Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Matt Rhule: “I wish I never took the job”


CashNewton22
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mav1234 said:

Eh. Rhule was a very hot name that year. He wasn't the only one interested in Rhule, just the only one willing to give him so much money... Not like he hired a random college coach, Rhule was billed as this great talent developer etc etc 

A bunch of people being stupid and making Rhule a 'hot name' because they're chasing the next McVay doesn't excuse the stupidity. I'm not needling you here, but rather that the fact that anyone was enamored with him and his mediocre college track record at that level was absurd, and Tepper and Hurney getting caught up in it is not to their credit.

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

...and total control.

Therein lies the stupid 😖

A big part of it, absolutely.

46 minutes ago, CRA said:

It was pretty inexcusable IMO to allow Rhule to go into year 3.  Bad contract or not.   It was obvious he wasn’t going to work out and we wasted a season.  

But the patented Rhule Year 3 Leap... lolz. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

Well this WR saw the Satterfield hire and was like nope. Maybe he researched a little more about Rhule as well 

 

Matt Rhule's team from Temple to Baylor to Carolina all have one thing in common.  Meh offense. 

yeah, that kid is smart.  Satterfield is horrible. Rhule is horrible.  

Nebraska kid too.  Bad start to the Rhule era.  When the homegrown kids want nothing to do with you. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CRA said:

It was pretty inexcusable IMO to allow Rhule to go into year 3.  Bad contract or not.   It was obvious he wasn’t going to work out and we wasted a season.  

I hated that decision too, but I also understand why Tepper wanted to see if the Third Year Leap was real. He kept his hands off the team and waited. I also wonder who he was consulting in that decision. 

There's a lot of unknowns about it all and I hope Tepper learned something from it, but not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

I hated that decision too, but I also understand why Tepper wanted to see if the Third Year Leap was real. He kept his hands off the team and waited. I also wonder who he was consulting in that decision. 

There's a lot of unknowns about it all and I hope Tepper learned something from it, but not so sure.

I think the 2nd year shitshow was simply too big to allow a 3rd.    Normally I would agree to give a meh coach a 3rd season just to see but I still think how bad Rhule was in year 2 didn't get proper recognition. 

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CRA said:

I think the 2nd year shitshow was simply too big to allow a 3rd.    Normally I would agree to give a meh coach a 3rd season just to see but I still think how bad Rhule was in year 2 didn't get proper recognition. 

Yeah the losing streak at the end of the year was not acceptable. If they had started off slow and got better as the season went on I could understand seeing if the momentum would carry over to year 3. Instead they fired/replaced a bunch of people except Rhule and we got Training Camp battles! 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

Yeah the losing streak at the end of the year was not acceptable. If they had started off slow and got better as the season went on I could understand seeing if the momentum would carry over to year 3. Instead they fired/replaced a bunch of people except Rhule and we got Training Camp battles! 

Not just the losing streak.  It’s the fact he simply revealed himself to be a clown.  Starting in camp the BS was too much.  Then how he handled players and tossed guys under the bus.   The nonsensical nature of how he managed the team.   It was all a joke. 

it also highlights how he was nothing like Ron.  Which Rhule was referencing.  Ron wasn’t a comical joke year 2 as a HC and there was direction.  Ron was building something.   Whether you agree or not he was doing something from the ground up and wasn’t a clown. 

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mav1234 said:

Eh. Rhule was a very hot name that year. He wasn't the only one interested in Rhule, just the only one willing to give him so much money... Not like he hired a random college coach, Rhule was billed as this great talent developer etc etc 

That turned out to be complete and utter bullshit. 

  • Pie 5
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...