Why the St. Louis Rams shouldn't fire GM Billy Devaney

[HornIt]

Just give Spags and Billy one more year if they screw up next year via the draft or record then completely clean house I think a full off season for Sam and Josh would make a big difference.

I don't know how anybody could ask for more of this. I honestly don't.

Thankfully, it won't happen. Devaney and Spags have a well earned firing coming. It's too bad it became a debacle rather than a success, but it did and now things have to change.

I think some people just want to see what two of the better coordinators can do with a regular off-season, less injuries, and a little more talent. I don't think anybody is hoping for more of the same. THAT would be stupid. I, personally, would like to see what they can do without all the other "stuff" that has gone down this season. Admittedly I'm not completely sold on McDaniels being able to rise above, but he's had some success before with good players. So, gimme some more good players.

However, if it doesn't go that way, it doesn't go that way. I can honestly say that these guys haven't been dealt the best of hands these past few years. And I don't see how anyone can say otherwise.

Don't misunderstand, I don't think anybody is "hoping" for more of the same. But by supporting more of the same, that's what they are asking for, intentionally or not.

It's not McDaniels. He is a proven OC, who can get good production out of Kyle Orton and a pedestrian cast on offense, not to mention what he did with both Brady and Cassel in New England.

The offense was bad last year, but Shurmur made the most of it by implementing a very low degree of difficulty, safe scheme against an incredibly weak schedule that fans begged to get rid of so these guys (most predominantly Bradford) could really shine. It wasn't Shurmur who was preventing that though, it was Shurmur doing the only thing he could do without having what we're seeing now happen.

The limitations and non-sustainability of Shurmur's approach last year was showing through itself though long before last season ended. What success they did have last year was fizzling down the stretch. They were gathering in a corner already that McDaniels hasn't been able to extricate them from.

This team is in real trouble. It's going to take a very different approach from both a personnel and coaching perspective to figure a way out of this mess just to get to some point of respectability next year.

 

[-X-]

It's not McDaniels. He is a proven OC, who can get good production out of Kyle Orton and a pedestrian cast on offense, not to mention what he did with both Brady and Cassel in New England.

The offense was bad last year, but Shurmur made the most of it by implementing a very low degree of difficulty, safe scheme against an incredibly weak schedule that fans begged to get rid of so these guys (most predominantly Bradford) could really shine. It wasn't Shurmur who was preventing that though, it was Shurmur doing the only thing he could do without having what we're seeing now happen.

The limitations and non-sustainability of Shurmur's approach last year was showing through itself though long before last season ended. What success they did have last year was fizzling down the stretch. They were gathering in a corner already that McDaniels hasn't been able to extricate them from.

This team is in real trouble. It's going to take a very different approach from both a personnel and coaching perspective to figure a way out of this mess just to get to some point of respectability next year.

I hear you, but I don't agree entirely. Which is to be expected on a message board.

I DO think it's McDaniels. His measure of success with Tom Brady, Wes Welker, Randy Moss, et al, isn't indicative of what he can do with a sophomore QB, 3 rookie receivers, an offensive line that wasn't of his design (except for Dahl and Wragge), or a myriad of injuries that took most of his predetermined personnel groupings right out of the plan. He's not adaptive, near as I can tell. Can't blame him entirely, but I can surely point the finger that way. Without question (in my opinion).

I agree about Shurmur. He did what he could, and he did what most coordinators do when they have deficiencies or inexperience to deal with. The complete rash of injuries to wide receiver compounded his problems, so I'd mention that as well if you're going to say his offense couldn't sustain. All teams have injuries. Let's just get that out of the way right now. BUT. Not all teams lose several average receivers and expect to improve.

And yeah, they're in real trouble. Obviously. There are a lot of things wrong, so one approach would be to get rid of a lot of things and reload. I get that. I'm not entirely there yet though. We saw what Spagnuolo and McDaniels did in the Superbowl. There's a reason why they can't do that here, and it's not because they suddenly forgot how to do their jobs.

Oh, and welcome to the board.

 

[HornIt]

Is that you 9er8er?

I've heard rumors of some relation. And you might be?

 

[-X-]

Is that you 9er8er?

I've heard rumors of some relation. And you might be?

That might be Grease.

Oh, and ZN says "hi." He actually speaks very highly of you too. Hopefully we can all coexist here and respect the intent of this board. I really, REALLY don't want just another octagon here.

 

[HornIt]

It's not McDaniels. He is a proven OC, who can get good production out of Kyle Orton and a pedestrian cast on offense, not to mention what he did with both Brady and Cassel in New England.

The offense was bad last year, but Shurmur made the most of it by implementing a very low degree of difficulty, safe scheme against an incredibly weak schedule that fans begged to get rid of so these guys (most predominantly Bradford) could really shine. It wasn't Shurmur who was preventing that though, it was Shurmur doing the only thing he could do without having what we're seeing now happen.

The limitations and non-sustainability of Shurmur's approach last year was showing through itself though long before last season ended. What success they did have last year was fizzling down the stretch. They were gathering in a corner already that McDaniels hasn't been able to extricate them from.

This team is in real trouble. It's going to take a very different approach from both a personnel and coaching perspective to figure a way out of this mess just to get to some point of respectability next year.

I hear you, but I don't agree entirely. Which is to be expected on a message board.

I DO think it's McDaniels. His measure of success with Tom Brady, Wes Welker, Randy Moss, et al, isn't indicative of what he can do with a sophomore QB, 3 rookie receivers, an offensive line that wasn't of his design (except for Dahl and Wragge), or a myriad of injuries that took most of his predetermined personnel groupings right out of the plan. He's not adaptive, near as I can tell. Can't blame him entirely, but I can surely point the finger that way. Without question (in my opinion).

I agree about Shurmur. He did what he could, and he did what most coordinators do when they have deficiencies or inexperience to deal with. The complete rash of injuries to wide receiver compounded his problems, so I'd mention that as well if you're going to say his offense couldn't sustain. All teams have injuries. Let's just get that out of the way right now. BUT. Not all teams lose several average receivers and expect to improve.

And yeah, they're in real trouble. Obviously. There are a lot of things wrong, so one approach would be to get rid of a lot of things and reload. I get that. I'm not entirely there yet though. We saw what Spagnuolo and McDaniels did in the Superbowl. There's a reason why they can't do that here, and it's not because they suddenly forgot how to do their jobs.

Oh, and welcome to the board.

McDaniels has had good success with both a lot of talent and a little talent. He was basically the OC in New England starting with 2005 before there was a Moss or Welker there. There were leading receivers there then named Reche Caldwell one year, Deion Branch another, but they were still a prolific offense. Welker and Moss didn't come until the ridiculous 2007 season, and he did then also have astronomical success with outstanding talent. Then he continued to adjust and have success with a QB that hadn't started a game since high school in 2008 and he adjusted again and had good success in Denver with a cast of nobodies that people thought he was nuts going to battle with after trading away the allegedly good talent. The idea that he has not shown an ability to adjust to various talent and circumstances is unsupported and actually runs contrary to what he actually has done in his career guiding offenses.

When it comes to the WR's last year, do you mean the loss of Donnie Avery, a guy who couldn't make the roster this year and has had no impact on another roster this year was some kind of loss that should have impacted them in some kind of significant way? But they did have a guy named Laurent Robinson, who also wasn't good enough to be invited back but was suiting up every game over that bad stretch to end the season and he looks like a pretty good player to me now.

The injuries to the O-line thing this year doesn't fly with me because this offense was totally inept and not getting any better when they were healthy during their 0-6 start. Had these things been going on as they entered the season and early into it, that would be different. But this offense ended last year going 1-4 and started this year going 0-6 and looking bad all along the way with a relatively healthy line and it's all been pretty obvious, to me anyway, that this whole thing goes way deeper than the OC. The OC is the least of the problems, as he's the only guy in this whole scenario that's ever proven anything in the NFL.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not McDaniels. He is a proven OC, who can get good production out of Kyle Orton and a pedestrian cast on offense, not to mention what he did with both Brady and Cassel in New England.

The offense was bad last year, but Shurmur made the most of it by implementing a very low degree of difficulty, safe scheme against an incredibly weak schedule that fans begged to get rid of so these guys (most predominantly Bradford) could really shine. It wasn't Shurmur who was preventing that though, it was Shurmur doing the only thing he could do without having what we're seeing now happen.

The limitations and non-sustainability of Shurmur's approach last year was showing through itself though long before last season ended. What success they did have last year was fizzling down the stretch. They were gathering in a corner already that McDaniels hasn't been able to extricate them from.

This team is in real trouble. It's going to take a very different approach from both a personnel and coaching perspective to figure a way out of this mess just to get to some point of respectability next year.

I hear you, but I don't agree entirely. Which is to be expected on a message board.

I DO think it's McDaniels. His measure of success with Tom Brady, Wes Welker, Randy Moss, et al, isn't indicative of what he can do with a sophomore QB, 3 rookie receivers, an offensive line that wasn't of his design (except for Dahl and Wragge), or a myriad of injuries that took most of his predetermined personnel groupings right out of the plan. He's not adaptive, near as I can tell. Can't blame him entirely, but I can surely point the finger that way. Without question (in my opinion).

I agree about Shurmur. He did what he could, and he did what most coordinators do when they have deficiencies or inexperience to deal with. The complete rash of injuries to wide receiver compounded his problems, so I'd mention that as well if you're going to say his offense couldn't sustain. All teams have injuries. Let's just get that out of the way right now. BUT. Not all teams lose several average receivers and expect to improve.

And yeah, they're in real trouble. Obviously. There are a lot of things wrong, so one approach would be to get rid of a lot of things and reload. I get that. I'm not entirely there yet though. We saw what Spagnuolo and McDaniels did in the Superbowl. There's a reason why they can't do that here, and it's not because they suddenly forgot how to do their jobs.

Oh, and welcome to the board.

McDaniels has had good success with both a lot of talent and a little talent. He was basically the OC in New England starting with 2005 before there was a Moss or Welker there. There were leading receivers there then named Reche Caldwell one year, Deion Branch another, but they were still a prolific offense. Welker and Moss didn't come until the ridiculous 2007 season, and he did then also have astronomical success with outstanding talent. Then he continued to adjust and have success with a QB that hadn't started a game since high school in 2008 and he adjusted again and had good success in Denver with a cast of nobodies that people thought he was nuts going to battle with after trading away the allegedly good talent. The idea that he has not shown an ability to adjust to various talent and circumstances is unsupported and actually runs contrary to what he actually has done in his career guiding offenses.

When it comes to the WR's last year, do you mean the loss of Donnie Avery, a guy who couldn't make the roster this year and has had no impact on another roster this year was some kind of loss that should have impacted them in some kind of significant way? But they did have a guy named Laurent Robinson, who also wasn't good enough to be invited back but was suiting up every game over that bad stretch to end the season and he looks like a pretty good player to me now.

The injuries to the O-line thing this year doesn't fly with me because this offense was totally inept and not getting any better when they were healthy during their 0-6 start. Had these things been going on as they entered the season and early into it, that would be different. But this offense ended last year going 1-4 and started this year going 0-6 and looking bad all along the way with a relatively healthy line and it's all been pretty obvious, to me anyway, that this whole thing goes way deeper than the OC. The OC is the least of the problems, as he's the only guy in this whole scenario that's ever proven anything in the NFL.

Hornit, he always had veterans before.

Basically, in the first few games, he had 2nd year players and/or rookies at every offensive position except the interior OL and RB.

That team looked and played like one that didn't get what it was doing. Stressed, out of sync, pressing, comfortable, unconfident. They looked like the coordinator had run ahead of them. That's how they played.

His former rep aside.

Then the injuries wiped out any chance they might have had.

And Robinson was gimpy last year. You could see it in how he played--but either way it was a matter of the record.

 

[-X-]

When it comes to the WR's last year, do you mean the loss of Donnie Avery, a guy who couldn't make the roster this year and has had no impact on another roster this year was some kind of loss that should have impacted them in some kind of significant way? But they did have a guy named Laurent Robinson, who also wasn't good enough to be invited back but was suiting up every game over that bad stretch to end the season and he looks like a pretty good player to me now.

Yeah. That group of receivers. When they're average to begin with, and then you lose some more (and have to trade for a mediocre one mid-season), there's only so much you can do as an offensive coordinator. I thought we were on the same page there. As for Robinson, he simply couldn't stay healthy all year, and he had some issues with drops. Atlanta gave up on him, St Louis gave up on him, and Dallas is capitalizing on his good health. Good on him for being healthy and in a much better environment (Witten, Austin, Bryant).

And we might have to agree to disagree about McDaniels. While I didn't say he was the SOLE reason for the state of affairs here, I absolutely believe he's a major contributor. But if the popular consensus is that he's an innovator and can do more with less, then what's the problem now? With arguably better receivers this year, this offense is worse. Same QB's, same OL, better receivers (or lateral talent), and worse results. If injuries don't matter, and that's also a popular (mis)conception, then he should be able to game plan around that. If what you're saying is true. And if the OL is subpar, why would you put your QB in a position where he's left unprotected (last week)? Lining up Jackson 15 yards off the ball and giving Bradford NO blockers is smart in what way? And it reinforces your opinion of the O-line or McDaniels in what way?

 

[HornIt]

Is that you 9er8er?

I've heard rumors of some relation. And you might be?

That might be Grease.

Oh, and ZN says "hi." He actually speaks very highly of you too. Hopefully we can all coexist here and respect the intent of this board. I really, REALLY don't want just another octagon here.

Grease? Not ringing a bell.

I think the octagon reference went over my head too, but I also hope people can be respectful. It's easy to be when you agree with people.

If you don't mind me asking, might I know you by another name from somewhere Mr. X?

 

[joeybittick]

Is that you 9er8er?

I've heard rumors of some relation. And you might be?

That might be Grease.

Oh, and ZN says "hi." He actually speaks very highly of you too. Hopefully we can all coexist here and respect the intent of this board. I really, REALLY don't want just another octagon here.

:slap!: opcorn: :sticker:

 

[-X-]

Grease? Not ringing a bell.

I think the octagon reference went over my head too, but I also hope people can be respectful. It's easy to be when you agree with people.

If you don't mind me asking, might I know you by another name from somewhere Mr. X?

You don't know GREASE? But.... he's legend. :hehe:

The octagon reference is just my way of saying I don't want yet another forum that has constant fighting (ala MMA). Like a few other PD spawns, this board was made to escape that. So while I know it's an uphill battle given the current state of affairs, I'm not averse to the challenge of providing a refuge. See, what you need to know right off the bat is that the majority here are aware of the problems, have a few different ideas as to why they exist, but ultimately they don't feel like belaboring it. Get hyped up, get disappointed, vent, move on. That's pretty much the protocol here. Mostly. Sometimes.

I don't know that you know me. I'm not real important. I had a few sites over the years. One was CyberRam, the other was StlouisramsX.com, and now this. I was Fearsm4sm on AOL, then UrDamnStr8 on AOL, then StlouisramsX since about 2004. Now I'm just X.

(in case they move) eek:

 

[HornIt]

Hornit, he always had veterans before.

Basically, in the first few games, he had 2nd year players and/or rookies at every offensive position except the interior OL and RB.

That team looked and played like one that didn't get what it was doing. Stressed, out of sync, pressing, comfortable, unconfident. They looked like the coordinator had run ahead of them. That's how they played.

His former rep aside.

Then the injuries wiped out any chance they might have had.

And Robinson was gimpy last year. You could see it in how he played--but either way it was a matter of the record.

The Rams are the 3rd oldest team in the league. And in 2008 he didn't have the first overall pick, college Heisman Trophy winner with 16 NFL starts under belt at QB. He had a 7th round draft pick who never started a college or pro football game and who went through all of training camp as the backup not preparing to be the starter and getting starter reps, was thrown into it midway through the first game of the season and had a very successful offensive year.

In Denver it was the first year for everybody in that offense too, including Orton, with what most would consider mediocre talent at best overall, and they played more than competently.

This year he had a 2nd year, first overall pick "franchise QB" at QB, veteran RB's, veteran WR's (MSW and Gibson are veterans) a veteran O-line (no rookies, Saffold 2nd year player), but a rookie TE. The Rams are not the 3rd oldest team in the NFL all on defense.

And nobody expected the world, just not perhaps the worst offense in NFL history. What they have is what they built, not what McDaniels has created.

 

[Anonymous]

Hornit, he always had veterans before.

Basically, in the first few games, he had 2nd year players and/or rookies at every offensive position except the interior OL and RB.

That team looked and played like one that didn't get what it was doing. Stressed, out of sync, pressing, comfortable, unconfident. They looked like the coordinator had run ahead of them. That's how they played.

His former rep aside.

Then the injuries wiped out any chance they might have had.

And Robinson was gimpy last year. You could see it in how he played--but either way it was a matter of the record.

The Rams are the 3rd oldest team in the league. And in 2008 he didn't have the first overall pick, college Heisman Trophy winner with 16 NFL starts under belt at QB. He had a 7th round draft pick who never started a college or pro football game and who went through all of training camp as the backup not preparing to be the starter and getting starter reps, was thrown into it midway through the first game of the season and had a very successful offensive year.

In Denver it was the first year for everybody in that offense too, including Orton, with what most would consider mediocre talent at best overall, and they played more than competently.

This year he had a 2nd year, first overall pick "franchise QB" at QB, veteran RB's, veteran WR's (MSW and Gibson are veterans) a veteran O-line (no rookies, Saffold 2nd year player), but a rookie TE. The Rams are not the 3rd oldest team in the NFL all on defense.

And nobody expected the world, just not perhaps the worst offense in NFL history. What they have is what they built, not what McDaniels has created.

No they're not the 3rd oldest team in the league.

Though that's the false impression you get if you add up all those back-ups with one year contracts and then just do a naked average.

From week one the starters who on offense were 1st or 2nd year players include:

WR: depending on the week, Alexander/Salas/Pettis (after losing Amendola and before getting Lloyd)
TE: Kendricks
QB: Bradford
OT: Saffold

Then of course Smith was a 3rd year player.

Fact is they are young.

I don;t care about Bradford's college hype. He did not play like a man who knew the offense and yet at the same time he had to learn, among other things, sight adjustments for the first time in his life while he was still struggling with things like pre-snap reads and going through his progressions.

Now a coach can either deny all that is taking place and just be all system first, or he can account for it and actually scale things around what the players can do at this stage. It is clear what McD did. You could see it in the way they played.

Given the same basic dilemma, albeit with an older player, what did Harbaugh do in SF? Which way worked better?

What they have is a team McD failed to coach. There is no other explanation for why every single player on offense except Jackson regressed.

 

[Anonymous]

Grease? Not ringing a bell.

I think the octagon reference went over my head too, but I also hope people can be respectful. It's easy to be when you agree with people.

If you don't mind me asking, might I know you by another name from somewhere Mr. X?

You don't know GREASE? But.... he's legend. :hehe:
:

No bro he remembers me asRAMSWRATH!

 

[-X-]

Grease? Not ringing a bell.

I think the octagon reference went over my head too, but I also hope people can be respectful. It's easy to be when you agree with people.

If you don't mind me asking, might I know you by another name from somewhere Mr. X?

You don't know GREASE? But.... he's legend. :hehe:
:

No bro he remembers me asRAMSWRATH!

Who?

 

[HornIt]

Hornit, he always had veterans before.

Basically, in the first few games, he had 2nd year players and/or rookies at every offensive position except the interior OL and RB.

That team looked and played like one that didn't get what it was doing. Stressed, out of sync, pressing, comfortable, unconfident. They looked like the coordinator had run ahead of them. That's how they played.

His former rep aside.

Then the injuries wiped out any chance they might have had.

And Robinson was gimpy last year. You could see it in how he played--but either way it was a matter of the record.

The Rams are the 3rd oldest team in the league. And in 2008 he didn't have the first overall pick, college Heisman Trophy winner with 16 NFL starts under belt at QB. He had a 7th round draft pick who never started a college or pro football game and who went through all of training camp as the backup not preparing to be the starter and getting starter reps, was thrown into it midway through the first game of the season and had a very successful offensive year.

In Denver it was the first year for everybody in that offense too, including Orton, with what most would consider mediocre talent at best overall, and they played more than competently.

This year he had a 2nd year, first overall pick "franchise QB" at QB, veteran RB's, veteran WR's (MSW and Gibson are veterans) a veteran O-line (no rookies, Saffold 2nd year player), but a rookie TE. The Rams are not the 3rd oldest team in the NFL all on defense.

And nobody expected the world, just not perhaps the worst offense in NFL history. What they have is what they built, not what McDaniels has created.

No they're not the 3rd oldest team in the league.

Though that's the false impression you get if you add up all those back-ups with one year contracts and then just do a naked average.

From week one the starters who on offense were 1st or 2nd year players include:

WR: depending on the week, Alexander/Salas/Pettis (after losing Amendola and before getting Lloyd)
TE: Kendricks
QB: Bradford
OT: Saffold

Then of course Smith was a 3rd year player.

Fact is they are young.

I don;t care about Bradford's college hype. He did not play like a man who knew the offense and yet at the same time he had to learn, among other things, sight adjustments for the first time in his life while he was still struggling with things like pre-snap reads and going through his progressions.

Now a coach can either deny all that is taking place and just be all system first, or he can account for it and actually scale things around what the players can do at this stage. It is clear what McD did. You could see it in the way they played.

Given the same basic dilemma, albeit with an older player, what did Harbaugh do in SF? Which way worked better?

What they have is a team McD failed to coach. There is no other explanation for why every single player on offense except Jackson regressed.

Alexander, Pettis and Salas were not starters on offense. For the first four games the starting WR's were veterans Gibson, MSW and Amendola (prior to getting hurt).

The 2009 Broncos started the following 1st and 2nd year starters:

RB - Moreno, rookie
WR - Royal, 2nd year
OT - Clady, 2nd year
Their other OT was a 3rd year player.

It's not Bradford's college hype that matters either, it's that he is supposed to be an elite franchise QB talent in his second year being paid $70 million, and if he can't learn the offense and play in it even close to as good as a 2nd round rookie in Cincy can learn and play in his offense in the same amount of time, or the 1st overall pick at QB this year could do, that is a big problem that is not on McDaniels.

 

[HornIt]

No bro he remembers me asRAMSWRATH!

Ah yes, now that's a name I recognize.

 

[-X-]

It's not Bradford's college hype that matters either, it's that he is supposed to be an elite franchise QB talent in his second year being paid $70 million, and if he can't learn the offense and play in it even close to as good as a 2nd round rookie in Cincy can learn and play in his offense in the same amount of time, or the 1st overall pick at QB this year could do, that is a big problem that is not on McDaniels.

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

 

[HornIt]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

So what kind of playbook would you run then?

 

[Anonymous]

Ah, but there's the problem with your argument. Bradford DID play as good as Dalton currently is. In Bradford's first year. Gruden is doing exactly what Shurmur did with Bradford, and he's having a very similar year as a result. 60% completion percentage, very similar TD/INT ratio, and roughly the same QB rating. You don't think it helps Dalton to have A.J. Green and Jermaine Gresham at his disposal? While Bradford had Amendola and Fells? Gruden took half the field away from Dalton - just like Shurmur. Gruden rolls Dalton out and moves the pocket - just like Shurmur.

What does McDaniels do to help Bradford? Gives him (with no off-season) sight adjustments, line call responsibilities, makes him drop back 7 instead of 3, and forces all of that on everyone (O-line included) without the benefit of thousands of reps that come with a normal off-season. That's a dramatic increase in responsibilities and a relative absence in preparation. I'd venture to guess that if the whole team had OTAs and minicamp, then it wouldn't look as bad as it does now. It would still be a learning process, but there would be a whole lot more familiarity and practice, and he would have a better understanding of what his players could and could not do. Shoot, even Lloyd identified the problem, and he played for the guy before.

Dalton is actually having a better rookie year in almost every way and statistical category than Bradford did, and against a much, much more difficult schedule. But, as a 2nd round pick rookie, he's also having by far a better year in a brand new offense than the 2nd year 1st overall pick without the benefit of an off season as well.

McDaniels shouldn't have to treat Bradford like a 2nd round pick rookie should he?

opcorn: