Re: Stan Hixon
 

I'll also add that we have had a couple of WR's that have were supposed to be washed up or primidana's who have gone on to other teams and produced....ie; Patten having gone to the Saints and Lloyd having gone to the Bears. Lloyd had this year...26 rec. for 364 yrds and 2 td's that more then he had with us. Not great production but production none the less. Same with Patten. Oh, and look at Coles. He produced some good numbers with the Jets comes to us does not too shabby then Gibbs trades him back to the Jets for Moss and Coles is their leading WR becoming a scoring machine.

I would think it would be the coach's responsibility to teach route running especially to new WR's just out of college trying to learn the NFL speed.

I'm not saying it's totally Hixons fault that our team sucked mid way through the season. What I'm saying is I have not seen production from a unit in 5 yrs. It remained constant and has not grown. Yes we have short WR for those yrs so you develope plays around that. Curls, Slants besides screan plays every other play. Come backs would have worked also. Our come backs were 2 yrds when we needed 5. Obviously a WR/HC issue.

Let me ask you ...if a RB is not running the right routes all year and they get rid of him and bring in a new RB and he is not running right routes who's fault is it? Who gets let go then? I guess it should be HC, QB or OC right. Wait I forgot management....Cerratto.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=SBXVII;516539]I'll also add that we have had a couple of WR's that have were supposed to be washed up or primidana's who have gone on to other teams and produced....ie; Patten having gone to the Saints and Lloyd having gone to the Bears. Lloyd had this year...26 rec. for 364 yrds and 2 td's that more then he had with us. Not great production but production none the less. Same with Patten. Oh, and look at Coles. He produced some good numbers with the Jets comes to us does not too shabby then Gibbs trades him back to the Jets for Moss and Coles is their leading WR becoming a scoring machine.

I would think it would be the coach's responsibility to teach route running especially to new WR's just out of college trying to learn the NFL speed.

I'm not saying it's totally Hixons fault that our team sucked mid way through the season. What I'm saying is I have not seen production from a unit in 5 yrs. It remained constant and has not grown. Yes we have short WR for those yrs so you develope plays around that. Curls, Slants besides screan plays every other play. Come backs would have worked also. Our come backs were 2 yrds when we needed 5. Obviously a WR/HC issue.

Let me ask you ...if a RB is not running the right routes all year and they get rid of him and bring in a new RB and he is not running right routes who's fault is it? Who gets let go then? I guess it should be HC, QB or OC right. Wait I forgot management....Cerratto.[/quote]

How is Coles a scoring machine exactly?

His TDs since going back to the Jets:

2008: 7
2007: 6
2006: 6
2005: 5

Sorry but that doesn't scream "scoring machine" to me.

How about his receiving yards since going back to the Jets?

2008: 850
2007: 646
2006: 1,098
2005: 845

Pretty pedestrian numbers overall to me. He's solid but let's not act like he's a gamebreaker.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=SBXVII;516414]Thats why I suggested OC position. He would have a lot in helping Zorn drum up plays to go a long with Zorn's wonderfull offense he provided and he would coach up the WR's. We all know if they did go out and get a OC Zorn would still be calling plays so who cares. Give him more pay, give him the WR's to coach up, and have him help Zorn with designing plays. but call him OC and it's not a lateral move. lol. right.lol.[/quote]

Ahhh, missed that part. So, fire Sherman Smith? Or make one of them assistant head coach, etc?

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=tryfuhl;516553]Ahhh, missed that part. So, fire Sherman Smith? Or make one of them assistant head coach, etc?[/quote]

Not sure but changes need to be made in the coaching dept.


As for Coles being a scoring machine....I apologize for inflating his numbers. but I'll say he has done more there then he did here. Probably cause he's their #1 WR or #2 but he's done more. One would think after 2 years with us the team would figure out how to utilize ARE in a proper way instead of making him a #2 WR. If he is truely our second best talent on the team at WR we are screwed and I blame this on our WR position coach for not coaching up the two tallest WR's we have even though they are rookies. Heck we had a tall WR at the beginning of the preseason who was catching everything thrown his way and we let him go. As much production as we got out of Thrash we could have kept the other WR as a #2 untill Kelly and Thomas came along.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=Mattyk72;516517]This sounds like people looking for a scapegoat to me.[/quote]

You gotta blame somebody. Has it just been our receivers, play-callers, or what?

Along with whatever discussion we have about the WR coach, there's a strong argument to be made that our soon to be 2nd year pass catchers better condition well in the offseason and study their playbooks.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

While were at it can we get a better conditioning coach? I'm truely tired of all the pulled hammies and groins. EVERY year.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=SBXVII;516560]While were at it can we get a better conditioning coach? I'm truely tired of all the pulled hammies and groins. EVERY year.[/quote]

Yeah it's getting to be a bit ridiculous. I don't know how mandatory some of the conditioning is.. and whether most players follow their own routines or whatever, but they need to stricten up in that department big time. How many calves, hammies, groins, quads, etc are we going to continue to see?

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=Mattyk72;516517]This sounds like people looking for a scapegoat to me.[/quote]

I would agree that this would seem like scapegoating if it weren't for the fact that people have been questioning Hixon's ability since prior to this season.

IMHO, this thread is just one of the various "Okay, season's over let's discuss changes" that is both a rehash and collectivization of previous threads (i.e. the threads concerning age along the O-line, what to do about the pass rush, etc.).

We are all wondering what it will take to make this team a perrenial playoff team as it was in the 80's and early 90's. Now is the time for analysis, rehash and review.

As for Hixon, yes lots can go wrong with the passing game that is not his responsiblity BUT I have not heard or seen any evidence, either from players, other coaches or through performance, that he has taken players and made/helped them perform to the best of the abilities. Further, under his tutelage, the receiving corp has been mediocre at best. To me, these things evidence a less than stellar coach who has failed to truly develop talent in his area of responsibility.

I think the negatives concerning Hixon are obvious through the performance of his pupils. I would welcome any one who can provide any evidence that he is doing his job well.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=SBXVII;516560]While were at it can we get a better conditioning coach? I'm truely tired of all the pulled hammies and groins. EVERY year.[/quote]

It was actually better this year than in previous years for sure. I remember in the preseason reading (don't remember where though) that we took some steps to address this. It has definitely improved.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=GMScud;516575]It was actually better this year than in previous years for sure. I remember in the preseason reading (don't remember where though) that we took some steps to address this. It has definitely improved.[/quote]

Agreed, but we still had issues come second half of some games which tells me its more they are cooling down at half time and not getting strectched out and warmed up prior to second half of games.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=cpayne5;516488]I think it's funny that people want to blame Hixon for the WR troubles. It's an easy assumption to make -that he's the problem- but the arguments are baseless, or shallow at best.

We have no idea what his duties are behind the scenes. Yes, he's the WR coach, but what does that entail under Zorn? Does he come up with his own teaching tools, or use those dictated by Zorn and/or Sherman Smith? How much time does he get to "teach" each week? What do the players think about his coaching skills?

There are hundreds of pertinent questions like these that we just do not know the answers to. Without that knowledge, I don't think anyone here is qualified to give an opinion, with any expectation respectability, about the replacement of coach Hixon.[/quote]


I think that Hixon should be replaced because he doesn't know the WCO.
One of the WR coaches duties under the traditional Bill Walsh WCO scheme
is to create part of the weekly game plan. IMO a coach that knows the WCO
will have a huge advantage over Hixon in the gameplanning department and
can add overall WCO 'know how' to the coaching staff.

It would be different IMO if Hixon was a young coach or if he had an
accomplished track record for receiver developement. But, he doesn't.
Also, IMHO part of any coaches job is to get his players ready to produce
and Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly didn't. If they had a hard time picking
up the playbook he should have spoon fed it to them.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

yea, get Gary Clark

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=SBXVII;516408]Funny. I have been screaming this all season. I was just looking up some other answers to a WR coach and was looking for my first place to put my first choice:

Clyde Christensen from the Colts....

Clyde Christensen enters his seventh season as wide receivers coach of the Colts. Christensen joined Indianapolis from Tampa Bay, where he served as offensive coordinator during the 2001 season.

In 2007, Christensen’s receiving corps continued producing outstanding numbers.

Christensen spent six seasons at Tampa Bay, tutoring tight ends from 1996-98 and quarterbacks from 1999-00 before being promoted to offensive coordinator. In 2001, Christensen presided over an attack that saw WR-Keyshawn Johnson post a franchise seasonal-best 106 receptions for 1,266 yards, while QB-Brad Johnson set a club seasonal mark with 340 completions. The offense set several club marks in 2000, including points scored and touchdowns.

We could call it a promotion and put him at OC. He could work with Zorn on designing plays and he could work with the WR's and TE's. Zorn could still call plays on game day.[/quote]

If Christensen came here, he might be driven to put a pistol in his mouth after watching what pass patterns Zorn likes put our receivers in.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=cpayne5;516488]I think it's funny that people want to blame Hixon for the WR troubles. It's an easy assumption to make -that he's the problem- but the arguments are baseless, or shallow at best.

We have no idea what his duties are behind the scenes. Yes, he's the WR coach, but what does that entail under Zorn? Does he come up with his own teaching tools, or use those dictated by Zorn and/or Sherman Smith? How much time does he get to "teach" each week? What do the players think about his coaching skills?

There are hundreds of pertinent questions like these that we just do not know the answers to. Without that knowledge, I don't think anyone here is qualified to give an opinion, with any expectation respectability, about the replacement of coach Hixon.[/quote]

If you believe that a coach's ulitmate responsibility is to get players ready to play, then the WR coach has failed miserably. If you disagree that this was Hixon's most basic duty, then what do you think his job entails, exactly?

If by week 17 Devin Thomas is still behind James Thrash on the depth chart, then I'm sorry. Rookie season or not, that's a huge problem.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;516574]I would agree that this would seem like scapegoating if it weren't for the fact that people have been questioning Hixon's ability since prior to this season.

IMHO, this thread is just one of the various "Okay, season's over let's discuss changes" that is both a rehash and collectivization of previous threads (i.e. the threads concerning age along the O-line, what to do about the pass rush, etc.).

We are all wondering what it will take to make this team a perrenial playoff team as it was in the 80's and early 90's. Now is the time for analysis, rehash and review.

As for Hixon, yes lots can go wrong with the passing game that is not his responsiblity BUT I have not heard or seen any evidence, either from players, other coaches or through performance, that he has taken players and made/helped them perform to the best of the abilities. Further, under his tutelage, the receiving corp has been mediocre at best. To me, these things evidence a less than stellar coach who has failed to truly develop talent in his area of responsibility.

I think the negatives concerning Hixon are obvious through the performance of his pupils. I would welcome any one who can provide any evidence that he is doing his job well.[/quote]

Good post.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=Beemnseven;516751]If Christensen came here, he might be driven to put a pistol in his mouth after watching what pass patterns Zorn likes put our receivers in.[/quote]

If Christensen came here he would know enough about the WCO and the
passing game in general to tell Zorn...hey maybe we should
try_______ because we know it worked in Indy.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=30gut;516759]If Christensen came here he would know enough about the WCO and the
passing game in general to tell Zorn...hey maybe we should
try_______ because we know it worked in Indy.[/quote]

Yeah, that sounds great. But based on what Zorn has said, he's not changing a damn thing with regard to his scheme, or his philosophy. And he sure as hell isn't going to do it for some guy named Clyde Christensen.

To me, that's the most alarming thing about Zorn. Officially, I'm against the idea of firing him. But if he shows absolutely no willingness to adjust his system to the players we have, especially if the players are better suited to a different system, and if he refuses to at least show he's got an open mind about tweaking his offense if there isn't marked improvement in '09, then that's a problem.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=Beemnseven;516768]Yeah, that sounds great. But based on what Zorn has said, he's not changing a damn thing with regard to his scheme, or his philosophy. And he sure as hell isn't going to do it for some guy named Clyde Christensen.

To me, that's the most alarming thing about Zorn. Officially, I'm against the idea of firing him. But if he shows absolutely no willingness to adjust his system to the players we have, especially if the players are better suited to a different system, and if he refuses to at least show he's got an open mind about tweaking his offense if there isn't marked improvement in '09, then that's a problem.[/quote]

Maybe he's purposely trying to be overconfident (possibly to a fault) because so many people questioned his hiring as HC??

Re: Stan Hixon
 

Hey could someone add a poll component to this thread? Just a simple: "Should Hixon be retained or fired?" I'm very curious whether there is a consensus.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=GMScud;516775]Maybe he's purposely trying to be overconfident (possibly to a fault) because so many people questioned his hiring as HC??[/quote]

Could be. He's never been in a position like this, that's for sure. He's now having to answer for everything he's done all season long, so his shields are up in a sense.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=Beemnseven;516788]Could be. He's never been in a position like this, that's for sure. He's now having to answer for everything he's done all season long, so his shields are up in a sense.[/quote]

No doubt. He's certainly not going to feed the pundits who questioned him by admitting he has too much on his plate.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=Beemnseven;516768]Yeah, that sounds great. But based on what Zorn has said, he's not changing a damn thing with regard to his scheme, or his philosophy........To me, that's the most alarming thing about Zorn. Officially, I'm against the idea of firing him. But if he shows absolutely no willingness to adjust his system to the players we have, especially if the players are better suited to a different system,[/quote]

Zorn may have said he is not changing his schemes but he in fact has and does change his schemes. Examples:

-Zorn hates the Shotgun but after the Giants game Jason was in shotgun a bunch

- Zorn in the early half of the season ran more 4/5 Wide and some empty sets
As the season progressed and the offensive line play declined he used more
I-Form (pro), and less spread formations, by the end of the season he even
was using, I-Form DDBL TE sets

The WCO has a bunch of variations, when Zorn says he is not changing his
scheme or system IMO he is refering in general to the WCO which i agree
doesn't need to change.

But within the framework of the WCO the offense changed alot over the
course of the year.

Re: Stan Hixon
 

[quote=Beemnseven;516768]Yeah, that sounds great. But based on what Zorn has said, he's not changing a damn thing with regard to his scheme, or his philosophy. And he sure as hell isn't going to do it for some guy named Clyde Christensen.

To me, that's the most alarming thing about Zorn. Officially, I'm against the idea of firing him. But if he shows absolutely no willingness to adjust his system to the players we have, especially if the players are better suited to a different system, and if he refuses to at least show he's got an open mind about tweaking his offense if there isn't marked improvement in '09, then that's a problem.[/quote]

I would like to think that Zorn is mature enough and possibly would recognize Christensen's ability to build great QB/WR tandems to listen to some of what he say but teaching/coaching our WR is not about totally designing plays. He could still take Zorn's plays and give tips and hints to the WR's as to how to get free at the line, tips on route running, tips on how to fake out the defender and maybe body placement. I know some of this is basic and our WR's should know these things but watching them for several seasons it appears they don't.

Plus maybe he could add some ideas to Zorns plays. We all thought the game had passed Gibbs by but it hadn't 'cause he was able to listen to other coach's ideas as to how to make the play better.