Adrian Klemm

First job is to give Klemm some better talent to work with .

 

I will try and find it again. Some times I find things when I'm down the Rabbit hole, and can never find again

 

https://www.rotoworld.com/article/going-deep/run-shotgun-not-under-center
This not the one I was talking about, but it's one I just found. Still looking 4 the other one.

 

They also say good things about Tomlin, and you see where that's got us.

 

So, you're attributing the success of Dotson to Klemm and not Sarrett? To use your analogy, so you think Klemm was teaching Dotson stuff that Sarrett didn't approve of? Secretly he was building his protege? Because he knew that left to Sarrett, he would suck as bad as the rest? You can't blame the bad play on Sarrett, and the good on Klemm.

I'm sure that Klemm was bringing his own philosophy to the table. I'm sure he influenced Sarrett and likewise. He's an assistant coach, not a donkey. He's there to bring his "expertise" as well. Of course Sarrett is going to quell any conflicting philosophy.

The point is, the OL was terrible. The point is, this whole organization needs a shake-up. The OL was a glaring problem that ownership seemed not too happy with. Now, Klemm may be a genius and do a great job. And btw, I never said anything bad about Klemm. Not one thing. I'm saying that if you want your weakness to become a stregnth, and want to turn the ship 180, maybe going with a guy who was already here and influencing these guys during the bad play may not be the most optimal answer to the problem. Maybe you go with a guy with a fresh perspective and energy. I don't think that's "flawed" thinking. Unless any thinking other than yours is "flawed"? lol J/k man.

 

I never said Klemm can't/won't work out. I hope he does. But, If I want to optimize(which is the key word here) my chances of success, I'm probably not going to hire a guy who's already a major contributor to a part of my team that failed horribly.There's a reason that there is a commonly used term like "a clean slate." It's a way to wipe away all of that which attributed to the mess, and start fresh. In the context to which we're speaking, it seems that you believe that Klemm had zero effect on the lack of efficiency of the OL. I'm saying, how do we know that? He is working directly with these guys on a daily basis. Again, I'm not saying he did, but you're demonstrably saying that he didn't by calling my argument flawed. To use your analogy again, had Munch left and the OL played just as well, would you say "Well, after all, those guys were taught by the great Munch."? Or would you think, "Maybe we gave Munch too much credit? Perhaps Sarrett was a valuable contributor to the OL success?" Maybe, "Clearly Sarrett was the mastermind the whole time."? Or "Munch took that young, bright coach, and really mentored him into a great coach in his own right."? Obviously, it would probably be a little of everything. But considering how bad the OL was, nobody comes out of this looking good. Nor should they. Again, not saying Klemm won't/can't be good. Just saying that if I'm looking to completely overhaul my OL's play/"identity", I'm going to optimize my chances of getting the right guy by getting a guy who definitely wasn't a contributing factor to the current state of play. And, perhaps just as important, a guy that brings a whole new perspective. If this team were to regress to the point where they actually let Tomlin go, you wouldn't be the slightest bit disappointed if they immediately promoted Butler to HC? Not for one second would you have wished to start fresh with a new HC? A guy with a fresh perspective and not part of the same old system that has been failing? Would you be flawed for wishing that? No, you wouldn't be. When you fire the head coach it's because the system just isn't working anymore. You need a new start. The OL is a microcosm of this.