Browns Sirianni

[throwing BBZ]

8 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

 

Personally, I think that’s the wrong attitude. I know it’s counter-intuitive, but we should actually *want* our assistants to get HC jobs (although I’m skeptical that either Nick or Matt will get one this year).

 

You want to attract the best up-and-coming assistants?  Demonstrate that you’re a place where they can succeed enough to create those advancement opportunities.

 

Look at how many former Belichick assistants have gone on to head coaching gigs.  Same with Parcells.  If you’re a great coordinator or position coach and lots of teams want you, wouldn’t you jump at an opportunity to get on the staff of one of those guys?

 

 Silliness. Add coaches that are good that don't want to be head coaches.

That job isn't for everyone. 6-8 get fired every season. Keep them here, keep them happy.

[luv_pony_express]

6 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Silliness. Add coaches that are good that don't want to be head coaches.

That job isn't for everyone. 6-8 get fired every season. Keep them here, keep them happy.

 

Talk about silliness.

 

Very few of these guys — particularly the good ones — aren’t interested in ever becoming head coaches.  Yes, every once in a while a Tom Moore comes along.  But they’re few and far between.

 

And they know full well that many (most?) HCs eventually end up getting fired.  Anybody who fears that shouldn’t be in coaching to begin with.

 

The nagging fear that keeps people from wanting to see good assistants getting HC offers is that they’ll lose a good one and whoever takes their place won’t be as good.

 

Thats why it’s counter-intuitive.  What this really does is increase your sales pitch for standing out against other programs in attracting the best.

 

Ask Lou Holtz about this.  He has long maintained that this was the key to his lasting success.  He went out of his way every year to promote his assistants to teams that were looking for head coaches.  Not only did he not try to keep them from leaving the nest, he became a de facto agent for them.

[ColtsBlueFL]

7 hours ago, stitches said:

Biggest competitive advantage in the league is on resources that are not salary capped - training facilities, coaching staff, front office staff, scouting network, medical and training personnel, sports analytics research, etc. 

 

If a team really wants to have competitive advantage they would spend as much as it takes to have top notch personnel and resources in those areas. 

 

Yes, but running a team is a cash flow business.  income/outgo all year.  Plyers salaries are just a portion of the grand scheme.  And the cash is not unlimited.  Teams hurting in the win column draw less fans into the stadium.  Less tickets sold, less concessions sold, etc...  and yes these are projected / budgeted.  Here's some basic numbers from the Packers (publicly owned) from 2013-2014-

 

• National revenue: $187.7 million, 4.3 percent increase
• Local revenue: $136.4 million, 6.4 percent increase
• Total revenue: $324.1 million, 5.2 percent increase
• Total expenses: $298.5 million, 17.6 percent increase
• Profit from operations: $25.6 million, 52.9 percent decrease
• Net income: $25.3 million, 41.3 percent decrease

 

Signing more free agents, giving contract extensions, etc... would cut into Net Income even more.  Imagine final total budgeting for a certain value, then the team lays eggs and revenue shrinks drastically.

 

As fans, we usually only concentrate on cap space.

 

5 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

   I read a great article on the Philly SB process.
 Imagine all of the position coaches each week studying the opposition and coming up with their best ideas on how their group should attack them.
 So Sirianni would sit down with them as a group, with Frank as much as his time allows, to come up with the game plan. Then they set up a schedule for Wed, thur, Fri to implement it. While also having Everyone involved continuing to think of ways to improve the plan, with the ability to make last minute adjustments.

 Sirianni would be expected to lead this process and be Frank's best sounding board up to and in the game.

 

It's probably more ubiquitous than perceived.   From what I've read (mainly from Pat Kirwan), a typical game week for Offense coaches is similar to-

 

From the massive playbook, pare it down to Sunday's Offense Game Plan on color laminated sheet. How?

 

Coaches first look at their pro scouting reports on the upcoming opponent.  Coaches (HC / OC / Asst) may break down film of the last few games opponent played.  Determine- opponents defensive scheme. Select plays from the playbook that are deemed to have higher success against that D scheme. This might cut playbook in half right there.

 

Determine who is healthy on roster and their skills/experience.  Trim playbook to those plays the players are best suited to.  Also This might get the game plan calls down to 100 -200 plays.  but, there's still not enough time to practice all 100 + plays (hopefully, installs in summer training camp gave good exposure to some of them).

 

Now a coach(es) will sit down with QB with the full menu of possible (pared down) plays.  QB provides input on which plays he most confident in, those he does not like to run (might be opponent specific) as much, and those he feels any/some teammates might not be ready to run at a high level.  This pares down the plan even further.

 

Now HC (especially if offensive minded), OC, and others as determined by team (if any go over final tweaking of plays and sort them (usually down to about a range of 35-45 plays) by down and distance, accounting for their own tendencies, and desired Run/Pass balance. IE:

 

5 first down plays

7 plays for 2nd down between 3-6 yards

X number of plays for 2nd down > 6 yards

x number of plays for 3rd and <3  (or whatever)

X number of plays for 3rd and long

etc...

 

The 60 - 65 plays a team will run during the game will come from that game plan sheet.  Some of these plays are run the same, but from different 'looks' as well, giving appearance of more plays available, and reduce the chance of predictability.

 

A practice week doesn't allow enough time to practice 100-200 plays.  35-45, yes.  Game plan is now installed. This is fairly typical-

 

Wednesday practice is usually 1st and second down plays in the game plan.

All the 'checks' to these plays. Run with all  the personnel groups selected to run them.

Audibles and signals

 

Thursday is 3rd down plays

Tweak problem areas

 

Friday

Short yardage, Goal line plays

2 minute drill

Specialized packages (IE: Philly Special)

 

Remember, only 14 padded practices allowed per season, and practice time per week is limited via the CBA.  That is why teams have to maximize every play each week, and every practice minute of them.  Most 'Gadget Plays' are installed over the summer.  But once installed, a player is responsible for it! If a coach might think one will be used well before a game, they may break out a tape of it in a pre-practice meeting to refresh memories.

 

Saturday - walk through /travel if road team

 

Sorry for long winded, thought this a good spot to insert timeline of a teams 170 hour work week. ;-)

 

The evolving game day game plan is a story for a different day/thread.

[Superman]

11 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Yes, but running a team is a cash flow business.  income/outgo all year.  Plyers salaries are just a portion of the grand scheme.  And the cash is not unlimited.  Teams hurting in the win column draw less fans into the stadium.  Less tickets sold, less concessions sold, etc...  and yes these are projected / budgeted.  Here's some basic numbers from the Packers (publicly owned) from 2013-2014-

 

That's all true, and the math speaks for itself. However, an NFL team probably spends $15-20m on the coaching staff each season, which is basically the cost of one elite player. It's about 11% of the salary cap. When teams spend money on good players, it costs them depth and sometimes balance.

 

When they spend money on staff and operational upgrades, it affects cash flow, but a team could easily justify those expenses. As often as teams rationalize breaking the bank for star players in free agency, why don't more teams rationalize breaking the bank for this kind of stuff?

 

I guess in thinking about it, they do, and have been for a long time. In recent years, it's been stuff like increased analytics, sports science and facilities. A few years ago, it was stuff like independent scouting services like National and Blesto. A few decades ago, it was stuff like private team planes. The Colts employing Brian Decker is an example. Teams are always looking for a competitive advantage. 

 

But to stitches point, it seems like very few teams put out a lot of money for assistant coaches. I'm sure Wade Phillips and guys like that are paid very well, but a team like the Cardinals might have benefit from throwing big money at better assistants to help Steve Wilks, especially since they probably weren't paying him very much. (Ironically, they probably still owe him three years of salary, minus offsets; and they probably owe Mike McCoy a couple years of salary also.)

[jskinnz]

On 12/31/2018 at 10:02 PM, coming on strong said:

i would like to see pagano as the dc if matt leaves us chuck could get this defense into the top 5 .  With chucks knowledge of defense i would even let him try oc he knows what works against defenses . people forget how good the ravens defense was under pagano . He brought us the the afc championship with this roster we have now we could be a dynasty with chuck

 

If this is sarcasm, not that funny. 

 

If this is a real thought of yours, then not that informed. 

[jskinnz]

19 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Silliness. Add coaches that are good that don't want to be head coaches.

That job isn't for everyone. 6-8 get fired every season. Keep them here, keep them happy.

 

Methinks that you don’t know nearly as much as you think you know. 

 

 

[jameszeigler834]

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 7:55 PM, BOTT said:

DeFilippo was a hotter name than Frank....in the press anyway.  If Josh doesn't pull a McDaniels, frank is still in philly kicking butt and not getting any credit .

Sirianni wasn't with the Eagles he was with the chargers coaching the wide receiver's.

[lollygagger8]

Just let the Colts have last look and pay Sirianni more money than the Browns offer to keep him. 

 

I mean, Browns < Colts, cmon. At least I hope Sirianni feels the same. 

[jskinnz]

11 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

Just let the Colts have last look and pay Sirianni more money than the Browns offer to keep him. 

 

I mean, Browns < Colts, cmon. At least I hope Sirianni feels the same. 

 

Meanwhile, back on planet earth...

[lollygagger8]

16 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Meanwhile, back on planet earth...

 

I bet Christmas and NYE with you was super fun! 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, lollygagger8 said:

Just let the Colts have last look and pay Sirianni more money than the Browns offer to keep him. 

 

I mean, Browns < Colts, cmon. At least I hope Sirianni feels the same. 

 

Starting salary for the Browns HC job will be at least $5m/year, maybe more. (For reference, Pagano was reportedly paid $4.5m/year when we hired him in 2012, seven years ago.)

 

I'm willing to bet there are no NFL coordinators making more than $3.5m/year, and the list of coordinators making more than $1.5m/year is probably very short. (For reference, one report said McDaniels got a new, five year contract that makes him the highest paid coordinator in the league, and at some point will pay him "over $4m." Figure on gradual yearly increases, his salary at the start of that contract is probably closer to $3m.)

 

So we're going to make Sirianni the highest paid coordinator in the NFL, by 60-70%? He's not even the primary play caller for us.

 

I want him (and Eberflus) to stay, but if they get offered HC jobs this year, the Colts aren't going to pay them HC salary to stay. If they stay, I could see the Colts offering them modest pay increases after the season, as a gesture of support.

[lollygagger8]

28 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Starting salary for the Browns HC job will be at least $5m/year, maybe more. (For reference, Pagano was reportedly paid $4.5m/year when we hired him in 2012, seven years ago.)

 

I'm willing to bet there are no NFL coordinators making more than $3.5m/year, and the list of coordinators making more than $1.5m/year is probably very short. (For reference, one report said McDaniels got a new, five year contract that makes him the highest paid coordinator in the league, and at some point will pay him "over $4m." Figure on gradual yearly increases, his salary at the start of that contract is probably closer to $3m.)

 

So we're going to make Sirianni the highest paid coordinator in the NFL, by 60-70%? He's not even the primary play caller for us.

 

I want him (and Eberflus) to stay, but if they get offered HC jobs this year, the Colts aren't going to pay them HC salary to stay. If they stay, I could see the Colts offering them modest pay increases after the season, as a gesture of support.