Knock on Woods

[red desert]

Originally posted by Brighteyes
I think the difference with Sullivan is that he had no ambition to be an OC -- and seemed to be taken by surprise by the job. He had no concept of clock management, or getting plays in on time.

Most people have wanted the position -- on the way to being a head coach -- most of their careers, and are more prepared to step into the shoes.

Further, all the things that Sullivan didn't understand were not Mac's area either (as he grew up on the defensive side of the ball). I can't see Green's offense ever having trouble getting plays in.

Good post.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knock on Woods

Originally posted by wallyburger
Nope wrong take. My fault for not clarifying my point adequately. Woods & Sullivan similarities is what I meant to convey.

Using your logic about Green / Woods combo, I hope it works out better than the Mac/Marmie alliance, because the defense surely did suck.

Big differene is that Green has proven he can build and coach a great offense. Mac never proved he was a good DC at any point in his career.

 

[vince56]

Originally posted by Brighteyes
I think the difference with Sullivan is that he had no ambition to be an OC -- and seemed to be taken by surprise by the job. He had no concept of clock management, or getting plays in on time.

BINGO!!! You hit the nail on the head, Jo. Sullivan was like a reluctant hero, only he was missing the hero part

 

[Northern Card]

Originally posted by arthurracoon


Here is a quote from another article.

He is obviously very knowledgeable in many positions and is DEFINATELY much more experienced (as an OC) the Jerry Sullivan. [/B]

Given the use of CAPS for emphasis, it seems to me you'd

DEFINITELY

want to spell the word correctly

 

[kerouac9]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Knock on Woods

Originally posted by ajcardfan
Well, more than a year after Mac took the HC job we had the starting MLB saying on the radio that the Cardinals "run Tobin's defense".

There's no way that McGinnis was a defensive guru anywhere near Green's level of guru when it comes to running an offense.

JMO.

Not many head coaches have very little input into the schemes on either side of the ball. They got the job in the first place by being really good at coaching offense or defense, they aren't going to just say very little about the side of the ball they feel is their expertise.

I think that part of the problem of the Mac regime is that it was never really clear who was in control of what. Was Mac in charge of the defense and Sully in charge of the offense? If so, how insane was Mac to give him that job?

Was Marmie in charge of the Defense and Sully in charge of the Offense with Mac coordinating everything? Maybe, but that's no way to run a railroad. Did ANYTHING look coordinated on either side of the ball?

Mac was quick to assume responsiblity for everything on Monday morning, but nothing ever really was changed to "adapt" to the debacles that occured every Sunday. I just don't get it.

I think that part of the upside of Green's administration is that it's going to be absolutely clear who's in charge of everything that gets onto the field: Dennis Green.

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

Well

Originally posted by wallyburger
I sure hope Green can multi task. It seems that some of the posters to the forum would have Green selling tickets, running the offense, making player personnel decisions, and running the P R department.

Me thinks he has already started doing that.

 

[JeffGollin]

What's wrong with that? I think it strange that many of the criticisms of Mac are being mirrored so far by Green's regime.
Ummm. Let's see.

- Team didn't seem prepared most Sundays.

- Players didn't improve much from year to year.

- Certain position needs (like CB) apparently weren't considered a priority and didn't get filled.

- Clock management wasn't all that it should be.

- Offense seemed too predictable too often.

- Other teams were said to know our signals in advance.

Specifically, which Green assistant coaching appointments mirror the above criticisms? (Solomon's possibly not being strong enough to straighten out our problems in the secondary is the only one that comes close).

Obviously, talking and doing aren't necessarily the same, but, judging from what I read and hear, it appears that (a) our assistant coaches will be better teachers, (b)our offense under Wood will be more aggressive and less predictable and (c) Graves has already said that a CB upgrade is one of our priorities.

I'll concede that the Cardinals may face a new set of "challenges" under Denny, but I don't think they're a repetition of things that went on under the previous coaching regime.

 

[PACardsFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knock on Woods

Originally posted by wallyburger
I'm not trying. I am being.

What's wrong with that? I think it strange that many of the criticisms of Mac are being mirrored so far by Green's regime. I find it quite ironic, that maybe the same fans are giving a free pass to Green and maybe criticized Mac for similarities, and we all know Mac's way didn't work. Patchwork staff. Inexperienced staff.

Difference of opinion is what makes this forum worth reading. It's not a crime to disagree.

Mac was criticized because he LOST 70% of the games he coached. Had he won, then his entire approach would have been commended. I will give Green the benefit of the doubt because of his overall record, but should his record as Cardinals coach mirror that of Mac's, then I will criticize him also.