PDA

View Full Version : Teicher: Solari also has a passing fancy


tk13
02-11-2006, 01:33 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/13845102.htm

Former line coach Solari also has a passing fancy
By ADAM TEICHER
The Kansas City Star

In his first public words since being hired as offensive coordinator, Mike Solari sought to dispel any notion he would veer the Chiefs from a course set by predecessor Al Saunders.

“We’ll make a few changes, but when I say a few changes I truly believe you won’t notice it,” Solari said Friday. “There’s not going to be a lot of changes. This is the Kansas City Chiefs offense, and we’re going to do what we do.

“We want to move forward and improve.”

That should come as relief to the legions of Chiefs fans concerned that Solari, a career offensive-line coach, would return the Chiefs to their Neanderthal offense from the pre-Saunders days.

Maybe a few players, too. Some assumed the combination of the hiring of the defensive-minded Herm Edwards as head coach and the promotion of Solari meant otherwise.

“Our offense will be more run-oriented,” tackle Willie Roaf said recently. “The good thing about Saunders is that he opened up the game a lot more with his passing packages.”

It’s all part of what Solari is battling, the perception that offensive-line coaches don’t make for good offensive coordinators. He’s heard it before when he’s been considered for coordinator openings elsewhere: offensive-line coaches neither understand nor appreciate the passing game.

He’s determined to prove that at least one does.

“I’ve been told that offensive-line coaches don’t know the passing game,” Solari said. “It’s not an issue. I’ve been in this league (17) years.

“I believe offensive-line coaches know the protections. I believe the offensive-line coaches know the run game. I believe offensive-line coaches that have a history in the league know the passing game. Do they know it as well as a quarterback coach or a receiver coach? No, that’s not their expertise. But why can’t he prepare and know it as well within four of five months?”

In fact, Solari said he believes his background — 17 seasons as an NFL line coach, the last nine with the Chiefs — will help rather than hinder.

“The game is won up front,” he said. “You’ve got to run the ball to win games. You’ve got to be able to pass the ball to win a championship but to win a game, you’ve got to be able to run the ball in the fourth quarter.”

Edwards needed no convincing. He once tried hiring Solari as his offensive coordinator when Edwards was head coach of the Jets.

“The first thing you’d better know about offense is how to get ’em blocked,” Edwards said. “I think we lose sight of that. Mike knows how to do that very, very well.”

“Will Mike have some growing pains? Yeah. You know what I tell him? ‘Whenever you get yourself in a jam … just turn around and give it to the runner, and you’ll be OK.’ That’s how we’ll handle the rough times.”

Solari resisted not only that earlier offer by Edwards but others. It wasn’t because Solari didn’t feel he had coordinator qualifications.

“There were a couple of times I didn’t feel I had the right to go,” Solari said. “I promised (former head coach Dick Vermeil) as the offensive-line coach that I would help bring a championship to the Kansas City Chiefs. I failed also. I didn’t get the job done.”

Solari’s ability as an offensive-line coach has never come under question. The Chiefs are generally acknowledged to have the NFL’s best line. They had three linemen — Roaf and guards Brian Waters and Will Shields — selected to play in the Pro Bowl for the second straight season.

“I’d say he’s the best I’ve ever worked with,” Roaf said. “He doesn’t do a lot of technique work with the younger guys, so from a technical standpoint, I’ve worked with some line coaches who help more with the fundamentals.

“But as far as us knowing our assignments — we’ve probably one of the best lines in not making mental errors — he does a great job with that.”

Dunit35
02-11-2006, 01:36 AM
I am hoping there isn't much drop in any of our offensive playcalling. Besides the stupid plays at the wrong time.

Tribal Warfare
02-11-2006, 01:56 AM
I was going to blow a gasket if KC didn't retain Solari, I have the utmost confidence that he'll do a good or even a great job as OC.

huskerdooz
02-11-2006, 05:34 AM
“I’d say he’s the best I’ve ever worked with,” Roaf said. “He doesn’t do a lot of technique work with the younger guys, so from a technical standpoint, I’ve worked with some line coaches who help more with the fundamentals.
“But as far as us knowing our assignments — we’ve probably one of the best lines in not making mental errors — he does a great job with that.”

I found this quote that I highlighted in red very interesting. Maybe this is why our young OL seem to never get better. With the exception of Brian Waters development, we really haven't developed any up and coming OL to replace our aging vets.

KC Jones
02-11-2006, 06:40 AM
Besides the stupid plays at the wrong time.

I've always taken some exception to this line of thought. The 'stupid plays at the wrong time', were a key part of Saunders success. NFL coaches get predictable, but because Saunders would try things the opponent didn't expect (like running on 3rd and long), he'd keep them on their back foot and they'd be unable to pigeonhole his play calling. Sometimes the results were great and soemtimes they weren't, but even more importantly the next time we were in that situation they couldn't guess what we were going to try.

Gaz
02-11-2006, 07:03 AM
I agree that Saunders got too “cute” on occasion, going for the razzle-dazzle instead of just lining up and hitting the other team behind the best OL in the NFL. It cost us at least one game and changed momentum in some others.

On the other hand, that same attribute won the Packers game, when Kennison scored on play action in overtime.

You gotta take the good with the bad.

I am not sure I like the fact that Solari feels the need to assure the fans that he will not forget the passing game. Just as I do not want a return to Martyball, neither do I want an OC who feels like he must pass in order to limit complaints from the fans. If the situation calls for it, I have no objection to feeding The Enemy a continuous diet of Johnson.

xoxo~
Gaz
Hopes Solari will be Solari and not Saunders Lite.

Tribal Warfare
02-11-2006, 07:36 AM
I found this quote that I highlighted in red very interesting. Maybe this is why our young OL seem to never get better. With the exception of Brian Waters development, we really haven't developed any up and coming OL to replace our aging vets.


If your not counting Ryan Lilja. An OG that Carl was trying to "hide" on the practice squad, before the Colts grabed him :# :cuss:

Hoover
02-11-2006, 08:23 AM
I agree that Saunders got too “cute” on occasion, going for the razzle-dazzle instead of just lining up and hitting the other team behind the best OL in the NFL. It cost us at least one game and changed momentum in some others.

On the other hand, that same attribute won the Packers game, when Kennison scored on play action in overtime.

You gotta take the good with the bad.

I am not sure I like the fact that Solari feels the need to assure the fans that he will not forget the passing game. Just as I do not want a return to Martyball, neither do I want an OC who feels like he must pass in order to limit complaints from the fans. If the situation calls for it, I have no objection to feeding The Enemy a continuous diet of Johnson.

xoxo~
Gaz
Hopes Solari will be Solari and not Saunders Lite.

I have no problem with a play action pass anytime in the game, it was Saunders ability to kill a drive with a fake draw triple reverse. when we just crossed the 50 yard line

CoMoChief
02-11-2006, 09:46 AM
I've always taken some exception to this line of thought. The 'stupid plays at the wrong time', were a key part of Saunders success. NFL coaches get predictable, but because Saunders would try things the opponent didn't expect (like running on 3rd and long), he'd keep them on their back foot and they'd be unable to pigeonhole his play calling. Sometimes the results were great and soemtimes they weren't, but even more importantly the next time we were in that situation they couldn't guess what we were going to try.


Passing on 2nd and goal in Seattle a few seasons ago where Trent threw an INT was pretty stupid IMO. I would hope coaches dont do that on purpose.

Count Zarth
02-11-2006, 09:47 AM
Passing on 2nd and goal in Seattle a few seasons ago where Trent threw an INT was pretty stupid IMO. I would hope coaches dont do that on purpose.

So we should never pass when we get inside the five yard line? I'm glad YOU aren't calling the plays.

nomad
02-11-2006, 10:11 AM
I found this quote that I highlighted in red very interesting. Maybe this is why our young OL seem to never get better. With the exception of Brian Waters development, we really haven't developed any up and coming OL to replace our aging vets.

Interesting. I came away with the same observation.

Leads me to wonder if more coaching of techniques could make a Jordan Black or Sampson or Svitek or Parquet, players who would grow into starter material.

jspchief
02-11-2006, 10:21 AM
So we should never pass when we get inside the five yard line? I'm glad YOU aren't calling the plays. With Holmes in the backfield and our O-line? No.

At least don't throw a fade to the front of the endzone.

Mr. Laz
02-11-2006, 10:31 AM
i imagine Solari will try to pass like under saunders..


the question is when stuff goes wrong will he be able to make adjustments so they can keep passing like in the past.


this statement "when in trouble just hand it to the running back" is a great example of potiential problems.


that habit leads to being predictable and to martyball



see how fast our huge running numbers dry up when the other team knows what's coming. People will try and blame the Offensive line or the RB ... but predictability can pretty much kill any offense.



hopefully Solari can do it

Raiderhader
02-11-2006, 11:22 AM
I've always taken some exception to this line of thought. The 'stupid plays at the wrong time', were a key part of Saunders success. NFL coaches get predictable, but because Saunders would try things the opponent didn't expect (like running on 3rd and long), he'd keep them on their back foot and they'd be unable to pigeonhole his play calling. Sometimes the results were great and soemtimes they weren't, but even more importantly the next time we were in that situation they couldn't guess what we were going to try.


The problem being that the "stupid plays at the wrong time" became predictable. We knew what crazy sh!t Al was going to pull in a given situation, you know the opposing team did too. Going with the right play at the right time would have been more unpredictable this past season.

Shox
02-11-2006, 11:23 AM
A "cute" play is a play out of the norm which the players do not execute and it fails.

A "great" play call is the same play which the players execute well and it is successful.


When they work the fans love it and the pundents think the coaches are football genious.....when they fail the fans want the coaches run out of town and the pundents get to second guess and criticise.

Smed1065
02-11-2006, 11:30 AM
A "cute" play is a play out of the norm which the players do not execute and it fails.

A "great" play call is the same play which the players execute well and it is successful.


When they work the fans love it and the pundents think the coaches are football genious.....when they fail the fans want the coaches run out of town and the pundents get to second guess and criticise.

Excellent point!

picasso
02-11-2006, 09:40 PM
i imagine Solari will try to pass like under saunders..


the question is when stuff goes wrong will he be able to make adjustments so they can keep passing like in the past.


this statement "when in trouble just hand it to the running back" is a great example of potiential problems.


that habit leads to being predictable and to martyball



see how fast our huge running numbers dry up when the other team knows what's coming. People will try and blame the Offensive line or the RB ... but predictability can pretty much kill any offense.



hopefully Solari can do it

I think that quote was the only thing that bothered me in his press conference. But I felt extremely assured from his press conference. He seems like a quick minded intellegent coach and I think he'll do a fine job as our OC this year. But what he said about being in trouble just hand it to the RB won't work in cases where trouble is a 3rd and 12. Predictability does become a factor in that case. I hope he's smarter than that.

Hydrae
02-11-2006, 09:52 PM
A "cute" play is a play out of the norm which the players do not execute and it fails.

A "great" play call is the same play which the players execute well and it is successful.


When they work the fans love it and the pundents think the coaches are football genious.....when they fail the fans want the coaches run out of town and the pundents get to second guess and criticise.

We all enjoy those opportunities. :)

StcChief
02-11-2006, 10:41 PM
I've always taken some exception to this line of thought. The 'stupid plays at the wrong time', were a key part of Saunders success. NFL coaches get predictable, but because Saunders would try things the opponent didn't expect (like running on 3rd and long), he'd keep them on their back foot and they'd be unable to pigeonhole his play calling. Sometimes the results were great and soemtimes they weren't, but even more importantly the next time we were in that situation they couldn't guess what we were going to try.
AS single handedly cost us the Dallas game 1:50 before half time with the friggin pass plays when LJ had run thru them. WTF.

I won't miss his play calling hoping Solari will see the game and how it's unfolding to make play adjustments.

KCChiefsMan
02-11-2006, 10:54 PM
even if we were to be conservative and mostly run the ball.......its Larry Johnson running it! enough said

but I'm not worried at all, I think it was a smart move to hire from within for our OC and Solari definately deserves it!

KCChiefsFan88
02-12-2006, 12:24 AM
AS single handedly cost us the Dallas game 1:50 before half time with the friggin pass plays when LJ had run thru them. WTF.



Yeah because it was Saunders' fault after all that LJ missed the block on that play. And it was Saunders' fault that Gunther was humiliated by a mediocre Dallas offense that made Drew Bledsoe look like Dan Marino back there. And it was Saunders' fault that the Chiefs couldn't convert a makable FG attempt to tie the game and send it into OT.

Never mind the fact Saunders' offense scored 28 points and racked up well over 400 yards of total offense.

KCChiefsFan88
02-12-2006, 12:31 AM
I've always taken some exception to this line of thought. The 'stupid plays at the wrong time', were a key part of Saunders success. NFL coaches get predictable, but because Saunders would try things the opponent didn't expect (like running on 3rd and long), he'd keep them on their back foot and they'd be unable to pigeonhole his play calling. Sometimes the results were great and soemtimes they weren't, but even more importantly the next time we were in that situation they couldn't guess what we were going to try.


Good point. Being unpredictable was part of what made the Chiefs offense so great. Obviously there are going to be playcalls that don't work out, that is the case with every team, but based on the success the Chiefs offense had under Saunders, this was more the exception rather than the norm.

Coogs
02-12-2006, 09:12 AM
I found this quote that I highlighted in red very interesting. Maybe this is why our young OL seem to never get better. With the exception of Brian Waters development, we really haven't developed any up and coming OL to replace our aging vets.


Couldn't agree more. Solari is great with 3/4 pro-bowlers along the line.

It concerns me having an OC and a DC that may look good with pro-bowlers, but seem to struggle when running short on pro-bowlers. Not paying attention to the fundamentals may very well be the reason.

Bowser
02-12-2006, 09:22 AM
Couldn't agree more. Solari is great with 3/4 pro-bowlers along the line.

It concerns me having an OC and a DC that may look good with pro-bowlers, but seem to struggle when running short on pro-bowlers. Not paying attention to the fundamentals may very well be the reason.

Good point.

Maybe coaches get spoiled having an abundance of talent at their disposal.

stevieray
02-12-2006, 09:42 AM
Interesting. I came away with the same observation.

Leads me to wonder if more coaching of techniques could make a Jordan Black or Sampson or Svitek or Parquet, players who would grow into starter material.

DV was high on Sampson & Svitek in his last radio interview.

Let's hope the new line coach will work with the younger players on fundamentals.

Mr. Laz
02-12-2006, 10:43 AM
even if we were to be conservative and mostly run the ball.......its Larry Johnson running it! enough said
that's just silly arrogance


larry johnson isn't some kind of one man wrecking crew ... he's not superman.


he's a good ... maybe great running back.


an incomplete offense will cripple his number ... will cripple any RB's numbers.

jspchief
02-12-2006, 10:50 AM
that's just silly arrogance


larry johnson isn't some kind of one man wrecking crew ... he's not superman.


he's a good ... maybe great running back.


an incomplete offense will cripple his number ... will cripple any RB's numbers.He doesn't have to be a one man wrecking crew. He's running behind a pro bowl line and fullback.

I'm not saying the team can get by with no passing game, but I don't have a problem leaning on what works when the passing game is struggling either. Sometimes it doesn't matter if your opponent knows what you're doing, because your playes are good enough to execute the play regardless.

We have one of the great running games in recent football history. Using that as a crutch to help Solari through his OC growing pains sounds like a smart idea to me. People are so enamored with this ridiculous martyball bullshit that they think a run heavy offense is automatic failure. Wonder what the 73% run Steelers think of that.

4th and Long
02-12-2006, 10:51 AM
He doesn't have to be a one man wrecking crew. He's running behind a pro bowl line and fullback.
Then again, he may NOT be running behind a Pro Bowl fullback when the season starts.

Mr. Laz
02-12-2006, 10:52 AM
I'm not saying the team can get by with no passing game
isn't that what i just said

4th and Long
02-12-2006, 10:53 AM
isn't that what i just said
I thought it was. :shrug:

milkman
02-12-2006, 10:56 AM
isn't that what i just said

Who the hell knows what you say, ever? :p

jspchief
02-12-2006, 10:57 AM
isn't that what i just saidNot really. You responded to that other post as if the guy was claiming we don't need to pass, when all he was saying is we can be a run heavy offense.

Mr. Laz
02-12-2006, 10:58 AM
Who the hell knows what you say, ever? :p
hehe ...


thanks for nothing, mr. sidemilkwinderman :p

Mr. Laz
02-12-2006, 11:00 AM
Not really. You responded to that other post as if the guy was claiming we don't need to pass, when all he was saying is we can be a run heavy offense.
he said the offense scheme doesn't much matter because of larry johnson.

i disagree ... no running back is good enough to win by himself.


Originally Posted by KCChiefsMan
even if we were to be conservative and mostly run the ball.......its Larry Johnson running it! enough said

milkman
02-12-2006, 11:01 AM
hehe ...


thanks for nothing, mr. sidemilkwinderman :p

You're welcome.
Think nothing of it!

jspchief
02-12-2006, 11:04 AM
he said the offense scheme doesn't much matter because of larry johnson.

i disagree ... no running back is good enough to win by himself.


Originally Posted by KCChiefsMan
even if we were to be conservative and mostly run the ball.......its Larry Johnson running it! enough saidOkay. I guess I didn't take his post that literally. I read it more as saying we have the players to be a successful run heavy offense. Maybe he really thinks that all the offense needs is Larry Johnson, but somehow I doubt even he is that stupid.

Mr. Laz
02-12-2006, 11:09 AM
Okay. I guess I didn't take his post that literally. I read it more as saying we have the players to be a successful run heavy offense. Maybe he really thinks that all the offense needs is Larry Johnson, but somehow I doubt even he is that stupid.
i just go by what is written ... i don't know how he "Felt" while writing it.


imo an offense has to be a legit threat to run or pass the ball to really be a good offense.