PDA

View Full Version : Mike Solari, first half grade


Wile_E_Coyote
11-06-2006, 01:22 PM
first time OC

Wa-Z
11-06-2006, 01:26 PM
Inevitably a tough start, but flowing now. A-ish to Bish.

bogie
11-06-2006, 01:29 PM
On a scale of 1 to 8, I'll give him a 5.

Wile_E_Coyote
11-06-2006, 01:30 PM
working with a back up QB with little playing time & an O-line that's not what it was B+ Should prolly be higher given it's his first go round

ChiefsFan4Life
11-06-2006, 01:36 PM
I gave him a solid B - started off rough but improved quite a bit - if he keeps it up as it is currently going it will be an A for the season

Mr. Laz
11-06-2006, 01:38 PM
really impossible to tell ...... too many personal changes to know for sure.

head coaching change

we really have to wait until he settles in to see what he is actually gonna do.

jspchief
11-06-2006, 01:42 PM
I'm giving him a C. Personally, I think the play-calling has been terrible at times, the Rams game being a perfect example. Calling 40+ running plays per game does not make for a good OC IMO. We need to mix things up.

StcChief
11-06-2006, 01:47 PM
A- B+ as JSP says needs to mix it up...

Herm may be collaring his play calling a bit.

noa
11-06-2006, 02:13 PM
I gave him an A because he's stuck to the basics after the loss of Trent. I disagree with jspchief saying that we need to mix it up more. Not with this personnel. Pound the ball with Larry, open it up with TonyG, and throw a little bit to the WRs, but not too much. I really like how he called the last three games. Even though Larry had 39 carries in one game, I thought we needed to pound the ball to win that game. He's also being very reasonable in what he asks Huard to do.
If you told me before training camp that we would be playing without Trent, without Willie Roaf, and without TRich, and with a first time OC, I would have said that our offense would be screwed. We may no longer be a top flight offense statistically, but what can you expect after so much turmoil with our personnel?

CosmicPal
11-06-2006, 02:24 PM
I give the guy an A.

You lose your HOF starting left tackle to retirement.
You lose your starting FB to free agency.
Priest Holmes is missing in action.
You lose your starting QB for half the season and the replacement hasn't started a game for like forever!
You endure a season with an injury-plagued offensive line.
Your wideouts are average at best.

And yet, we've done nothing but stick to the game-plan established before the season even started, and it has worked. No matter how many parts have fallen off our offensive vehicle, it keeps motoring along.

I give the entire offense from the coaches to the players an A...just for the fact they keep on chooglin' when I figured it wouldn't run very well anymore, and that our season would be lost. If you can't admire a team for that, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

KCSupersized
11-06-2006, 02:25 PM
I gave him a B-. The fact he forgot what down it was hurt his grade. He has been improving though, and hopefully by the end of the season I can give him a better grade.

penguinz
11-06-2006, 02:25 PM
I'm giving him a C. Personally, I think the play-calling has been terrible at times, the Rams game being a perfect example. Calling 40+ running plays per game does not make for a good OC IMO. We need to mix things up.
The running plays are really screwing us. we need an OC that does not call plays that are our strength.

Stewie
11-06-2006, 02:29 PM
I give him an A with what he's had to work with. I think Herm got in his head in the second half and he called too many running plays.

Stewie
11-06-2006, 02:31 PM
Wow! That's damn near a perfect bell curve so far with "B" being the popular vote.

htismaqe
11-06-2006, 02:34 PM
I give the guy an A.

You lose your HOF starting left tackle to retirement.
You lose your starting FB to free agency.
Priest Holmes is missing in action.
You lose your starting QB for half the season and the replacement hasn't started a game for like forever!
You endure a season with an injury-plagued offensive line.
Your wideouts are average at best.

And yet, we've done nothing but stick to the game-plan established before the season even started, and it has worked. No matter how many parts have fallen off our offensive vehicle, it keeps motoring along.

I give the entire offense from the coaches to the players an A...just for the fact they keep on chooglin' when I figured it wouldn't run very well anymore, and that our season would be lost. If you can't admire a team for that, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

Exactly.

mcan
11-06-2006, 02:38 PM
Criteria:

The offense's job is to score more points than the other team, or rather, as many points as they possibly can. You do this by maximizing your yardage on each play. You do THAT by calling appropriate plays that maximize your potential GAIN while minimizing your potential risk (expected value). The players then execute those plays to the best of their abilities and talent levels. The best overall indicators of offensive success are points per game, and yards per play. They tell both stories.


NFL: Low - Averge - High

PPG- 12.8 - 20.7 - 31
YPP- 4.1 - 5.1 - 6.4

Chiefs:

PPG- 22.9
YPP- 5.2


The bottom line is this: we've been winning games. So that instantly shoots our slightly above average numbers up a couple of points. So, I'm going to give Mike a solid "B" where his numbers are probably closer to a C+ or B-. Add in to that the fact that he's done it with a couple new offensive tackles and a back up quarterback and I'd say it should probably be a B+, but I'm spoiled and don't easily give out "A"s.

Coogs
11-06-2006, 02:40 PM
I give the guy an A.

You lose your HOF starting left tackle to retirement.
You lose your starting FB to free agency.
Priest Holmes is missing in action.
You lose your starting QB for half the season and the replacement hasn't started a game for like forever!
You endure a season with an injury-plagued offensive line.
Your wideouts are average at best.

And yet, we've done nothing but stick to the game-plan established before the season even started, and it has worked. No matter how many parts have fallen off our offensive vehicle, it keeps motoring along.

I give the entire offense from the coaches to the players an A...just for the fact they keep on chooglin' when I figured it wouldn't run very well anymore, and that our season would be lost. If you can't admire a team for that, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

jspchief
11-06-2006, 02:43 PM
The running plays are really screwing us. we need an OC that does not call plays that are our strength.Our offense completely stalled for 2 qtrs against the Rams because we did nothing but run. On a day when they don't have so many screw-ups, we probably lose that game.

I'm not saying we shouldn't run. Not at all. But I do believe that you need to have a balanced offense to have consistent success. Otherwise the first time a team stops your running game, you're screwed. It happens to Denver every year.

mcan
11-06-2006, 02:44 PM
...No matter how many parts have fallen off our offensive vehicle, it keeps motoring along.

I give the entire offense from the coaches to the players an A...just for the fact they keep on chooglin' when I figured it wouldn't run very well anymore, and that our season would be lost. If you can't admire a team for that, then there's something seriously wrong with you.


Grades should not be RELATIVE. Yes, I admire us for being able to maintain a moderately successful (read also: barely above average) offense under the circumstances, but that doesn't change the fact that we're still just barely above average. The fact that we're winning, and the fact that I'm proud of these guys doesn't mean that they can't improve by leaps and bounds still. I'm in the camp that an "A" grade means you can't do much better. That you've really hit the mark. Like on a math test. This offense WAS an "A" and I believe that we're still capable of being an "A" offense. I'm optimistic that we'll be one when Trent comes back.

Chiefnj
11-06-2006, 02:49 PM
An "A" for the reasons set forth by CosmicPal. And, in judging a coordinator, or a coach - grades are relative.

htismaqe
11-06-2006, 02:51 PM
Our offense completely stalled for 2 qtrs against the Rams because we did nothing but run. On a day when they don't have so many screw-ups, we probably lose that game.

I'm not saying we shouldn't run. Not at all. But I do believe that you need to have a balanced offense to have consistent success. Otherwise the first time a team stops your running game, you're screwed. It happens to Denver every year.

The offense stalled when Waters went down. At one point, we had Welbourn AND Bober playing.

noa
11-06-2006, 02:54 PM
The offense stalled when Waters went down. At one point, we had Welbourn AND Bober playing.


Plus, we shouldn't have to score on every possession. Sometimes, you just want to run the ball consistently to wear down the defense, and this will pay its dividends later. We were able to drive 94 yards on them at a key point in the game because we had established the run, worn them down, and opened it up a little with TonyG. I look at those stalled drives as investments. Of course, you want to get first downs whenever you have a chance, but I don't fault Solari for trying to run over them with LJ when we had the lead (especially after he saw what LaDanian did to them the week before).

jspchief
11-06-2006, 02:56 PM
The offense stalled when Waters went down. At one point, we had Welbourn AND Bober playing.That doesn't mean it's smart to call the draw 9 times straight. It's not just that it wasn't working. It's that there was no creativity or strategy.

All we did was run draws and throw bombs. You'd think at some point the mid range passing game would open up.

And besides just that game, there have been a lot of moments when the play-calling was completely retarded. It's clear to me that Solari has a lot to learn.

Is he doing ok for a first year OC on a team with a lot of injuries? Sure. But overall I consider it an average job. Thus the c grade.

ct
11-06-2006, 03:00 PM
I give him a B, for recent improvements. Overcoming our O-Line personel problems, loss of Trent in the opener, TRich in FA then Cruz to injury, and rebuilding this offense to get LJ and Gonzo off is a helluva achievement overall. But the communication, down awareness and end of half issues vs. San Diego leave him less than excellent grade.

Hound333
11-06-2006, 03:34 PM
I gave him a B-

He didn't call a good game early on. He has improved and looks to be decent lately. BTW I am not saying we shouldn't have run early in the year. I am saying we needed to take some shots down the field some. The first few games everything was a 5 yard pass and we couldn't run. As soon as we started passing down the field every now and then we ran the ball better.

Count Alex's Wins
11-06-2006, 03:44 PM
He gets an A+

Last year at this time we had similar production on offense.

TrickyNicky
11-06-2006, 03:52 PM
The first two games were a disaster, play-calling was bad because the personnel was uncertain. Since then we are 5-1 with a blowout win, a blowout loss, and three wins over other winning teams.

If I can just discard those first two games to the chaos of injury and transition, then I would grade him a A-.

Otherwise It's been a B.

chiefbowe82
11-06-2006, 03:54 PM
I gave him an A I feel he's done an excellent job with playcalling and some may not think a draw to Larry Johson on 3rd and 21 is a good play but it's free yards a free 8-10 yards you gain field posistion.
This guy game in here in getting Tony Gonzalez involved in the game something Al Saunders really didn't achomplish i think the players are happier and as Damon Huard says "you just get the ball in the playmakers hands and let them make plays."
We aren't forced to run 25 times and throw 25 times to add a balance in a sub-par offense.
We have an excellent offense with threats in the passing game to keep them guessing even if we do run quite abit more with Larry Johnson a guys who delivers the blows from the offensive side of the ball.
Grade=A

Count Alex's Wins
11-06-2006, 03:58 PM
Here is the rundown:

2005 offense through 8 games:

357 yards per game, 22.75 points per game


2006 offense through 8 games:

323 yards per game, 22 points per game

bsp4444
11-06-2006, 04:00 PM
I also gave him a B-. I think at times the offense is predictable. We ran on first down nearly the entire first three quarters (providing my memory serves me correctly). I kept thinking "play action pass to TG running up the middle", which we eventually did, but not very early. I'm also afraid that running on first down so often is going to take more of a toll on LJ.

htismaqe
11-06-2006, 04:48 PM
That doesn't mean it's smart to call the draw 9 times straight. It's not just that it wasn't working. It's that there was no creativity or strategy.

All we did was run draws and throw bombs. You'd think at some point the mid range passing game would open up.

And besides just that game, there have been a lot of moments when the play-calling was completely retarded. It's clear to me that Solari has a lot to learn.

Is he doing ok for a first year OC on a team with a lot of injuries? Sure. But overall I consider it an average job. Thus the c grade.

If that's the case, what kind of grade would you give Jesus Saunders his last couple of years here?

Because he was prone to throw the ball 10 times in a row and run draws...

Deberg_1990
11-06-2006, 04:51 PM
The guy has found a way to make Kris Wilson productive.


A+

Deberg_1990
11-06-2006, 04:53 PM
That doesn't mean it's smart to call the draw 9 times straight. It's not just that it wasn't working. It's that there was no creativity or strategy.

All we did was run draws and throw bombs. You'd think at some point the mid range passing game would open up.

And besides just that game, there have been a lot of moments when the play-calling was completely retarded. It's clear to me that Solari has a lot to learn.

Is he doing ok for a first year OC on a team with a lot of injuries? Sure. But overall I consider it an average job. Thus the c grade.


SO would you prefer to have Paul Hackett back or Jimmy Raye??

Solari looks like a genius compared to those guys.....

jspchief
11-06-2006, 05:23 PM
If that's the case, what kind of grade would you give Jesus Saunders his last couple of years here?

Because he was prone to throw the ball 10 times in a row and run draws...I hated Saunders' play-calling. It was a good system, but his game planning and game management sucked IMO. I feel like that's why he's not a HC anywhere. It's one thing to create an effective system and playbook, and something dofferent to know how to use the plays in your arsenal to get the best results.

I like the idea of leaning heavily on our strength, but not at the expense of banging our heads against a wall repeatedly. We were running effectively, and the Rams knew we wanted to burn clock. Instead of taking advantage of 8 and 9 men in the box by passing, we chose to run right into it. All we had done was run and throw deep. IMO it was the ideal time to exploit what should have been an opening in the middle of the field.

jspchief
11-06-2006, 05:25 PM
SO would you prefer to have Paul Hackett back or Jimmy Raye??

Solari looks like a genius compared to those guys.....Yea, because that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

It's called taking what the defense gives you. When faced with 9 men in the box, you don't just shut it down because you have a 10 point lead. One of these times it's going to royally f*ck us, and then all you guys are going to be crying about Martyball.

RINGLEADER
11-06-2006, 05:56 PM
First quarter of the season I'd give him a 'D'.
Second quarter of the season I'd give him an 'A-'.

Only reason he doesn't get an A+ is he seems to have problems anticipating defensive corrections at the half. The Chiefs don't do crap in the first couple possessions of the third quarter.

OldTownChief
11-06-2006, 06:05 PM
Considering the adjustment and what he's had to work with in his 1st year. Easily an A+.

the Talking Can
11-06-2006, 06:29 PM
b+

I like 2 things:

1. he's clearly learning
2. he changed the game plan for Huard, and adapted to the injuries on our OL...the whole coaching staff gets props for that...AS wouldn't have changed, I think

negative:

running up the butt on 1st down....

Deberg_1990
11-06-2006, 06:31 PM
Yea, because that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

It's called taking what the defense gives you. When faced with 9 men in the box, you don't just shut it down because you have a 10 point lead. One of these times it's going to royally f*ck us, and then all you guys are going to be crying about Martyball.

I agree somewhat, but its also Herms Philosophy to play smashmouth football. His objective is to run the ball to take time off the clock when he has a lead and to help rest his defense so they can play tough D when they need to make a stop.

Id have to say that so far its working wonders. I cant critisize him for playing good fundemental football.

Fruit Ninja
11-06-2006, 06:32 PM
B he's doing good now. except for comming oout to the 3rd quarter, he just wants to run run run run run run run. He's learning though.