I think it shows. And I think this fact bridges the gap between kudos and criticisms.
You know, my father in law, who was good with money, used to say that he didn't want to trust a financial advisor who was too young: "they haven't lost enough money yet."
In the same way, McVay has not yet blown enough calls and games. My sense is that his feel for the situation falters at times as he assesses risk. I'm not talking about 4th down decisions. Rather, in a given situation, he loses his feel for the odds on an aggressive v a more measured call. And he doesn't always remember to keep milking an odds on advantage.
Consider Goff's pick yesterday. And consider the situation. We had a serious lead. DEN had just had a long drive come to naught on a pick. Now, the key thing there is the game clock. DEN had limited time to get back into the game. But, had they scored on that drive, they would be in fair shape. Coming away with nothing, they squandered the elapsed time of that drive. Now, they had a much shorter opportunity.
So, what do you do? The enemy is the clock, not the other defense. You run the ball 3 times, working the clock down. Then you have your HOF punter force DEN to have to start ANOTHER time consuming drive. You do NOT risk a throw that gives them a really short field and lets them recover enough clock time to mount a come back.
Of course, McV's struggles in the red zone are well known. He himself feels that he messes up there, and talks about this openly. Frankly, I get tired of these mea culpas when nothing seems to change. Nor do I believe that repeated confessions not leading to reform display leadership. Players want the coach to lead them to success, not keep saying he screwed up.
What I hear in McV's RZ confessions is a symptom of a tyro struggling through coaching adolescence and towards maturity. Last night, he said something about being impatient. Indeed. That is exactly what happens. And I think it is related to this no fear/attack success mantra the team keeps citing. It sounds great, but if you think about it, denying fear and choosing to attack is actually NOT a universally effective strategy. Good generals know when to fearlessly attack. And they know when to maneuver and retreat. Napoleon was damn good at attacking with those columns. Wellington was a much more flexible tactician, and knew how to use maneuver and retreat to prevail. The opportunity to win at Waterloo was set up by the brilliant holding action and retreat from
Quatre Bras the day before.
McV's brilliance and powerful leadership are fueled by his refusal to let fear preventing him from attacking. 88% of the time, that is a fantastic way to go.
But McV needs to mature enough to understand that prudence need not be about fear, and that it can fuel not only attack but victory. He needs to learn this through blowing enough calls and even some games to have a feel for assessing the odds. Tragically, a battle-hardened line officer has to lose men and engagements to develop a feel for when to advance and when to pull back. That's the difference between being green and being experienced.
Waterfield made a shrewd observation last night. He said he felt that McV wasn't having as much fun this year. I think that's precisely right. The exaltation of having the HC gig, innovating and winning some games has been replaced by the grind of having to face expectations and the relentless NFL cycle of mutual adaptation. You find some wrinkles that work and everyone is in awe ... and then the other coaches work out ways to counter what you're doing. And then you need to adapt again. While people watch for the slightest sign of weakness. Coach of the Year was last year--this time, McV has a big target on his back.
All of which is fine. This is not a post offering criticism or bad predictions. I am simply observing McV's stage of development. He has to transition from Wunderkind to seasoned HC. We're seeing some frayed edges because they are inevitable. But we are also 6-0 and the man is playing the game 90% right. He IS maturing before our eyes, and I think his growth curve is rock solid.
You know, there are parallels between Martz's Max Q and McV's Attack Success. Both are tactical orientations reflecting the viewpoint of very young HCs. Both inevitably collide with the rock of NFL competition.
The difference lies in the men. Martz's had a personality that really struggled to adapt to the league. McV, I sense, is much stabler. I doubt McV will have much difficulty developing moderation and balance in his approach. It's really been there all along, and he will continually grow in drawing on it under duress. I think McV will be around a long time. He may talk less in the future about Attacking Success as he learns to do it more consistently.
