We have had any number of threads that discuss Bradley's status as being on the hot seat.
The general consensus is he needs to show some improvement in order to avoid being on the hotseat. How much is a matter for debate, but we generally agree the team needs to improve its W-L record this year.
But we haven't had much discussion on how he will be able to get to this level of improvement.
Generally we agree that the past two drafts have been good and the roster overall is much better than it was when he arrived, so he has the "raw material needed" to win.
So then an unstated but obvious premise is that the roster could be more talented and the team not show improvement in the W-L record.
To me, that would be an indictment on Bradley's ability to develop talent. But I don't think we've had much discussion or debate on his ability to develop talent.
How do you think he rates in this one area? What young guys has he developed?
Since Allen Robinson missed most of training camp and preseason, and was productive almost immediately, could you make the argument that Bradley did not develop him?
Since the bulk of the nucleus of the roster are first and second year players and free agents, is it too soon to rate his ability to develop?
At what point is sufficient time to have developed a player?
Is it possible to even make the determination?
I'm not sure where I stand on his ability to develop players. I am trying to avoid the temptation to say that he isn't developing players because the team hasn't won yet.
In the NFL at the head coaching level you have to be showing progress in the win column in order to retain your services or have a legit reason as to why your mission failed. In the case of Gus Bradley and GM Dave Caldwell they came together and said the team is going to rebuild almost the entire roster. That gave them the first and even second year as an excuse but going into the third season the fans are really hoping for an at least .500 year which is totally reasonable for a third year head coach in the NFL. Its not like the fans or media are screaming SuperBowl or fire Gus, they simply want to not be the laughing stock of the NFL. They dont want late night talk show hosts making jokes about how many college teams could beat them and pee in their pools.
We want basically hope, we want to see the young guys that they drafted progressing into the players that they said they were going to be combined with improvement in stats (cant always be the leagues worst defense & offense get to be at least the top 10 in one for example if you are going to pull out only 3 wins for the season give us something to take pride in)....
I think Gus Bradley can do it this year, even without Fowler Jr but if he doesnt I would expect if nothing else the threads, debates on NFL and other media about him possibly losing his job.
Quote:
But we haven't had much discussion on how he will be able to get to this level of improvement.
.....
Is it possible to even make the determination?
I'm not sure where
To the first bolded bit: Bortles and a productive offense.
To the second: The secondary. (or the back 7 even)
We've seen Bradley's scheme improve the D-Line. Now we need to see a jump forward from his secondary to determine his plan is indeed a sound one that he's able to implement successfully independent of Pete Carroll and with his own roster.
In my relatively uneducated opinion, prior to this season Gus gets an incomplete largely due to lack of talent. I think most of us agree that those conditions no longer apply. It may be inexperienced talent, but it's talent nonetheless. As a result, this year is the first year I think we can really get a feel for just how good of a coach Bradley is...or at the very least get a clear indication of exactly what kind of head coach he is capable of being. Should we rate him as a complete project? Probably not, no matter what the end results are.
Having said that, we also have to remember that the onus to develop existing talent is not solely the purview of the head coach. His assistants will have arguably more influence in the development of our guys as Bradley does and that can't be overlooked.
How do I think Bradley rates in player development? I think it is a little too early to determine, but there are some good development examples thus far.
What young guys has he developed? CB McCray, OG Linder, DT Marks, RB Shoelace, and DT Jones are some other than WR Robinson that quickly come to mind.
Is it too early to grade his ability to develop? Yes. But, I think his arrow is pointing up to date in this area.
At what point is sufficient to determine if a player is developed? I think by the end of year 3 is enough time to determine if a player has developed; certain players by the end of year 2.
Is it possible to make a determination? Yes, although it will always be subjective with players determined to have developed and some determined a bust.
Dew said it for me
You can claim the coach has a hand in helping Marks get to elite
Alualu to serviceable
Branch to impactful
Smith and Colvin to ascending
He has made imprints on his side of the ball, as expected, in my view.
Now, just please take us to average in the W column this year, at the very least, please. No 5 to keep his job mantra. 5-6 is not good enough.
To be fair, player development is usually accredited to the position coach, not normally the head coach. But for discussion sake:
McCray gets the biggest nod in developing as a player considering his draft position and level of play. If you don't like Allen Robinson as an example what about Lee? He started slow and some of that could be contributed to injuries during camp but he was our best WR during the last 6 weeks when Robinson went down. JT Thomas last year developed over the course of the season as well. I guess you could make the case for guys like DRob, Chris Smith, and Ryan Davis as examples while we're at it. Does Telvin Smith count as he spent the start of the season on the bench and playing special teams?
We can also take a look at cast off veterans who played at a pretty high level after coming here too. Marks, Ball, and Branch considering he was on the roster bubble prior to the new regime.
I echo Knarnn's sentiment in that the development of individual player's is more on the position coach than the Header.
A Head Coach simply has too much on his plate to be able to dedicate time to a few select players and make them better. Now, he can locate and point out weak spots to the player and his staff and provide suggestions, strategies, etc., but the indy work is what the position coach is for.
To me, the measurement for success this season is very simple: don't finish with a top 10 pick. You don't have to be a playoff team, you don't even have to be good, just don't be a pushover anymore. Be respectable.
Also it has some symbolic value as this team has picked in the top 10 every year since 2008 (a couple of times by trade up, but we're talking symbolism here).
At what point is sufficient time to have developed a player?
To me, this is the critical question that someone (Khan?) has to answer. In a larger sense though, what will determine Gus's fate here will be the win/lose record more than if he was successful in 'developing talent'. Now, one would tend to assume that the one would effect the other; however, it's possible to have a very talented team... and go nowhere. On the other hand, we've seen teams that, overall, only had average talent who went to the playoffs.
That being said, I think it's a general truism to expect that a coach who has better ability to develop talent will, in the long run, have a better win/lose record than one who isn't as adept at such development. It's that 'in the long run' part that's the fly in the ointment. What is a reasonable expectation of the amount of time required for the development of rookie talent? This is the same question, I just worded it a bit differently.
Anyway, at least on this forum the most commonly referenced amount of time is three years. I don't know what that three year time line expectation is based on, I'm just aware that I've seen it used over and over again on here. It may be that it has more to do with the fact that we happen to now be going into the third year of the rebuild and fans are getting tired of waiting to see positive results. It's getting really old to be compared to the buc's and lions as one of the league's historically bad teams, particularly when we were (back in the TC days) at one time a very good team. Maybe there is some research on line somewhere showing that statistically talented rookies start to really shine at about the three year mark. If this is true, and if Gus is any good at developing rookie talent, and if we have some truly good rookie talent... then maybe we have something to look forward to this season.
On the other hand, that was a lot of 'if's to be considered. The last time I saw something posted on here about what Vegas was predicting we stood at a 5.5 season. That isn't a .500 season, but it may be enough to dissuade Khan from putting Gus on the hot seat... yet. Some would argue that going 5-11 or 6-10 is the worst of both possible outcomes; it's another losing season while being enough to prevent us from getting a top 10 draft pick. I guess that's the 'glass is always half empty' view. Others would point out that going 6-10 would be the best season we've seen around here in years; and while that's true it it nevertheless... pathetic.
Even so, it may be the start of an upward trend. Many on this forum have mentioned that the real expectation for this team to 'come alive' is in 2016... next season. And while this perhaps may be so, almost all of us are sick and tired of hearing 'next season, next season'.
If anything is going to put Gus on the 'hot seat', it's going to be because Khan is aware of fan sentiment and being the businessman that he is, he will act to rectify fan dissatisfaction to the best of his ability. We have outstanding facilities, we have (arguably) more talent on the roster now than we've had in years; the great question mark that is left is the coach.
How will he be able to get to that level of improvement? Acquisitions, Development, and Draft.
We had less wins last year, but we also had a better point differential than the year before. That was in spite of back to back trouncing by the Dolts and Deadskins. We scored two more points than the year before (not a good improvement, but given the youth we had, acceptable) and let our opponents score 37 less points last year (Major improvement)
Five Things that should work in Gus's favor toward getting improvement in the W/L column
#5. TJ Yeldon
It's no secret that our running game was anemic last year. Part of that was due to the O-line. In the past ten years, thirteen running backs have managed to rush for 1000 yards in their rookie season. Runningbacks can come into the game, and make an immediate impact. Yeldon was draft in the second round, so that should be the expectation for him. If Yeldon can impact our running game we should see more first downs, which should in turn lead to better performance by our offense, as well as more chances.
#4. More Experienced Receivers
Last year our receivers were rookies. Inexperienced. Hurns, Lee, Robinson. They were all rookies, and were three of our top four receivers. Shorts was our most experienced receiver, and while he's gone now, he only played thirteen games last year. In fact only Hurns played all 16. These guys now have experience, and shouldn't be making the common rookie mistakes. Added to this is Julius Thomas, a receiving Tight End which is a major upgrade from Lewis (who is more suited to blocking)
#3. Improved Tackling
Another topic said it best: We were the worst at broken tackles last year. While part of that is on our offense, part of it is still on the defense. Our tackling should improve this year through player acquisitions as well as development. If we can stop them sooner, that means our defense will be on the field less and our opponents will be less likely to score.
#2. Improved O-Line
We gave up 71 sacks last year. 71! That's almost as many sacks as David Carr had in his rookie year. It's more sacks than Peyton Manning had in his first three years combined. Our o-line gets an upgrade with Wisnewski at Center, and hopefully Parnell at RT. If Joeckel develops, and Cann eventually starts, our o-line could become a strength instead of a weakness. It also gets an upgrade with help from O-line coach Marone, who has head coaching experience. This will give Bortles more time to throw, and Yeldon and Shoelace more time to run. This will significantly help our team score more, and keep the ball out of our opponents hands.
#1. Blake Bortles Development
Bortles was never meant to start last year, but he took his licks and has started to adjust to the speed of the NFL. Bortles should be better than last year, how much better is the question. He's the key to everything. If Bortles develops nicely, our team should see major improvement. Especially if our O-line also improves, and gives him more time to make his reads. He can cut out on interceptions, and throw for many more yards. He was meant to develop, and now he should be starting to develop into what should be our top offensive weapon. He'll have a better supporting cast to help him on top of it all.
these posts is hella long
I don't expect him to develop any offensive players. He doesn't do offense.
I can see several players on the defense you might say he has 'developed'.
We have been through this before. This is the issue with having a defensive head coach. You cycle through offensive assistants until you find somebody worth keeping.
If we start out 0-4, or even 1-3, he should be gone..
If they start 0-2, he is toast
Quote:I don't expect him to develop any offensive players. He doesn't do offense.
I can see several players on the defense you might say he has 'developed'.
We have been through this before. This is the issue with having a defensive head coach. You cycle through offensive assistants until you find somebody worth keeping.
I think there are some concerns you brought up. Basically with bringing in a new offensive coordinator/offensive system you're not really getting any continuity from the last year. So depending on how different the system is, you may start Bortles and the other rookies again from square 1, or maybe square 1.25.
In your last comment, I think it works the other way as well. The Texans' brought in Gary Kubiak and his offensive system that had pretty immediate success, however he couldn't pick a Defensive Coordinator to save his life. He brought in two of his buddies for 4 years, and the defense was an utter failure. It wasn't until Wade Smith was brought in (and the conspiracy is that the owner made this call) that the team finally got into the playoffs.
Hopefully Greg Olson works out despite his somewhat "meh" career, cause it would be a shame if any more system disruption occurs while Bortles is trying to develop.
It's more his position coaches that determine this. Any given player spends very little time with Bradley. He's managing what the coaches teach and all that but that's why staff is so important. We know we have some good position coaches who now finally have some guys to work with, so we'll see.
Quote:I think there are some concerns you brought up. Basically with bringing in a new offensive coordinator/offensive system you're not really getting any continuity from the last year. So depending on how different the system is, you may start Bortles and the other rookies again from square 1, or maybe square 1.25.
In your last comment, I think it works the other way as well. The Texans' brought in Gary Kubiak and his offensive system that had pretty immediate success, however he couldn't pick a Defensive Coordinator to save his life. He brought in two of his buddies for 4 years, and the defense was an utter failure. It wasn't until Wade Smith was brought in (and the conspiracy is that the owner made this call) that the team finally got into the playoffs.
Hopefully Greg Olson works out despite his somewhat "meh" career, cause it would be a shame if any more system disruption occurs while Bortles is trying to develop.
I think the idea that changing playbooks ruins a player's progress is a myth. We have seen over and over again teams switch offenses and in one season improve dramatically. I also think the idea of continuity is overrated. Many times an offense will come out hot the first year and then in later years go stale.
IMO it's really a matter of playcalling and execution. Switching from playbook to playbook doesn't make that much of a difference since all the general football concepts are the same. The difficult part is learning new terminology. Success comes from calling the right plays at the right time and players executing. So, no, I don't think they start back at square one.
Look at the Bears last year. All the Bears homers were predicting Jay Cutler to win MVP because "wow another year under that Trestman offense". As if there was some magic recipe in the back of their playbook Cutler had not discovered yet. Then look at the results. An extra year in the offense did nothing and he played significantly worse.
Quote:I think the idea that changing playbooks ruins a player's progress is a myth. We have seen over and over again teams switch offenses and in one season improve dramatically. I also think the idea of continuity is overrated. Many times an offense will come out hot the first year and then in later years go stale.
IMO it's really a matter of playcalling and execution. Switching from playbook to playbook doesn't make that much of a difference since all the general football concepts are the same. The difficult part is learning new terminology. Success comes from calling the right plays at the right time and players executing. So, no, I don't think they start back at square one.
If you consider the defensive systems, there certainly is a major difference between a Lovie Smith 4-3 cover-2 system, a Dick Lebeau 3-4 zone-blitzing system, and a Wade Smith 3-4 single-gap man-to-man system. Not only with the style of the system, but even the type of players that fit in to it.
On the offensive side I think there are similar differences. In the running game, the difference between OL players\RBs fitted to a zone-blocking offense that Shanahan/Kubiak bring, to a power-blocking system that the Steelers run is pretty substantial.
In the passing game there is quite a difference between a west-coast passing system that Jim Harbaugh had brought to the 49ers and is currently being used by the Chiefs, Browns, and Bengals, compared to the Erhardt-Perkins system used by the Patriots, Panthers, and Cardinals. Examine the Chip Kelly spread-based offensive system to Mike Martz's "Air Coryell" system and it really shows the difference between how teams attack the opposing defense.
QB is the position most affected between the various systems that are brought in. The 3/5/7 step drops, the ability to check in and out of plays, control over the pace of the offense, and finally the progression of reading routes from the route tree are all different based on the system that is in place.
Quote:I think the idea that changing playbooks ruins a player's progress is a myth. We have seen over and over again teams switch offenses and in one season improve dramatically. I also think the idea of continuity is overrated. Many times an offense will come out hot the first year and then in later years go stale.
IMO it's really a matter of playcalling and execution. Switching from playbook to playbook doesn't make that much of a difference since all the general football concepts are the same. The difficult part is learning new terminology. Success comes from calling the right plays at the right time and players executing. So, no, I don't think they start back at square one.
Look at the Bears last year. All the Bears homers were predicting Jay Cutler to win MVP because "wow another year under that Trestman offense". As if there was some magic recipe in the back of their playbook Cutler had not discovered yet. Then look at the results. An extra year in the offense did nothing and he played significantly worse.
You rarely see developing players flourish with changing offenses. Most young players need a bit of stability in order to effectively raise their game.
Veteran teams can make the switch and flourish. Individual young players not so much.
You are more likely to see a young player regress with a scheme change than see one flourish.
The more you switch things up in a learning process the longer it takes to fully grasp the concepts and this isn't unique to learning football. This is a common theme to all forms of learning from elementary school to learning any sort of profession.