PDA

View Full Version : SBtS: The Other Schottenheimer



YoHoChecko
02-16-2007, 10:56 PM
Stats Behind the Stats
The Other Schottenheimer
by
Max Gross

Many felt that Marty Schottenheimer deserved to be fired because he has not won a playoff game since 1993, including three tries as the #1 overall seed in the conference. However, at season’s end, team owner Dean Spanos disagreed. So when news broke Monday that Schottenheimer was being fired afterall, deserving or not, there were some questions as to the reasoning.

Many speculated that the Chargers had their sites set on USC head coach Pete Carroll, as there were vague signs alluding to such an outcome, not the least of which being that college football’s national signing day had just past when Schottenheimer finally got the axe, thus allowing Carroll to complete a successful recruiting season before jumping to the big leagues. While such a move may still ultimately take place, Mr. Spanos shed some light on his decision through the following statement, emphasis added:


Our fans deserve to know what changed for me over the last month. When I decided to move ahead with Marty Schottenheimer in mid-January, I did so with the expectation that the core of his fine coaching staff would remain intact. Unfortunately, that did not prove to be the case, and <b>the process of dealing with these coaching changes convinced me that we simply could not move forward with such dysfunction between our head coach and general manager.</b> In short, this entire process over the last month convinced me beyond any doubt that I had to act to change this untenable situation and create an environment where everyone at Charger Park would be pulling in the same direction and working at a championship level. I expect exactly that from our entire Charger organization in 2007.

Upon reading that statement, I immediately speculated that general manager AJ Smith and the head coach were unable to agree on the new assistant coaches. This is a strange dilemma because head coaches generally get to pick their own staffs. It would seem out of line for Smith to have any strong objection to an assistant coaching candidate. Then, the news broke. I don’t know why I didn’t think of it sooner, but I didn’t. The news? The assistant coach hire that caused the debate was, in fact, the <i>other</i> Schottenheimer: Marty’s brother, Kurt. Then it all made sense. Then I understood. Then, suddenly, A.J. Smith wasn’t out of line, and Mart Schottenheimer deserved to be fired.

Nepotism happens in the NFL all the time. The Cowboys just hired Jason Garrett’s brother, in fact. And Kurt Schottenheimer has logged a lot of years as an NFL coach. So perhaps the notion that Marty deserves to be fired for an attempt to put Kurt at the helm of the defense doesn’t make much sense. Well, if it doesn’t make sense to you, then you haven’t been following Kurt’s career. Aside from the fact that Kurt has no experience running a 3-4 defense, such as the one the Chargers’ entire personnel scheme is built for, I’m about to take the readers on a tour de failure through the career of the other Schottenheimer.

Kansas City: Secondary Coach

Our journey begins in 1995, when Kurt moved to secondary coach of the Kansas City Chiefs after a few years of other various assistant work. He took over a unit that had been a respectable 11th in passing defense, but a more-telling 19th in yards per pass allowed. I’ll use this opportunity to explain a personal statistical preference of mine. When looking at pass defenses, I value the yards allowed per pass attempt much more highly than I value total yards allowed. The reasoning is that a pass defense can look much better when coupled with a weak run defense and a weak offense, as teams don’t have much reason to pass against that defense. It can also look much worse with a good offense and a strong run defense. In short, there are too many variables that affect a pass defense’s total yards allowed, whereas average yards allowed measures how the pass defense operates in more isolation.

Returning to the story line, Kurt had a great first season. The Chiefs’ pass defense improved moderately in total yards, from 11th to 9th, but very significantly in average yards allowed, from 19th to 2nd. The team also ranked 5th in fewest touchdown passes allowed. Make note of this. 1995 would be far and away the most successful season of Kurt’s career.

In 1996, the Chiefs’ defense regressed. They ranked 22nd in total yards and dropped astonishingly far in average yards from 2nd to 20th. That decline continued in 1997, down to 24th in the league. 1998 would be Kurt’s last as a lowly position coach. He improved the defense up to mediocre, finishing 7th in total passing yards and 17th in average passing yards—one of the few times a team would improve while under his care.

Kansas City: Defensive Coordinator

That “success” in the secondary somehow translated to a job as a defensive coordinator in 1999, when his brother left the team as head coach. Kurt would, again, have a solid first season, but this season, 7 years ago, would be among his last positive impacts. The 1998 defense ranked 22nd in points allowed and 9th in yards allowed. Kurt’s team in 1999 gave up more yards, but the scoring defense improved to 13th in the league.

As would become a trend, however, there was no improvement from year one to year two. The scoring defense declined from 13th to 19th, and yardage dropped from 14th to 20th. Incidentally, this was reason enough for the Redskins to hire Kurt as their defensive coordinator in 2001. Well, this and the fact that Marty was hired as their head coach. There’s always that.

Washington: Defensive Coordinator

Up until now, it is easy to see Kurt as a mediocre coach, unworthy of praise, but also unworthy of condemnation. Bear with me, the past 5 years of his coaching career have been quite telling. For starters, Kurt inherited a beautiful situation in Washington, with the 8th best scoring defense and the 4th best yardage defense. In one year under the other Schottenheimer, they had fallen back in the pack, to 13th best scoring defense, and 8th best yards. It’s no slouch, of course, but it was a regression from the previous season. 2001 would be the only year in Washington for both of the Schottenheimers.

Detroit: Defensive Coordinator

From there, in a move typical to Matt Millen, he heard a name he recognized and the Lions brought him in as defensive coordinator to improve their struggling defense, which had finished 30th is points allowed and 26th in yards allowed. Surely, Mr. Schottenheimer would improve upon those paltry numbers, right? In fact, he didn’t. His unit in Detroit (perhaps a poor choice of words given the recent transgressions of Detroit coach Joe Cullen) finished a lowly 31st in both defensive categories.

2003 marked the only time in which a group under Kurt improved from year one to year two, though it would be difficult to get much worse than second-to-last. Indeed, improvement might be too strong of a word for a team that didn’t even crack the top 20 in scoring or in yardage. Kurt was dismissed, and the team did just as well the following year without him.

Green Bay: Secondary Coach

Kurt was able to land on his feet, though. While his days as a defensive coordinator may have died after his unspectacular stints in Kansas City, Washington and Detroit, the Green Bay Packers snatched up their division rival’s coordinator and named him as a secondary coach, to replace the recently-promoted Bob Slowick. In 2003, under Slowick, the Packers had finished 23rd in passing yards allowed, but an impressive 7th in passing average, as well as 12th in passing touchdowns allowed.

Kurt had only one season as the Packers’ secondary coach—this time around—and the defense was absolutely dominated against the pass. They finished 25th in yards allowed, and 26th in pass average, 32nd in touchdowns allowed. It was pretty clear that Kurt wasn’t going to stick around, but it could be surmised that losing Mike McKenzie made that decline take place. That counter-argument is dispelled by the vast improvement the Packers saw against the pass in 2005. A year removed from Kurt’s abysmal season, a similar unit, personnel-wise, was able to finish 1st in total passing yards and up to the middle of the pack at 15th in average yards allowed.

In a strange twist, following their year of improvement, new Packers head coach Mike McCarthy inexplicably decided to give Kurt a second try. In addition, they brought back Al Harris and Nick Collins, and added Charles Woodson to the mix. The Packers took a step back again, down to 17th in both total yardage and average yardage, while 27th in passing touchdowns allowed.

More subjectively, in his stint with the Packers, it was clear that in 2006 coaching was severely lacking. “Lack of communication” was continuously cited as the culprit for blown coverages and missed assignments. Additionally, one has to wonder if Schottenheimer had any role in the lack of development of rookies Ahmad Carroll and Joey Thomas in 2004, who failed to show any improvement throughout their rookie seasons.

St. Louis: Secondary Coach

In case anyone was wondering what Kurt was doing in 2005 when the Packers enjoyed their Schottenheimer-free success, he was busy destroying the Rams’ pass defense. Just like in Green Bay, where the pass defense was better both before Kurt came and after he left than it was under Kurt, the Rams went from good to bad in 2005.

In 2004, the Rams finished 11th in total yardage, 14th in average yards, and 20th in passing touchdowns allowed. Enter Kurt Schottenheimer, and 2005 crashed and burned to the tune of 23rd in passing yards, 26th in average passing yards, and 30th in passing touchdowns allowed. Following Kurt’s quick and deserved dismissal, the Rams’ pass defense improved in all three categories, including moving up to 8th in total passing yards allowed and 17th in passing touchdowns allowed.

Closing Thoughts

The (apologetically) lengthy journey I have laid out for you above outlines a coach who has worked in the NFL for several years, and yet has only had two or three seasons that could be deemed a “success,” or an “accomplishment.” He is a coach who has repeatedly entered situations only to leave the team worse off than before he arrived, and better off after he’s been shown the door. Even his successes were moderate, at best. He is a coach who has shown a lack of coordination of his units, be it a defense or just a secondary. He is a coach whose name and brother have carried him throughout his career, completely undeservingly.

When Marty Schottenheimer tried once again to give his brother a piggy-back ride onto the helm of one of the best, and most talented defenses in the league, AJ Smith stepped in. When Marty suggested hiring a defensive coordinator with no experience in the 3-4 scheme, AJ Smith said no. When Marty suggested hiring a career-long mediocre, if not terrible, coach to take control of the side of the ball that Smith believes gives the team its best chance at a Super Bowl, he couldn’t stand idly by.

When Marty Schottenheimer insisted on his brother, Kurt, to fill the defensive coordinator position, he had committed a fireable offense. Hopefully this will help the readers understand that the team did precisely what it had to do, given Marty’s demands and his putting nepotism above the success of the team.

jjflr
02-17-2007, 11:01 AM
good analysis and it wasn't too lengthy at all...........if you would have made it any shorter, you would have left some 'loose ends'.............

I agree with your theory. I'm old enough to remember when Marty first brought his brother into the NFL and obviously the first thought that went through my head was:

'oh, Marty's trying help the little brother get through life............that's nice of him..........Marty's a good regular season coach so he will be able to overcome any deficiencies in his brother's coaching..........'

but when Kurt started getting jobs aside from Marty, I was thinking 'maybe he CAN coach', but then, as you laid out for us, he wasn't very successful, which shouldn't be a shock to any of us............

and I definitely think this was just the straw that broke the camel's back for Marty.........they've been talking about firing Marty it seems since the day they hired him in San Diego.........it's always been a bizarre relationship........

Azazel
02-17-2007, 12:14 PM
Although I think that Marty should have stayed, and they should have TRIED to keep the assistants to gether, I understand what you are saying here. I wouldnt have a problem with the move as long as there is a plan to better the team. Get a better coach, or at least have a plan. What bothers me is that it seems to be more of a "I want control of the whole team" by AJ.

as always great stuff yoho.....GREAT stuff, and it didnt take me all day with a calculator and a steno pad to understand it.

:)

Crunked
02-18-2007, 08:57 AM
THe most enlightening article I have read at PSH in a long time, nice one Yoho....

In the strange and somewhat interesting way my mind works it brought up the following thought:

Stats Lie (my new theory of the NFL): your oft referred to statistical comparisons, I was thinking of this in terms of modern NFL teams, specifically those that employ the cover 2 (Tampa 2) what have you. If that defense is functioning properly it will give short 3-7 yard passes all day long eliminating the long ball. Thus statistically it would average out to be a "good defense" in your analysis only for doing what it was supposed to. My Colts play this defense and I can tell you what were statistical victories this way when watching the actual play were demoralizing frustrated attempts to stop a team they could not stop. Then I began to think of some of our victories this year, Denver comes to mind, where we dink and dunked on the scheme up and down the field, and when they brought guys up to stop it and left single coverage on Reggie we ate them alive, going into the game the Denver defense had been portrayed as monsterously stingy, we play the same D, so Manning knew precisely what to exploit. The same is true with our SB victory, we continued to take what the Defensive scheme allows, and in the end the stats could be very misleading, if you looked at yards per pass....no real point just an observation to point out.

YoHoChecko
02-18-2007, 11:10 AM
THe most enlightening article I have read at PSH in a long time, nice one Yoho....

In the strange and somewhat interesting way my mind works it brought up the following thought:

Stats Lie (my new theory of the NFL): your oft referred to statistical comparisons, I was thinking of this in terms of modern NFL teams, specifically those that employ the cover 2 (Tampa 2) what have you. If that defense is functioning properly it will give short 3-7 yard passes all day long eliminating the long ball. Thus statistically it would average out to be a "good defense" in your analysis only for doing what it was supposed to. My Colts play this defense and I can tell you what were statistical victories this way when watching the actual play were demoralizing frustrated attempts to stop a team they could not stop. Then I began to think of some of our victories this year, Denver comes to mind, where we dink and dunked on the scheme up and down the field, and when they brought guys up to stop it and left single coverage on Reggie we ate them alive, going into the game the Denver defense had been portrayed as monsterously stingy, we play the same D, so Manning knew precisely what to exploit. The same is true with our SB victory, we continued to take what the Defensive scheme allows, and in the end the stats could be very misleading, if you looked at yards per pass....no real point just an observation to point out.
That's a very interesting point. To some extent, dinking and dunking doesn't lower yards per pass TOO much due to the general increase in completion percentage that is associated with it, but I definitely see your point that even allowing an average of 5 yards per pass, you could be allowing the team to move up and down the field with you. That's why, in most cases, I tried to include total yards, average yards and passing TDs allowed.

However, as you said "stats [can] lie." I prefer to say that they are "incomplete," rather than "lie." But while a team allowing a low yards per pass could actually look better statistically, than it really is, I wonder is there a way for a team who allows a high average yards per pass to actually be better than it looks statistically?

I still say no; if you are yielding a high average yards -per-pass over a long period of time (so as not to be skewed by one big play) then you are either surrendering moderate gains consistently or surrendering too many long plays, despite good coverage 75% of the time (ie. the Packers this year)

Really, to evaluate a pass defense, or any defense, solely statistically, one would have to go FAR more in depth than I did in this article. However, due to the fact that I was evaluating the defenses of 12 seasons, and comparing them to defenses that came before and after, it would have been a book, not an article. And speaking of articles, thanks for the kind words about this one.

Crunked
02-18-2007, 12:19 PM
That's a very interesting point. To some extent, dinking and dunking doesn't lower yards per pass TOO much due to the general increase in completion percentage that is associated with it, but I definitely see your point that even allowing an average of 5 yards per pass, you could be allowing the team to move up and down the field with you. That's why, in most cases, I tried to include total yards, average yards and passing TDs allowed.

However, as you said "stats [can] lie." I prefer to say that they are "incomplete," rather than "lie." But while a team allowing a low yards per pass could actually look better statistically, than it really is, I wonder is there a way for a team who allows a high average yards per pass to actually be better than it looks statistically?

I still say no; if you are yielding a high average yards -per-pass over a long period of time (so as not to be skewed by one big play) then you are either surrendering moderate gains consistently or surrendering too many long plays, despite good coverage 75% of the time (ie. the Packers this year)

Really, to evaluate a pass defense, or any defense, solely statistically, one would have to go FAR more in depth than I did in this article. However, due to the fact that I was evaluating the defenses of 12 seasons, and comparing them to defenses that came before and after, it would have been a book, not an article. And speaking of articles, thanks for the kind words about this one.

It is interesting you brought that up (btw before I go any further I wasn't dogging your analysis more over it sparked this train of thought) ok back to the show.....I cannot answer the highlighted musing you made for passing, but I can address it for the run. The Bears statistically had a very good run defense this year statistically....(employing the 4-3 cover 2) the Colts on the other hand had a statistically horrible run defense in the same D.

Both shared one common trait though other than scheme. Both were notorious for giving up 20+ yard runs The Colts had a league high 18 20+ yarders yielded the Bears for as good as their defense was gave up 13 of them which put them clearly in the bottom 10 in a category you really dont want to have any association with, so what was the difference? If you subtract all the 20+ yard plays for both squads you get the Bears yielding 2.9 YPC, the Colts averaging 4.5 YPC...now that is assuming every 20 + yard run was exactly 20 yards, I can assure you that is not true, but just to keep to point we will accept that is true. the difference in attempt yielded by each team during the regular season was 1.6 Yards per Carry....Not much in the big scheme of things for the worst run D and one of the best. Now something interesting happened as these two approached the Super Bowl one team got a little healthier, (the Colts still missing one key DT everyone else was healthy finally) one sustained more injuries (Chicago lost Harris a key DT), in the post season look at the numbers Chicago yielded 4.1 YPC in the post season the Colts 4.4 almost identical, and showing that a missing DT can make a lot of difference to the Cover 2...so my point is essentially this, both teams had pretty similar defenses, the difference was key injuries in key positions both played the post season missing a DT and Safety and finished within 3/10ths of point of each other defensively against the run, two teams that made the Super Bowl, two teams that were worlds apart statisitcally due to injuries ...No real point just an interesting fact that kind of applies to this conversation.