McDaniels' Achilles Heel

[maverick4]

Josh McDaniels is probably the best ex-coordinator to leave the Belichick tree. He is clearly smart, knowledgeable, has great game plans, and assembled a record scoring offense. He will in all likelihood have the best HC career of any ex-Pats coaches.

However, his biggest achilles heel is similar to why the Pats beat Mike Martz in 2001: stubborn insistence on execution, in the face of obstacles. This is why we lost in 2007 to an inferior Giants team, and why we never won the big one with McKid at the controls:

McDaniels may be star branch of Belichick tree - AFC West - ESPN

“It is going to come down to whoever tackles better, who blocks better, who throws better, who catches better,” McDaniels said. “It is not going to be a big game of tricks and gimmicks, I don’t think. I think they are going to know plenty of what we are doing, if not all, and we are probably going to know a lot about what they are doing. It is going to come down to whose players play the best and who can make the plays and avoid the big mistakes in the game, like most games come down to. I don’t think this game is going to be about deception. I think it is going to be about us trying to play good football, and they are going to do the same thing. Whoever plays better on Sunday will win the game.”

 

[Satchboogie3]

I still don't get the point of saying "Who ever plays better on Sunday will win"? What a great nugget of insight, the team that wins will have played better, thus, who ever plays better... will win! Genius.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Josh McDaniels is probably the best ex-coordinator to leave the Belichick tree. He is clearly smart, knowledgeable, has great game plans, and assembled a record scoring offense. He will in all likelihood have the best HC career of any ex-Pats coaches.

However, his biggest achilles heel is similar to why the Pats beat Mike Martz in 2001: stubborn insistence on execution, in the face of obstacles. This is why we lost in 2007 to an inferior Giants team, and why we never won the big one with McKid at the controls:

McDaniels may be star branch of Belichick tree - AFC West - ESPN

I don't necessarilly disagree with you but that's not what I glean from McDaniels comments.


He's simply sending a message to his team to focus on their jobs and execute. The Patriots themselves lose when they do that, as they almost did against the Bills and did against the Jets.

Its good advice and prompts the team to worry less about their opponent and more about themselves and their roles.

 

[DarrylS]

I still don't get the point of saying "Who ever plays better on Sunday will win"? What a great nugget of insight, the team that wins will have played better, thus, who ever plays better... will win! Genius.

It is akin to whoever wants it more

 

[maverick4]

It is akin to whoever wants it more

Belichick says cliche stuff like this too, however he says a ton of other bland stuff in his press conferences that he doesn't necessarily believe. McDaniels sounds like he really does believe in winning by out-executing, no gimmicks as he says, or deception, just out-play the other team even if they know what you're doing.

 

[Rob0729]

The funny thing is if you posted McDaniels' comment and attributed it to Belichick, no one would have questioned it. In fact, I think Belichick could sue McDaniels for plagiarism for the quote. I don't see anything wrong with the quote, but I guess it is because I have been reading and hearing Belichick saying much of the same thing for nearly a decade.

 

[Rob0729]

Belichick says cliche stuff like this too, however he says a ton of other bland stuff in his press conferences that he doesn't necessarily believe. McDaniels sounds like he really does believe in winning by out-executing, no gimmicks as he says, or deception, just out-play the other team even if they know what you're doing.

You mean you don't have to out exceute to win?!? Nothing like making your own opinion about what McDaniels was thinking based on your own bias against him. I seriously doubt McDaniels is going to put vanilla offenses and defenses out there. Besides, gimmicks are gimmicks. Rarely do gimmicks win games. Gimmicks are overrated and the Dolphins are proof this year that gimmicks only work so much. In fact, deception is a bit overrated.

 

[Kontradiction]

McDaniels isn't going to come out of the gate and throw it 40 times with Kyle Orton as his QB. He's going to balance the playcalling. If you've seen a Denver game this season, you'd know that. Other than stating the obvious, I'm not sure where discussion is going to come from in this thread.

 

[unoriginal]

I would hope a coach would focus on execution in the face of obstacles.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I would hope a coach would focus on execution in the face of obstacles.

Not when the only obstacle some here ever consider is playcalling... They'd have executed perfectly against any defense if he called the right play, when he calls the wrong play execution doesn't matter...it's his fault.

 

[maverick4]

I would hope a coach would focus on execution in the face of obstacles.

Really? You're for continually banging your head against a wall, if something isn't working? That is what is meant by stubbornly sticking to out-executing, in the face of opposition that knows what you're doing.

 

[patsox23]

I think this thread is a bit off. It's the kind of things Jet apologists used to lean on when they'd lose in the playoffs to the Chargers - blaming the OC, instead of Herm, as though the head coach has no say in the playcalling or its overarching philosophy. Josh McDaniels was less to blame for the coaching contributions to the Super Bowl loss than Bill Belichick was. That's important to consider.

 

[Rob0729]

I would hope a coach would focus on execution in the face of obstacles.

Well, McDaniels said that was what Belichick preached. He said Belichick was never about gimmicks or asking his players to do 13 or 14 things. Every week Belichick came into the meetings room with three or four things the team needed to do in the game to win. I think Belichick has always been about execution over trickery.

 

[SVN]

another mcdaniels bashing thread....

 

[Rob0729]

I think this thread is a bit off. It's the kind of things Jet apologists used to lean on when they'd lose in the playoffs to the Chargers - blaming the OC, instead of Herm, as though the head coach has no say in the playcalling or its overarching philosophy. Josh McDaniels was less to blame for the coaching contributions to the Super Bowl loss than Bill Belichick was. That's important to consider.

I still blame the players more than anyone. I felt the execution was horrible on both sides of the ball at times. You look at three plays on the final defensive drive where if the Pats defender executed the play correctly, the game would have been over and the Pats win.

There is only so much scheming and game calling, but the players have to execute. I still think the OC (and this goes back to the Weis days prior to 2004) gets too much blame and not enough credit for the offense by Pats' fans.

People say that anyone could have done what McDaniels did in 2007 with the talent he had. With Welker back and Brady looking to be on track, we will see since this is basically the same offense.

The fact of the matter is, the players need to execute for success. The greatest schemes and game calling can only get you so far.

 

[Rob0729]

another mcdaniels bashing thread....

Well, the good news is that we won't face McDaniels again this season unless they meet in the playoffs. It could happen since the Broncos really don't have much competition for the AFC West. Both KC and Oakland are done and San Deigo seem to be living on reputation over actual talent.

I do give maverick credit that he will package the same BS he has been spouting for two years in as many different ways possible to McDaniels bash.

 

[maverick4]

I think this thread is a bit off. It's the kind of things Jet apologists used to lean on .

Just the opposite. PATS apologists make it sound like there was nothing that could have been done in 2007, that we lost just because the Giants were unstoppable that day. Simply not the case. They make it sound like it was out of the Pats control to win that day.

 

[Ring 6]

Really? You're for continually banging your head against a wall, if something isn't working? That is what is meant by stubbornly sticking to out-executing, in the face of opposition that knows what you're doing.

The only indication that McDaniels thinks that way is you saying he does.
And your bias is well documented.

 

[Ring 6]

Just the opposite. PATS apologists make it sound like there was nothing that could have been done in 2007, that we lost just because the Giants were unstoppable that day. Simply not the case. They make it sound like it was out of the Pats control to win that day.

Its actually a greater level of apologist to blame the coach than to blame the players.

 

[patsox23]

Just the opposite. PATS apologists make it sound like there was nothing that could have been done in 2007, that we lost just because the Giants were unstoppable that day. Simply not the case. They make it sound like it was out of the Pats control to win that day.

Where is that ANYWHERE in my post? I don't think there was "nothing that could have been done," obviously there are LOTS of things that could've been done, and they fall on the coaching staff, the players, the refs (Eli in the grasp), luck (that ridiculous catch), skill (that ridiculous catch again) AND the Giants playing a really good defensive game.

I'm not sure why people ever feel the need to make up false arguments.