Article on McDaniels and his role in the Pats offense

[Rob0729]

Ok, I have no idea who these guys are or if his source inside the Patriots' organization is true (claims he has worked with the Pats since 1992), but the article does give McDaniels' far more credit for the success of this offense than a lot of people are willing to give him here.

I have a close personal friend in the New England Patriots organization. When I mentioned the Jay Cutler saga, and my opinion of Josh McDaniels' supposed incompetence, he completely cut me off.

He told me the guy is one of the most imaginative offensive minds in the NFL, and, according to him, has single-handedly put the Patriots offense in positions to win, with or without great talent, for over four years.
What swayed me was when he told me about the huge role he played in the historic success of the 2007 Patriots offense.

In that year, players like Wes Welker, Donte Stallworth, Randy Moss, Jabar Gaffney and Ben Watson were usually wide open many times during their games.

That can be attributed to McDaniels' schemes.

Also, an interesting fact was the creativity with which these came up.
McDaniels came up with completely new schemes each week, and made correct adjustments many times during the games, that even the HC had to openly acknowledge it to management.

He supposedly applied Belichick's innovative defensive methods of completely changing the defensive gameplan, being prepared for many situations and playing his trademark "situational football", to the offense.
I had not heard the term "situational football" before, but it was enlightening to understand the success of the Patriots organization.
McDaniels is openly called the "Belichick of the offense" amidst Patriots management, and people can not wait for the matchup of the two minds during the season...just to see great coaches play chess.

I Was Wrong About Josh Mcdaniels, and So Are You | NFL Sport Channel

Again, I have no idea who this site is and they blatantly steal ESPN's design. So I don't know if this is a totally BS story or not. Granted it is a Mea Culpa by an admitted McDaniels basher.

If true, this concerns me a bit about the offense going forward. Yes, we still have Brady, Moss, Welker, and the rest. So the offense will still be good, but what if it was McDaniels that made the 2007 offense go from being very good to special and the 2006 (no receivers) and 2008 (no Brady) offenses from being complete disasters to very good.

It could also be why Belichick didn't trade Cassel to Denver even if he could get better picks. He might have felt it would hurt the Pats' chances down the road in the playoffs with Cassel under McDaniels again.

Ok, I know I have been accused of being a McDaniels ball washer. I'm sure that the usually suspects on both sides of the argument (which I am included) will battle this out again for pages of posts. But I figured I would pass this along because IF TRUE this could be a more significant blow to the offense than most of us are willing to admit. I still think that if Brady is healthy this offense will be one of the best in the league, but it might not be nearly as dangerous as the 2007 offense was.

 

[Rob0729]

Doing a little more research (ok, clicking the link that say source at the bottom of the page), this is a Bleacher Report post. That adds a little more doubt on the validity of the article. But the writer could still be getting real info, but he could also be talking to the janitor over at Gillette too.

I Was Wrong About Josh Mcdaniels, and So Are You | Bleacher Report

Granted he also wrote these articles before it, which clearly bashes McDaniels comparing him to Lane Kiffin and Sarah Palin.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ob-and-the-reasons-why-the-broncos-are-doomed
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-next-mike-tomlin-or-the-current-lane-kiffin

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I don't know how to judge the credibility of this article and I really don't care to do so, one way or the other. In fact, I don't think we can.

There's an old adage that goes roughly, "Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan."

What I do know is that there are many "fathers" to credit with the success of the Pats O in recent years and especially in 2007, starting with the players on the field. No doubt a fair share of that credit belongs to the Offensive Coordinator, who was indeed hired and rehired by one of the greatest HC's ever to walk an NFL sideline and who isn't known for keeping Coaches or Players around out of "sentiment."

I do, however, disagree with your suggestion that this year's offense will be disadvantaged because of McDaniels' absence. That is not only unknowable at this time, but flies in the face of BB's proven trackrecord of success with the Players and Coaches who happen to be around him in any given season.

Josh now has his "shot" to show what he can do when not surrounded by the greatest system and many of the greatest players in the Game today. I wish him every success (but success that falls short of beating the Pats or winning the AFC championship ).

 

[Rob0729]

I don't know how to judge the credibility of this article and I really don't care to do so, one way or the other. In fact, I don't think we can.

There's an old adage that goes roughly, "Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan."

What I do know is that there are many "fathers" to credit with the success of the Pats O in recent years and especially in 2007, starting with the players on the field. No doubt a fair share of that credit belongs to the Offensive Coordinator, who was indeed hired and rehired by one of the greatest HC's ever to walk an NFL sideline and who isn't known for keeping Coaches or Players around out of "sentiment."

I do, however, disagree with your suggestion that this year's offense will be disadvantaged because of McDaniels' absence. That is not only unknowable at this time, but flies in the face of BB's proven trackrecord of success with the Players and Coaches who happen to be around him in any given season.

Josh now has his "shot" to show what he can do when not surrounded by the greatest system and many of the greatest players in the Game today. I wish him every success (but success that falls short of beating the Pats or winning the AFC championship ).

Well, I think it is possible the Pats will be at a disadvantage without McDaniels especially in the short term. Whether this article is true or BS and if McDaniels is an offensive genius or not, there could be growing pains as Bill O'Brien is groomed to take over the OC position as people expects. McDaniels obviously picked up the role quickly and there was even talk in 2005 by many in the media that while everyone was focusing on Mangini and his growth that McDaniels was doing a far better job on the other side of the ball. No guarantees that O'Brien will adapt as quickly. So even if McDaniels was just an average OC, the offense could suffer a bit from his loss.

Again, I am not predicting a disaster. Assuming Brady is healthy enough to return to form, this team is too talented to not be a top offense in the league. Brady is still Brady. He was Brady before McDaniels and, barring that his knee isn't screwed up, he is still Brady now.

I just question that IF McDaniels was as good as this article states, whether the offense will be dominant. Even if the offense does suffer a bit initially, it doesn't mean that O'Brien won't turn into an OC who is as good or better than McDaniels. I think the offense and defense suffered a bit in 2005 because of the loss of Weis and Crennel, but rebounded later in the season or the following year.

As for McDaniels in Denver, I am torn. I have rooted for every coordinator that left other than Mangini. But I can't root for the Broncos no matter who is coaching for them. I still haven't figured out how McDaniels can become a Hall of Fame coach while have the Broncos have a losing season every year he is coaching there. So I will have to root against him having personal success while having as long of a career in Denver as Shanahan had.

 

[RayClay]

In that year, players like Wes Welker, Donte Stallworth, Randy Moss, Jabar Gaffney and Ben Watson were usually wide open many times during their games.

That can be attributed to McDaniels' schemes.

Jeez, we're screwed this year. We've lost two of those guys too. I thought that Moss guy was good, little did I know it was all McDaniels.

I'm assuming McDaniels took Super Bowl week off.

He supposedly applied Belichick's innovative defensive methods of completely changing the defensive gameplan, being prepared for many situations and playing his trademark "situational football", to the offense.

I had not heard the term "situational football" before

I heard he got that idea from the coach at Notre Dame.

Sorry, Robo, you've got to read them before you post them.

 

[Frezo]

It's not a stretch to assume that McDaniels would not be seeing the amount of success he now has if he had spent his career under the tutelage of the likes of Herm Edwards or any other coach not named Belichick. The Pats may have lost a book, but the library is still intact.

 

[Rob0729]

Jeez, we're screwed this year. We've lost two of those guys too. I thought that Moss guy was good, little did I know it was all McDaniels.

I'm assuming McDaniels took Super Bowl week off.



I heard he got that idea from the coach at Notre Dame.

Sorry, Robo, you've got to read them before you post them.

The writer never said the Pats were screwed without McDaniels. Neither did I. In fact the writer, gave no opinions either way about the Pats without McDaniels. I said that the Pats offense would be fine, but might not be special if the information this guy has is true and not total BS. Considering it if from the Bleacher Report, it could very well be BS.

As for situational football, I don't think the writer said that McDaniels made up the concept. Granted neither did Weis. Or Belichick for that matter. Situational football has been practiced in one form or another for decades. Just because the writer is not aware of the concept, doesn't mean that McDaniels isn't a master in the art of the strategy.

Again, I said that the loss of McDaniels could hurt, but I don't think it is a long term problem. Belichick is still here and either O'Brien will turn into a very good OC or someone else will. We survived the loss Weis. We will survive the loss of McDaniels. There will be growing pains though. Hopefully they will be minimal. I know there are people on this board equate the growing pains loss of McDaniels as the best thing that ever happened to the Patriots.

 

[RayClay]

He supposedly applied Belichick's innovative defensive methods of completely changing the defensive gameplan, being prepared for many situations and playing his trademark "situational football", to the offense.

I had not heard the term "situational football" before

Plus "game planning" and "situational football" are by definition two completely different things.

Game planning could be coming up with a unique game plan for each opponent.

completely changing the defensive gameplan, being prepared for many situations

Being prepared for a given situation that could occur in any game. is "sf"

Being prepared for many situations doesn't even make sense. Of course you try to be prepared for any possible situation, but there isn't a name for that.

 

[RayClay]

The writer never said the Pats were screwed without McDaniels. Neither did I. In fact the writer, gave no opinions either way about the Pats without McDaniels. I said that the Pats offense would be fine, but might not be special if the information this guy has is true and not total BS. Considering it if from the Bleacher Report, it could very well be BS.

As for situational football, I don't think the writer said that McDaniels made up the concept. Granted neither did Weis. Or Belichick for that matter. Situational football has been practiced in one form or another for decades. Just because the writer is not aware of the concept, doesn't mean that McDaniels isn't a master in the art of the strategy.

Again, I said that the loss of McDaniels could hurt, but I don't think it is a long term problem. Belichick is still here and either O'Brien will turn into a very good OC or someone else will. We survived the loss Weis. We will survive the loss of McDaniels. There will be growing pains though. Hopefully they will be minimal. I know there are people on this board equate the growing pains loss of McDaniels as the best thing that ever happened to the Patriots.

It's just not a good article, similar to the recent Seymour article. (edit: It's from the same unnamed source. I'm assuming it's some kid in his bedroom calling himself NFL sports channel)

I didn't need to go beyond your quote to find stuff that doesn't sound like it was written by someone who knew what he was talking about.

I have no opinion about McDaniels and hope he does well as long as it doesn't negatively affect us.

*also, the way to test the credibility is to read the article. This one flunks the credibility test early-doesn't mean the conclusions are false, clocks right twice a day, remember*

 

[Rob0729]

It's not a stretch to assume that McDaniels would not be seeing the amount of success he now has if he had spent his career under the tutelage of the likes of Herm Edwards or any other coach not named Belichick. The Pats may have lost a book, but the library is still intact.

Well, you can say that about anyone in the NFL including Belichick though. Would Belichick been the same coach if he didn't learn under Parcells, Ray Perkins, and Ted Marchabroda. Considering he runs a defense that he learned from Perkins and then from Parcells, I would say no although he might have been as successful running a different system. Most coaches' successes and failures are at leastin part of the the head coaches they learn under. Why else do you see the best head coaches have the most assistants get head coaching jobs. That is why we talk about Bill Walsh's, Bill Parcell's, Jimmy Johnson's, and Bill Belichick's coaching trees. When have we ever talked about Herm Edwards' coaching tree?

 

[Rob0729]

It's just not a good article, similar to the recent Seymour article. I didn't need to go beyond your quote to find stuff that doesn't sound like it was written by someone who knew what he was talking about.

I have no opinion about McDaniels and hope he does well as long as it doesn't negatively affect us.

It the Bleacher Report. Most of the stuff are not good articles in terms of the writing and anyone can write one. I really not looking at anything in this report other than the information he supposably got from a Patriots' insider. Just because the writer doesn't know much about football, doesn't mean the information isn't true. It very well may be BS, but if it isn't it is an interesting debate on the effects of McDaniels loss.

 

[Rob0729]

Plus "game planning" and "situational football" are by definition two completely different things.

Game planning could be coming up with a unique game plan for each opponent.



Being prepared for a given situation that could occur in any game. is "sf"

Being prepared for many situations doesn't even make sense. Of course you try to be prepared for any possible situation, but there isn't a name for that.

Well, gameplanning and situational football can be the same thing. If you gameplan for certain situations, then it is situational football. Although the term is usually associated with play calling rather than gameplanning.

As being prepared for any possible situation, I would call it situational readiness. Belichick has preached that on both sides of the ball since 2000 though.

 

[RayClay]

It the Bleacher Report. Most of the stuff are not good articles in terms of the writing and anyone can write one. I really not looking at anything in this report other than the information he supposably got from a Patriots' insider. Just because the writer doesn't know much about football, doesn't mean the information isn't true. It very well may be BS, but if it isn't it is an interesting debate on the effects of McDaniels loss.

Well, someone that doesn't know the basics loses me. Why should i trust him, when i disbelieve far more authoritative sources? I'll go out on a limb and guess it's not NEM, though.

Also being afraid to sign your name to an article isn't a good sign.

 

[RayClay]

Well, gameplanning and situational football can be the same thing. If you gameplan for certain situations, then it is situational football. Although the term is usually associated with play calling rather than gameplanning.

As being prepared for any possible situation, I would call it situational readiness. Belichick has preached that on both sides of the ball since 2000 though.

Situational football is practicing certain down and distance, time factors etc. that could occur in any game, in other words situations. Game planning is planning for a certain type of team.

If you use the English language loosely, anything can be anything else, but those two terms have precise meanings.

Maybe some situations occur most often with certain offensive packages. But mushing everything together blurs the actual meanings.

 

[tobias funke]

If McDaniels is the offensive mind he is made out to be in this article, wouldn't it stand to reason that Belichick will have learned a great deal from Josh in the process of mentoring him?

Even though it's often forgotten, teaching goes both ways.

 

[Rob0729]

Well, someone that doesn't know the basics loses me. Why should i trust him, when i disbelieve far more authoritative sources? I'll go out on a limb and guess it's not NEM, though.

Also being afraid to sign your name to an article isn't a good sign.

The guy who wrote it is named Usama Shah. He signed his name to the article. The site I originally posted is just a dummy site that pulls Bleacher Report posts and claims them as their own with no writer attached.

Who is Usama Shah? Who knows? He might have a contact inside the Patriots. It also could be a low level nothing who Belichick couldn't pick out of a line up that included Matt Walsh. All we know about the source (if there really is a source) is that he/she has been there since 1992. The only one in the coaching staff been that long is Dante Scarnecchia, but joined the Pats in 1982. So it would have to be someone in the offices if there is someone and it may not be anyone close to the coaching staff.

 

[Frezo]

Well, you can say that about anyone in the NFL including Belichick though. Would Belichick been the same coach if he didn't learn under Parcells, Ray Perkins, and Ted Marchabroda. Considering he runs a defense that he learned from Perkins and then from Parcells, I would say no although he might have been as successful running a different system. Most coaches' successes and failures are at leastin part of the the head coaches they learn under. Why else do you see the best head coaches have the most assistants get head coaching jobs. That is why we talk about Bill Walsh's, Bill Parcell's, Jimmy Johnson's, and Bill Belichick's coaching trees. When have we ever talked about Herm Edwards' coaching tree?

That was exactly my point. Everything is still in place for O'Brien to be successful. There is also an indication that members of the immediate Belichick coaching tree have only been successful while under the direct tutelage of Belichick.

Just because Herm wasn't used in a prior discussion, it doesn't mean that he can't be used in a loose analogy.

 

[Rob0729]

Situational football is practicing certain down and distance, time factors etc. that could occur in any game, in other words situations. Game planning is planning for a certain type of team.

If you use the English language loosely, anything can be anything else, but those two terms have precise meanings.

Maybe some situations occur most often with certain offensive packages. But mushing everything together blurs the actual meanings.

Well, there really isn't an official definition for the term situational football. It is generally accepted as what you said on the individual play level that you run plays based on the situation, but it doesn't mean it isn't applied to weekly gameplans too. At least by people who don't know the term like this author.

 

[Rob0729]

If McDaniels is the offensive mind he is made out to be in this article, wouldn't it stand to reason that Belichick will have learned a great deal from Josh in the process of mentoring him?

Even though it's often forgotten, teaching goes both ways.

I'm sure that if the article is true, Belichick has learned a lot from McDaniels. So has Brady. Belichick is constantly trying to learn new ways to make this team more effective. He visits with Urban Meyers every year for that reason. It isn't a coincidence that the Pats started to make their offense more like Meyer's spread offense after the yearly visits to Florida started. I am sure that Belichick's yearly fishing outings with Jimmy Johnson include a lot of exchanging of ideas.

Even if McDaniels is an offensive genius, a lot of what he has learned came directly or indirectly from Belichick anyway.

 

[Rob0729]

That was exactly my point. Everything is still in place for O'Brien to be successful. There is also an indication that members of the immediate Belichick coaching tree have only been successful while under the direct tutelage of Belichick.

Just because Herm wasn't used in a prior discussion, it doesn't mean that he can't be used in a loose analogy.

A couple of things. I never said that O'Brien couldn't end up being as good or better than either McDaniels or Weis. He may very well be.

Also, I think people overstate the failures of former Belichick assistants after they leave. Mangini was probably not ready to leave and suffered for it. Crennel didn't shop for the groceries and his conflicts with Phil Savage who was shopping for the groceries are well documented. Thomas Dimitroff, although a front office guy and not a coach, has been a huge success so far. Weis is in college and sometimes the skills don't translate. Beside, he is at a school that is at a disadvantage for recruiting. ND still requires an academic standard which precludes some of the best high school prospects. Lastly, just because someone is a great coordinator, doesn't mean he will be a great head coach. That is probably why guys like Monty Kiffin, Tom Moore (granted he is probably a product of Peyton Manning), and Jim Johnson (Eagles) never pursued head coaching jobs.