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!

     

Coaching interview updates


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, PantherFanInPhilly said:

OK....I have a feeling Ben Johnson is gonna end up being the guy. I have to admit I'm really nervous about him though. Just scared this is gonna turn into all of us looking in the rearview saying "what the fug were they/we thinking? Of course this wasn't gonna work out". 

It’s Tepper so all he is thinking is making a big splash. He’s not worried about making the right choice for wins and loses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Purrnicious said:

Are we seriously considering someone from the Belichick coaching tree or is that just to satisfy the rule? I know you can't write off every person who's worked under Bill, but the track record looks waaaaayyyy worse than even Rivera's tree. 

I mean, come on. Jerod Mayo as a HC? Maybe in five years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I mean, come on. Jerod Mayo as a HC? Maybe in five years.

He has been in the HC hiring cycle three straight years now. Obviously he has some sort of talent that teams are interested in. With NE they have had a lot of turnover on their coaching staff when it comes to defense but he has been the one stable piece and every year they are competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

He has been in the HC hiring cycle three straight years now. Obviously he has some sort of talent that teams are interested in. With NE they have had a lot of turnover on their coaching staff when it comes to defense but he has been the one stable piece and every year they are competitive.

To me... I see Mayo and Brian Johnson as being interviewed  to be on Wilks staff. Seems they are vetting out not just Head coach candidates but people that Wilks mentioned in his interview  for his staff. 

  • Pie 3
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

Maybe bc he only had like 3  defensive coaches? Wilks was running a professional football team down 6 coaches from the norm. We had Chris Tabor helping coach on both offense and defense.

I want an OC coach too, but blaming Wilks for the defense is like saying a “Ferrari isn’t fast…” when it has 3 flat tires.

I think it's fair to say our defense didn't improve with Wilks but there are mitigating factors, including injuries and what you point out.

However, I don't think he really has a resume of being a coach of exceptional defensive units from what I recall.

No denying his ability to motivate though.

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

17 minutes ago, ickmule said:

It’s Tepper so all he is thinking is making a big splash. He’s not worried about making the right choice for wins and loses. 

I'm not saying he'll make the right choice, but I don't think this is true, or he'd have definitely gone all in on Harbaugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

I don’t know if it is common in the NFL to interview that many candidates, but this gives me so little faith in this process. Interviewing that many people for a serious position is poor practice and generally leads to confusion and a higher likelihood of selecting the wrong candidate. And it seems pretty clear they’re not even done yet. They should have easily weeded out several of these candidates before the interview.

We only interviewed 4 guys last go-round and ended up with the worst possible one. You're hoping to not do this sort of thing every 2-3 years. Even if you know you have a top 3-4, it makes sense to get as many different guys into the building as you can and hear diverse perspectives to compare and contrast to what you're hearing from the guy(s) you're leaning towards.

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

47 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

Maybe bc he only had like 3  defensive coaches? Wilks was running a professional football team down 6 coaches from the norm. We had Chris Tabor helping coach on both offense and defense.

I want an OC coach too, but blaming Wilks for the defense is like saying a “Ferrari isn’t fast…” when it has 3 flat tires.

All valid 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, UNCrules2187 said:

We only interviewed 4 guys last go-round and ended up with the worst possible one. You're hoping to not do this sort of thing every 2-3 years. Even if you know you have a top 3-4, it makes sense to get as many different guys into the building as you can and hear diverse perspectives to compare and contrast to what you're hearing from the guy(s) you're leaning towards.

We actually had two or three more guys scheduled to interview (McDaniels, Stefanski and I think somebody else) but cut the process short after meeting with Rhule.

Obviously, they have to satisfy the Rooney requirements, but it's possible that could happen again.

(maybe not quite as possible as before given that Marty Hurney and apparently Steven Drummond aren't involved this time)

  • The D 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

I think it's fair to say our defense didn't improve with Wilks but there are mitigating factors, including injuries and what you point out.

However, I don't think he really has a resume of being a coach of exceptional defensive units from what I recall.

No denying his ability to motivate though.

This is what coping looks like.

 

Wilks isn’t getting it, stop being delusional 

  • Pie 2
  • Flames 1
  • Poo 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheCasillas said:

Maybe bc he only had like 3  defensive coaches? Wilks was running a professional football team down 6 coaches from the norm. We had Chris Tabor helping coach on both offense and defense.

I want an OC coach too, but blaming Wilks for the defense is like saying a “Ferrari isn’t fast…” when it has 3 flat tires.

It was that great the one year he was DC for us and Arizona’s defense was atrocious and he was terrible in college and the team got better when he left. 
He just isn’t a very good DC. 

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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...