Brian Schottenheimer Is Not the Problem

[iced]

I know. You just took me on a ride that I wasn't really trying to take. I just wanted to make the point that having Pennington, Sanchez, Clemens, Hill, Davis, and sometimes Bradford, isn't really conducive to putting together an awe-inspiring offensive scheme. I don't think anyone really disagrees with that, I hope.

It's not that we don't doubt that at times he's been limited at his QB position. Its that he still doesn't know what he to do with some of the talent that he currently has..And the same things a lot of fans with take issue here are some of the same complaints from his previous stincts.. Lack of adjustments, unimaginative play calling, etc.

If three people at a party tell you you're drunk, you probably shouldn't drive..... I don't think its a coincidence a lot of the issues some fans take with Schotty here are the same on his previous teams. Just my two cents.

 

[-X-]

Just my two cents.

Here's your change.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 with his new novella:
Stuff plus this: Wrong, Alan. You're refusing to answer the question because it doesn't jive with your opinion. Denver is top 10 in yards per game allowed. Arizona is top 10 in points per game allowed. Neither are top 10 in the other category.

And this: Alan, you don't represent the rest of the world. You represent yourself. Stop claiming your opinion as indicative of what everyone else thinks. There is no consensus here.

Followed by this: Why do you care if they give up yardage if they keep the other team from getting into the Redzone and scoring points?

I'm not going to get into this much deeper because it's obvious to me that you don't think you're conflating what you think is more important for winning with what makes a good D so we're never going to be on the same page. But let me address these three points you made.

I wasn't refusing to answer the question jrry. I thought I made it clear there was only one answer you could reasonably give given your biased setup. The one that allows the least amount of points of course. I never refuse to answer questions. Sorry if you didn't get my meaning.

I wasn't trying to represent the entire world or even claiming that I was. I was merely pointing out that ALL the sites like ESPN rank a teams defense by total yardage given up. All the mainstream writers, when talking about the top ranked Ds are using total yardage as their measuring stick. If you know of an organization or credible writer that uses DPPG can you direct me to their site please?

The reason why I should care is obvious if you give it a little thought. When you're down by a point or two and there's 4 minutes left in the game and you have 4th and inches on your own 45 yard line what is your deciding factor as to whether you go for it or punt and hope to get the ball back with some time still on the clock? Or have a good chance of stopping them from getting a first down if you don't make a first down? Isn't it how much faith you have in your D to get a three and out? How's that bend don't break D look in that situation?


BTW, did you answer which D in my scenario you would pick? Are were you "refusing to answer the question because it doesn't jive with your opinion." Oh yeah, you didn't find it relevant. What's fair for the goose jrry. C'mon, cough up an answer bro.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Here's your change.

Damn. This is what I love about our board.

 

[LesBaker]

Fair enough. And for the record, I haven't given up on Austin. I just don't know what his niche is yet, and I don't think the coaches do either. Greg Cosell recently said in an interview that he thinks Tavon needs to focus on being a receiver and not a gadget player. I'm pretty sure he meant that the coaches need to focus on that, but I'm not entirely sure. The rationale being, he's gonna get pigeon-holed as a gadget player (HB, PR, KR, X, Y, Z) and won't be afforded the time and resources needed to hone his craft as a receiver only. It's happened to a lot of players over the years who had incredible speed and athleticism. I tend to agree with him in that they need to stick him on the outside and let him work on a specific set of routes that utilize his speed and cutting ability. And of course let him return punts, but that's about it as far as extra stuff goes.

There's a good chance he meant TAustin needs to focus on being a receiver. Last year he said he wasn't getting the plays/routes down like he wanted to so maybe he's still working on that.

 

[Memphis Ram]

But, "NY JETS." You know, the team where Sanchez is a good QB and Schotty is a bad OC? The same Sanchez who's 3-4 in Philly while Foles was 6-2? While the Jets have been 17-30 without Schotty and 51-45 with? Here's Schotty's legacy so far. His QBs have been:

1 year of Bradford
1 year of Favre
2 years of Pennington
3 years of Sanchez
2 years with assorted QBs in St Louis (Hill, Clemens, and Davis)

I can't imagine why he can't draw up innovative and uber-effective game plans on a consistent basis with that superior crop of QBs.

Everyone knows about Farve, but Pennington was a pretty good QB.

 

[jrry32]

I'm not going to get into this much deeper because it's obvious to me that you don't think you're conflating what you think is more important for winning with what makes a good D so we're never going to be on the same page. But let me address these three points you made.

I am not conflating the two. They are one and the same in my mind. The objective is to win football games. I don't care about your philosophy on how you do it, I just care that you do it. If your scheme gives up yardage but keeps the team off the scoreboard, that's perfectly fine. I'm not going to discount your defense based on that. Because the point of the game is to win. And defenses help their team win by keeping the opposing offense from scoring and by forcing turnovers.

I wasn't refusing to answer the question jrry. I thought I made it clear there was only one answer you could reasonably give given your biased setup. The one that allows the least amount of points of course. I never refuse to answer questions. Sorry if you didn't get my meaning.

Okay. In a non-biased setup...which defense do you take:
Denver - 309.4 yards per game allowed(#3 in the NFL), 21.2 defensive points per game allowed(#17 in the NFL)
Arizona - 366.4 yards per game allowed(#24 in the NFL), 18.2 defensive points per game allowed(#6 in the NFL)

I wasn't trying to represent the entire world or even claiming that I was. I was merely pointing out that ALL the sites like ESPN rank a teams defense by total yardage given up. All the mainstream writers, when talking about the top ranked Ds are using total yardage as their measuring stick. If you know of an organization or credible writer that uses DPPG can you direct me to their site please?

ESPN ranks QBs by passing yardage as well. Does that make it the most important QB stat?

The reason why I should care is obvious if you give it a little thought. When you're down by a point or two and there's 4 minutes left in the game and you have 4th and inches on your own 45 yard line what is your deciding factor as to whether you go for it or punt and hope to get the ball back with some time still on the clock? Or have a good chance of stopping them from getting a first down if you don't make a first down? Isn't it how much faith you have in your D to get a three and out? How's that bend don't break D look in that situation?

Possibly good, possibly not. But you're not in that situation if your defense that gives up less yardage gave up more points.

BTW, did you answer which D in my scenario you would pick? Are were you "refusing to answer the question because it doesn't jive with your opinion." Oh yeah, you didn't find it relevant. What's fair for the goose jrry. C'mon, cough up an answer bro.

It's a pretty clear answer. There's no compromise. There's no trade-off. You take less yardage because they're giving up the same amount of points. But again, it's a pointless question to ask in the context of our debate. The discussion isn't about whether less yardage is a good thing. It's about whether DPPG Allowed or Yards Per Game Allowed is more important for a defense.

So it's not a particularly relevant question. A relevant question would have a team giving up less yards but more points and another team giving up more yards but less points. Then, there's actually a trade off.

 

[-X-]

Everyone knows about Farve, but Pennington was a pretty good QB.

Agree. He and Jeff Garcia were very underrated. But they had their limitations, of course.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 back for more:
I am not conflating the two. They are one and the same in my mind. The objective is to win football games.
Yeah, that's what I just said. they're the same in your head and they're completely different in mine. See how that's not being on the same page?

Okay. In a non-biased setup...which defense do you take:
Denver - 309.4 yards per game allowed(#3 in the NFL), 21.2 points per game allowed(#17 in the NFL)
Arizona - 366.4 yards per game allowed(#24 in the NFL), 18.2 points per game allowed(#6 in the NFL)
Did you even read my reply? I already picked the one that gave up the fewest points when I said this: "The one that allows the least amount of points of course." That would be Arizona for those that are counting. You're going to give me an inferiority complex if you don't start actually reading my replies.

ESPN ranks QBs by passing yardage as well. Does that make it the most important QB stat?
That's not an answer that's a deflection. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Possibly good, possibly not. But you're not in that situation if your defense that gives up less yardage gave up more points.
That's you response?

It's a pretty clear answer. There's no compromise. There's no trade-off. You take less yardage because they're giving up the same amount of points. But again, it's a pointless question to ask in the context of our debate. The discussion isn't about whether less yardage is a good thing. It's about whether DPPG Allowed or Yards Per Game Allowed is more important for a defense.
I felt your scenario wasn't relevant either jrry but I still answered it. Though you didn't appear to understand that I had answered it.

So it's not a particularly relevant question. A relevant question would have a team giving up less yards but more points and another team giving up more yards but less points. Then, there's actually a trade off.
This is why I said I didn't want to get into this any deeper because your "relevant question" is only relevant to you. Again, we're just talking past each other and what's the point of that? [/QUOTE]

That's the second time that I can remember that we've been unable to even get on the same page in a discussion. There will be others knowing me.

 

[jrry32]

I don't think we're as far off as you believe. But in the interest of expediting the end of this discussion...if the Rams aren't top 10...do you mind giving me your top 10 defenses for the 2014 season?

 

[LesBaker]

Agree. He and Jeff Garcia were very underrated. But they had their limitations, of course.

I think you should use this pic as your Shotty meme. Mkay?

 

[MrMotes]

I know. You just took me on a ride that I wasn't really trying to take. I just wanted to make the point that having Pennington, Sanchez, Clemens, Hill, Davis, and sometimes Bradford, isn't really conducive to putting together an awe-inspiring offensive scheme. I don't think anyone really disagrees with that, I hope.

Bradford: 1st pick in the draft
Sanchez: 5th pick in the draft
Pennington: 18th pick (and first QB) in the draft

I've seen a lot of coaches do better with less.

I've asked it before, where are BS's success stories? Who has he ever developed into anything? Who has over achieved playing for him? Who has ever gone to the pro bowl playing for him? (Favre, LT maybe?)

 

[-X-]

I think you should use this pic as your Shotty meme. Mkay?

View attachment 4734

 

[jrry32]

Bradford: 1st pick in the draft
Sanchez: 5th pick in the draft
Pennington: 18th pick (and first QB) in the draft

I've seen a lot of coaches do better with less.

I've asked it before, where are BS's success stories? Who has he ever developed into anything? Who has over achieved playing for him? Who has ever gone to the pro bowl playing for him? (Favre, LT maybe?)

That's an interesting stance to take...I'd call it very questionable.

JaMarcus Russell was the first pick in the draft. If someone resurrected his career, would you claim they shouldn't deserve praise because they have a lot to work with?

We've seen Mark Sanchez. He sucks.

And Bradford played less than 1.5 seasons with Schotty before tearing his ACL twice...which left Schotty with Kellen Clemens, Austin Davis, and Shaun Hill.

Pennington was coming off multiple serious injuries including a blown out shoulder...but he was still capable of being a good QB so I'll lay some blame at Schotty's feet here. Although, I question if he was the right fit in an Air Coryell offense.

Who are his success stories? Mark Sanchez. The guy actually looked passable prior to Schotty being fired. Brett Favre before his torn biceps. And possibly even Sam Bradford before he tore his ACL.

Hell, the guy was the QB Coach in San Diego when Drew Brees and Philip Rivers were developed.

 

[moklerman]

Bradford: 1st pick in the draft
Sanchez: 5th pick in the draft
Pennington: 18th pick (and first QB) in the draft

I've seen a lot of coaches do better with less.

I've asked it before, where are BS's success stories? Who has he ever developed into anything? Who has over achieved playing for him? Who has ever gone to the pro bowl playing for him? (Favre, LT maybe?)

Favre seems like the one QB that has really had success playing for Schottenheimer but I wonder if that was Favre just running the plays that he was comfortable and used to from Green Bay?

Sanchez's numbers with Philly compared to his time with the Jets seems like an indictment of Schottenheimer but maybe over time, they drop down to what they were.

Pennington as his QB should not be considered a lesser piece for Schottenheimer to work with IMO.

 

[-X-]

Bradford: 1st pick in the draft
Sanchez: 5th pick in the draft
Pennington: 18th pick (and first QB) in the draft

I've seen a lot of coaches do better with less.

I've asked it before, where are BS's success stories? Who has he ever developed into anything? Who has over achieved playing for him? Who has ever gone to the pro bowl playing for him? (Favre, LT maybe?)

Here are my answers, (and your responses to same in advance).

Back to back NFC Championship games? (he had nothing to do with that)
Who has gone on to have a better career elsewhere? (so-and-so went on to do not as badly [but is still not very good] somewhere else)
Did Pennington do better in Miami? Or about the same? (irrelevant. Miami had Sporano)
Pro Bowlers? Brandon Moore, Brett Favre, Thomas Jones, Alan Faneca, D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Leon Washington, Nick Mangold (irrelevant. All for the running game and Favre was already a HOFer)

 

[moklerman]

Here are my answers, (and your responses to same in advance).

Back to back NFC Championship games? (he had nothing to do with that)
Who has gone on to have a better career elsewhere? (so-and-so went on to do not as badly [but is still not very good] somewhere else)
Did Pennington do better in Miami? Or about the same? (irrelevant. Miami had Sporano)
Pro Bowlers? Brandon Moore, Brett Favre, Thomas Jones, Alan Faneca, D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Leon Washington, Nick Mangold (irrelevant. All for the running game and Favre was already a HOFer)

C'mon X, weren't most of those guys pretty established before the played for Schottenheimer? We're trying to figure out who Schottenheimer has developed or at least raised their game.

 

[-X-]

C'mon X, weren't most of those guys pretty established before the played for Schottenheimer? We're trying to figure out who Schottenheimer has developed or at least raised their game.

See?

 

[moklerman]

See?

No, I don't. If you're trying to say that Schottenheimer had anything to do with Favre for example, then I think you're just trying to argue for the fun of it.

 

[-X-]

No, I don't. If you're trying to say that Schottenheimer had anything to do with Favre for example, then I think you're just trying to argue for the fun of it.

Dude. Do you think I'm an idiot or something? The question was asked, "Who went to the Pro-Bowl under Schottenheimer?"

I. freaking. answered. it. Motes brought up Favre before I did. Talk to him.

If the question was, "which undeveloped rookies and non-established veterans went to the pro-bowl under Schottenheimer?", I would have answered that.
Of course that would have been a loaded question, so I'll wait on it.