Dolphins offensive coordinator candidates | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Dolphins offensive coordinator candidates

I like Jackson. Norv would be tremendous IMO.

However, Joe MUST have a personal connection with the new OC or he is not hired. Kitchen Cabinet.
 
Mcadoo seems to be the most logical fit. Might not have ever been an OC, or called plays, but i think anyone is a step up from Sherman.
 
If the personalities fit, and he plans on working this year, why not Kubiak? He had great offenses in Denver, and runs a WCO so Tannehill wouldn't have to adapt too much to his offense. I'd personally prefer an experienced coach for the position.
 
Please no to Norv Turner. I feel like he's a slightly better Mike Mularkey. I'd be ok with everything else on that list, right after my dream scenario: Scott Linehan.

I keep hearing we are looking for an offensive coordinator with ties to the West Coast offense so that we don't have to change systems. I think the terminology is wrong here: the West Coast offense is a philosophy, not a system. We bring a new coordinator on board, the philosophy might stay the same but the system will be different. No two coaches have identical systems.

Plus, I don't see learning a new philosophy as a negative at all. We see teams turning it around in one season with new coaches. Only thing I imagine is that Philbin doesn't want to change the philosophy to get away from the West Coast offense.
 
McAdoo is very well thought of around the league. He has been targeted as an offensive coordinator the past two years, but the Packers always denied the interview request. McAdoo might even skip being offensive coordinator as the Browns are interviewing him for their head coach opening.
 
Hayden Fox said:
I like Jackson. Norv would be tremendous IMO.

However, Joe MUST have a personal connection with the new OC or he is not hired. Kitchen Cabinet.
Click to expand...

An Andrew Jackson reference? :lol:

Oh, FH, you still surprise me after all this time.
 
truedolfan57 said:
Mcadoo seems to be the most logical fit. Might not have ever been an OC, or called plays, but i think anyone is a step up from Sherman.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I think he will be the choice. Not having been an OC or having called plays in the NFL has no effect on Phans knowing what plays should or should not be called. So, it should have no effect on McAdoo. :)
 
lol I didn't even read the article before my potential OC thread and each one is a guy I mentioned.

As I said in my thread, unless it's a former HC it's hard to come up with a list that excites people, and while each have their share of weaknesses each has a strength as well.

Hue Jackson is a name worth checking out. REALLY good coach who screwed himself out of the Raiders HC gig (Palmer trade). Everywhere he's gone he's developed players. I mean he had Darius Heyward-Bay at 1,000 yards receiving (or near it)
 
I don't want Hue Jackson anywhere near this team just because of the type of person he is.

He jumped in to fill the power vacuum when Al Davis died and totally ****ed over the Raiders. Then he spoonfed Mike Silver info for that brutal hit piece on Mark Davis after he was fired.
 
Spiff said:
Please no to Norv Turner. I feel like he's a slightly better Mike Mularkey. I'd be ok with everything else on that list, right after my dream scenario: Scott Linehan.

I keep hearing we are looking for an offensive coordinator with ties to the West Coast offense so that we don't have to change systems. I think the terminology is wrong here: the West Coast offense is a philosophy, not a system. We bring a new coordinator on board, the philosophy might stay the same but the system will be different. No two coaches have identical systems.

Plus, I don't see learning a new philosophy as a negative at all. We see teams turning it around in one season with new coaches. Only thing I imagine is that Philbin doesn't want to change the philosophy to get away from the West Coast offense.
Click to expand...

"System" and "philosophy" are sort of interchangeable terms, though.

At one point offensive "systems" were more unique from each other. Air Coryell (derived from Sid Gillman) was the power running/PA deep game, the West Coast used short passes to control the clock and the Myers/Briggs was an adaptation from the Northeast that combined short passing and power running.

Over time, however, each system has borrowed from the other to the point where every offense pretty much has every play and it comes down to what your core plays are, what your philosophy is. Are you trying to control the ball with the run or the pass? How often are you trying to threaten deep? What are your core route combinations? Are you a ZBS team or a power team?

And then there's also the language of each offense, which is also unique. From my understanding, Air Coryell is the easiest to learn, with it's numbered routes and simplified verbiage. The West Coast is supposed to be the hardest. Formations are given nonsensical names like "Green Right" and personnel groupings are named after animals. There's no mnemonic way to grasp it. It comes down to pure memorization. At this point every offense utilizes "check with me's" and dynamic route adjustments depending on the coverages, just as zone defense has almost completely shifted away from spot drops to pattern matching reads (Nick Saban had a huge influence in introducing the latter, iirc).
 
TheWalrus said:
"System" and "philosophy" are sort of interchangeable terms, though.

At one point offensive "systems" were more unique from each other. Air Coryell (derived from Sid Gillman) was the power running/PA deep game, the West Coast used short passes to control the clock and the Myers/Briggs was an adaptation from the Northeast that combined short passing and power running.

Over time, however, each system has borrowed from the other to the point where every offense pretty much has every play and it comes down to what your core plays are, what your philosophy is. Are you trying to control the ball with the run or the pass? How often are you trying to threaten deep? What are your core route combinations? Are you a ZBS team or a power team?

And then there's also the language of each offense, which is also unique. From my understanding, Air Coryell is the easiest to learn, with it's numbered routes and simplified verbiage. The West Coast is supposed to be the hardest. Formations are given nonsensical names like "Green Right" and personnel groupings are named after animals. There's no mnemonic way to grasp it. It comes down to pure memorization. At this point every offense utilizes "check with me's" and dynamic route adjustments depending on the coverages, just as zone defense has almost completely shifted away from spot drops to pattern matching reads (Nick Saban had a huge influence in introducing the latter, iirc).
Click to expand...

I tend to disagree. Air Coryell, West Coast, Spread, Run'n'Shoot, Smash Mouth those are all philosophies. A philosophy provides the framework how things should get done, e.g., the Smash Mouth heavily favors the run game to dominate time of possession and to be able to successfully use play action passes, whereas the West Coast offense favors short quick passes instead of a heavy run game. That's your philosophy.

A system is the detailed description of how to do things within the philosophy. For example, you can have a West Coast philosophy, but you can have those short quick passes out of the Shotgun, out of the Singleback, out of the Pistol, out of a thousand formations. Also, the terminology will be different from coach to coach. That's what defines your system.

That's how I see it at least.
 
Spiff said:
I tend to disagree. Air Coryell, West Coast, Spread, Run'n'Shoot, Smash Mouth those are all philosophies. A philosophy provides the framework how things should get done, e.g., the Smash Mouth heavily favors the run game to dominate time of possession and to be able to successfully use play action passes, whereas the West Coast offense favors short quick passes instead of a heavy run game. That's your philosophy.

A system is the detailed description of how to do things within the philosophy. For example, you can have a West Coast philosophy, but you can have those short quick passes out of the Shotgun, out of the Singleback, out of the Pistol, out of a thousand formations. Also, the terminology will be different from coach to coach. That's what defines your system.

That's how I see it at least.
Click to expand...

I think for most people they're pretty interchangeable. Especially now, where every "system" has become so hybridized with facets of the others that you can use pretty much any of them at the service of any "philosophy", as you're using the term. The hard scheme delineations seem much bigger to me in the running game, where you have teams that are dominantly Power teams or dominantly ZBS teams. That's more a function of personnel, though. Linemen who are good at one tend to not be good at the other.

I go back to Bill Walsh's old standards about the kind of wide receivers he wanted -- guys who were bigger and great after the catch -- because they were going to at times going to be used basically as running backs. Well, with the rules favoring the passing game the way they are, everybody wants those guys now.
 
I'm going to stick with what I said for months, Kubiak. The only negatives listed are his health and the pressure he'd put on Philbin as an ex-HC. I don't see either of those as problems. His health because he can just do what he does best and let others take the pressure of wins and losses. His HC experience because first Philbin can use a little pushing and second he could add some insight if Joe hadn't experienced a situation before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom