Purple Martin wrote:I don't think Bridgewater passes the test, he just had a couple good highlights in preseason play.
I agree.
My point was that getting rookies ready to play well from the start involves preparation, coaching. When a rookie like McKinnon comes into a new system, quite different from what he played in college, and adapts to it well, there's a good chance coaching helped that happen.I don't see that much "improvement" in McKinnon or Diggs. Diggs was excellent from the start. McKinnon was also pretty good out of the gate, and I haven't seen anything I'd call significant improvement in his play that you wouldn't expect just from getting experience.
In most cases, the kind of improvement you're talking about probably has more to do with the position coaches than the OC anyway.
I see your point but the measuring stick seems pretty subjective. Based on the criteria you've put forward, I don't think there are many players on defense we can point to that have significantly improved due to coaching either. It's easy to dismiss any improvement the same way. For example, most of them were either good before they got into this defense (Griffin, Joseph, Munnerlyn, Newman, etc.), played well from the start (Barr, Kendricks, etc.) or we can argue they've shown the kind of improvement you'd expect just from getting experience (Rhodes, Waynes, Sendejo). Personally, I think some of them actually have improved due to good coaching but I'm playing devil's advocate to reinforce my point about subjectivity.Even if I accepted all of these nominees as "improved", my real point was the comparitive dearth of players who seem well-coached compared with the defense. Zimmer came in and turned the whole D around. So did Norv, but in the opposite direction. The evidence for the offense being coached upward is sparse.
I'm more inclined to look at the overall performance of the unit and the talent level of the players than how much individual improvement we've seen because I think the latter depends heavily on the individuals themselves and, as I mentioned earlier, on the position coaches.
Again, I'm not a fan of what Norv did in Minnesota. I think your point that there's sparse evidence for the offense being coached upward is right on target. I just think it has as much (if not more) to do with talent and management as it does with Turner's coaching. I don't think he made the most of the hand he was dealt so another coordinator might be able to get more out of the offense but the whole thing has been a fiasco. I see it as an indictment of Zimmer and Spielman at least as much as an indictment of Turner. The former are supposed to have a vision for the team. If you hire Norv Turner, who's been in the league running his system for a long time, you're hiring him to run that system. Consequently, it's necessary to make personnel decisions that will enable the offense to excel with that approach. Instead, they've done the opposite of what they've done with the defense.