Richard Williamson / Is he ok? Who else to fire.

I know his history as a WR coach. Granted he has not had much to work with. But I have a few questions.

How has he taken his demotion?
Is he really giving what he gave in '97 to the job?
How big is he in the decision that is ultimately made about the depth and players at that position?
Does he still think we are ok here?
Does he think it is all because of our QB situation?
Do him and Henning get along?
How bout getting Chris Carter (if he is interested) as a WR coach next year? (I doubt he will stay in the league)


Anyway, Its obvious we need to keep everything about the defense in tact.

But I say clean house on Offense. Fire these people:
1. Dan Henning (Ya Jackass)
2. Richard Williamson (Time to cut the cord)
3. Jim Skipper (Maybe not, not sure about other runners, why they are not playing - does Jim say Dee should not play today?)
4. Don Breaux - he has been riding #85's coat tails for too long. He and Walls should exit gracefully this year.

Paul Boudreau seems to be doing ok. Is he a good "game time" motivator - not sure about that.

 

Excellent questions, Sandman. I'd love to hear his answers, but I doubt we ever will. I don't even know enough to speculate.

I could be wrong, but I just don't see Carter as coaching material. Sorry.

I'm with ya on #1. With our poor WR play this year (doesn't it seem like they're all gradually getting worse?), I'm leaning toward #2. I'm considering #4. Our TE play has not been inspiring. Of course, we haven't had much in the way of talent since Walls was in his prime, either. As far as I'm concerned, Breaux should be 'on the bubble'.

#3--Are you kidding? The running game is the only thing that's gone right all season long. At this point, I'm for firing Henning and letting Skipper be the interim OC until next season. I vehemently, but respectfully disagree with you there.

Boudreau's unit has been inconsistent this year, but I have a hunch it has something to do with the OC's blocking schemes. I'm not blaming Henning for all the false starts, but the impression I'm getting from reading all the comments from the fans who see the games is that the schemes are really weird and most of the time the players seem out of place when blocks are missed. Maybe I'm wrong on that one, though.

That being said, I do think Mr. Terry has just about worn out his welcome.

Here's another thought: Scotty O's units could use some polishing, too.

With a new infusion of offensive talent on the roster next year, I believe a new OC is a must, along with a VERY GOOD quarterbacks coach. I want BOTH, and I want them on the same page.

I also want a WR coach who will not coddle these guys' egos. I want a WR coach who will instill discipline and a sense of professionalism in these guys. If Moose drops a ball, or if Smith fumbles again, I want a guy that will put his foot so far up their butts that they'll be using their jocks for chin straps.

And you know what? I'm still naive enough to believe Fox will get us most of that this offseason.

 

Yea, I am probably wrong about #3. The only reason I remotely thought of Chris Carter is he seemed to be a good mentor for that jailbird up in Minnisota. Also, Chris would come in handy in catching drills, how to catch and hold on to a ball....

 

Dan Henning was the last hire here. The rest of the staff, if Henning went, should be evaluated as always, but I find no significant problems with the player coaching, just the decision-making. If Henning goes, we need a quarterbacks coach as well, and it was pretty fucking foolish to hire an old man with other aging (but better quality) coaches on the staff as well, without an immediate successor to step up in situations like this. Jim Skipper's the best qualified coach to do so, but was on the staff with Fox when he was taken from his OC duties in NY (though it was, I believe, a temporary job akin to Hil Haskell's in Car/Seattle, be the offensive boss while Fassell called the plays at the time).

So overall, I don't find the coaching of players bad. The receiver drops have started to improve, the players are more crisp at that position when healthy. The line play hasn't been as good, but overall play isn't where it should be across the board and Boudreau is a very effective coach.

Most of these guys have earned their jobs time and time again. And best I know they're not involved in the decisionmaking the way they were in 1999.

 

The chances of firing a coach in mid season are marginal I would suspect. However if I was Dan Henning I would start pricing moving services. He needs to go

 

That's why I'm wondering if the decrease in play quality has been due to the scheming in the new offense. That's the only aspect of the Offensive Line play that has changed, near as I can tell. This was not a bad line last year. We have the same coach and same 5 starters from last year's well-respected line. The only real difference is Henning, unless you count other possible factors like a QB and RB change.

 

Scheme has been changed, obviously. A lot of passes early have been low percentage deep passes, and not much playaction. We're not creating, we're not helping our line with screens or misdirection. And while linemen like run blocking over pass blocking (it's active versus passive, and you don't look like an ass as much for missing a block) they do wear down as well.

I think the biggest problem is that there's just so little input and gameplanning help. When we were doing it well in 99 we were the basic blueprint for the WCO - OC did the offensive practice and the administration, the QBs coach did the gameplanning, the head coach was involved with the decision-making (and the more innovative plays) and the receivers coach/line coach were each giving input along with being the preparation men for the opponent's defensive tendencies and looks. This worked in Green Bay, it works in Philly, it worked in SF for years and does now as well. You get hands in the pie and in the end you make team decisions. Nowadays an offense is far too complicated for one man to handle the whole thing. That's why QBs coaches came along, that's why the better offenses have different guys saying their say and talented guys all around. And so in the end we're what, one of three or four teams that don't have a QBs coach? And the only one of those that doesn't have a head coach with offensive experience.

In this situation, Henning does the gameplanning as well as running the O practice, he calls the plays and has no input, and he's not on the field. So not only that but Williamson is basically just helping Henning see the field rather than giving an opinion, I'd have to guess, because Henning's going to see what he sees. So you have one guy ultimately accountable, for both playcalling, gameplanning, quarterback play, scouting, preparation, and ultimate decision making.

And that leaves Mike McCoy, a third year coach who's never proven to me to be more than an offensive assistant (which, in fairness, is his title) basically acting as the offensive conduit and the guy who has to talk to his QBs. In other words, he's a QBs coach in every sense except that in practice, Henning coaches them.

I'd feel better (and feel we'd play better) with a good QBs coach to aid a good OC. I'd feel good if both were on the ground, as well. I love that Jack Del Rio coaches from the ground. I love that our defensive players have him to immediately consult as well as Mills and Fox. What does Mike McCoy, who's been thrust in a position greater than his means, have to tell Rodney Peete about playing QB, other than second-hand advice from Dan Henning? I don't mean to pick on MMc, because he does his damndest and I'm probably overthinking his impact on 2000-2001's poor offenses, but the "dumb ************" incident where Seifert threw McCoy's clipboard on the ground tells me that maybe he's not the guy you want second in command on our offense, especially when our first doesn't seem to have a grasp on the idea that we're not in the early 80's.