Breer on McDaniels

[Deus Irae]

The other thing is when you look back like that you are thinking of the players career, or maybe even his peak. They didn't all peak together. The Cowboy offense was good, but it is ludicrous to compare it to the 2007 Patriot offense when the Pats set the all-time points record, and the Cowboys weren't anywhere near close.

The argument 'forget what they did, look at how much talent they had' is basically saying your judgment of talent is backwards.

I agree. That's why I keep trying to get across the point about comparing a year versus a career. HOF doesn't mean anything in such a comparison. Ted Washington may never get to the HOF, for example, but when he played for the Patriots, he was an elite run-stuffer who could almost single-handedly shut down the opponent's inside running game. Whether or not Welker ever gets to the HOF, he was all but uncoverable in 2007.

The argument of those saying "Team x had more HOFers" is made particularly useless when you take a look at Randy Moss as a player example. Under the "HOFers" argument, you'd rank Moss identically in 2006 as in 2007. After all, they are the same guy, right?

 

[IcyPatriot]

McDaniels had alot to say ... but he never thanked NEM for his guidance.

 

[Rob0729]

I agree. That's why I keep trying to get across the point about comparing a year versus a career. HOF doesn't mean anything in such a comparison. Ted Washington may never get to the HOF, for example, but when he played for the Patriots, he was an elite run-stuffer who could almost single-handedly shut down the opponent's inside running game. Whether or not Welker ever gets to the HOF, he was all but uncoverable in 2007.

The argument of those saying "Team x had more HOFers" is made particularly useless when you take a look at Randy Moss as a player example. Under the "HOFers" argument, you'd rank Moss identically in 2006 as in 2007. After all, they are the same guy, right?

Ted Washington was a run specialist with the Patriots. He was a spectacular role player here, but wasn't a Pro Bowl quality player here. Other than the Super Bowl, he almost never played 3rd downs and only played parts of the downs. He did a great job at what he did, but the Pats knew his limitations and limited him to do what he did best nothing more or nothing less. Washington would never see the HOF with what he did in New England for most of his career.

Washington is exactly what I am talking about. The Pats have made their living off of other people's garbage and unheralded players using them smartly to get the maximum benefit. When Washington came to New England, he was coming off an injury filled season season and was declining from his Buffalo Bills and Bears heyday, His skills were eroded and clearly wasn't nearly as talented as he played because the Pats put him in a position to succeed. Washington is an example of a guy past his prime that the Patriots coached up to be a solid role player.

As for the HOFers argument, most of the Cowboys I mentioned were in their prime and playing at the highest level. I chose the Cowboys best year as a team. So the Moss comparison of what he was like when Ken Walter was throwing to him vs. what he was was when Brady was throwing to him doesn't wash. In 1993, the Cowboys had 8 offensive players in the Pro Bowl (Aikman, Irvin, Johnston, Novachek, Emmitt, Newton, Stepnoski, and Williams). No the Pro Bowl isn't everything and can be misleading, but it is a statement when 8 of 11 starters make the Pro Bowl. They had six in 1992 (Aikman, Irvin, Novachek, Emmitt, Newton, Stepnoski, and Tuinei) and eight again in 1994 (Aikman, Irvin, Johnston, Novachek, Emmitt, Newton, and Stepnoski) showing that they were at their prime). The Pats had 5 players on offense named to the Pro Bowl team last year (Brady, Moss, Light, Mankins, and Koppen).

I still say from top to bottom, the 1993 Cowboys had a better offensive roster in terms of talent although the Pats were clearly better at the very top.

 

[Rob0729]

That was true last year. It most certainly wasn't the case before.

Actually it has been true for two or three years now. After Weis left, especially in 2005 when the Pats had no official OC, Brady has had a lot more say in the offense. One of the things he has pushed for is more shotgun formations. So it really started to grow in 2005 especially since the running game was non-existent at times in 2005 due to injuries.

Weis didn't run it as much because he preferred the two back set far more than the Pats have in recent years. Weis wasn't a big fan of Brady being in shotgun too much either. He has said as much in the past.

Prior to 2005, I agree with you. Since 2005, I think they have been running the shotgun a lot.

 

[PonyExpress]

The main reasons IMO the '90s cowboys have reached legendary status:

1. they won 3 bowls - legitimate

2. Summerall and Madden, in their prime, announced every game, which made the games and players seem more epic than they really were. We're stuck with "fluffy" and "the mortician" doing the Pats playoff games.

3. They're the Cowboys, the Lakers of the NFL.


They won 13 games once. They barely beat a mediocre Bills and Steeler team in two SBs. Their main NFC competition were the Steve Young 49ers. Steve Young made Peyton Manning look like a clutch playoff performer. He was a HOF choke artist.

If you watch replays of those games, the Cowboy players were BIGGER back then than even today: jacked ripped and clearly juiced out of their gourds.

The '90s Cowboys rep for dominance is more a function of their flamboyance and celebrity than their actual season to season, game to game performance.

There is an NFL industry based on myth building, and IMO the '90s Cowboys are among the chief beneficiaries of those tall tales.

 

[Rob0729]

The main reasons IMO the '90s cowboys have reached legendary status:

1. they won 3 bowls - legitimate

2. Summerall and Madden, in their prime, announced every game, which made the games and players seem more epic than they really were. We're stuck with "fluffy" and "the mortician" doing the Pats playoff games.

3. They're the Cowboys, the Lakers of the NFL.


They won 13 games once. They barely beat a mediocre Bills and Steeler team in two SBs. Their main NFC competition were the Steve Young 49ers. Steve Young made Peyton Manning look like a clutch playoff performer. He was a HOF choke artist.

If you watch replays of those games, the Cowboy players were BIGGER back then than even today: jacked ripped and clearly juiced out of their gourds.

The '90s Cowboys rep for dominance is more a function of their flamboyance and celebrity than their actual season to season, game to game performance.

There is an NFL industry based on myth building, and IMO the '90s Cowboys are among the chief beneficiaries of those tall tales.

Not saying the Cowboys were a better team. I am just saying they are more talented. Talent and production in the NFL are two different things and many cases.

In fairness to them, they did play in the NFC East... or Beast. The NFC East in the late 80s and early 90s was one of the toughest, most competitive division.

As for Super Bowl wins, I wouldn't go there. After having to defend our three Super Bowl wins of a total margin of victory of 9 points against every Patriots hater, no way am should we trash the Cowboys Super Bowl wins.

 

[Gumby]

:
Originally Posted by QB12
Actually, I think he will succeed Shanahan in Denver, possibly as early as at the end of this season.

QB12

What makes you think that? I'm just curious.

I think Josh will continue to heed his father's advice and wait for the right time and the right opportunity. Timing-wise, I guess we'll see if and how this season's outcome affects his thinking. If he wins a ring or 2, some pretty sweet offers could come his way.
__________________

I am not sold on McDaniels as the second coming of Bill Walsh just yet; so his departure would not break my heart. But just for the sake of continuity I would prefer that he sticks around and gets better at his job so he doesn't muff another SB.

As to him leaving by end of this season; I SINCERELY HOPE NOT; as that would mean (IMO) that we lost in playoffs NLT the AFCCG.

Most teams DO NOT hire a SB winner or loser's OC/DC in the year they play the SB. They hire the previous year's SB winner's OC/DC.

There just isn't a lot of time between the SB and the FA market opening and the draft. Unless the new coach has a lot of familiarity with your system, the team can't afford that lost time. The team wants/needs those extra 2-3 weeks of hiring time to get that guy on the ground and figure out what type of players he needs for HIS SYSTEM.

 

[PonyExpress]

Not saying the Cowboys were a better team. I am just saying they are more talented. Talent and production in the NFL are two different things and many cases.

In fairness to them, they did play in the NFC East... or Beast. The NFC East in the late 80s and early 90s was one of the toughest, most competitive division.

As for Super Bowl wins, I wouldn't go there. After having to defend our three Super Bowl wins of a total margin of victory of 9 points against every Patriots hater, no way am should we trash the Cowboys Super Bowl wins.

Oh, I'm not saying those teams weren't great, they were, among the best ever. But the notion they dominated is a myth. They trailed an awful Bills team at the half in their second bowl. If Neil O'Donnell hadn't done the inexplicable, the Steelers would have beat them in the 3rd bowl.

They won those games, but not in dominant fashion. This is ignored due to the glitz that surrounded the team.

NFC East was THE BEAST in the late 80s, with Gibbs, Parcells, Buddy Ryan. By the 92-95 it was a myth.

Simms and Cunningham were done. Gibbs was gone. Kotite was in Philly.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ted Washington was a run specialist with the Patriots. He was a spectacular role player here, but wasn't a Pro Bowl quality player here. Other than the Super Bowl, he almost never played 3rd downs and only played parts of the downs. He did a great job at what he did, but the Pats knew his limitations and limited him to do what he did best nothing more or nothing less. Washington would never see the HOF with what he did in New England for most of his career.

Washington is exactly what I am talking about. The Pats have made their living off of other people's garbage and unheralded players using them smartly to get the maximum benefit. When Washington came to New England, he was coming off an injury filled season season and was declining from his Buffalo Bills and Bears heyday, His skills were eroded and clearly wasn't nearly as talented as he played because the Pats put him in a position to succeed. Washington is an example of a guy past his prime that the Patriots coached up to be a solid role player.

As for the HOFers argument, most of the Cowboys I mentioned were in their prime and playing at the highest level. I chose the Cowboys best year as a team. So the Moss comparison of what he was like when Ken Walter was throwing to him vs. what he was was when Brady was throwing to him doesn't wash. In 1993, the Cowboys had 8 offensive players in the Pro Bowl (Aikman, Irvin, Johnston, Novachek, Emmitt, Newton, Stepnoski, and Williams). No the Pro Bowl isn't everything and can be misleading, but it is a statement when 8 of 11 starters make the Pro Bowl. They had six in 1992 (Aikman, Irvin, Novachek, Emmitt, Newton, Stepnoski, and Tuinei) and eight again in 1994 (Aikman, Irvin, Johnston, Novachek, Emmitt, Newton, and Stepnoski) showing that they were at their prime). The Pats had 5 players on offense named to the Pro Bowl team last year (Brady, Moss, Light, Mankins, and Koppen).

I still say from top to bottom, the 1993 Cowboys had a better offensive roster in terms of talent although the Pats were clearly better at the very top.

Hell, if you want to use the "talent" label and ignore the reality of what's actually going on, Ben Watson is far, far more talented than Novacek. It's not even close: Novacek wouldn't even be in the same class. Again, you keep ignoring the season and pimping the career.

 

[SVN]

I have always been a fan of McDaniels. Is he perfect? No, but neither was Charlie Weis. I think his age and following Charlie Weis whose legacy has been magnified over the years has made a lot of people automatically doubt the guy and microanalyze any bad play or game to prove he is a bad OC.

I am glad Breer is giving the guy his due. He was in large part responsible for the offenses success last year. That offense was clearly not the most talented offense of all time (although you can make cases for Brady and Moss), but they were the most productive of all time. Part of it is due to the guy calling the plays no matter how much McDaniels haters want to believe that anyone could what McDaniels did with the talent the Pats had.

i think the bigger observation is breer having access to mcdaniels. Normally BB doesnt allow his coordinators but breer seems to be in his trust circle. Even last yr before the dallas game he got an exclusive with BB. Looking forward to more exclusives with pats personnel and coaches during the season from breer.

 

[Rob0729]

i think the bigger observation is breer having access to mcdaniels. Normally BB doesnt allow his coordinators but breer seems to be in his trust circle. Even last yr before the dallas game he got an exclusive with BB. Looking forward to more exclusives with pats personnel and coaches during the season from breer.

The NFL rules have changed so that Belichick cannot deny access to his coordinators anymore/

 

[Rob0729]

Hell, if you want to use the "talent" label and ignore the reality of what's actually going on, Ben Watson is far, far more talented than Novacek. It's not even close: Novacek wouldn't even be in the same class. Again, you keep ignoring the season and pimping the career.

Ok, I am done. We won't see eye to eye on this. So why bother going on? My idea of actual talent vs. production and your's look like they will never mix.

 

[SVN]

The NFL rules have changed so that Belichick cannot deny access to his coordinators anymore/

well yes..but its still not as random as any reporter asking for interviews with a coordinator and has to be granted. its coordinated by the team for the number of times they have to make their staff available.

 

[Rob0729]

well yes..but its still not as random as any reporter asking for interviews with a coordinator and has to be granted. its coordinated by the team for the number of times they have to make their staff available.

I don't know the actual rule and restrictions. So you may be right.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

That was true last year. It most certainly wasn't the case before.

exactly. that's a playcalling thing. the offensive game planning is on the shoulders of mcdaniels and if he's doing obvious stuff then he shouldn't be there. i never saw this kind of offense before with Weis. I mean how obvious can you get?

 

[Rob0729]

exactly. that's a playcalling thing. the offensive game planning is on the shoulders of mcdaniels and if he's doing obvious stuff then he shouldn't be there. i never saw this kind of offense before with Weis. I mean how obvious can you get?

You do realize the Pats had the best producing offense ever last year? No matter how little people want to give McDaniels credit for that, he played a big part in it.

Besides, Brady being in the shotgun is far from predictable. Brady can and does run every type of play from shotgun as he does when he lines up under center even handing off the ball to the RB. If Brady is in the shotgun, you have no idea what play he is going to run just because he is in that formation. Brady is just as likely to throw a quick screen from that formation as a long bomb to Moss. Brady's numbers have improved because of it even in 2006 when he didn't have any real receiving threats.

Weis was a very good OC, but people have made him something he isn't. Many of the things people complain about McDaniels are the same thing that people complained about Weis in 2002 and 2003. In 2003, we had a lot of three and outs and our third down conversion percentage was average at best.

 

[captain stone]

"He points to an offense that sagged in three "weather games" last year and emphasizes that not being able to handle inclement conditions is troublesome for a team that plays in the upper right-hand corner of the country."

And who's fault was that, Josh? It was yours, and - to a likely lesser extent - your HC's; unless Brady was disregarding your play-calling in order to give Moss his illegitimate TD record.

I still can't believe that we lost that effin game. So much blame to go around, incl. to those who should've known better.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

You do realize the Pats had the best producing offense ever last year? No matter how little people want to give McDaniels credit for that, he played a big part in it.

Besides, Brady being in the shotgun is far from predictable. Brady can and does run every type of play from shotgun as he does when he lines up under center even handing off the ball to the RB. If Brady is in the shotgun, you have no idea what play he is going to run just because he is in that formation. Brady is just as likely to throw a quick screen from that formation as a long bomb to Moss. Brady's numbers have improved because of it even in 2006 when he didn't have any real receiving threats.

Weis was a very good OC, but people have made him something he isn't. Many of the things people complain about McDaniels are the same thing that people complained about Weis in 2002 and 2003. In 2003, we had a lot of three and outs and our third down conversion percentage was average at best.

the best producing offense ever lost to an above average team with a solid but not spectacular defense. face it, the staff blew the super bowl. every one down from belichick to the guy i see on tv handing out gatorade, including scharnnechia and mcdaniels. they should have known the giants were going to try to do them what the patriots did to the rams in 01 (ie-lose the regular season game and upset them in the super bowl). they should have changed their game planning a bit. that game plan looked like the same stupid game plan in week 17.