Brian's playbook has WCO plays in it. That's inaccurate of course. There's no such thing as a "WCO Play."

And the reason Bradford says it has WCO wrinkles and roots is because he's putting something true the wrong way.

It's a Coryell system. Yeah, revised and all that, but that's a given. They're all revised. But it's a Coryell system.

"This offense does have some West Coast wrinkles," Bradford said. "So I think at the base level some of the things that this offense does are similar."

What Bradford really meant was that it has some plays in it he recognizes---and he recognizes them from having been in a WCO. To me all that says is that Shottenheimer deliberately and with pragmatism aforethought puts plays in there he saw on film from 2010. Bradford just talks about that as being like a WCO, or having WCO wrinkles, and so on. But then he's just talking that way cause he has no other way to put it. He's not an historian of offensive systems, he's a Rams qb who knows what he knows about the WCO from having played in it.

That's still Shottenheimers offense, but it deliberately includes things he put there because they were in the 2010 film and worked well with Bradford's skill set. That is, this return to the past thing is quite deliberate. It's a return to something familiar that worked. It's obviously not the whole of Brian S's offense but it looks to me like he put core things in there deliberately that he saw on 2010 film. Which is smart.

And frankly I am a little lost now because we seem to be saying similar things yet you seem to think there's some big debate.

My guess is that's what happens when the whole confusing thing about the difference between a system and a playcalling approach (and the plays in that approach) get mixed up.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page here mostly. And no, I don't think it's some big debate.

This is what happens that causes misunderstandings though. Now watch.

Here's you.
And the reason Bradford says it has WCO wrinkles [hil]and roots[/hil] is because he's putting something true the wrong way.

Bradford didn't say it was rooted in the WCO. Not that I know of anyway. He said it had some wrinkles. That's different than what you said. Rooted in the WCO would mean it's a WCO system. He said it had some playcalling from the WCO (by saying it had some wrinkles).

You also said that a couple of players call this offense a WCO (hence your title). So I, naturally, wanted to know who said THAT. See, this isn't contentious for me. Not at all. I'm very focused on the literal and that's mainly because of my profession. You write it, you're contractually bound to it. And believe me, I take that stuff VERY seriously at work. To the tune of costing people tens of thousands of dollars and also as a means of breaking contracts that were in place for years. So, naturally, that translates to this (mah hobby) sometimes.

But yeah, on the whole, I agree with your characterization of Schottenheimer's offense.

Well, I don't do the literal, I do the rhetorical. Ways of putting things. For me, I was just trying to dash out something and make a point. I count on people following the drift. So...I was probably sloppy, in your eyes. But to me, I wasn't pausing to worry about that. I was getting into the fact that I see all this evidence all over the place that Brian the S actually did something Josh the M was supposed to do and didn't--Brian actually built a whole bunch of what he saw in 2010 film into his offense. Which is smart for SO MANY REASONS I am just not going to bother to list them.

 

[-X-]

Well, I don't do the literal, I do the rhetorical. Ways of putting things. For me, I was just trying to dash out something and make a point. I count on people following the drift. So...I was probably sloppy, in your eyes. But to me, I wasn't pausing to worry about that. I was getting into the fact that I see all this evidence all over the place that Brian the S actually did something Josh the M was supposed to do and didn't--Brian actually built a whole bunch of what he saw in 2010 film into his offense. Which is smart for SO MANY REASONS I am just not going to bother to list them.

Then you owe me $22,550.00 and your contract is now void. That'll learn ya.

But yeah, I agree. It's pragmatic. Maybe you should have made your thread title, "Schotty stew with a pinch of Shurmur." That would have kept me from giving you a hard time for no other reason than to satiate my need for entertainment AND it would have made me crave stew.

 

[Thordaddy]

Round here we call it the "Mid West Offense" lottsa stuff down the middle,if we don't get a new stadium it could become what those two players called it.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I don't do the literal, I do the rhetorical. Ways of putting things. For me, I was just trying to dash out something and make a point. I count on people following the drift. So...I was probably sloppy, in your eyes. But to me, I wasn't pausing to worry about that. I was getting into the fact that I see all this evidence all over the place that Brian the S actually did something Josh the M was supposed to do and didn't--Brian actually built a whole bunch of what he saw in 2010 film into his offense. Which is smart for SO MANY REASONS I am just not going to bother to list them.

Then you owe me $22,550.00 and your contract is now void. That'll learn ya.

But yeah, I agree. It's pragmatic. Maybe you should have made your thread title, "Schotty stew with a pinch of Shurmur." That would have kept me from giving you a hard time for no other reason than to satiate my need for entertainment AND it would have made me crave stew.

Is that literal?

 

[-X-]

Well, I don't do the literal, I do the rhetorical. Ways of putting things. For me, I was just trying to dash out something and make a point. I count on people following the drift. So...I was probably sloppy, in your eyes. But to me, I wasn't pausing to worry about that. I was getting into the fact that I see all this evidence all over the place that Brian the S actually did something Josh the M was supposed to do and didn't--Brian actually built a whole bunch of what he saw in 2010 film into his offense. Which is smart for SO MANY REASONS I am just not going to bother to list them.

Then you owe me $22,550.00 and your contract is now void. That'll learn ya.

But yeah, I agree. It's pragmatic. Maybe you should have made your thread title, "Schotty stew with a pinch of Shurmur." That would have kept me from giving you a hard time for no other reason than to satiate my need for entertainment AND it would have made me crave stew.

Is that literal?

Yes, and I accept Paypal.




Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I don't do the literal, I do the rhetorical. Ways of putting things. For me, I was just trying to dash out something and make a point. I count on people following the drift. So...I was probably sloppy, in your eyes. But to me, I wasn't pausing to worry about that. I was getting into the fact that I see all this evidence all over the place that Brian the S actually did something Josh the M was supposed to do and didn't--Brian actually built a whole bunch of what he saw in 2010 film into his offense. Which is smart for SO MANY REASONS I am just not going to bother to list them.

Then you owe me $22,550.00 and your contract is now void. That'll learn ya.

But yeah, I agree. It's pragmatic. Maybe you should have made your thread title, "Schotty stew with a pinch of Shurmur." That would have kept me from giving you a hard time for no other reason than to satiate my need for entertainment AND it would have made me crave stew.

Is that literal?

Yes, and I accept Paypal.




Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2

I meant wanting stew.

I gave the money to charity.

 

[-X-]

Well, I don't do the literal, I do the rhetorical. Ways of putting things. For me, I was just trying to dash out something and make a point. I count on people following the drift. So...I was probably sloppy, in your eyes. But to me, I wasn't pausing to worry about that. I was getting into the fact that I see all this evidence all over the place that Brian the S actually did something Josh the M was supposed to do and didn't--Brian actually built a whole bunch of what he saw in 2010 film into his offense. Which is smart for SO MANY REASONS I am just not going to bother to list them.

Then you owe me $22,550.00 and your contract is now void. That'll learn ya.

But yeah, I agree. It's pragmatic. Maybe you should have made your thread title, "Schotty stew with a pinch of Shurmur." That would have kept me from giving you a hard time for no other reason than to satiate my need for entertainment AND it would have made me crave stew.

Is that literal?

Yes, and I accept Paypal.




Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2

I meant wanting stew.

I gave the money to charity.

Yes. Summon the stew steward. Post haste.



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I don't do the literal, I do the rhetorical. Ways of putting things. For me, I was just trying to dash out something and make a point. I count on people following the drift. So...I was probably sloppy, in your eyes. But to me, I wasn't pausing to worry about that. I was getting into the fact that I see all this evidence all over the place that Brian the S actually did something Josh the M was supposed to do and didn't--Brian actually built a whole bunch of what he saw in 2010 film into his offense. Which is smart for SO MANY REASONS I am just not going to bother to list them.

Then you owe me $22,550.00 and your contract is now void. That'll learn ya.

But yeah, I agree. It's pragmatic. Maybe you should have made your thread title, "Schotty stew with a pinch of Shurmur." That would have kept me from giving you a hard time for no other reason than to satiate my need for entertainment AND it would have made me crave stew.

Is that literal?

Yes, and I accept Paypal.




Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2

I meant wanting stew.

I gave the money to charity.

Yes. Summon the stew steward. Post haste.

I didn't know you stuttered. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with your premise. Schotty is bringing in his Coryell style offense but is tailoring it the the talent we have. We had more success with the WCO in 2010 so he is adding a lot of that stuff to the playbook. I also agree with you that our offense will not be as conservative as 2010. We have more talent now.

Yeah that's all key I think.

 

[Anonymous]

Just to clear all this up cause I got a little confused before.

I contributed to the confusion.

So this is a "rehash with clarity added."

Can you show me a quote of these players who called it a west coast offense?

It does have some WCO implementations. When offenses branch off from their original architects, different coordinators add things, and subtract things, to mold them to how THEY want to run an offense. As it evolves and changes hands, it becomes something else. The basic principle may be one or the other, but seldom is an offense based on one principle entirely.

In THAT way, some of the players (including the QB) say it has WCO "wrinkles". All I see is players saying it has some similarities to Shurmur's version of the WCO. Which, as it turns out, is true.

Here's Bradford on that.

It also helps that this year's version of the offense, under the auspices of coordinator Brian Schottenheimer, bears a vague resemblance to Shurmur's version. "This offense does have some West Coast wrinkles," Bradford said. "So I think at the base level some of the things that this offense does are similar."

Schottenheimer's plays aren't necessarily that different, but the terminology is. He already has in his playbook, plays from both coordinators that are similar in nature, but the terminology of those plays is different. The terminology is the same as Coryell, but the scheme itself has been bastardized to fit Schott's offensive philosophy. So that's why Bradford (and I assume others) have said it has some WCO wrinkles. That's all I was trying to point out.

You;re right, saying players called the offense a WCO was just "typing off the top of my head" sloppy. I think that's what caused a lot of the confusion.

We agree on everything else.

I think the reason Bradford says it has WCO wrinkles and roots is because he's putting something true the wrong way. It's a Coryell system. Yeah, revised and all that, but that's a given. They're all revised. All offenses now are revisions and borrow plays. But it's a Coryell system. You're right, one of the keys is terminology.

To me a system means 2 things.

1. it;s the language you use to call plays. Terminology. Coryell language differs markedly from WCO language.

2. it has some traditions that are not necessarily built into the plays themselves per se but have more to do with where a coach learned his craft. If he learned it in the Walsh tradition (Walsh, Reid, Shurmur) that has one set of effects. If he learned it from another tradition (Coryell, Zampese, Turner, Cameron) that has another set of effects. You can see some philosophical traditions here. WCO coaches tend to stress beating you by out executing you. Coryell coaches tend to stress setting up mismatches through play design, and throwing to the spot--which means the receiver runs highly precise routes and can cut without losing speed.

BUT then different coordinators can use the same system differently. If someone was used to seeing the classic 80s WCO, they might not even realize just from watching games that right now, both Green Bay and Philadelphia run WCOs. That's "playcalling philosophy." Their preferred plays and mode of attack may not look the same (playcalling philosophy) but they're still WCOs (system).

So we entirely agree that there's no such thing anymore as a "WCO play." At the level of playcalling philosophy, not the system, guys can borrow plays from anyone. In this case they just took some plays from 2010 and added them to Brian's playbook.

A lot of what I am saying is this--playcalling philosophy is different from "system." Which leads to confusion sometimes. So if Brian the S called an entire game consisting of plays he took from watching 2010, he would still be running a Coryell SYSTEM...it's just that the PLAYS CALLED also look like Shurmur's 2010 offense, cause you can take PLAYS from anywhere.

To me, what it looks like this--Bradford really meant was that it has some plays in it he recognizes---and he recognizes them from having been in a WCO. To me all that says is that Shottenheimer deliberately and with pragmatism aforethought puts plays in there he saw on film from 2010. Bradford just talks about that as being like a WCO, or having WCO wrinkles, and so on. Not the best way to put it. But essentially, if he just means that Brian the S lifted plays from 2010 and made them core to his playbook, then he's right.

And I agree with this take on it all, too:

libertadrocks

I agree with the premise. Schotty is bringing in his Coryell style offense but is tailoring it the the talent we have. We had more success with the WCO in 2010 so he is adding a lot of that stuff to the playbook. I also agree with you that our offense will not be as conservative as 2010. We have more talent now. I just hope the rookies can carry the burden being place on them

 

[PhxRam]

holy shit I am more confused then before.

 

[DR RAM]

Don't be confused....Pat Shurmer=GOD.

Josh McDaniels=Douche.

That is all this thread was intended.

If you don't get it, stick around, because it will come around.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't be confused....Pat Shurmer=GOD.

Josh McDaniels=Douche.

That is all this thread was intended.

If you don't get it, stick around, because it will come around.

You know, normally, the whole "I know your motives and they're sneaky or bad" schtick is considered poor posting.

And you have it all backwards.

I like pragmatic minded coordinators and always have. Guys who fit what they're doing to the situation--using the team's strengths while accounting for their real situation, like their youth.

On that basis I was very critical of Linehan early in 2006. He had certain kinds of receivers and was hell-bent on making them do things they were not so good at while not taking advantage of what they were good at.

Shurmur was a pragmatist. So, near as I can tell, is Shottenheimer.

McD was very tone deaf to what it meant to coach a young team. Forget all this nonsense about the Rams average age on paper. They were young. 2 young tackles, young TEs, young WRs until LLoyd, a rookie qb. That's a lot of youth. He did not handle that well. That's more than just having no off-season--it;s him not seeing that they weren't ready yet to do what he was asking yet STILL asking it.

But I also said they would catch on to that offense, and I also said it was a good offense. That's not entirely McD--heck the Giants and now the Jets run the same offensive system. But McD knows that system and once the team settled down they would have gotten results from it.

McD was SUPPOSED TO connect with the coaches and build around some key things from 2010. It's obvious that he didn't. It's obvious so far that Shottenheimer HAS. Now what about those things from 2010. It's all just stuff that Bradford was always comfortable with. That's the only thing there. Remember, in this thread, I did not bring up Shurmur per se---you did. My main point was to focus just on the basic things from 201O that Bradford felt comfortable with. Mcd was supposed to do that; he didn't. It looks like Shottenheimer IS doing that. That's good cause we WANT a core of things Bradford feels comfortable with. Right? And that's the real point of all of this.

 

[-X-]

Don't be confused....Pat Shurmer=GOD.

Josh McDaniels=Douche.

That is all this thread was intended.

If you don't get it, stick around, because it will come around.

Well I wouldn't go that far. Pragmatic vs Dogmatic would be more accurate.

And just like the injuries don't explain the ENTIRE picture, nor does McDaniels' perceived inflexibility explain the ENTIRE picture. What we know from last year is that Spagnuolo had to go vanilla when he lost a bunch of players. We also know that McDaniels tried to base his plan around the opponent's weaknesses every week. We know this because both things are documented with direct quotes from both McDaniels and Spagnuolo.

Here's the thing though. Both were right to do so. McDaniels isn't a bad coach, and he's certainly not a douche. Spagnuolo isn't a bad coach and he's certainly not as bad as people make him out to be either. Shurmur is Shurmur. He's got a very base offense and it's very boring. That's already translated in Cleveland. It works with inexperienced and young players though, so yay for that. But also, glad it's over.

Here's what I believe to be true. If McDaniels stayed on as offensive coordinator, and had a couple of NORMAL years with this team, the Rams would have been juggernauts. His playcalling is really good and his gameplanning is even better. He just had the same handicap everyone else on the 2011 Rams had. Not enough practice. Now again, I don't like him as a person, but that doesn't cloud my understanding of what he's capable of as a coach. I'm also likely to give the players a little ownership of their inability to execute when the opportunity was there. So I don't see McDaniels as the big offender. I mean, what're we talking about here? He could have lined up in I-formation 100% of the time and run the same 25 plays week in and week out, but that's not how you TRY to win games. You just run the gameplan during the week that you intend to run on Sunday, and you hope it works. If it works in practice, then as an OC, you expect it to work during games. But. That's not always the case with a young team. And the opposition doesn't always run the same gameplan they ran the week prior. It's all a chess match, and when you go up against teams that have had the benefit of being in the same system for years, you never have the upper hand.