"Another name some wondered about is John Pagano, Chuck’s younger brother, who is a senior defensive assistant working with outside linebackers for the Texans. Whether or not he’s available remains to be seen. John Pagano also has been a coordinator previously with the Raiders and Chargers."
Provide some examples of coaches who maintained top 10 ranked units without exceptional talent. I just don't buy it. There's example after example of coaches who couldn't win in one place go somewhere else and suddenly they're geniuses. I've said it a million times...talent makes geniuses of us all.
Where the **** did i say that! lol I think you are misunderstanding what i am saying...i'm saying some coaches can adjust to a loss of talent better within their scheme. That's it.
I must be then, because I'm not quite sure what else that would mean except for that the unit would continue to perform as usual. To me, what you're saying is that if a coach has a top ten unit he can keep that unit in the top ten or close to it despite the level of talent that coach has at his disposal.
Where the **** did i say that! lol I think you are misunderstanding what i am saying...i'm saying some coaches can adjust to a loss of talent better within their scheme. That's it.
I must be then, because I'm not quite sure what else that would mean except for that the unit would continue to perform as usual. To me, what you're saying is that if a coach has a top ten unit he can keep that unit in the top ten or close to it despite the level of talent that coach has at his disposal.
"Some have higher ceilings vs being reliable on talent for their scheme to work. Lovie is a great example of that. So is Martz."
That is my quote that started this slippery slope lol
Meaning coaches like Lovie and Martz can't adjust their scheme if talent is depleted in areas that the scheme favors/likes.
Martz for example, one thing absolutely needed for him is an O-line capable of consistently being able to handle the 7-step drops. If he doesn't have that, he doesn't change things up and alter his scheme to reduce the 7 step drops, he just goes full throttle regardless. Also see the Olsen loss. It wasn't because he was going to be expensive, it's because Martz didn't know what to do with him in his scheme since he wasn't that good at blocking.
Lovie was extremely predictable in his defenses, and had issues adjusting his scheme. Which is why i always knew if they played a team with a good QB we didn't have a chance if it came down to crunch time...and we saw it over, and over, and over again. His scheme has a dependent piece in the MLB. Whether it be 2009 without Urlacher, or 2004 without Urlacher, or 2002 in Stl after the loss of London Fletcher in the middle.
I must be then, because I'm not quite sure what else that would mean except for that the unit would continue to perform as usual. To me, what you're saying is that if a coach has a top ten unit he can keep that unit in the top ten or close to it despite the level of talent that coach has at his disposal.
"Some have higher ceilings vs being reliable on talent for their scheme to work. Lovie is a great example of that. So is Martz."
That is my quote that started this slippery slope lol
Meaning coaches like Lovie and Martz can't adjust their scheme if talent is depleted in areas that the scheme favors/likes.
Martz for example, one thing absolutely needed for him is an O-line capable of consistently being able to handle the 7-step drops. If he doesn't have that, he doesn't change things up and alter his scheme to reduce the 7 step drops, he just goes full throttle regardless. Also see the Olsen loss. It wasn't because he was going to be expensive, it's because Martz didn't know what to do with him in his scheme since he wasn't that good at blocking.
Lovie was extremely predictable in his defenses, and had issues adjusting his scheme. Which is why i always knew if they played a team with a good QB we didn't have a chance if it came down to crunch time...and we saw it over, and over, and over again. His scheme has a dependent piece in the MLB. Whether it be 2009 without Urlacher, or 2004 without Urlacher, or 2002 in Stl after the loss of London Fletcher in the middle.
Gotcha...and yes...I totally didn't get what you were saying. I am still interested in examples of coaches that can do this. The only example I can think of really is Belichick...who somehow couldn't do this in Cleveland. What I would say in terms of that is he's been blessed with Tom Brady, and has done a tremendous job of configuring a roster of guys who will do their jobs and are good at them, and he asks them to do just that.
you think his d was going to do anything with the money on the offensive side of the ball? Chuck is a great defensive coach that helped Ed Reed turn in a HOF career. i hope he can do the same for eddie jackson.
Reed was putting up solid numbers 6 years before Pagano got to Baltimore...i do agree that i hope he helps Jackson develop more..
that's all coaches can do seqq, get the players to play up to their talent level. coaches get too much credit for scheme, especially on the defensive side of the ball (because you have to be more reactive on D). Nagy did a lot of good play calling to make sure he put his players in favorable matchups, but the players need to capitalize or it doesn't matter.
Vic did a good job of making sure he didn't ask guy to do things they couldn't with two very different results in R Smith and L Floyd. Meanwhile, E Jackson made plays on the ball when the D called put him totally out of position.
With the S we have Fuller should be allowed to jump routes on most plays. that means over the top help. Vic didn't always set his CBs up properly. Leaving Fuller in a place to make tackles on RBs or TEs with no one behind him is a bad look. overall Vic was amazing, but you'll be pleasantly surprised with Chuck as he will have a much better read on how to use our DBs and pressure with them and LBs more effectively.
Bears possibly looking to hire Ted Monachino from Kansas State:
"Monachino is a longtime NFL coach, who served as the defensive coordinator for Chuck Pagano with the Colts in 2016-17, and the two also coached together in Baltimore, where Pagano served as defensive coordinator and Monachino coached the linebackers."
its crazy how Vic and Chuck have that much in common regarding who they coached under and how they learned to develop their systems from.
they are very similar in their systems and how players are used. add this with what butkus said on the first page regarding player talent with fang and younjave to think this might be the easiest transition dc to dc they could have hired.
just sounds like pagano wants to be more aggressive with pressure and Vic is more conservative.
this reminded me of something that was ratteling around in my head regarding the moves made on Def. Vic used Amos as an in the box run stopper a lot bc he had floyd to drop into coverage who was probably an improvement to said coverage. he was replaced by Dix who is going to be better in coverage. this well could be a hint that you'll see more floyd rushing bc haha will be better in coverage. skrine and callaghan are probably just difference in preference. Nagy talked highly before the game. but I think I remember hearing he is more aggressive which might be something Pagano wants also.