I wonder if they are related.

Good for him. Move on up (and, unfortunately, sometimes down) the ranks.

Brothers

Next you’re going to tell me their dad is Monte Kiffin.

Yep

and that he is the player personnel analyst at Ole Miss.

The right ones?

I wouldn't mind if there was any evidence at all that he was getting better at it.

I want to see Van Pelt call some more. This premium placed on we chat a bunch and prioritize communication doesn't address some of the sideline lapses and results we saw repeated last season. I didn't see improvement, and adjustments were sparse. This needs to be better IMO. Job One might be on the sidelines.

What adjustments would you have liked?

I can't speak to anyone else - I would have liked to see the following:

- Running more when the run game was working. We lost a game running Chubb at 7.8 yards a clip because we went pass happy. Pass happy with an injured QB was a bit of a theme in many games.
- I would have liked to see adjustments made when the other teams D stopped our offense. It seems in multiple games the other team adjusted to us - and we had no answers.
- I would have liked to see our back up (3rd string?) rookie playing at RT get help instead of covering the best pass rusher in the NFL 1 on 1 for many many plays and getting destroyed. 1 snap would have been too many.

What about you? Did you think adjustments weren't needed?

This x100.

It was off-putting to see our #1 ballcarrier on the sideline in crucial late-game scenarios. Off-putting I say.

" I would have liked to see our back up (3rd string?) rookie playing at RT get help instead of covering the best pass rusher in the NFL 1 on 1 for many many plays and getting destroyed. 1 snap would have been too many. " This had me going nuts in several games !

More Chubb. Crossing routes. Better production from or less percentage of three tight. Others might be part of better game planning. Putting a rookie out there to be carved up while insisting we throw with a damaged QB repeatedly for starters. Use Van Pelt. We didn't hurt people with our O as run, not enough IMO. Our D wasn't the anvil That I hoped for, and gave up a lot of third downs. The soft cushion we gave folks hurt us often.

I am not great X and O guy. But I can see losses and try to parse where it could be different, and wonder why it wasn't, especially if it is the same losing events. Why does Ski believe that his last year recommends him to repeat? Only a team player to a point.
I might want to know what he is indulging himself in with this evaluation. What might be different? And how much better do we need to be, to carry arguable decisions? Seems like the sidelines need a set of commandments. Last year's didn't pan gold. Show me better.

I agree with the fewer 3 TE sets. At times we seemed too predictable. We had a lot of series like:

1st and 10: Hooper drops the pass out of a 3 TE set
2nd and 10: Chubb for 2 yards against an 8-man front
3rd and 8: Throw it two yards downfield and hope for the best

I agree fewer 3TE sets - but I think that this year's very high use was mostly a reaction/reflection of injuries and struggles at the WR position. KS might employ 13 personnel sets more than most - but not by such a wide margin as this year.

I know what the offensive personnel sets are, but I admit I still always have to stop and think when people say "12, 13, or 21 personnel" (or any other). For anybody else like me with that momentary brainlock, there's this:



With that I'd just say I'd like to see some 20-something packages.

So, the rule is that it always totals 5, and the first number is RB, second is TE. # of WR is always the remainder.

Thanks. This is a brilliant tool. Visual learners tape it to the screen. Gold star!

I'm pretty sure Stefanski has used an 03 package before, retarded as that sounds.

"So, the rule is that it always totals 5, and the first number is RB, second is TE. # of WR is always the remainder."


And to help remember the order, it is alphabetical

Rb
TE
Wr

Thanks for that little chart of personnel

A lot of feedback from a lot of posters....

Did you think Adjustments didn't need to be made? Did you think enough adjustments were attempted?

With a healthy Baker adjustments to what we saw in 2021 will be made. I mean adjustments were made from 2020 when we had a healthy Baker to 2021 when he wasn't healthy so there's no reason to think adjustments won't be made when he is healthy again.

That's very good news. I think him being gone hurt us last year.