Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by jonnydel:
Originally posted by Adusoron:
jonnydel, thl408, et al: I don't know if Dilfer's comments about Kaepernick being a 1-read QB have been discussed at length here, and I don't know if you guys hold Grant Cohn's articles (Santa Rosa Press Democrat) with as much skepticism as I do, but I just saw something interesting in Cohn's blog. He says:
"Trent Dilfer, who played for Shula when Shula was the Buccaneers' offensive coordinator from 1996 to 1999 and currently is an analyst for ESPN, recently told a Bay Area radio station there are no progressions in the 49ers' passing game. "They're calling a play for a defense, for a player and, if that play is called wrong, that second, third, fourth option isn't going to get the ball very often. They don't have the type of offensive structure and Colin isn't the type of quarterback that there are five eligible receivers and anyone can get the ball."
This style of passing offense allows coaches to do most of the thinking, and it makes quarterback, the most difficult position in sports, much easier to play: Just fire the ball to the primary receiver if he's open and, if he's covered, run for your life.
When the 49ers' passing game is clicking and Kaepernick is hitting wide-open receiver after wide-open receiver, that means Greg Roman is guessing correctly. He's calling plays designed to get one player open against the type of coverage he expects the opposing team to use on that play. When Roman guesses incorrectly, you don't see Kaepernick reset his feet and find his second and third targets. There are no second and third targets. Those guys are decoys clearing space. When Roman guesses incorrectly, Kaepernick has to flip the ball to a running back in the flat, or scramble, or get sacked."
I just have much difficulty buying that Roman is guessing defenses and structuring Colin with 1 read depending upon the defense Roman guessed. That seems impossible and contradictory to posts you guys have put up showing Colin reading the field of play.
What are Dilfer and Cohn possibly alluding to and do you guys see any merit in their "analysis" of CK7, Roman, and the offensive structure?
Here's my issue with what Dilfer is saying. Dilfer was known as a failure in Shula's system. Shula didn't run a WCO system. The only times in Dilfer's career that he played in a WCO system were under Brian Billick and Mike Holmgren. With Billick, Dilfer himself said that when he took over as the Raven's QB he told Billick he didn't want to run a lot of "concept" passing plays(I'm quoting Dilfer from the "America's Game" on the Super Bowl Winning Ravens. Billick shares in that feature that he only turned to Dilfer after the other Qb,, Banks I believe, couldn't keep from turning the ball over. Billick didn't like having Dilfer in because it limited the offense so much, or as Billick puts it, "I didn't think we could win without a more explosive offense." Dilfer told Billick that he didn't care about "this concept or that concept" he wanted to have plays designed to get their playmakers the ball. So Billick changed his offense around Dilfer, to a very limited read system because Dilfer struggled in a progression system(Billick talks about that when during the season Dilfer threw some "bonehead" interceptions). Dilfer's experience playing in a WCO system was a very abridged system with the Ravens. It's why Brian Billick traded Dilfer's butt after the super bowl. Then Dilfer played in Seattle with Holmgren. Dilfer again struggled mightily in Holmgren's offense until we picked up his butt to mentor Alex Smith. Which by that time, we weren't running a WCO anymore.
That's why I have a hard time buying Dilfer's assessments of our "limited progression" passing game. When Kap was asked about comments like that he said, "Maybe he(Dilfer) should know what my progressions are before making a statement like that." The WCO we run is much more similar to what was run by Walsh/Holmgren/Mariucci/Gruden than it is someone like a Shanahan/Reid/McCarthy
Just because a player is a "failure" at playing in a particular system, he can't be an adequate analyst for that system? That would invalidate pretty much all of our analysis and would mean that many current QB coaches and what we would consider successful OCs around the league couldn't comment by this standard bud. I think Brian Billick, who you refer to said it best when asked if Jay Gruden as a WCO guy would work in Washington for RG III: "no one runs the (pure) WCO anymore because everyone runs (a version of) it." All WCO are altered in the NFL today so IMHO whether you played in a pure WCO system run by Walsh or a system by Andy Reid, and coached by anyone from their tree, I think that gives you the ability to speak on what it was like to have been paid to play within it. One could argue Alex Smith's WCO was "abridged" ... and actually it was he who said "everyone runs the same plays, they just have different terminology for it." And he said this while being coached by Turner.
I'm just saying, don't shoot the messenger when he isn't the only analyst that's said this about the 49ers passing offense.
I'm not shooting the messenger, it's more taking what he says with a grain of salt. I haven't seen anyone on "NFL Playbook" which actually breakdowns the film, talk about Harbaugh having a "limited progression" system, at least not anytime recently. The people I hear talking about that are journalists who know very little about actual football X's and O's and Dilfer. My issue is that I think Dilfer is hired to mainly talk out of his butt. I don't think there's a lot of actual film analysis going on from Dilfer. I was pointing to his failures as a qb, mainly in his abilities to understand an execute a complex system. Which makes me think lesser of his opinion that we're running a "remedial" system.