Waldron & Hurtt

[4XPIPS]

There has been much chatter about Pete as usual with a season like this. However, I would like to draw your thoughts on our coordinators this time. Just so we are all on the same page Pete does not call any plays during a game. He will influence play schemes and sometimes direct which personal groups he wants, but he does not actually call in the plays to the offense and defense. Unlike Shanahan or McVay who actually design their own schemes and take full control of the play calling throughout the game.

How would you grade each of our coordinators at this point?

Would you care if they were replaced?

[Aseahawkfan]

Pete runs the team. Pete is a defensive mastermind and maintains Belichick like control over both sides of the ball. Everyone thinks of Pete as this easy-going California guy who let's players do what they want. He isn't. Pete's a control freak head coach, just like every other great head coach. His coordinators are there to execute what he wants done no matter how they talk. So when this team is failing, it's because of Pete.

Anyone watching this team can see why: bad drafting for years which has left us bereft of young talent at key positions like LB, D-line, O-line, and safety. Pete's systems don't work without a strong middle from the D-line to the safeties. Since he hasn't been able to find replacements for his core Legion guys: Earl, Mebane, and Prime Wagner, the team has fallen off. Until he gets the LBs and D-line back up to par, I don't care who Pete hires: his systems don't work until he has a strong middle of the field. His corner system is based on bullying the opposing WRs to the middle of the field. We're weak in the middle right now on defense.

Offensively, we mainly just need a stud QB who can ball against great defensive teams. Geno is a decent bridge QB. But he ain't Mr. Ball Hard in the Fourth Quarter against Frisco. That's what we need.

[4XPIPS]

Pete runs the team. Pete is a defensive mastermind and maintains Belichick like control over both sides of the ball. Everyone thinks of Pete as this easy-going California guy who let's players do what they want. He isn't. Pete's a control freak head coach, just like every other great head coach. His coordinators are there to execute what he wants done no matter how they talk. So when this team is failing, it's because of Pete.

Anyone watching this team can see why: bad drafting for years which has left us bereft of young talent at key positions like LB, D-line, O-line, and safety. Pete's systems don't work without a strong middle from the D-line to the safeties. Since he hasn't been able to find replacements for his core Legion guys: Earl, Mebane, and Prime Wagner, the team has fallen off. Until he gets the LBs and D-line back up to par, I don't care who Pete hires: his systems don't work until he has a strong middle of the field. His corner system is based on bullying the opposing WRs to the middle of the field. We're weak in the middle right now on defense.

Offensively, we mainly just need a stud QB who can ball against great defensive teams. Geno is a decent bridge QB. But he ain't Mr. Ball Hard in the Fourth Quarter against Frisco. That's what we need.

Well I understand your position and thoughts on Pete, and I have to respectfully disagree with your statement

"Pete as this easy-going California guy who let's players do what they want. He isn't."

I do think he allows his players to voice their opinions on and off the field, and doesn't seem to care if they get bad penalties, or attack a reporter's wife online. Anyhow, this was more directed to what are your thoughts on Waldron and Hurtt. Regardless how much Pete is the head coach and the defacto GM of the team, it's still Clint and Shane calling plays during the game and having to adjust to game situations. As I mentioned Pete does not call actual plays.

[RiverDog]

This is just one play and it came with 5 minutes left in a game where we were trailing by 3 scores so it had almost no effect on the outcome, but it illustrates the flawed thinking of our OC:

After a failed 3rd-and-1 sneak with Geno Smith, the Seahawks lined up to go for it on 4th down instead of kick a field goal to make it 31-16. Genuinely sensible when you consider they need at least two touchdowns anyway.

Then the Seahawks lined up in shotgun formation.

Uh oh. Now in fairness, Seattle did this against the Washington Commanders and converted on a Zach Charbonnet run. The Commanders just fired their defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio because they have an awful defense, but that’s neither here nor there.

Again, the Seahawks handed it to Charbonnet. He lost two yards and Seattle never got the ball back.

Now why did that happen?

Maybe because Noah Fant was entrusted to take care of some ho-hum edge rusher named Nick Bosa.

We should also shoutout running this play not just to where Fant was blocking Bosa 1-on-1, but where Tyler Lockett had to deal with Deommodore Lenoir in a 1-on-1 situation, which is unfortunate because Lockett has been barely practicing due to a hamstring injury.

Fred Warner also easily shed his block and filled the gap, so this play was dead on arrival but at least Charbonnet had a chance with one tackler, as opposed to two of the NFL’s best defenders in his face.

So in summation:

Seahawks go shotgun, 11 personnel needing just 1 yard.

Put a tight end on Nick Bosa. Not just any tight end, but the one not known for his blocking.

Ran the ball on the side where the tight end is blocking Bosa and their smallest, least healthy receiver is blocking a slot corner.

By the way, that 4th down conversion with Charbonnet in the Commanders game? Fant was blocking a defensive back, not Nick freaking Bosa.

Absolutely zero feel for personnel and situation is shown on this play.

So how in the world did Waldron ever concoct this player grouping, especially when he had a tight end in Will Dissly and a wide receiver in Jake Bobo who are both very good blockers not even on the field?

[4XPIPS]

This is just one play and it came with 5 minutes left in a game where we were trailing by 3 scores so it had almost no effect on the outcome, but it illustrates the flawed thinking of our OC:

After a failed 3rd-and-1 sneak with Geno Smith, the Seahawks lined up to go for it on 4th down instead of kick a field goal to make it 31-16. Genuinely sensible when you consider they need at least two touchdowns anyway.

Then the Seahawks lined up in shotgun formation.

Uh oh. Now in fairness, Seattle did this against the Washington Commanders and converted on a Zach Charbonnet run. The Commanders just fired their defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio because they have an awful defense, but that’s neither here nor there.

Again, the Seahawks handed it to Charbonnet. He lost two yards and Seattle never got the ball back.

Now why did that happen?

Maybe because Noah Fant was entrusted to take care of some ho-hum edge rusher named Nick Bosa.

We should also shoutout running this play not just to where Fant was blocking Bosa 1-on-1, but where Tyler Lockett had to deal with Deommodore Lenoir in a 1-on-1 situation, which is unfortunate because Lockett has been barely practicing due to a hamstring injury.

Fred Warner also easily shed his block and filled the gap, so this play was dead on arrival but at least Charbonnet had a chance with one tackler, as opposed to two of the NFL’s best defenders in his face.

So in summation:

Seahawks go shotgun, 11 personnel needing just 1 yard.

Put a tight end on Nick Bosa. Not just any tight end, but the one not known for his blocking.

Ran the ball on the side where the tight end is blocking Bosa and their smallest, least healthy receiver is blocking a slot corner.

By the way, that 4th down conversion with Charbonnet in the Commanders game? Fant was blocking a defensive back, not Nick freaking Bosa.

Absolutely zero feel for personnel and situation is shown on this play.

So how in the world did Waldron ever concoct this player grouping, especially when he had a tight end in Will Dissly and a wide receiver in Jake Bobo who are both very good blockers not even on the field?

So there are a few things that go into that exact sequence, and I remember it quite well. First off Nick Bosa doesn't always line up in the same spot, so it requires an offense that needs to scheme around where he lines up, and a QB who can make line adjustments for maximum blocking. Peyton Manning was a god at this, and one of the reasons why he was allowed to call his own plays for the majority of his career. Well we all know Geno is know Peyton, but not sure if Geno is limited to how much he is allowed to change a play or make line adjustments, but this falls on the QB to make the correct blocking calls.

In the bigger picture, this does make Waldron look like he was out schemed because he clearly didn't make the right call or offer the correct blocking personnel group to help push for that one yard.

I do notice a difference from Brian Schottenheimer to Shane Waldron when it comes to play calling. Brian did have the luxury of Russell running the offense who could improvise off script, which is something Geno lacks, but Shane doesn't seem to utilize the players that offer match up problems. For instance when Dee Eskridge came back, it seems that Bobo's snaps have gone down, and since the start of the year he was in on almost every other snap, but since then he isn't used a whole lot except for a few sprinkles here or there. I was hoping that when Dee came back they would just leave him on the inactive list and utilize Bobo more, but again Shane and Pete raved how Dee had such a great off season and is ready to get into the mix.

[Aseahawkfan]

Well I understand your position and thoughts on Pete, and I have to respectfully disagree with your statement

"Pete as this easy-going California guy who let's players do what they want. He isn't."

I do think he allows his players to voice their opinions on and off the field, and doesn't seem to care if they get bad penalties, or attack a reporter's wife online. Anyhow, this was more directed to what are your thoughts on Waldron and Hurtt. Regardless how much Pete is the head coach and the defacto GM of the team, it's still Clint and Shane calling plays during the game and having to adjust to game situations. As I mentioned Pete does not call actual plays.

My thoughts on Waldron and Hurtt are they do what Pete wants them to do with maybe a few wrinkles.

OCs and DCs are only as good as their talent. So Quinn and Gus Bradley looked good because the talent was great and everyone after looked bad because the talent fell off.

Same thing on offense. Pete's offense is simple. It requires that you be better than the people across from you.

NFL is based on superior talent with coaching being secondary. That's why when Frisco has Deebo and Bosa, they operate at a high level. When they don't, they go on multi-game losing streaks.

Talent wins in the NFL. Talent is and always will be number 1. Then comes coaching. It doesn't matter what defense or offense you call when the other team has the better talent to stuff you or or blow through you.

[RiverDog]

This is just one play and it came with 5 minutes left in a game where we were trailing by 3 scores so it had almost no effect on the outcome, but it illustrates the flawed thinking of our OC:

After a failed 3rd-and-1 sneak with Geno Smith, the Seahawks lined up to go for it on 4th down instead of kick a field goal to make it 31-16. Genuinely sensible when you consider they need at least two touchdowns anyway.

Then the Seahawks lined up in shotgun formation.

Uh oh. Now in fairness, Seattle did this against the Washington Commanders and converted on a Zach Charbonnet run. The Commanders just fired their defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio because they have an awful defense, but that’s neither here nor there.

Again, the Seahawks handed it to Charbonnet. He lost two yards and Seattle never got the ball back.

Now why did that happen?

Maybe because Noah Fant was entrusted to take care of some ho-hum edge rusher named Nick Bosa.

We should also shoutout running this play not just to where Fant was blocking Bosa 1-on-1, but where Tyler Lockett had to deal with Deommodore Lenoir in a 1-on-1 situation, which is unfortunate because Lockett has been barely practicing due to a hamstring injury.

Fred Warner also easily shed his block and filled the gap, so this play was dead on arrival but at least Charbonnet had a chance with one tackler, as opposed to two of the NFL’s best defenders in his face.

So in summation:

Seahawks go shotgun, 11 personnel needing just 1 yard.

Put a tight end on Nick Bosa. Not just any tight end, but the one not known for his blocking.

Ran the ball on the side where the tight end is blocking Bosa and their smallest, least healthy receiver is blocking a slot corner.

By the way, that 4th down conversion with Charbonnet in the Commanders game? Fant was blocking a defensive back, not Nick freaking Bosa.

Absolutely zero feel for personnel and situation is shown on this play.

So how in the world did Waldron ever concoct this player grouping, especially when he had a tight end in Will Dissly and a wide receiver in Jake Bobo who are both very good blockers not even on the field?

So there are a few things that go into that exact sequence, and I remember it quite well. First off Nick Bosa doesn't always line up in the same spot, so it requires an offense that needs to scheme around where he lines up, and a QB who can make line adjustments for maximum blocking. Peyton Manning was a god at this, and one of the reasons why he was allowed to call his own plays for the majority of his career. Well we all know Geno is know Peyton, but not sure if Geno is limited to how much he is allowed to change a play or make line adjustments, but this falls on the QB to make the correct blocking calls.

In the bigger picture, this does make Waldron look like he was out schemed because he clearly didn't make the right call or offer the correct blocking personnel group to help push for that one yard.

I do notice a difference from Brian Schottenheimer to Shane Waldron when it comes to play calling. Brian did have the luxury of Russell running the offense who could improvise off script, which is something Geno lacks, but Shane doesn't seem to utilize the players that offer match up problems. For instance when Dee Eskridge came back, it seems that Bobo's snaps have gone down, and since the start of the year he was in on almost every other snap, but since then he isn't used a whole lot except for a few sprinkles here or there. I was hoping that when Dee came back they would just leave him on the inactive list and utilize Bobo more, but again Shane and Pete raved how Dee had such a great off season and is ready to get into the mix.

You make some really good points. However, why would you want Fant vs. Dissly and Lockett vs. Bobo on the field on a 4th and 1 with everything on the line? It's not so much the play call as it was a personnel decision as to who to have on the field in a short yardage situation.

[NorthHawk]

Pete controls every bit of this team and it plays a style and scheme that fits him and nobody else.
If they decide to go to a 3-4 Defense, it's because Pete wants to try it. If he goes back to what he was most successful with it's because Pete wants it.

On Offense we see flashes or games of a modern day Offense. What seems to be the pattern is if the Defense can limit the opposition, we go to the mundane Peteball Offense of the Bevell/Schottenheimer years but if we go against a good offensive team that we can't stop then we go to a modern day creative Offense that uses most of the field. We saw just that against Dallas when we used a lot more crossing patterns, motion, and different personnel in the backfield. We saw the opposite against other teams that aren't as prolific as Dallas in previous games. Pete tries to create a low scoring defensive battle but if we're over matched then he allows the Offense to use its weaponry in a proper manner instead of handcuffing them.
Greg Olson commented about his time here and he was surprised in meeting when discussion was shut down about using new plays against teams because that's not how we do things here. That's Peteball. Conservative, boring, and not taking advantage of the rule changes that give the Offense so much more of an advantage than 30 to 40 years ago like Pete wants to play. It's a mystery to me why he would sign Waldron and then force him to play a scheme he's not trained for.

[Uppercut]

If Pete was a phone in todays world he would be a Bag Phone

[RiverDog]

Pete controls every bit of this team and it plays a style and scheme that fits him and nobody else.
If they decide to go to a 3-4 Defense, it's because Pete wants to try it. If he goes back to what he was most successful with it's because Pete wants it.

On Offense we see flashes or games of a modern day Offense. What seems to be the pattern is if the Defense can limit the opposition, we go to the mundane Peteball Offense of the Bevell/Schottenheimer years but if we go against a good offensive team that we can't stop then we go to a modern day creative Offense that uses most of the field. We saw just that against Dallas when we used a lot more crossing patterns, motion, and different personnel in the backfield. We saw the opposite against other teams that aren't as prolific as Dallas in previous games. Pete tries to create a low scoring defensive battle but if we're over matched then he allows the Offense to use its weaponry in a proper manner instead of handcuffing them.
Greg Olson commented about his time here and he was surprised in meeting when discussion was shut down about using new plays against teams because that's not how we do things here. That's Peteball. Conservative, boring, and not taking advantage of the rule changes that give the Offense so much more of an advantage than 30 to 40 years ago like Pete wants to play. It's a mystery to me why he would sign Waldron and then force him to play a scheme he's not trained for.

I don't think we can blame "Pete Ball" for the situation I described above. IMO it's highly unlikely that Pete had anything to do with the personnel groupings used in that play. That one is all on Waldron. And if Waldron blew it on that play, I wonder how many other plays we've had with inappropriate personnel?

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't think we can blame "Pete Ball" for the situation I described above. IMO it's highly unlikely that Pete had anything to do with the personnel groupings used in that play. That one is all on Waldron. And if Waldron blew it on that play, I wonder how many other plays we've had with inappropriate personnel?

We are losing because the defense is garbage. The offense has had some bad days, but primarily this comes down to a bad defense that cannot compete against quality teams. When you have a head coach who builds his entire team philosophy on both sides of the ball based on a strong defense able to keep scores low, grind the clock while getting a lead and continuing to take the ball away, it won't work unless you have a good defense. We don't. Pete's team philosophy doesn't work unless he gets the defense rebuilt which he has failed to do for going on a decade.

[4XPIPS]

NFL is based on superior talent with coaching being secondary. .

Again I have to disagree, I do believe talent has a lot do with helping a coordinator run their scheme, but there are NFL players labeled as "system type" players, which means they fit well in a scheme, but are not superior talent. I have to think that talent and coaching are a balanced circle, but I do believe coaching is needed more. So based on your theory superior talent supersedes the need for excellent coaching, if I am understanding you correctly? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but explain how Kyle Shanahan, who is an offensive wizard, maximized Matt Ryan and made a Superbowl run as an OC, but once he left the exact same talent left behind could not live up to it.

2016 Atlanta Falcons 11-5
Went to the Superbowl
Matt Ryan MVP Year
OC Kyle Shanahan

2017 Atlanta Falcons 10-6
Playoff Division Round Loss
OC Steve Sarkisian

2018 Atlanta Falcons 7-9
OC Steve Sarkisian

2019 49ers
HC Kyle Shanahan
Superbowl Loss

I do think great coaching and scheming will always beats out the for superior talent. Yes superior talent is a plus, but we have scene so many "superior talented players" play on losing teams. I think we have talented players on the Hawk's roster, but aren't being schemed enough to be an effective group. If we had Mike McDaniel here as a HC, I would bet my house that we would be a top 5 Offense in the league.

[RiverDog]

I do think great coaching and scheming will always beats out the for superior talent. Yes superior talent is a plus, but we have scene so many "superior talented players" play on losing teams. I think we have talented players on the Hawk's roster, but aren't being schemed enough to be an effective group. If we had Mike McDaniel here as a HC, I would bet my house that we would be a top 5 Offense in the league.

McDaniel has some pretty damn good offensive talent, at least if you have any kind of respect for PFF's rankings.

Their center, Conner Williams, is the #1 ranked center in the league. Robert Hunt, a guard, is ranked #5. Tyreek Hill is the #1 ranked WR, and his opposite, Jalen Waddle, is ranked 7th. Raheem Mostert is the #3 ranked running back. Tua is the #3 ranked quarterback. That's one helluva lot of talent.

Compare that to our offense where we don't have a single offensive player ranked in the top 10, especially up the middle at center, guard, quarterback, and running back. I doubt seriously that good scheming can overcome that kind of disparity in talent.

[Aseahawkfan]

Again I have to disagree, I do believe talent has a lot do with helping a coordinator run their scheme, but there are NFL players labeled as "system type" players, which means they fit well in a scheme, but are not superior talent. I have to think that talent and coaching are a balanced circle, but I do believe coaching is needed more. So based on your theory superior talent supersedes the need for excellent coaching, if I am understanding you correctly? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but explain how Kyle Shanahan, who is an offensive wizard, maximized Matt Ryan and made a Superbowl run as an OC, but once he left the exact same talent left behind could not live up to it.

2016 Atlanta Falcons 11-5
Went to the Superbowl
Matt Ryan MVP Year
OC Kyle Shanahan

2017 Atlanta Falcons 10-6
Playoff Division Round Loss
OC Steve Sarkisian

2018 Atlanta Falcons 7-9
OC Steve Sarkisian

2019 49ers
HC Kyle Shanahan
Superbowl Loss

I do think great coaching and scheming will always beats out the for superior talent. Yes superior talent is a plus, but we have scene so many "superior talented players" play on losing teams. I think we have talented players on the Hawk's roster, but aren't being schemed enough to be an effective group. If we had Mike McDaniel here as a HC, I would bet my house that we would be a top 5 Offense in the league.

I don't agree at all.

Both Super Bowl teams made it due to superior talent, not coaching. When teams lose talent, they fall off like Atlanta did. Using Kyle Shanahan as an example while ignoring all his down years while Frisco built up talent, ignores how long it took Frisco to become Frisco. Years of building up talent. Same with Atlanta who had years of built up talent.

The order of winning is:
1. Talent.
2. Coaching
3. Health/Conditioning
4. Luck

You can toss some other things in there, but the number one reason for an NFL team's success is superior talent. It has always been this way and always will be. If you have some player or players with a superior talent you can build around, then you can win.

But talent is and always will be number one. You gotta have your great players at certain positions to get it done.

Going by your idea, Pete won a Super Bowl almost 10 years ago, so it's coaching in your thesis. Maybe you can explain while every great team in NFL history even with the same Super Bowl winning coaches seems to fall off. Same coaches, same great coaching, seems there is a factor that changes making even great coaching no longer work. What might that factor be?

[4XPIPS]

McDaniel has some pretty damn good offensive talent, at least if you have any kind of respect for PFF's rankings.

Their center, Conner Williams, is the #1 ranked center in the league. Robert Hunt, a guard, is ranked #5. Tyreek Hill is the #1 ranked WR, and his opposite, Jalen Waddle, is ranked 7th. Raheem Mostert is the #3 ranked running back. Tua is the #3 ranked quarterback. That's one helluva lot of talent.

Compare that to our offense where we don't have a single offensive player ranked in the top 10, especially up the middle at center, guard, quarterback, and running back. I doubt seriously that good scheming can overcome that kind of disparity in talent.

I tend to lean on the side of excellent scheming and game planning and watching game film from coaches that translates to players having a successful PFF grade. Tua was was drafted in 2020, and his first two seasons he looked average and some even thought the Dolphins would move on from him, he obvious got injured quite a bit. However, when Mike McDaniel came in there was an immediate improvement from the run game and the passing game, and yes Tyreek Hill was a huge addition, but they gave up the farm for him. Talent is reflective on production, and sometime players are not utilized correctly and will suffer a low PFF grade.

Look at Hassan Reddick, when he was drafted by the Cardinals they did not use him correctly, and they didn't pick up his team option and let him walk in FA. The 4 seasons with the Cards he totaled 20 sacks. So he left and went to a team that utilized them to fit their scheme, Panthers and now Eagles. Next two seasons he had 27 sacks and name 2022 he was 2nd team All Pro. This season he has 9.5 sacks. I am willing to bet his PFF grade is much higher than his first 4 years of with the Cardinals, he was 2020 year with the Cardinals was his best.

I don't doubt PFF grade isn't important, but I don't take stock that is 100% talent driven.

[4XPIPS]

I don't agree at all.

Both Super Bowl teams made it due to superior talent, not coaching. When teams lose talent, they fall off like Atlanta did. Using Kyle Shanahan as an example while ignoring all his down years while Frisco built up talent, ignores how long it took Frisco to become Frisco. Years of building up talent. Same with Atlanta who had years of built up talent.

The order of winning is:
1. Talent.
2. Coaching
3. Health/Conditioning
4. Luck

You can toss some other things in there, but the number one reason for an NFL team's success is superior talent. It has always been this way and always will be. If you have some player or players with a superior talent you can build around, then you can win.

But talent is and always will be number one. You gotta have your great players at certain positions to get it done.

Going by your idea, Pete won a Super Bowl almost 10 years ago, so it's coaching in your thesis. Maybe you can explain while every great team in NFL history even with the same Super Bowl winning coaches seems to fall off. Same coaches, same great coaching, seems there is a factor that changes making even great coaching no longer work. What might that factor be?

So you are saying Matt Ryan would have had a MVP year without Kyle Shanahan? Kyle walked into a crumbled down 49ers squad, and had to build the team up with the players that fit his scheme. Do you think Brock Purdy is so talented he can be plugged into any team and just have automatic success? I doubt it.

Why do most Superbowl Coaches not repeat, well it comes down to the money, once you start shelling out massive contracts to certain players it's hard to address needs on your team. Joe Flacco got way overpaid after his Superbowl win, and he wasn't a top 5 QB in the league.

We won that Superbowl because during that time we can rough the WRs and TEs up at the line, and our defensive scheme was predicated on how much the LOB can control the passing game. Plug Kam Chancellor in today, and he would be fined so much and ejected for his hard hits that it wouldn't be allowed today. The League adjusted to a safer game, CTE hadn't been a hot topic till shortly after the Hawk's Superbowl's, the movie Concussion didn't come out till 2015 and the league had to react to all the medical date regarding head trauma. Hence why the league is now trying to tone down any big hit.

I don't disagree at all talent helps and it is vital to have talented, but I just think scheming and game planning is more important.

[Aseahawkfan]

So you are saying Matt Ryan would have had a MVP year without Kyle Shanahan? Kyle walked into a crumbled down 49ers squad, and had to build the team up with the players that fit his scheme. Do you think Brock Purdy is so talented he can be plugged into any team and just have automatic success? I doubt it.

Why do most Superbowl Coaches not repeat, well it comes down to the money, once you start shelling out massive contracts to certain players it's hard to address needs on your team. Joe Flacco got way overpaid after his Superbowl win, and he wasn't a top 5 QB in the league.

We won that Superbowl because during that time we can rough the WRs and TEs up at the line, and our defensive scheme was predicated on how much the LOB can control the passing game. Plug Kam Chancellor in today, and he would be fined so much and ejected for his hard hits that it wouldn't be allowed today. The League adjusted to a safer game, CTE hadn't been a hot topic till shortly after the Hawk's Superbowl's, the movie Concussion didn't come out till 2015 and the league had to react to all the medical date regarding head trauma. Hence why the league is now trying to tone down any big hit.

I don't disagree at all talent helps and it is vital to have talented, but I just think scheming and game planning is more important.

No. Talent is clearly number one by a good measure. You illustrated another reason talent is number one. Once you have to start to pay talent and lose it to the salary cap, the talent falls off. You end up losing more.

I'm sorry to be hard on this. But this team is currently an example of bad roster management. Bad trades, lack of wins at the D-line, lack of replenishing the LBs, and overall bad roster management. If you don't win at roster management in the NFL, it's real, real hard to win the Super Bowl or compete. Great coaching is big ingredient to success, but great coaches need talent to make their schemes shine.

Matt Ryan has been in he MVP race before Shanahan. Do I think he would have won without Shanahan? Not sure. Do I think he was a good QB before Shanahan, yes.

Let's look at the NFL as a whole rather over the years:

Head Coaches:

1. Bill Belichick: Super Bowl rings with Brady as head coach. 6. Without Brady, 0. Bill B who was he GM as well always stacked his teams with tons of talent. Bill B and every head coach knows you win by winning the draft first.

2. Bruce Arians: Brady as QB, 1 Super Bowl win. Without Brady, nothing.

3. Pete Carroll Super Bowl wins with the Legion of Boom. 1. 2 trips. Without the Legion of Boom, can't get past the divisional round.

4. Mike Holgrem: Super Bowls with Brett Favre and Reggie White and that talented Green Bay team, 1 win. 2 trips.

5. Bill Parcells: Super Bowls with Lawrence Taylor that amazing Giants team. 2 rings. 0 rings wtihout them.

6. Jimmy Johnson with the Big 3 in Dallas. 2 Super Bowl rings. 0 without.

7. Barry Switzer with that same talented Dallas team: 1 Super Bowl. Nothing wtihout them.

8. Bill Walsh with Montana that amazing 49ers team: 3 rings.

9. George Seifert with that same Super Bowl team wtih Montana for 1 and Steve Young for the other: 2 rings.

10. Eagles 2017: Won Super Bowl with Doug Pedersen as head coach.

11. Eagles 2022 lost Super Bowl and competing this year with Sirianni as head coach.

You can also have the same coaches for years like John Harbaugh, Mike Shanahan, Don Shula, Tom Landry, Chuck Knoll, and the list can go on, but if they don't ever rebuild the talent, they won't win the Super Bowl again.

That's why Pete's having problems. Stacking all the talent he had during those early years again is proving far more difficult than he thought.

Even your guy Kyle Shanahan loses Deebo Samuel, his offense short circuits. Deebo makes that offense work even more than McCaffrey. You can bet your ass that if Nick Bosa goes down, Frisco's defense will be far, far easier to score on and it won't matter how well Shanahan or his D-coordinator schemes.

Coaching is second. Good scheming or planning does not beat flat out better talent. You get some freaks, surround them with quality talent, and build a complete team with adequate coaching, you'll give yourself the best chance to win.

Nothing will beat stacking a team with top flight talent. San Francisco had been stacking top draft picks for years.

I'm not saying you don't need good coaching. I'm saying that the most important factor for winning is great talent. You can be the greatest coach to ever live and if you don't have great talent to compete, you're going to lose.

If the head coach or coaching was number one for winning, you'd just switch the head coach and win the Super Bowl. It's super rare for a head coach or any coach to move around and win Super Bowls. But talented players move around and win quite often. It is exceptionally hard to assemble great talent on a single team.

[4XPIPS]

No. Talent is clearly number one by a good measure. You illustrated another reason talent is number one. Once you have to start to pay talent and lose it to the salary cap, the talent falls off. You end up losing more.

I'm sorry to be hard on this. But this team is currently an example of bad roster management. Bad trades, lack of wins at the D-line, lack of replenishing the LBs, and overall bad roster management. If you don't win at roster management in the NFL, it's real, real hard to win the Super Bowl or compete. Great coaching is big ingredient to success, but great coaches need talent to make their schemes shine.

Matt Ryan has been in he MVP race before Shanahan. Do I think he would have won without Shanahan? Not sure. Do I think he was a good QB before Shanahan, yes.

Let's look at the NFL as a whole rather over the years:

Head Coaches:

1. Bill Belichick: Super Bowl rings with Brady as head coach. 6. Without Brady, 0. Bill B who was he GM as well always stacked his teams with tons of talent. Bill B and every head coach knows you win by winning the draft first.

2. Bruce Arians: Brady as QB, 1 Super Bowl win. Without Brady, nothing.

3. Pete Carroll Super Bowl wins with the Legion of Boom. 1. 2 trips. Without the Legion of Boom, can't get past the divisional round.

4. Mike Holgrem: Super Bowls with Brett Favre and Reggie White and that talented Green Bay team, 1 win. 2 trips.

5. Bill Parcells: Super Bowls with Lawrence Taylor that amazing Giants team. 2 rings. 0 rings wtihout them.

6. Jimmy Johnson with the Big 3 in Dallas. 2 Super Bowl rings. 0 without.

7. Barry Switzer with that same talented Dallas team: 1 Super Bowl. Nothing wtihout them.

8. Bill Walsh with Montana that amazing 49ers team: 3 rings.

9. George Seifert with that same Super Bowl team wtih Montana for 1 and Steve Young for the other: 2 rings.

10. Eagles 2017: Won Super Bowl with Doug Pedersen as head coach.

11. Eagles 2022 lost Super Bowl and competing this year with Sirianni as head coach.

You can also have the same coaches for years like John Harbaugh, Mike Shanahan, Don Shula, Tom Landry, Chuck Knoll, and the list can go on, but if they don't ever rebuild the talent, they won't win the Super Bowl again.

That's why Pete's having problems. Stacking all the talent he had during those early years again is proving far more difficult than he thought.

Even your guy Kyle Shanahan loses Deebo Samuel, his offense short circuits. Deebo makes that offense work even more than McCaffrey. You can bet your ass that if Nick Bosa goes down, Frisco's defense will be far, far easier to score on and it won't matter how well Shanahan or his D-coordinator schemes.

Coaching is second. Good scheming or planning does not beat flat out better talent. You get some freaks, surround them with quality talent, and build a complete team with adequate coaching, you'll give yourself the best chance to win.

Nothing will beat stacking a team with top flight talent. San Francisco had been stacking top draft picks for years.

I'm not saying you don't need good coaching. I'm saying that the most important factor for winning is great talent. You can be the greatest coach to ever live and if you don't have great talent to compete, you're going to lose.

If the head coach or coaching was number one for winning, you'd just switch the head coach and win the Super Bowl. It's super rare for a head coach or any coach to move around and win Super Bowls. But talented players move around and win quite often. It is exceptionally hard to assemble great talent on a single team.

First off you don't ever need to apologize to me for making your point, I respect everyone's POV regardless how much I disagree with it

Second Kyle isn't my guy by any means I am just saying his scheming can seriously exemplify a player's talent. Again, I am not saying talent isn't important and not needed, but if a player isn't in the right scheme or game planned accordingly that you are evidently wasting talent.

Let me ask you this, and I hate to use the 49ers, but where do you rank Brock Purdy amongst his peers? Would you say he is the most talented QB in the league at this point?
He is number 1 in QBR and passer rating, leading both categories.

As for the Hawks, I think we have a talented group of TEs, with each having their own strengths in the passing and blocking game. However, with our OC I believe we are wasting their talent at this time.

[Aseahawkfan]

First off you don't ever need to apologize to me for making your point, I respect everyone's POV regardless how much I disagree with it

Second Kyle isn't my guy by any means I am just saying his scheming can seriously exemplify a player's talent. Again, I am not saying talent isn't important and not needed, but if a player isn't in the right scheme or game planned accordingly that you are evidently wasting talent.

Let me ask you this, and I hate to use the 49ers, but where do you rank Brock Purdy amongst his peers? Would you say he is the most talented QB in the league at this point?
He is number 1 in QBR and passer rating, leading both categories.

As for the Hawks, I think we have a talented group of TEs, with each having their own strengths in the passing and blocking game. However, with our OC I believe we are wasting their talent at this time.

I don't know how to rate Purdy. For all I know this dude is the next Montana or Brady in the making or a Rich Gannon or Brad Smith. Some guy on a great team surrounded by immense talent able to do enough to make the talent work.

When I look at Frisco, that team lives or dies on two players that make everything else work: Deebo on offense and Bosa on defense. Deebo is some kind true Swiss Army Knife player that can truly play receiver and RB at a high level. He opens up all types of offensive scheming that Shanahan cannot do when Deebo is not on the field. Opponents have to spend so much energy mental and physical to track and stop Deebo, that when Deebo is on the field he creates far more one on one opportunities for other players.

Bosa is so hard to block and disruptive, that when he is on defense other guys get more opportunities against weaker opposition. When you gotta spend 2 or 3 guys to block Bosa and Bosa is still breathing down your neck, then Player 2 and 3 who are pretty good are only going against one guy and they can get to the QB.

This is how I see talent working. Coaches have schemes. Pete has a scheme he wants run on both sides of the ball. His scheme can work when he has Marshawn smashing into defenses and Russell being a true double threat QB opening up all types of offensive scheming that isn't normally available with other QBs or weaker talent.

When we had the Legion of Boom, you had Sherm shutting down one side, then Earl supporting the other side, with Kam and Wagner handling TEs and the middle. Very few offenses can handle that that type of defensive talent bringing the hammer.

Schemes are only as good as the talent executing them. If you don't have enough talent to make the scheme work and shine against the opponent, then you will lose.

So far Purdy has been good enough getting the ball to Deebo and Kittles and such to make that offense go. But Deebo is the real freak player that opens that offense up and makes life easy for Shanahan. Deebo is what peopled wanted from Percy Harvin.

[RiverDog]

I don't know how to rate Purdy. For all I know this dude is the next Montana or Brady in the making or a Rich Gannon or Brad Smith. Some guy on a great team surrounded by immense talent able to do enough to make the talent work.

When I look at Frisco, that team lives or dies on two players that make everything else work: Deebo on offense and Bosa on defense. Deebo is some kind true Swiss Army Knife player that can truly play receiver and RB at a high level. He opens up all types of offensive scheming that Shanahan cannot do when Deebo is not on the field. Opponents have to spend so much energy mental and physical to track and stop Deebo, that when Deebo is on the field he creates far more one on one opportunities for other players.

Bosa is so hard to block and disruptive, that when he is on defense other guys get more opportunities against weaker opposition. When you gotta spend 2 or 3 guys to block Bosa and Bosa is still breathing down your neck, then Player 2 and 3 who are pretty good are only going against one guy and they can get to the QB.

Certainly Bosa and Deebo are two critical components to the Niners, but they have A LOT more talent than those two.

Just looking at the PFF player grades/rankings, George Kittle is the #1 ranked tight end, Christian McCaffery is the #1 ranked running back, Brandon Aiyuk is the #2 ranked wide receiver, Trent Williams the #5 ranked offensive tackle.

On defense, Fred Warner is the #1 ranked linebacker while Javon Hargrave is ranked 13th, Erik Armstead is the #10 ranked defensive tackle, their two corners, Thomas and Ward, are ranked 12th and 13th amongst 119 ranked cornerbacks. And now, they've added Chase Young to play opposite to Bosa.

The Niners have the deepest talent of any team in the league. It's way more than a two man show. IMO they could afford to lose Bosa or Deebo and still beat 90% of the teams in the league. Heck, they just got through demolishing the team with the best record in the league in their house.

[NorthHawk]

I don't think we can blame "Pete Ball" for the situation I described above. IMO it's highly unlikely that Pete had anything to do with the personnel groupings used in that play. That one is all on Waldron. And if Waldron blew it on that play, I wonder how many other plays we've had with inappropriate personnel?

It may have been a big mistake by Waldron, but Pete creates the structure that influences how and what plays are called. It is two competing views of how an Offense should be run and can create mistakes by not being on the same page including personnel groupings and play selections.

[mykc14]

This is just one play and it came with 5 minutes left in a game where we were trailing by 3 scores so it had almost no effect on the outcome, but it illustrates the flawed thinking of our OC:



Absolutely zero feel for personnel and situation is shown on this play.[/i]

So how in the world did Waldron ever concoct this player grouping, especially when he had a tight end in Will Dissly and a wide receiver in Jake Bobo who are both very good blockers not even on the field?

I agree with this completely. At every level you tell your guys you have to account for different players and certainly Fred Warner and Nick Bosa are two of those players. Even at the HS level I will tell kids we have to account for #75. If our worst blocker is on him we either have to make a line-call to adjust our blocking to account for him or the QB has to call an audible... it's pretty simple. Time and Time again the Hawks are in unfavorable match-ups. The will have a RB or TE lined up, presumable to chip the other teams best pass-rusher (like Nick Bosa) and then Nick Bosa will line up on the other side during that play and the RB or TE is chipping somebody less dangerous than Bosa and Bosa is left one-on-one. It's usually a simple adjustment just send the TE/RB to the other side.

Another issue is play-calling and game management are bad. We should run WAY more than we have been. A perfect example of this was against the Cowboys last week. I was begging them to run the ball on 3rd and 2 from the 50. The matchup is in your favor. The Cowboys had 7 F-ing DBS field!!!!!!!!!!! It's an easy first down and probably a big gain. Honestly it was simple football. I was screaming Run the ball at the TV, but instead they throw a 2 yard crossing route. The incomplete pass lets the Cowboys reset their defense and then we have one of the stupidest plays I have ever seen in my life set up on 4th down. It's stupid because you are leaving the best pass-rusher in the league (based on hurries) unblocked and then you are hoping the Cowboys don't cover the RB. It's a long developing play because you are leaving a stud DE unblocked... You gave yourself one option on a pass on 4th and 2 and if anything goes wrong with that option, which it did, then you have no chance and that guy you are counting on is DJ Dallas (which speaks to the point about having feel for personnel) but in my mind the real issue was what you did on 3rd down.

[mykc14]

We are losing because the defense is garbage. The offense has had some bad days, but primarily this comes down to a bad defense that cannot compete against quality teams. When you have a head coach who builds his entire team philosophy on both sides of the ball based on a strong defense able to keep scores low, grind the clock while getting a lead and continuing to take the ball away, it won't work unless you have a good defense. We don't. Pete's team philosophy doesn't work unless he gets the defense rebuilt which he has failed to do for going on a decade.

I agree with parts of this. Our defense isn't very good, I agree. I also agree that Pete-ball is centered on having a strong defense that limits big plays and holds teams to FG's rather than TDs. It focuses on turnover margin, field position, and time of possession. On the other hand I do think that our offense needs to share some of that blame. We have talent on offense and we should be much better than we are. We have long scoring droughts, way too many 3 and outs, and are terrible on 3rd down. With our offensive talent that shouldn't be an issue and it has been.

[Aseahawkfan]

Certainly Bosa and Deebo are two critical components to the Niners, but they have A LOT more talent than those two.

Just looking at the PFF player grades/rankings, George Kittle is the #1 ranked tight end, Christian McCaffery is the #1 ranked running back, Brandon Aiyuk is the #2 ranked wide receiver, Trent Williams the #5 ranked offensive tackle.

On defense, Fred Warner is the #1 ranked linebacker while Javon Hargrave is ranked 13th, Erik Armstead is the #10 ranked defensive tackle, their two corners, Thomas and Ward, are ranked 12th and 13th amongst 119 ranked cornerbacks. And now, they've added Chase Young to play opposite to Bosa.

The Niners have the deepest talent of any team in the league. It's way more than a two man show. IMO they could afford to lose Bosa or Deebo and still beat 90% of the teams in the league. Heck, they just got through demolishing the team with the best record in the league in their house.

I didn't say it was a 2 man show. But it two players that make the 49ers perform at a super high level because it allows the other talent to exploit weaker matchups. When Deebo is on the field, McCaffrey and Kittles aren't going against the opponents best defensive players because Deebo absorbs those resources.

It's the same with Bosa. The blocking resources a team has to spend on Bosa don't get to Warner or their other pass guys.

That's why talent is so important. Talent executes the schemes and goes against the opposition taking up their defensive and offensive resources. The more of a talent gap you have between teams, the easier or harder it is to beat them.

The most obvious examples of this phenomenon is when a Pro Bowl QB goes down and a team goes from contending to done. Most teams do not have sufficient talent to absorb the loss of a Pro Bowl QB no matter how good the coaching is.

You also see this in games like our second Super Bowl. Cliff Avril went down and our defense went from Brady being able to do nothing even when we lost a key CB to shredding us with New England moving the resources to block Avril to blocking Bennett and ripping up that CB that played for the CB we lost.

That's why scheme and coaching is secondary to talent. You lose certain key players and suddenly you can't execute your schemes as well. Deebo is one of the dominoes that let's Frisco do the crazy stuff they do on offense and Bosa is the guy that absorbs the opponents blocking resources creating more one on one matchups for other guys. Either one goes down and Frisco becomes mortal.

Trent Williams also is pretty important some surmise. If he goes down, Purdy can be pressured and crushed. I still think Deebo is more important than Williams because of how Shanahan schemes. All those end arounds, screens, and funky little clusters and motion plays he uses Deebo for that are hard to defend are not possible without Deebo.

[RiverDog]

Certainly Bosa and Deebo are two critical components to the Niners, but they have A LOT more talent than those two.

Just looking at the PFF player grades/rankings, George Kittle is the #1 ranked tight end, Christian McCaffery is the #1 ranked running back, Brandon Aiyuk is the #2 ranked wide receiver, Trent Williams the #5 ranked offensive tackle.

On defense, Fred Warner is the #1 ranked linebacker while Javon Hargrave is ranked 13th, Erik Armstead is the #10 ranked defensive tackle, their two corners, Thomas and Ward, are ranked 12th and 13th amongst 119 ranked cornerbacks. And now, they've added Chase Young to play opposite to Bosa.

The Niners have the deepest talent of any team in the league. It's way more than a two man show. IMO they could afford to lose Bosa or Deebo and still beat 90% of the teams in the league. Heck, they just got through demolishing the team with the best record in the league in their house.

I didn't say it was a 2 man show. But it two players that make the 49ers perform at a super high level because it allows the other talent to exploit weaker matchups. When Deebo is on the field, McCaffrey and Kittles aren't going against the opponents best defensive players because Deebo absorbs those resources.

It's the same with Bosa. The blocking resources a team has to spend on Bosa don't get to Warner or their other pass guys.

That's why talent is so important. Talent executes the schemes and goes against the opposition taking up their defensive and offensive resources. The more of a talent gap you have between teams, the easier or harder it is to beat them.

The most obvious examples of this phenomenon is when a Pro Bowl QB goes down and a team goes from contending to done. Most teams do not have sufficient talent to absorb the loss of a Pro Bowl QB no matter how good the coaching is.

You also see this in games like our second Super Bowl. Cliff Avril went down and our defense went from Brady being able to do nothing even when we lost a key CB to shredding us with New England moving the resources to block Avril to blocking Bennett and ripping up that CB that played for the CB we lost.

That's why scheme and coaching is secondary to talent. You lose certain key players and suddenly you can't execute your schemes as well. Deebo is one of the dominoes that let's Frisco do the crazy stuff they do on offense and Bosa is the guy that absorbs the opponents blocking resources creating more one on one matchups for other guys. Either one goes down and Frisco becomes mortal.

Trent Williams also is pretty important some surmise. If he goes down, Purdy can be pressured and crushed. I still think Deebo is more important than Williams because of how Shanahan schemes. All those end arounds, screens, and funky little clusters and motion plays he uses Deebo for that are hard to defend are not possible without Deebo.

I agree with you more than I disagree. I agree that Bosa and Deebo are their best players and if any of their players are must have, it's those two. But I don't think that they necessarily become mortal if one of them goes down. That team has a huge amount of talent.

[NorthHawk]

Scheme plays a big factor. Coaches can scheme favorable mismatches and exploit weaknesses. We see it most weeks with SF and Shanahans play calling. It's the same on Defense by moving players around or faking blitzes or zone coverages.
We don't do a lot of either of those unless we need to score points, then we see more imaginative play calling and formations.

[RiverDog]

Scheme plays a big factor. Coaches can scheme favorable mismatches and exploit weaknesses. We see it most weeks with SF and Shanahans play calling. It's the same on Defense by moving players around or faking blitzes or zone coverages.
We don't do a lot of either of those unless we need to score points, then we see more imaginative play calling and formations.

Scheme is a big factor, but it doesn't trump talent.

I mentioned the PFF player rankings on the Niners and Dolphins, so just for the hell of it, let's take a look at the Eagles:

Their two OT's, Jordan Mailata and Lane Johnson, are ranked 5th and 9th respectively. Jason Kelce is the 5th ranked center. AJ Brown is the 3rd ranked wide receiver. Their guards are ranked 14th and 29th (out of 76). Their tight end, Dallas Goedert, is ranked 15th out of 72 TE's.

If you have any respect for what PFF does, that's a lot of talent, especially when you compare it to our OL. Our guards are ranked 35th and 56th, our center is ranked 31st, and our tackles are ranked 34th, 58th, and 64th. The only position we're even close to that level is our tight ends, where Dissly is ranked 16th, Fant 24th.

[mykc14]

Scheme is a big factor, but it doesn't trump talent.

I mentioned the PFF player rankings on the Niners and Dolphins, so just for the hell of it, let's take a look at the Eagles:

Their two OT's, Jordan Mailata and Lane Johnson, are ranked 5th and 9th respectively. Jason Kelce is the 5th ranked center. AJ Brown is the 3rd ranked wide receiver. Their guards are ranked 14th and 29th (out of 76). Their tight end, Dallas Goedert, is ranked 15th out of 72 TE's.

If you have any respect for what PFF does, that's a lot of talent, especially when you compare it to our OL. Our guards are ranked 35th and 56th, our center is ranked 31st, and our tackles are ranked 34th, 58th, and 64th. The only position we're even close to that level is our tight ends, where Dissly is ranked 16th, Fant 24th.

I agree that scheme doesn't necessarily trump talent, but scheme can certainly make the most of your talent. PFF grades are a decent measuring stick in that they do a decent job of ranking players but they don't necessarily mean that one player is better than another player and scheme is certainty part of it. For instance if George Kittle were on our team and we never threw him the ball he would not be the #1 ranked TE in the league. He would be ranked decently high because he is a good blocker but if he's not getting targets or running routes it's hard to grade him on that. An Offensive lineman may grade low in a zone blocking system but would grade higher in a man blocking system. A WR who runs good routes and gets open is going to get a decent PFF score but it's going to be lower than it would if he were getting more targets. A DB could rate low in a defense that plays mostly man but rank high in a zone defense. We have already discussed that our Offensive schemes don't seem to be putting our players in favorable matchups as much as other teams like the niners, it makes sense that if sine Hawk players were on the niners they would have a higher PFF grade. One way to look at this would be with George Kittle and lets say Will Dissly. If Dissly were on the Niners I would imagine that his PFF grade would be higher than it is on the Hawks and if George Kittle were on the Hawks I would think that his PFF grade would be lower than it is now. All this to say that the measuring stick you are using to say that scheme doesn't trump talent could be influenced by scheme. It would be really interesting to see what our Hawks would be ranked on PFF if we switched coaching staff's with the niners. I imagine our players would be ranked much higher than they are right now.

[NorthHawk]

Basically, if the personnel fit the scheme properly, it can accentuate what makes a player really good to be great and can cover up some of the inequities on the team where players are journeymen type talents.
Successful teams draft and acquire in FA players that fit the scheme. On Offense we have taken players and tried to make them into something they might not be (Jimmy Graham, various OL as examples) and try to fit them into our preferred scheme.
What it means is we don't get the most out of talented players.

[RiverDog]

Scheme is a big factor, but it doesn't trump talent.

I mentioned the PFF player rankings on the Niners and Dolphins, so just for the hell of it, let's take a look at the Eagles:

Their two OT's, Jordan Mailata and Lane Johnson, are ranked 5th and 9th respectively. Jason Kelce is the 5th ranked center. AJ Brown is the 3rd ranked wide receiver. Their guards are ranked 14th and 29th (out of 76). Their tight end, Dallas Goedert, is ranked 15th out of 72 TE's.

If you have any respect for what PFF does, that's a lot of talent, especially when you compare it to our OL. Our guards are ranked 35th and 56th, our center is ranked 31st, and our tackles are ranked 34th, 58th, and 64th. The only position we're even close to that level is our tight ends, where Dissly is ranked 16th, Fant 24th.

I agree that scheme doesn't necessarily trump talent, but scheme can certainly make the most of your talent. PFF grades are a decent measuring stick in that they do a decent job of ranking players but they don't necessarily mean that one player is better than another player and scheme is certainty part of it. For instance if George Kittle were on our team and we never threw him the ball he would not be the #1 ranked TE in the league. He would be ranked decently high because he is a good blocker but if he's not getting targets or running routes it's hard to grade him on that. An Offensive lineman may grade low in a zone blocking system but would grade higher in a man blocking system. A WR who runs good routes and gets open is going to get a decent PFF score but it's going to be lower than it would if he were getting more targets. A DB could rate low in a defense that plays mostly man but rank high in a zone defense. We have already discussed that our Offensive schemes don't seem to be putting our players in favorable matchups as much as other teams like the niners, it makes sense that if sine Hawk players were on the niners they would have a higher PFF grade. One way to look at this would be with George Kittle and lets say Will Dissly. If Dissly were on the Niners I would imagine that his PFF grade would be higher than it is on the Hawks and if George Kittle were on the Hawks I would think that his PFF grade would be lower than it is now. All this to say that the measuring stick you are using to say that scheme doesn't trump talent could be influenced by scheme. It would be really interesting to see what our Hawks would be ranked on PFF if we switched coaching staff's with the niners. I imagine our players would be ranked much higher than they are right now.

What you say about PFF's ranking is absolutely true. Scheme does make a difference in player performance, sometimes a big difference. And it can have a negative effect, too. If our front 7 is weak against the run....and as a defense, we're ranked 29th in tackling...it puts pressure on the safeties, particularly Diggs, who according to the rankings, grades out very poorly. Diggs probably wouldn't be ranked nearly as bad if he were playing for the Niners because he wouldn't get as many opportunities to whiff.

I don't know if PFF tries to adjust their grades for those facts, but they have both Hurts and Purdy ranked relatively low for having guided their teams to the top of the conference, and I wonder if they're not docking them some for having the luxury of playing on teams with great talent. It's certainly easier to play quarterback for the Niners or Eagles than it is the Commanders. Anyhow, there's no doubt that PFF has some inherent weaknesses.

I certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm dismissing the importance of scheme. I'm just making a simple, basic point, that it does not trump talent. You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

[mykc14]

What you say about PFF's ranking is absolutely true. Scheme does make a difference in player performance, sometimes a big difference.

I certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm dismissing the importance of scheme. I'm just making a simple, basic point, that it does not trump talent. You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

My point is that you are using PFF to determine 'talent.' If PFF is trying to measure talent using player performance and player performance is based on scheme then when you say "scheme doesn't trump talent" you are essentially saying scheme doesn't trump player performance which is (or can be) dependent on scheme. What I am basically saying is that using PFF to determine talent isn't accurate for most players. There are some players who are going to dominate no matter what- real blue chip type of players but a majority of the players around the league are going to be rated higher or lower in PFF depending on scheme, coaching, and the talent around them.

[RiverDog]

What you say about PFF's ranking is absolutely true. Scheme does make a difference in player performance, sometimes a big difference.

I certainly don't want to give the impression that I'm dismissing the importance of scheme. I'm just making a simple, basic point, that it does not trump talent. You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

My point is that you are using PFF to determine 'talent.' If PFF is trying to measure talent using player performance and player performance is based on scheme then when you say "scheme doesn't trump talent" you are essentially saying scheme doesn't trump player performance which is (or can be) dependent on scheme. What I am basically saying is that using PFF to determine talent isn't accurate for most players. There are some players who are going to dominate no matter what- real blue chip type of players but a majority of the players around the league are going to be rated higher or lower in PFF depending on scheme, coaching, and the talent around them.

I fully understand that PFF is not the Holy grail when it comes to talent evaluation. Football isn't like baseball where everybody has a batting average or ERA. When it comes to football, player performance is very hard to quantify. But it's the only tangible evidence that we have and is certainly an indicator. Do you have a better source?

The other reason you see me referencing PFF a lot is because I signed up for their premium subscription, so I have to get my money's worth.

[NorthHawk]

PFF brings an analytical viewpoint which is valuable but only a part of a players worth or performance. There are so many other variables involved that it can be a part of but not the be all end all of a player evaluation.

[RiverDog]

PFF brings an analytical viewpoint which is valuable but only a part of a players worth or performance. There are so many other variables involved that it can be a part of but not the be all end all of a player evaluation.

And I never said that it was. But they incorporate more than just stats and probabilities, which is what analytics are comprised of. They have actual eyes on the product and at least try to factor in intangible variables:

During the NFL season, our (PFF) team of 400-plus staff spend around 20,000 man-hours of work to grade and analyze every play of the NFL season, from the kickoff in the Hall of Fame game to the final play of the Super Bowl.

Memories can deceive, and highlights by their nature miss out on the vast majority of a player’s game, but PFF covers every player on every play of every game...

https://www.pff.com/news/pro-how-pff-gr ... nfl-levels

That's why despite the fact that Brock Purdy leads all quarterbacks in passer rating and QBR that PFF only ranks him 11th as they are looking at a player's contribution to the success of the play.

I'm not trying to be a PFF salesman, but their rankings and gradings are very relevant and shouldn't be dismissed as just a bunch of stat monkeys pumping out numbers.

[mykc14]

I fully understand that PFF is not the Holy grail when it comes to talent evaluation. Football isn't like baseball where everybody has a batting average or ERA. When it comes to football, player performance is very hard to quantify. But it's the only tangible evidence that we have and is certainly an indicator. Do you have a better source?

The other reason you see me referencing PFF a lot is because I signed up for their premium subscription, so I have to get my money's worth.

I actually think PFF does a really good job of collecting data and gives us a decent idea of who is playing well and who isn't.

[RiverDog]

I fully understand that PFF is not the Holy grail when it comes to talent evaluation. Football isn't like baseball where everybody has a batting average or ERA. When it comes to football, player performance is very hard to quantify. But it's the only tangible evidence that we have and is certainly an indicator. Do you have a better source?

The other reason you see me referencing PFF a lot is because I signed up for their premium subscription, so I have to get my money's worth.

I actually think PFF does a really good job of collecting data and gives us a decent idea of who is playing well and who isn't.

I think they do, too.

One of the problems is that our defense is rated as one of the worst tackling defenses in the league, which certainly meets the eye test. But it exposes our safety, in particular Diggs, who is ranked very low, and part of the reason could be that our sloppy tackling front 7 gives Diggs more opportunities to whiff than a safety playing for a better defense.

And speaking of PFF, Witherspoon racked up the highest grade of any Seahawk this past Sunday, grading out at 85.4 for his pass coverage, which lends more credibility to PFF's system as that sure meets the eye test as Witherspoon was having a great game until he got hurt.

[4XPIPS]

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2023/12/8/23 ... ush-scheme

Didn't think we lacked that much creativity.

[NorthHawk]

Part of the issue is we lack eye candy (to coin a phrase). The 49ers and Rams run a similar Offense but they have a whole bunch of stuff going on prior to the snap that causes the Defense to pause just a little. They both run numerous plays from the same formation and also use numerous formations to run the same plays. The opposing Defense is kept off balance. Whereas like the article states we run the most 'Garden Variety' offensive schemes. That's Peteball in a nutshell. No creativity and easy to plan a defense around it. We did have some of that creativity at the beginning of last year when the Defense was bad and we needed the points and we saw it again this year a few times like against Dallas, but it seems that Pete is pulling back the reins when he thinks our Defense matches up. Sometimes it works and sometimes like in Baltimore it is exposed as being a pathetic way to play the game.

[4XPIPS]

Part of the issue is we lack eye candy (to coin a phrase). The 49ers and Rams run a similar Offense but they have a whole bunch of stuff going on prior to the snap that causes the Defense to pause just a little. They both run numerous plays from the same formation and also use numerous formations to run the same plays. The opposing Defense is kept off balance. Whereas like the article states we run the most 'Garden Variety' offensive schemes. That's Peteball in a nutshell. No creativity and easy to plan a defense around it. We did have some of that creativity at the beginning of last year when the Defense was bad and we needed the points and we saw it again this year a few times like against Dallas, but it seems that Pete is pulling back the reins when he thinks our Defense matches up. Sometimes it works and sometimes like in Baltimore it is exposed as being a pathetic way to play the game.

Wow sounds a lot like running an effective scheme to me.


Here is good coaching, in the last game against the 49ers saw we were bringing our safety down to cover the short-middle crossing routes. Of course anyone watching the game would have seen Greg Olsen pointed out how the 49ers adjusted their route sequence to open up the passing game, and then shredded our defense for over 500 + yards(with some defensive penalties). That is called an in game adjustment and good recognition from their coaching staff, and to go out and scheme their offense around what our defense was offering.

Beginning of the game just like the Rams game we marched right down field and punched in a TD, but good coaching on their part and they adjusted to what were doing on offense and effectively made our offense pedestrian from that point on.

It's sad that we can clearly see that we don't have the quality players to make the big plays, but we also don't have the coaching staff to make the proper adjustments during a game to work with what we have. Peteball trying to fit that square peg in a round hole

[Aseahawkfan]

Wow sounds a lot like running an effective scheme to me.


Here is good coaching, in the last game against the 49ers saw we were bringing our safety down to cover the short-middle crossing routes. Of course anyone watching the game would have seen Greg Olsen pointed out how the 49ers adjusted their route sequence to open up the passing game, and then shredded our defense for over 500 + yards(with some defensive penalties). That is called an in game adjustment and good recognition from their coaching staff, and to go out and scheme their offense around what our defense was offering.

Beginning of the game just like the Rams game we marched right down field and punched in a TD, but good coaching on their part and they adjusted to what were doing on offense and effectively made our offense pedestrian from that point on.

It's sad that we can clearly see that we don't have the quality players to make the big plays, but we also don't have the coaching staff to make the proper adjustments during a game to work with what we have. Peteball trying to fit that square peg in a round hole

Pete Ball won us our first Super Bowl when the team was stacked with talent on defense.

Just like how does Shanahan look coaching without Deebo or Bosa? He don't look so great. Check out the 49ers before Deebo was drafted in 2019. Deebo allows the 49ers to scheme as they do. Check the 49ers record in 2020 when Deebo and Bosa injured.

Sounds like Bill B is leaving because he don't look so good without Brady.

You can scheme the greatest scheme to ever be created and your player flat out gets beat by the opposing player, that scheme will fail. Players execute the scheme and if they are getting beat, then your scheme won't work.

This team needs to draft better. Pete needs to go because he is in charge of making stupid trades like the one for Jamal Adams. He is getting beat in the draft and beat on the field. Time for a change.