Hired
Bears-President and CEO -Big Ten Commissioner Kevin Warren
Cardinals-Monti Ossenfort as new general manager
(from my wife's hometown who is also named Cardinals)
Browns-DC-Jim Schwartz
Titans -GM-Ran Carthon
Jets-OC-Nathanial Hackett
Panthers-HC-Frank Reich
Cowboys-OC-Brian Schottenheimer (sp)
Broncos-HC-Sean Peyton
Originally Posted by tredadda:
You did address it. I was adding on to it some. A better QB could have done more with that talent, but how many QBs right now would that be?
Mahomes
Allen
Burrow
Sherbert (maybe)
Rodgers (maybe)
Tannehill is a limited QB, but knowing this a GM needs to provide additional talent around him to offset that and trading away AJ Brown was terrible. He’s a more mobile Cousins in my opinion. I do agree that Henry is starting to show signs of wearing down despite his numbers this year because he’s all they have.
I'm not Jeff.Fisher(:-)), but it seems to me that TEN is primarily a run-first offense, and that includes to some extent, the QB. Now, he doesn't have to be Lamar as a runner, but he has to have some wheels.
So, imo, you could also include to your list, someone like Geno Smith, Jalen Hurts, Trevor Lawrence . . . maybe even Kyler Murray if he could actually learn to execute the offense properly.
Now, I'm not talking about getting to the SB necessarily with these examples. Just winning their division, being more efficient than Tannehill ever was, and that's it. Winning the SB would probably call for overhauling the offense in general, which I'm definitely not going to try and figure out here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Reerun_KC:
Tennessee was built like the 90s chiefs. Going in reverse in a forward moving league.
No qb was going to fix that shit show.
Yeah, I'm not as sure as some that you can't win with a run-centric offense. DAL is doing it right now, and so is SF. But they're more balanced in their passing game than TEN. They can get chunk plays through the air and move the ball more quickly, and more consistently, than TEN ever did with Tannehill.
Anyway, I think it can be done, but the QB is definitely a bigger piece of the puzzle than it was in the 90's. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
I'm not Jeff.Fisher(:-)), but it seems to me that TEN is primarily a run-first offense, and that includes to some extent, the QB. Now, he doesn't have to be Lamar as a runner, but he has to have some wheels.
So, imo, you could also include to your list, someone like Geno Smith, Jalen Hurts, Trevor Lawrence . . . maybe even Kyler Murray if he could actually learn to execute the offense properly.
Now, I'm not talking about getting to the SB necessarily with these examples. Just winning their division, being more efficient than Tannehill ever was, and that's it. Winning the SB would probably call for overhauling the offense in general, which I'm definitely not going to try and figure out here.
While it does seem like a run first offense, don’t think the QBs you named would do much better besides running it. None of those QBs have shown yet that they can elevate those around them and that’s exactly what would be needed with those WRs. Give it a year or two and perhaps I might feel differently. Even in that offense you need to be able to elevate your WR play as handing it to Henry 30-40 times a game while doing designed QB runs is not sustainable.
Perhaps they could win the AFC South with those guys, but if that’s the goal then they are low. They don’t need to be the greatest show on turf, they just can’t be the 90s Chiefs as so many on here have pointed out. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Yeah, I'm not as sure as some that you can't win with a run-centric offense. DAL is doing it right now, and so is SF. But they're more balanced in their passing game than TEN. They can get chunk plays through the air and move the ball more quickly, and more consistently, than TEN ever did with Tannehill.
Anyway, I think it can be done, but the QB is definitely a bigger piece of the puzzle than it was in the 90's.
Dallas can get away with it because Dak is above average and is capable of great games. He also has a very good WR in Lamb.
SF does have a running offense but it’s not your standard run offense. Deebo is a really good WR even if he’s misused. They also have CMC who, when healthy is a top 5 RB if you take his receiving skills into account. Kittle is the second best TE in football. As such their QB doesn’t have to be Top 10 to win.
Cleveland is a run first team with not one, but two Top 10 RBs and they still grabbed Watson and Cooper. Njoku is an underrated TE and Peoples-Jones is a better WR than anything Tenn has.
Tennessee is a hand it to Henry and play action pass offense. The play action scares no one because their receivers/TEs are not good. Tannehill can’t overcome that. Of all run heavy teams they are the worst at the skill positions. Very few QBs in the league could take those skill positions and still win. They are the elite of the league though and not very common. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tredadda:
While it does seem like a run first offense, don’t think the QBs you named would do much better besides running it. None of those QBs have shown yet that they can elevate those around them and that’s exactly what would be needed with those WRs. Give it a year or two and perhaps I might feel differently. Even in that offense you need to be able to elevate your WR play as handing it to Henry 30-40 times a game while doing designed QB runs is not sustainable.
Perhaps they could win the AFC South with those guys, but if that’s the goal then they are low. They don’t need to be the greatest show on turf, they just can’t be the 90s Chiefs as so many on here have pointed out.
Good points.
My point is, all of those guys are better pocket QBs than Tannehill (Murray being the possible exception). Most of them are probably better at reading defenses, throwing with anticipation or just have better arms than Tannehill. Trevor and Murray would be exceptions in the area of reading/throwing guys open (at least right now), but they both are much better runners and have better arms and are more accurate in general, which would likely make that offense more efficient.
And Tannehill was most effective when he was a real threat to run, like in 2019. His ability to escape and run for a first down was a big part of his game back then, and how they beat KC in the regular season in 2019, and it was a couple plays by both Sorenson and HB stuffing him when he tried to run that forced them to punt in the AFCCG.
One guy i forgot to put in there would be Kirk Cousins. Kirk might not be a great runner, but he can move a bit, certainly he can execute bootlegs, but he's a much better passer than Tannehill, and if you gave him that D and the running game, he'd win more games than Ryan. [Reply]
My point is, all of those guys are better pocket QBs than Tannehill (Murray being the possible exception). Most of them are probably better at reading defenses, throwing with anticipation or just have better arms than Tannehill. Trevor and Murray would be exceptions in the area of reading/throwing guys open (at least right now), but they both are much better runners and have better arms and are more accurate in general, which would likely make that offense more efficient.
And Tannehill was most effective when he was a real threat to run, like in 2019. His ability to escape and run for a first down was a big part of his game back then, and how they beat KC in the regular season in 2019, and it was a couple plays by both Sorenson and HB stuffing him when he tried to run that forced them to punt in the AFCCG.
One guy i forgot to put in there would be Kirk Cousins. Kirk might not be a great runner, but he can move a bit, certainly he can execute bootlegs, but he's a much better passer than Tannehill, and if you gave him that D and the running game, he'd win more games than Ryan.
I see what you mean now. I agree on Murray and Trevor. Not confident on Cousins, but I could be wrong on him. Geno has looked good this year. Now did he turn a corner or was this season an exception? He did have two really good WRs this year which he would not have had in Tennessee. Hurts made a huge leap this year. Was it a product of natural improvement, scheme, or his weapons on offense? I don’t know but he has a really good TE and excellent WRs.
I think we both agree that Tannehill is not very good, at least this year. It’s hard to respect his ability to run when there is little fear he will have someone to throw to. When they had AJ, teams had to account for him. Who do they have now that demands double coverage? [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
How is George Paton not on the hot seat list? I know it's the Broncos but objectively he was responsible for Hackett, he was responsible for Russelll Wilson, and now that there's brand new ownership willing to spend money, they have no reason to not just get rid of him. There's plenty of smoke about it too. In fact, the ownership group is doing all the coaching interviews and he's along for the ride. I think it's highly likely they seek an experienced head coach and will give him some say over personnel. Paton is as good as gone.
According to some Broncos fans on here (well maybe just one). Paton is a genius who turns everything he touches to gold. Ignore the record as it’s the product of “injuries” and nothing more. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tredadda:
I see what you mean now. I agree on Murray and Trevor. Not confident on Cousins, but I could be wrong on him. Geno has looked good this year. Now did he turn a corner or was this season an exception? He did have two really good WRs this year which he would not have had in Tennessee. Hurts made a huge leap this year. Was it a product of natural improvement, scheme, or his weapons on offense? I don’t know but he has a really good TE and excellent WRs.
I think we both agree that Tannehill is not very good, at least this year. It’s hard to respect his ability to run when there is little fear he will have someone to throw to. When they had AJ, teams had to account for him. Who do they have now that demands double coverage?
Yeah, I was starting to think we were just talking past each other.
I'm not confident that Murray is a better QB than Ryan at reading a defense presnap/postsnap, but he's a better athlete with a much better arm and of course he can run like a speedgoat, so even if he can't find the open guy, he's a huge threat to run for big chunks or even score. The combination of skills would make TEN more unpredictable and dangerous offensively, I think.
Trevor is more hesitant to run than Murray, but he can throw dots all over the field, except to deep right (this season anyway), which Tannehill just can't do with any consistency. And Trevor won't fold like Tannehill seems to.
Geno I think is a better pure QB than Ryan, imo. He can go through his progressions, he can read the defense better than Ryan, I think, and he still has some wheels, more than Tannehill at this point.
Hurts can run. He's got a good arm, and can be pretty accurate (I didn't see that last year, but this year he's dropped some dimes), and he can run. And he's more willing to give his receivers a shot to just make a play.
Cousins is just overall a better QB than Tannehill, imo. He's better at reading defenses, setting his protections, understanding where his checkdowns/hot routes are, going through his protections, and so forth. he's not good at improv, but neither is Tannehill. Cousins is more polished is what I'm getting at. he has more tools in his bag.
The problem with Cousins in the TEN offense is, as you've stated, TEN doesn't have very good receivers, so maybe Cousins would struggle as much as Tannehill has. But I think Cousins could be just that skosh more efficient that he'd get you a couple more Ws than Tannehill did.
This isn't in any particular order, btw. If I had to put them in order I'd probably go;
Hurts
Geno
Trevor
Cousins
Murray
And we're only talking about this season, with this offense/OC. Not about next season or down the road or whatever. Obviously that's a different convo. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tredadda:
According to some Broncos fans on here (well maybe just one). Paton is a genius who turns everything he touches to gold. Ignore the record as it’s the product of “injuries” and nothing more.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
How is George Paton not on the hot seat list? I know it's the Broncos but objectively he was responsible for Hackett, he was responsible for Russelll Wilson, and now that there's brand new ownership willing to spend money, they have no reason to not just get rid of him. There's plenty of smoke about it too. In fact, the ownership group is doing all the coaching interviews and he's along for the ride. I think it's highly likely they seek an experienced head coach and will give him some say over personnel. Paton is as good as gone.
George Paton is safe because he drafted Surtain. Takes a lot of scouting know-all to make such a gutsy selection. That pick earned him the Scott Pioli Medal of Freedom for courage and conviction in taking a highly touted defensive back in the top 10.
In other news, he also had a brilliant idea of saving a portion of his meal when at restaurants so he can put the rest of it in a to-go box and basically have a free lunch the next day. Yep. Came up with that idea all on his own. What ingenuity! [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Yeah, I was starting to think we were just talking past each other.
I'm not confident that Murray is a better QB than Ryan at reading a defense presnap/postsnap, but he's a better athlete with a much better arm and of course he can run like a speedgoat, so even if he can't find the open guy, he's a huge threat to run for big chunks or even score. The combination of skills would make TEN more unpredictable and dangerous offensively, I think.
Trevor is more hesitant to run than Murray, but he can throw dots all over the field, except to deep right (this season anyway), which Tannehill just can't do with any consistency. And Trevor won't fold like Tannehill seems to.
Geno I think is a better pure QB than Ryan, imo. He can go through his progressions, he can read the defense better than Ryan, I think, and he still has some wheels, more than Tannehill at this point.
Hurts can run. He's got a good arm, and can be pretty accurate (I didn't see that last year, but this year he's dropped some dimes), and he can run. And he's more willing to give his receivers a shot to just make a play.
Cousins is just overall a better QB than Tannehill, imo. He's better at reading defenses, setting his protections, understanding where his checkdowns/hot routes are, going through his protections, and so forth. he's not good at improv, but neither is Tannehill. Cousins is more polished is what I'm getting at. he has more tools in his bag.
The problem with Cousins in the TEN offense is, as you've stated, TEN doesn't have very good receivers, so maybe Cousins would struggle as much as Tannehill has. But I think Cousins could be just that skosh more efficient that he'd get you a couple more Ws than Tannehill did.
This isn't in any particular order, btw. If I had to put them in order I'd probably go;
Hurts
Geno
Trevor
Cousins
Murray
And we're only talking about this season, with this offense/OC. Not about next season or down the road or whatever. Obviously that's a different convo.
Great points there. No real disagreements. Question, how would Lamar fit in that offense? [Reply]
Originally Posted by tredadda:
Great points there. No real disagreements. Question, how would Lamar fit in that offense?
Hmm. Obviously just guessing . . .
I think he'd probably win more games, because he's just "that dude" when it comes to running with the ball. I don't know if he'd be any more efficient than Tannehill. He'd just make a lot more out of busted plays more often.
Lamar needs a go-to TE though; he pretty much has to have Andrews or a reasonable version of him, because he's not a great passing QB. I can't spell the name of the TEN TE, but just glancing at the stats, he'd have to get double the targets, his avg yds/cth would probably fall some, but his TD receptions would have to go up some. He might be a decent clone. Again, my opinion, so take that with a grain of salt.
But Lamar has always been a "between the numbers, throw to the TE" kind of QB, so giving him great WRs that run down the sidelines doesn't move the needle as much as it would for another more traditional QB. Or, it hasn't seemed to have the effect most of my BAL fan friends wanted, anyway.
Anyway, Lamar probably wouldn't throw for a significant increase in yards or completions over Ryan, but his running ability would've probably gotten them at least a couple more Ws this season.
But as a passer, I don't think Lamar is necessarily a lot better than Tannehill. He doesn't seem to have better arm strength, maybe better arm talent (can throw from different arm angles/platforms), I doubt Lamar reads defenses much better, if at all, both struggle to find the outlet when pressured/blitzed, and going through their progressions.
So, to me anyway, given a choice I'd take the better athlete, which is Lamar by a lot. [Reply]
After listening to the radio the other day, it is not a surprise it took this long. It sounds like management/coaches are methodical in their decisions.
It's a trend... HC's firing the coordinator on the opposite side of the HC's area of expertise.
Miami: McDaniel (Offense) firing his DC
Chargers: Staley (Defense) firing his OC and QB Coach
Cleveland: Stefanski (Offense) firing his DC
Washington: Rivera (Defense) firing his OC
Minnesota: O'Connell (Offense) firing his DC
NY Jets: Saleh (Defense) firing his OC
Tampa: Bowles (Defense) firing his OC
Baltimore: Harbaugh (Defense/Special Teams) "mutually parting ways" with his OC
Tennessee: Vrabel (Defense) firing his OC [Reply]
