I don't get super excited by McCarthy being more involved with the defense. He has never coached any defensive position and the quad defense he introduced last year failed miserably and was scrapped after only a couple games.
I don't buy that line of argument, except the "super excited" part. Personally I don't get super excited about anything that doesn't happen on the field.
McCarthy has spent years breaking down and scheming against opposing defenses, going back decades. He's studied every defense in the book and gamed planned for them. To think that experience is entirely non-transferable is not something I would accept.
It's an issue of management dynamics. First of all, his authority appears to be more of dotted line than a solid line relationship. but that's only one consideration and perhaps not the primary one. The primary issue is that getting in the hip pocket of a subordinate, telling him what to do, and micromanaging the work is just bad practice. Influence, steer, communicate culture, brainstorm, support...but he's not going to try to do the guy's job for him if he knows what he's doing. I think we can agree McCarthy is a good manager. In the end, the decisions are Capers', but that does not mean McCarthy cannot contribute to the process...if Capers' is receptive.
I remember reading an article in the Journal Sentinel last year that Thompson finally decided it's time to draft players best suited for Capers' system. I wondered why that wasn't done before and if true than Capers has been forced to play the hands he was dealt by the GM.
When he admitted it is not necessarily when it started. I think you can go back to the Perry pick, and particularly the D. Jones pick, and then the Peppers signing to see that highlighted. And how could it be otherwise, to one extent or the other, at any time? Who would draft players without attention to their fit in the scheme?
Does anybody think Thomson and the scouting high priests lock themselves up in the temple mount, casting their bones and consulting their oracles, only to emerge after months of work with a collection of players? That's not credible, even when you excise the sarcastic analogy. If anybody thinks selective college tape of players the scouting department likes is never shared with the head coach and DC in advance of the draft seems too implausible to consider.
Whether they get those players is a matter for Thompson to decide, as the draft board falls out and based on his determination of value in the pick to the overall football operation. But if he doesn't get a specific player, he'll be looking that kind of player, and the coaches input would have influence.
There's no denying these playoff performances are inexcuseable. But aside of the loss to the Niners in which Kaepernick was running wild I mostly blame the players.
Well, if they are inexcusable, why are they being excused?
With Kaepernick we saw a QB running for more yards before contact than any QB has ever run in total in a game in the history of the NFL, a league with a long history of running QBs, going back to the early years when QBs were glorified running backs who would sometimes throw the ball, with said QBs playing against dismal collections of defensive talent certainly from time to time. And we're to believe the Kaepernick problem lies with the players?!
I'll remind you that Woodson was quite animated after that game, saying no adjustments were applied at half time, an outburst that I believe was a contributing factor in his being fired, i.e., released with no offer of a reduced contract, leaving us with estimable M.D. Jennings in his stead. There's every reason to believe Woodson was telling the truth, with those comments coming from a high football intelligence to boot.
