We need Danny Mac to take us to the next level. I say bring him into the booth or onto the sidelines to assist with the play calling down the stretch. Gibson is not getting it done. We have the talent, we just have to start using it properly. Danny Mac is the man to get us there.
I agree that D Mac would be a great help as both a QB coach and to help with offense play calling, also assist our QB’s with reading defensive coverages. It could only be a good thing!
Not sure how many times this has been posted and each time the answer is still the same. He is not interested in doing this and this has been reported many times be the local media as well. Currently he is a scout and enjoys that and has said he doesn't have much interest in coaching.
Agreed. Coaching is not Danny's goal. I understand that management is what he has indicated he wants to do.
Anyway, Khari Jones is our QB coach and has a playing resume similar to Danny's. Having a dedicated QB coach is a recent innovation in Hamilton, and most welcome. I'm not sure there is much reason to prefer Danny over Khari for this, even if Danny did want the job.
I agree with you on this but I would like to add that if the OC looks at the tapes, he will see that trying the SAME PLAY over and over getting the same bad results will not win football games. (our attempts on short yardage near the goal line) It reminds me of the guy that bangs his head against a wall because it feels so good when he stops. :roll:
Danny already does work the booth on game days and has some (perhaps limited) input towards the coaching end of things. When you listen to his show on CHML he doesn't refer to the coaches as "them" he refers to them as "we".
But imagine what it'll be like in the last game of the year when they finally do something else. Guaranteed touchdown! The defence won't know what hit them.
Not to mix metaphors, but maybe we need a bigger hammer, as in, ummmmm, a fullback?
And that's a pretty big assumption you're making there, that the OC looks at the tapes.... Oh, right. You said "if".
I love how people just assume he wants to coach.. like he settled for scouting after being the QB coach.
He stopped coaching because he does not want to coach. He stated that he wanted to work in personnel like scouting or team management.
Maybe one day he will be assistant GM or even full GM but he will certainly not be a coach by choice. Get it?
He's also said that before he considers coaching he'd like to see most of the guys he's played with retire becuase he'd wouldn't feel right coaching a man that he's played beside. Opinions change on a regular basis based on opportunity, who he's working with, family, location etc.... What gets said on Monday can change by Tuesday morning easily.
Peoples opinions change all the time, but as sports fans if they say it in the media we hold them to it for the rest of their careers.
Our problem could be that our OC is still using Beta machines.
Actually, 8-track came to mind when I was writing it. (And yes, I know they’re not video. Kinda the point.)
Never said he had to quit his scouting job. We just need him more involved in the offense down the stretch. And not as a QB coach but as an assistant to our OC.
I think folks who have read my posts in here know I'm not a big fan of Mike Gibson. That being stated, I would have to question the modest proposal being offered here.
First -- as has been referred to be a number of posters in this thread, Danny McManus has indicated his preference to get into the scouting/management side of front office work. That is his focus and I respect him for having one.
Second -- the idea would be to take someone who is likely not versed in the playbook or terminology thereof to suddenly become the playcaller midstream. Not sure even if Danny Mac could crib the playbook in a pinch that this would be a welcome recipe.
Third -- if you make an effective outsider a playcaller, you're not making him an assistant to the offensive coordinator. You are making him the DE FACTO OC. It's a little like Ian Faith being asked to co-manage Spinal Tap in that all-time classic movie because he might need "a little help." (BUZZER) LMAO
Your offensive coordinator sets the gameplan for the coming week and is in charge of organizing the personnel groupings for the offense week-to-week. It's a little strange to then turn over the script to another guy to then improvise over it. Specific plays are worked on in practice in preparation for an opponent, so I want the same guy running that prep AND calling the game. Most offense-by-committee approaches are...well...committee-like. That tends not to get it done in most football environments.
You do see situations where there are successful playcalling regimes with multiple input -- Scott Milanovich effectively runs the running game under Trestman, but Trestman ultimately has veto over what gets called as the primary playcaller. Be clear though: it's Marc's show and system fundamentally speaking. In Calgary, Dave Dickenson has emerged as the playcaller once George Cortez moved on to become QB coach in Buffalo -- with Dave assuming extra duties than just being RB coach. What do these situations have in common? Every person involved is intimately aware of the terminology and construction of the system from training camp and the head coach (Huff in Calgary the other case) RUNS the show, bottom line.
Dickenson is the effective OC albeit not in name in Cowtown as of this moment. He is setting up gameplans with Huff's oversight.
Does Gibson know his own system? I believe he does, but he self-sabotages his sandwich-spread approach too much against equal or superior opposition. If anyone else were to assume the playcalling duties, I'd be tempted to tell Kevin Glenn to call his own plays except for the fact he tends to get greedy too much and locks into a receiver in key times (read Bruce).
Bellefeuille has coordinated for many years using his own system and playbook under Barrett in Sakatchewan, the Matthews/Popp experience in Montreal, and under Taaffe here. Be clear: Gibson is HIS guy. Unless the team were to rapidly slide in the standings, I don't see Bellefeuille changing horses in mid-stream, especially when this offense is still getting in the 25-plus scoring range against the second tier and doormats of the league.
What does this mean? We are likely going to see this team blow it in November all things being equal whenever we run into a well-coached opponent, particularly one of the big three of Montreal, Calgary, and Saskatchewan. If/when this is ultimately fixed, it's going to be Marcel or his successor jettisoning Gibson -- if anyone. Unless the team executes out its head and/or Gibson has one of his eureka quarters/halves/etc., it is hard to see us beating one elite team, let alone the likely two it would take to win it all.
I am not even considering here a trap game a la the BC semi-final loss last year. Once a team has seen Gibson's m.o., it tends to be a tougher go for us unless we out-execute and win the turnover battle. Straight up, I am not optimistic of our chances.
My dream scenario for 2011 is for Dave Dickenson to somehow be pried of Calgary and become the offensive coordinator here. Methinks the Stampeders are going to lock up Dave long-term though as the OC proper, so we will have to watch the saga unfold. As it is, we are witness to a team showing flashes of offensive brilliance interspersed with quarters and even whole games of utter ineptitude against the best in the league. Shiny mediocrity is a dangerous recipe for a franchise to get a taste for.
Oski Wee Wee,
As a postscript: the Khari Jones-as-playcaller idea. As has been stated earlier, I like the fact we have a dedicated QB coach after eons without one! Assuming Jones would have the playbook terminology and gameplan at his fingertips, it begs the question of why would you still have someone in the OC chair and have one of his position coaches calling games!
If it's a case of the gameplanning being terrible, it's MARCEL'S JOB to intervene and get it right with Gibson if he see the need to get things fixed.
In my opinion, Marcel believes most of what ails the offense is execution-based errors and lack of focus in key stages of games. This definitely IS a main -- if not paramount -- factor.
Nonetheless, if you run a playbook with a solid approach to attacking defences, a playcaller can do wonders in getting the right plays called to take advantage of weaknesses, create confusion in the opponent in-game, and generally allow a wider margin of error in wearing out a more befuddled defensive unit. We simply have little to no margin for error against the best teams in the league because we run predictable plays with readily-understandable progressions (read regressions) that narrow passing windows and create the scenario we see too often where Glenn or Porter begin forcing balls into double teams because no receivers are shaking free as pass protection begins to break down.
If your team is not sharp, you can still make hay if you have well-disguised money plays iterated via pre-snap motion adjustment, well-thought-out personnel groupings, formation shifts, crossing patterns and rubs, etc. Our design problem is that we don't see consistent misdirection, changing launch points in play action, or regular use of a well-thought out crossing route approach on a consistent basis. Instead, it's balls-to-the-wall vertical routes, with intermediate outs and double moves being the option fare more often than not. More pointed, our running backs are really underutilized in the passing game as downfield receiving options...
It might be easier for Glenn to makes his reads in that environment, but it is also easy for the defensive coordinator and his unit to read and react against that rubric. Hence the scenario we have seen against Montreal all to often where we could have 14 guys on the field and we MIGHT get it right on a consistent basis to hang with an AC-run Als offense, let alone one headed by that non-Ted White fella, Adrian McPherson! There's simply not enough oomph in how we contest games on offense to paper over execution breakdowns.
Could Khari do a better job calling plays? Interesting question indeed. The politics of running a coaching staff for a playoff-bound team will likely cause Marcel to opt for continuity in how the dysfunction gets delivered, however. I am not one to call for more chaos than actually exists now.
Oski Wee Wee,
That's funny :lol:
seriously though, Paul LaPolice (current Winnipeg head coach) was the driving force in bringing in the "XOS" computer system for all the Tiger-Cat coaches in 2004 or 2005
It's pretty cool technologyhttp://www.xostech.com/
Postscript #2: What about having Danny Mac simply coordinate the passing game for Gibson as advisor or in-game play suggester rather than a flat-out assistant with a title. My answer: all Gibson has to do to get Danny's advice is CALL HIM ON THE PHONE DURING THE WEEK FFS. LOL
Well, look at the Milanovich model re directing the run game with Montreal. If he believes a run play should be called, he makes an immediate suggestion to Trestman, who either runs with that as the play being run or vetoes it with one of his own. Ultimately however, it's Trestman's finger on the game -- and Calvillo's ability to trigger that on the field, audibling off that if need be.
It's far easier to do this with run plays than passing plays in that the playcaller also has to call protection schemes, pre-snap motion disguise, and formation shifting as much as possible from the headset to the QB to make the pivot's job easier in a 20-second timeclock frame. Those kinds of things simply aren't as much major factors calling a counter play or gut (especially not having to concern oneself with protection issues).
So Danny really can't be in-game "pass suggestion boxman" for Gibson in a similar way as Milanovich is the way the Als are set up. Maybe he would be asked to call a pass play by a deferential Gibson in some tandem idea, but that gets back to the point -- why have a playcalling advisor on a CFL staff given its traditional shape versus the every-aspect-headset-honchoed telephone directory sized staffs in the NFL? It seems to me a running game advisor as OC (as Milanovich is) can coexist with a head coach who ultimately makes the final playcall, but not the opposite scenario I've just described. The passing game requires ONE voice making the in-game call inside of 20 seconds, not two.
Oski Wee Wee,
ROTFL You can't be serious
Well, stats and Grey Cup rings can be...deceiving? They each had one MOP to their credit, but that's about it re their on-field comparison, I'm afraid. 31,000+ more yards passed, three Grey Cup rings, a Grey Cup MOP in 1999, 114 more career passing TDs...http://www.cfl.ca/index.php/roster/show/id/9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khari_Jones [url=http://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/story/2008/12/16/cfl-jones-ticats-coach.html?ref=rss]http://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/story ... ml?ref=rss[/url]
Oski Wee Wee,
2,648 attempts 1,513 completions 57.1 percentage 21,383 yards 145 TDs 104 ints
6,689 attempts 3,640 completions 54.4 percentage 53,255 yards 259 TDs 281 ints
Not even 1/2 let alone similar
As someone who's dealt with software modeling and simulation in the past, I wonder how much those tools can potentially lead to bad analysis due to factors that aren't accounted for by the model. If any of our coaches are using these or similar tools, hopefully they're fully aware of the limitations and shortcomings.
In particular, on the analytical side, tools like this are good at showing what worked or didn't work at a given time, but not WHY it worked or didn't work. And as predictive tools based on simulation, usually things like this are pretty suspect unless the thing being modeled is intrinsically very simple (i.e. not a bunch of humans acting with many degrees of freedom).
Hopefully the coaches know the strengths and weaknesses of any analysis tools they use, and use them appropriately.
Remember a few years ago when J.I. Albrecht was certain that his Argo running game was going to steamroll everyone based on some statistical modeling software he had put together?