Hire New DC and Replace Hill? (was Vic Fangio, Wink Martindale)

[Heatmiser]

One last thought from me on this topic....

If you run a business or are head coach of a football team, if someone doesn't perform to expectations or is not a fit for your culture/vision/direction, you part ways. You don't fire someone who checks all those boxes just because you see someone else out there who shows more as an individual contributor. No one will want to work for someone like that. You won't be able to attract top talent and retain them. If Staley thought the defense under performed because of Hill or felt like Hill was not an ideal fit, he would have fired him already, prior to Fangio and Martindale getting fired. In fact, he showed that is what he would do when he fired Swinton. So this tells me Staley is happy with Hill, regardless of what we think. (And for the record, when I see and hear Hill, to me he is the Beienemy of defense and I really don't think much of what happens is his fault or to his credit). So the only way someone else comes in is as another capacity besides DC. Maybe it still happens, but I think it is remote to even get another assistant this way. And ownership is clearly not going to force Staley to fire/hire assistants at this point. They did it with Marty but that was when the team was in a far different place and Marty was well into his tenure. Staley is saying it is not scheme, it is not play calling, it is personnel. And he already seems to have convinced Telesco of that, who for all the beatings he gets here about being tone deaf, arrogant, not giving up on his pet players pretty humbly said he made some mistakes and thought they were better on defense than they were and that it is his fault. We make fun of the Raiders, but when they changed over to the Gus defense, they brought in a bunch of over the hill Chargers and Seahawk former players that knew the scheme. And it worked pretty well. I know his system is super simple and that his pattern is a really good first year followed by a steady decline in effectiveness, but it might have helped if the CHargers added some key pieces from the Rams, Broncos, Bears and not just fringe players they cut. I am talking Joe Johnson or Troy Hill or making a real play for Leornard Floyd type of moves.

TG

[21&500]

Lots of good points Heatmiser,
focusing specifically on Hill, I think the comp to Beienemy is spot on.
Staley likely uses him as an extension of himself like an assistant but for all intents and purposes, Staley is our DC
The last thing he wants is pushback from an experienced DC with his own philosophy, imo
and like most things, I'm in wait n see mode.

[ChargersPowderBlue]

Players have egos and think that they can be difference makers and guys like Bosa and James who love it here and sing praises of the coaches.

Same with coaches, who also can have egos. I think Staley can get overconfident at times. As evident in the decisions he makes that come back to bite him.

One last thought from me on this topic....

If you run a business or are head coach of a football team, if someone doesn't perform to expectations or is not a fit for your culture/vision/direction, you part ways. You don't fire someone who checks all those boxes just because you see someone else out there who shows more as an individual contributor. No one will want to work for someone like that. You won't be able to attract top talent and retain them. If Staley thought the defense under performed because of Hill or felt like Hill was not an ideal fit, he would have fired him already, prior to Fangio and Martindale getting fired. In fact, he showed that is what he would do when he fired Swinton. So this tells me Staley is happy with Hill, regardless of what we think. (And for the record, when I see and hear Hill, to me he is the Beienemy of defense and I really don't think much of what happens is his fault or to his credit). So the only way someone else comes in is as another capacity besides DC. Maybe it still happens, but I think it is remote to even get another assistant this way. And ownership is clearly not going to force Staley to fire/hire assistants at this point. They did it with Marty but that was when the team was in a far different place and Marty was well into his tenure. Staley is saying it is not scheme, it is not play calling, it is personnel. And he already seems to have convinced Telesco of that, who for all the beatings he gets here about being tone deaf, arrogant, not giving up on his pet players pretty humbly said he made some mistakes and thought they were better on defense than they were and that it is his fault. We make fun of the Raiders, but when they changed over to the Gus defense, they brought in a bunch of over the hill Chargers and Seahawk former players that knew the scheme. And it worked pretty well. I know his system is super simple and that his pattern is a really good first year followed by a steady decline in effectiveness, but it might have helped if the CHargers added some key pieces from the Rams, Broncos, Bears and not just fringe players they cut. I am talking Joe Johnson or Troy Hill or making a real play for Leornard Floyd type of moves.

TG

Staley is prone to getting burned out from the multi-tasking. When coaches take on DC or OC responsibilities, it takes their toll. Renaldo Hill is more like Shane Steichen, if anything. He is taking marching orders from Staley, but there may be time when Hill moves up to do the play-calling, it's not his time yet and he is still learning. He's being molded by Staley and will come along just like Lynn did with Steichen.

[Steve]

I don't get this at all. Better designed blitzes is ok in my book especially when it's 3rd and 15 and we give those up playing soft anyways.

:wtf:

It's not that you can't blitz at all, but the Ryans/Ravens scheme is about blitzing most of the time. That works best if you can limit the exposure of the D. But an explosive offense that scores more quickly and puts the D back on the field, plus forces them to frantically attack on every down, it just almost always comes back to bit them in the ass.

Now, if you get someone like Martindale, and he plays complimentary football, he just needs to dial back the number of blitzes and be more selective about it.

Of course, when Staley gets a lead, he runs a lot of 5 man rushes, and that is where we got a fair # of sacks and the Rams did the year before. A better compromise since you can still play zone behind a 5 man rush.

[Guest]

It's not that you can't blitz at all, but the Ryans/Ravens scheme is about blitzing most of the time. That works best if you can limit the exposure of the D. But an explosive offense that scores more quickly and puts the D back on the field, plus forces them to frantically attack on every down, it just almost always comes back to bit them in the ass.

Now, if you get someone like Martindale, and he plays complimentary football, he just needs to dial back the number of blitzes and be more selective about it.

Of course, when Staley gets a lead, he runs a lot of 5 man rushes, and that is where we got a fair # of sacks and the Rams did the year before. A better compromise since you can still play zone behind a 5 man rush.

I see this issue exactly the opposite of the way that you do. Lombardi is in love with short sideline passes and drives that are many, many plays. We are far less explosive as an offense than we were last year. The designed big air yards passes were nearly nonexistent for much of this season.

It was precisely because our defense could not get off the field with our "give it to 'em" light box zone defense, that our offense often had very limited time of possession over the course of a whole game. In fact, we produced our worst time of possession number since 2008, the year that Ted Cottrell got fired mid season because the defense was so bad.

I like the idea of more possessions for our offense and the defense getting off the field one way or the other more quickly. More stops and fewer long drives against our defense is a good thing not only for our defense, but also our offense.

[Guest]

One last thought from me on this topic....

If you run a business or are head coach of a football team, if someone doesn't perform to expectations or is not a fit for your culture/vision/direction, you part ways. You don't fire someone who checks all those boxes just because you see someone else out there who shows more as an individual contributor. No one will want to work for someone like that. You won't be able to attract top talent and retain them. If Staley thought the defense under performed because of Hill or felt like Hill was not an ideal fit, he would have fired him already, prior to Fangio and Martindale getting fired. In fact, he showed that is what he would do when he fired Swinton. So this tells me Staley is happy with Hill, regardless of what we think. (And for the record, when I see and hear Hill, to me he is the Beienemy of defense and I really don't think much of what happens is his fault or to his credit). So the only way someone else comes in is as another capacity besides DC. Maybe it still happens, but I think it is remote to even get another assistant this way. And ownership is clearly not going to force Staley to fire/hire assistants at this point. They did it with Marty but that was when the team was in a far different place and Marty was well into his tenure. Staley is saying it is not scheme, it is not play calling, it is personnel. And he already seems to have convinced Telesco of that, who for all the beatings he gets here about being tone deaf, arrogant, not giving up on his pet players pretty humbly said he made some mistakes and thought they were better on defense than they were and that it is his fault. We make fun of the Raiders, but when they changed over to the Gus defense, they brought in a bunch of over the hill Chargers and Seahawk former players that knew the scheme. And it worked pretty well. I know his system is super simple and that his pattern is a really good first year followed by a steady decline in effectiveness, but it might have helped if the CHargers added some key pieces from the Rams, Broncos, Bears and not just fringe players they cut. I am talking Joe Johnson or Troy Hill or making a real play for Leornard Floyd type of moves.

TG

I agree with your analysis, but I am not sure that I think Staley's defensive scheme is anything special, which makes me want us to abandon it (which I know is not going to happen) because I prefer defenses that do the opposite of what we do. I like bigger, more physical, attacking defenses (that are also athletic). I loved our 2006 and 2007 defenses. BAL and PIT have continued to play my favorite style of defense even in today's game. I have always hated soft, finesse type defensive schemes like the Colts in Manning's time, Gus's Legion of Non-Blitzing Soft with us, and now Staley's defense. I used to love to see teams run the ball down the throats of the Colts and watch Manning's helpless expressions on the sideline while his defenses were getting pounded by their opponent's running game. By contrast, I used to love the chant from the west end zone at Qualcomm of "You can't run!" when we would stuff opponent RBs when we had Jamal Williams.

So, though I know it is not going to happen, I would be really pumped up if we ever did add Martindale as our DC.

[richpjr]

Same with coaches, who also can have egos. I think Staley can get overconfident at times. As evident in the decisions he makes that come back to bite him.

Staley doesn't strike me as an egomaniac like a Rex Ryan - he just seems to have a strong belief in his approach.

But that wasn't my point about egos - it was that players believe they can be difference makers and I don't buy the notion that they wouldn't come here because somehow Staley, who appears to be very much a player's coach, somehow is seen as throwing players under the bus. If anything, they should rightly see that if he wants them he believes they are the ones he wants in his D as opposed to last year when we had little turnover at any key spot.

[LOhunter]

I agree with hiring a new D coordinator (who will actually coordinate the D rather than Staley keeping control.) The problem here is Staley will be very reluctant to turn over the reigns to someone more experienced. He has been terrible calling D plays/formations this season and that's on him not Hill. He's not smarter than everyone else just look at the last play before the field goal in the Raiders game. He calls a timeout stopping the clock (to make sure that he has the correct personnel on the field.) I agree that getting Kenneth Murray (terrible against the run) out was the right move but he should not have been out there...he's is not good against the pass and again, stinks against the run because he can't make his reads quick enough. Staley then leaves Tillery in the game when he knows that he is awful on run defense. Raiders end up running on the left side against Tillery and seal him off. BTW, the Chargers also expected the Raiders to run and put 8 in the box. As bad as their run D was, they should have brought everyone up to make sure they got a stop. There was absolutely no chance the Raiders would have risked a pass then and given the Chargers and Herbert the ball again. Question is why did he call a timeout and why couldn't he stop the Raiders on that play and throughout the game and season. Others may argue that he did not have the players to fit his scheme; smart coaches adjust their schemes to allow their players to be successful. Have no confidence that the D will be better next year regardless of who they draft or get in free agency. A big problem with the D this year was the coaching. If that doesn't change, look for a repeat of this year and watch Herbert and the Chargers miss the playoffs again.

[Steve]

I see this issue exactly the opposite of the way that you do. Lombardi is in love with short sideline passes and drives that are many, many plays. We are far less explosive as an offense than we were last year. The designed big air yards passes were nearly nonexistent for much of this season.

It was precisely because our defense could not get off the field with our "give it to 'em" light box zone defense, that our offense often had very limited time of possession over the course of a whole game. In fact, we produced our worst time of possession number since 2008, the year that Ted Cottrell got fired mid season because the defense was so bad.

I like the idea of more possessions for our offense and the defense getting off the field one way or the other more quickly. More stops and fewer long drives against our defense is a good thing not only for our defense, but also our offense.

But if you put the blitzing D out on the field more, you expose the weakness you have and give the offense more chances to exploit the single coverage.

Again look at the blitzing heavy defenses through the history of the NFL, they pretty much all have run heavy offenses to compliment them.

[Guest]

... post deleted by author (bolt-o)...

Boltjolt, your failure to understand that multiple variables are operating at once and not in the same direction is remarkable.

First, points scored and explosiveness are not the same thing. Explosiveness refers to the offense's rate of producing big plays. We were 3rd in passes attempted and yet only 14th in plays over 25 yards. So, our rate of big plays was low, which means that our offense was not explosive. And that stat is even more troubling because we have Herbert, who is arguably the game's best deep passer.

Of course, anyone with eyes could have told you that this year's offense was less explosive than last year's in terms of producing very deep passes. The 8 very deep passes secured by Guyton and Johnson in 2020 was reduced to 2 this season for Guyton.

Second, Staley's decision to go for it on 4th down when Lynn would not have produced about 76 of those additional 90 points. Giving Lombardi credit for those points is illogical when those points were caused by the difference in in game tactical strategy between Staley and Lynn. If Lynn is Lombardi's head coach, those 76 points do not happen. So, if you compare apples to apples, the total difference in result is really quite small.

With a better OL and a more experienced and better Herbert, Lombardi was able to produce about 14 more points than a first year play caller who was hampered by Lynn's mission to try to force the running game at all costs and otherwise make stupid tactical decisions.

What you do not seem to grasp is that the offenses from both seasons underperformed, but for different reasons.

Lombardi had a much better OL to work with and corrected the run pass ratio issues that Lynn's ideas killed the offense with in 2020. Those were good things. But the offense was less explosive and depended on more increased number of play drives that featured short passes and not the same rate of longer passes as in 2020, which made it less explosive and failing to take advantage of Herbert's unique comparative strength in the deep passing game. The passing plays called were off at times and were so on a fairly regular basis.

Our offense was like a powerful sports car that was consistently not firing on all cylinders. It ran better than it did when our head coach took all the air out of the tires last year, but there were still clear engine problems.

To me, it looks like you are missing a lot in your take.

[Guest]

But if you put the blitzing D out on the field more, you expose the weakness you have and give the offense more chances to exploit the single coverage.

Again look at the blitzing heavy defenses through the history of the NFL, they pretty much all have run heavy offenses to compliment them.

True, but I still think it is better to get burned occasionally and get a bunch of stops than it is to consistently give up long, time consuming drives to opponents. That would make a lot more sense with our death by 10,000 paper cuts short passing game, which I think can be just as effective at controlling the ball as teams with strong ground games.

I do think that a team needs to have good pass defenders to play the blitzing defense, which is what killed BAL this season when their CBs were lost due to injury.

[JAFA]

Boltjolt, your failure to understand that multiple variables are operating at once and not in the same direction is remarkable.

First, points scored and explosiveness are not the same thing. Explosiveness refers to the offense's rate of producing big plays. We were 3rd in passes attempted and yet only 14th in plays over 25 yards. So, our rate of big plays was low, which means that our offense was not explosive. And that stat is even more troubling because we have Herbert, who is arguably the game's best deep passer.

Of course, anyone with eyes could have told you that this year's offense was less explosive than last year's in terms of producing very deep passes. The 8 very deep passes secured by Guyton and Johnson in 2020 was reduced to 2 this season for Guyton.

Second, Staley's decision to go for it on 4th down when Lynn would not have produced about 76 of those additional 90 points. Giving Lombardi credit for those points is illogical when those points were caused by the difference in in game tactical strategy between Staley and Lynn. If Lynn is Lombardi's head coach, those 76 points do not happen. So, if you compare apples to apples, the total difference in result is really quite small.

With a better OL and a more experienced and better Herbert, Lombardi was able to produce about 14 more points than a first year play caller who was hampered by Lynn's mission to try to force the running game at all costs and otherwise make stupid tactical decisions.

What you do not seem to grasp is that the offenses from both seasons underperformed, but for different reasons.

Lombardi had a much better OL to work with and corrected the run pass ratio issues that Lynn's ideas killed the offense with in 2020. Those were good things. But the offense was less explosive and depended on more increased number of play drives that featured short passes and not the same rate of longer passes as in 2020, which made it less explosive and failing to take advantage of Herbert's unique comparative strength in the deep passing game. The passing plays called were off at times and were so on a fairly regular basis.

Our offense was like a powerful sports car that was consistently not firing on all cylinders. It ran better than it did when our head coach took all the air out of the tires last year, but there were still clear engine problems.

To me, it looks like you are missing a lot in your take.

Our more methodical offensive approach this year was most likely heavily influenced by the need to protect our defense - as long as the score was relatively close. Again - I'm convinced that Staley knew what he had on defense (not good - to be PC) and made strategic decisions to lessen it's impact to the extent he could. This also certainly played into his thought process when considering 4th down attempts.

It will be interesting to see if his strategic approach changes significantly next year if the defense improves.