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.

---