Post MM firing -- coaching search: who we want -- ALL threads merged

[Pkrjones]

The play they ran against the Rams the other night on the goal line sealed it for me. They had OL and DLman in the backfield and I think 10 lineman out there, the TD pass ends up going to an OT....creative or what?
https://www.chicagobears.com/video/bears-trick-play-results-in-sowell-td-grab

All it takes is a coach with a little creativity which GB may now get. Hopefully there will be a fullback or 2 on the roster instead of 7 WR and 4 TE's so there might be a inkling of some sort of power run ability at the goal line. I think McCarthy's failures in 1st half of NFCC game against Seattle forever eliminated that possibility while he was at the helm.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Might want to start looking at the Bears coaching staff to poach a coach or 2. I hate to admit it, but I really like what the Bears are doing right now. Creative on both offense and defense and sorry, but Ed Donatell seems to get more out of his secondary than Whitt has.

The play they ran against the Rams the other night on the goal line sealed it for me. They had OL and DLman in the backfield and I think 10 lineman out there, the TD pass ends up going to an OT....creative or what?

https://www.chicagobears.com/video/bears-trick-play-results-in-sowell-td-grab

They did something similar against the Giants to get to OT last week. When was the last time we saw anything close to that, or a “Philly Special” from GB? Too risky for MM. The play last night was a thing of beauty. I followed that DL they used (like the Fridge) and was certain he had the ball. Then somebody with a 70-something number catches a TD pass. It wasn’t just creative, it was executed to perfection. And yeah, the Bears have really improved. GB should be taking a look at some of their staff, for sure.

 

[Dantés]

Thanks for the comment-less red X's @Southside ! I totally understand your perspective now .

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I would challenge you to find the NFL fan base wherein no one is calling for their coach's job.

New England?

 

[gbgary]

Rudolph would probably start here, but he's not what one would call dynamic. He's pretty much a catch and drop to the ground player. No YAC at all.

don't knock that too much. the cowboys have had a couple of those over the years in witten and novacek.

 

[GleefulGary]

don't knock that too much. the cowboys have had a couple of those over the years in witten and novacek.

Maybe at the end of Witten's career. Certainly not in his prime.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Good point. Cousins wasn’t the savior he was cut out to be. He’s playing at about the same level as he did in D.C. and maybe a little worse this year. They never have had a ton of talent on O, exceptions include Thielen and Diggs. That hasn’t translated to victories, much less the dominance predicted for this year. They would probably be better off, and with a lot more cap space, had they kept Keenum.

I posted it several times this offseason that I didn't expect Cousins to be an upgrade over the way Keenum played in 2017. While a lot of Vikings fans disagreed it seems I was correct about it after all.

 

[McKnowledge]

Has anyone considered Jeff Tedford for Green Bay's next HC? He was Aaron Rodgers' college coach at California. He saw the potential in AR before anyone else. He helped developed him into becoming the maestro of throwing the ball. A college coach has to be a great communicator. Has to motivate. Also, he must foster healthy relationships.

He would be a low key hiring. His hiring may also prove to be essential in opening a pipeline of West Coast talent into Green Bay. He could refine the offense and would be a great contributor for Rodgers. He would definitely respect #12...

http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/...een-qbs-game-evolve-b9992257z1-222767991.html

 

[Dantés]

I've spent a little bit of time browsing through the head coaching candidates out there and trying to land on a "favorite." It's an underwhelming group. However, Dave Toub would be my top choice and here's why.

1. Consistent Excellence: Toub has been a ST Coordinator for the past 15 years. Since 2006 (his 3rd season), his units have been top ten by Footballoutsiders DVOA every single season. He has multiple seasons ranked #1. The consistent performance in his area of responsibility tells me he's an effective teacher, leader, and motivator.
2. Coaching Tree: Andy Reid has arguably the best active coaching tree in the NFL. He clearly prepares his assistants/coordinators well to do the job on their own. Matt Nagy, Doug Pederson, John Harbugh, and Ron Rivera come to mind as very successful HC's who came directly from Reid or spent significant time under his leadership (Harbaugh, who would be my #1 choice if he was available, was actually Reid's ST Coordinator when Baltimore hired him).
3. Head Coach Responsibility: This year, Reid named Toub his AHC, however from what I've read Toub has assisted for years in helping Reid manage the game-day roster and game-plan for the upcoming opponent. It would seem that Reid has found him reliable and capable enough to groom as a future head coach.
4. Connections: Working under Reid does not merely mean that Toub is likely to be well prepared, but it also plugs him into an extensive network of coaches who he can tab to fill out his staff. This is the type of thing that people don't think about, but can really make or break a coach. Does Pederson win a Super Bowl with Nick Foles if he doesn't have Frank ***** and John Defilippo? When McCarthy wanted to remake his offensive staff, who was out there for him to reach out to... Joe "tie your shoes" Philbin.
5. Managing Rodgers: *If* (and I don't know) Rodgers is difficult for the offensive staff to work with, then it would make sense to get him with a good OC and let them work things out while the head coach leads the entire team. I agree with the critique that McCarthy was too involved in being the OC to be the most effective HC he could be.
6. Alternatives: This frankly looks like a weak year for HC options. I have a hard time getting excited about anyone's resumes and it doesn't seem like the attractive names (e.g. Harbaugh, Arians) will be let go or are all that interested. If someone like Matt LaFleur or John Defilippo had brought great offensive success, then I'd be all for it. But most of the hot, young offensive names have flopped this season, casting doubt on their potential. Kris Richard has a great case personally, but (it would seem) a very limited group of coaches to draw on for OC help (I'm guessing if they hired Richard, Darrell Bevell would be our new OC).
7. The Case Against Him: To my knowledge, the only substantive argument against Toub is that he's a ST coach, and as such he would not be a flashy or **** hire (neither was John Harbaugh, and all he did was win 10+ games/season for his first 6 years, go to the PO's 5 times, and win a ring). It's true that STC's rarely make the jump to HC. However, Toub's resume in that area is uniquely excellent. And if anonymous personnel types are to be believed, the lack of hype is really the main reason that they aren't hired more often. Owners want coaches that they can sell to fan bases. I want a coach who's really good at his job.

 

[GleefulGary]

Toub Train! Choo choo!!

 

[TEXPAC]

I hear that Pittsburgh want to trade Mike Mccarthy for Mike Tomlin. Sounds good to me!!!!!!

 

[GleefulGary]

I hear that Pittsburgh want to trade Mike Mccarthy for Mike Tomlin. Sounds good to me!!!!!!

1) You can't trade for a free agent.

2) Tomlin is a no from me.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Case Against [Taub]: To my knowledge, the only substantive argument against Toub is that he's only a ST coach....

I repositioned the "only" in that phrase. It's not that he's "only" a special teams coach now, that's all he's been.

I would not want to a see a hire of a guy without some substantive coaching experience on offense or defense in the NFL, and that would include any current college coach.

College coaching is a whole other world with very different dynamics requiring an entirely different skill set. If a guy's experience is limited to the college game, Tedford as an example mentioned a few posts above, the risk is substantial.

 

[Dantés]

I repositioned the "only" in that phrase. It's not that he's "only" a special teams coach now, that's all he's been.

I would not want to a see a hire of a guy without some substantive coaching experience on offense or defense in the NFL, and that would include any current college coach.

College coaching is a whole other world with very different dynamics requiring an entirely different skill set. If a guy's experience is limited to the college game, Tedford as an example mentioned a few posts above, the risk is substantial.

If his ST-focused background is enough for someone to scratch him off the list, then that's fine. But I don't personally see why that should be the case. Why would a specialization as a ST Coordinator be substantively different for HC purposes from specialization on one side of the ball? Seems to me that a guy is a good leader, motivator, strategist, delegator, etc., or he isn't.

I would point out, however, that John Harbaugh was "only" a special teams coach in the NFL but for one year (2007) in which he asked Reid to let him coach DB's just so that he could get the attention of teams as an HC candidate. Obviously that one season (he was hired by Baltimore in 2008) was not what made him a good head coach-- he just wanted to get noticed.

 

[sschind]

If his ST-focused background is enough for someone to scratch him off the list, then that's fine. But I don't personally see why that should be the case. Why would a specialization as a ST Coordinator be substantively different for HC purposes from specialization on one side of the ball? Seems to me that a guy is a good leader, motivator, strategist, delegator, etc., or he isn't.

I would point out, however, that John Harbaugh was "only" a special teams coach in the NFL but for one year (2007) in which he asked Reid to let him coach DB's just so that he could get the attention of teams as an HC candidate. Obviously that one season (he was hired by Baltimore in 2008) was not what made him a good head coach-- he just wanted to get noticed.

If he would be smart enough to hire good coordinators I wouldn't have a problem with giving a ST guy a chance. Keep Pettine on as DC and find an OC that can call a good game and oversee the whole damn thing.

My worry about hiring a big offensive minded guy is he is going to be butting heads with Rodgers from the start. That's why, as Poker said in another thread, the OC hire may be even more important than the HC as far as Rodgers is concerned. My worry about hiring a defensive minded guy (Like Fangio) is that he may not keep Pettine on, which might be fine but it could set us back.

 

[Dantés]

If he would be smart enough to hire good coordinators I wouldn't have a problem with giving a ST guy a chance. Keep Pettine on as DC and find an OC that can call a good game and oversee the whole damn thing.

My worry about hiring a big offensive minded guy is he is going to be butting heads with Rodgers from the start. That's why, as Poker said in another thread, the OC hire may be even more important than the HC as far as Rodgers is concerned. My worry about hiring a defensive minded guy (Like Fangio) is that he may not keep Pettine on, which might be fine but it could set us back.

Yes-- totally agree that the ability to fill out a staff takes on a huge level of importance when you're more of a global HC rather than an offensive or defensive specialist.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If he would be smart enough to hire good coordinators I wouldn't have a problem with giving a ST guy a chance. Keep Pettine on as DC and find an OC that can call a good game and oversee the whole damn thing.

My worry about hiring a big offensive minded guy is he is going to be butting heads with Rodgers from the start. That's why, as Poker said in another thread, the OC hire may be even more important than the HC as far as Rodgers is concerned. My worry about hiring a defensive minded guy (Like Fangio) is that he may not keep Pettine on, which might be fine but it could set us back.

Agree and I heard Tony Dungy talking about this on PFT with Florio. He said that it's really difficult for a HC who is also involved in the play calling to focus on other aspects of the team, especially during the season when you have few days between games. The offensive play calling HC has his head wrapped around film, the playbook, his offensive personnel, etc. In this modern day of football, with all of the analytics and sheer volume of information to process, I would think that a HC that tries to focus on one side of the ball too much, could leave to much to chance on the other side of the ball, as well as Special Teams. To me a great HC is a guy who can be great at delegating all those duties to other coaches, but still have a solid enough understanding of each working part to stay involved just enough, to make sure things are running smooth. I'm sure there has been one, but I don't remember a season under McCarthy when the special teams was very good. The defense had a year or two of quality play/players, but other than that, its been pretty Meh too.

I am sure at least one poster will now tell me about all the great HC's that also do all the play calling, cause I am sure they are out there. But I would rather see the Packers hire a solid OC and let him run the offense, while the HC coaches the whole team.

 

[Dantés]

Agree and I heard Tony Dungy talking about this on PFT with Florio. He said that it's really difficult for a HC who is also involved in the play calling to focus on other aspects of the team, especially during the season when you have few days between games. The offensive play calling HC has his head wrapped around film, the playbook, his offensive personnel, etc. In this modern day of football, with all of the analytics and sheer volume of information to process, I would think that a HC that tries to focus on one side of the ball too much, could leave to much to chance on the other side of the ball, as well as Special Teams. To me a great HC is a guy who can be great at delegating all those duties to other coaches, but still have a solid enough understanding of each working part to stay involved just enough, to make sure things are running smooth. I'm sure there has been one, but I don't remember a season under McCarthy when the special teams was very good. The defense had a year or two of quality play/players, but other than that, its been pretty Meh too.

I am sure at least one poster will now tell me about all the great HC's that also do all the play calling, cause I am sure they are out there. But I would rather see the Packers hire a solid OC and let him run the offense, while the HC coaches the whole team.

Agree- you either need a really good global HC to lead the team and delegate to coordinators, or a specialist who almost treats his coordinators as co-head coaches. You see the latter in LA right now. McVay is a glorified OC, the defense 100% belongs to Phillips, and ST 100% belongs to Fassel.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Agree- you either need a really good global HC to lead the team and delegate to coordinators, or a specialist who almost treats his coordinators as co-head coaches. You see the latter in LA right now. McVay is a glorified OC, the defense 100% belongs to Phillips, and ST 100% belongs to Fassel.

Yup. The more I have thought about it, the more I have convinced myself that you and I are right and those who have agreed with us are too.

This isn't Football of chalkboards and whiteboards or "drawing them up in the dirt". I can imagine in "Lombardi's Day", they looked at grainy film as best as possible, went over to the chalkboard and "drew things up".....but the real work came on the practice field and through execution and repetition. Coaching today is probably much different. There is a ton of film, stats, trends, simulators, etc. that take a lot more time and effort to go through, but well worth doing it. If you don't have coaches that put in those hours or know what to do with all of this information, they are probably more apt to get out coached on any given Sunday.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Heyjoe4]

I've spent a little bit of time browsing through the head coaching candidates out there and trying to land on a "favorite." It's an underwhelming group. However, Dave Toub would be my top choice and here's why.

1. Consistent Excellence: Toub has been a ST Coordinator for the past 15 years. Since 2006 (his 3rd season), his units have been top ten by Footballoutsiders DVOA every single season. He has multiple seasons ranked #1. The consistent performance in his area of responsibility tells me he's an effective teacher, leader, and motivator.
2. Coaching Tree: Andy Reid has arguably the best active coaching tree in the NFL. He clearly prepares his assistants/coordinators well to do the job on their own. Matt Nagy, Doug Pederson, John Harbugh, and Ron Rivera come to mind as very successful HC's who came directly from Reid or spent significant time under his leadership (Harbaugh, who would be my #1 choice if he was available, was actually Reid's ST Coordinator when Baltimore hired him).
3. Head Coach Responsibility: This year, Reid named Toub his AHC, however from what I've read Toub has assisted for years in helping Reid manage the game-day roster and game-plan for the upcoming opponent. It would seem that Reid has found him reliable and capable enough to groom as a future head coach.
4. Connections: Working under Reid does not merely mean that Toub is likely to be well prepared, but it also plugs him into an extensive network of coaches who he can tab to fill out his staff. This is the type of thing that people don't think about, but can really make or break a coach. Does Pederson win a Super Bowl with Nick Foles if he doesn't have Frank ***** and John Defilippo? When McCarthy wanted to remake his offensive staff, who was out there for him to reach out to... Joe "tie your shoes" Philbin.
5. Managing Rodgers: *If* (and I don't know) Rodgers is difficult for the offensive staff to work with, then it would make sense to get him with a good OC and let them work things out while the head coach leads the entire team. I agree with the critique that McCarthy was too involved in being the OC to be the most effective HC he could be.
6. Alternatives: This frankly looks like a weak year for HC options. I have a hard time getting excited about anyone's resumes and it doesn't seem like the attractive names (e.g. Harbaugh, Arians) will be let go or are all that interested. If someone like Matt LaFleur or John Defilippo had brought great offensive success, then I'd be all for it. But most of the hot, young offensive names have flopped this season, casting doubt on their potential. Kris Richard has a great case personally, but (it would seem) a very limited group of coaches to draw on for OC help (I'm guessing if they hired Richard, Darrell Bevell would be our new OC).
7. The Case Against Him: To my knowledge, the only substantive argument against Toub is that he's a ST coach, and as such he would not be a flashy or **** hire (neither was John Harbaugh, and all he did was win 10+ games/season for his first 6 years, go to the PO's 5 times, and win a ring). It's true that STC's rarely make the jump to HC. However, Toub's resume in that area is uniquely excellent. And if anonymous personnel types are to be believed, the lack of hype is really the main reason that they aren't hired more often. Owners want coaches that they can sell to fan bases. I want a coach who's really good at his job.

Great analysis, thanks. I don’t know much about the guy, so appreciate the history. Personally, I’d rather have a STs guy or defensive guy as HC. Hire a real OC, give Pettine another year, fire Zook asap and find a real STC. I don’t think the “usual suspects” like Josh McDaniels will be in the picture. I mean, there was talk of DeFelippo a few weeks ago and he just got canned. Whether it’s Toub or someone else, I think it will take us by surprise.

 

[HardRightEdge]

McVay is a glorified OC, the defense 100% belongs to Phillips, and ST 100% belongs to Fassel.

Maybe in the moment, but not really.

The Rams, for example, have a very expensive $90 mil cap cost defense that is mediocre in nearly all statistical categories: yards, points, passer rating against, sacks, 3rd. downs and red zone scoring. How is it that high priced D-Line is last in the league in rushing average against? Turnovers forced is the one exception where they are among the league leaders. When the Rams don't get those turnovers one playoff week and get outscored and bounced, it will be McVay, not Phillips, who will be called to account. McVay is the one will have to explain what went wrong and how it can be fixed. McVay is the one who will have to argue for or against Phillip's retention. He won't be able to do that without having been highly attentive to the defensive side of the ball. He should be attentive to it now.

 

[rmontro]

This isn't Football of chalkboards and whiteboards or "drawing them up in the dirt". I can imagine in "Lombardi's Day", they looked at grainy film as best as possible, went over to the chalkboard and "drew things up".....but the real work came on the practice field and through execution and repetition. Coaching today is probably much different.

Of course these days the practice times are limited. Past athletes are often dismissed because today's are bigger, faster, better nourished, etc. But I'd love to see a football team from the past knock the crap out of one of today's versions.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Of course these days the practice times are limited. Past athletes are often dismissed because today's are bigger, faster, better nourished, etc. But I'd love to see a football team from the past knock the crap out of one of today's versions.

I honestly think if you could magically bring the Packer Super Bowl 1 team into the future, as they were back then, they wouldn't stand a chance in today's NFL. Might even look like a match up between an NFL Team VS. a college team.

 

[rmontro]

I honestly think if you could magically bring the Packer Super Bowl 1 team into the future, as they were back then, they wouldn't stand a chance in today's NFL. Might even look like a match up between an NFL Team VS. a college team.

You're probably right. Would it help if it was played under the old rules though?
Maybe let our guys bite the other players in the pile, lol?

 

[HardRightEdge]

I can imagine in "Lombardi's Day", they looked at grainy film as best as possible, went over to the chalkboard and "drew things up".....but the real work came on the practice field and through execution and repetition.

Are you sure about that? Watch the entirety of the following tapes in order and then tell me what you think:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

There's a misunderstanding of what the power sweep actually was. It was not is a simple play call relying only on precise technique and execution honed through practice. When you get done watching those tapes I think you'll see it was not a play at all but rather a complex scheme with a variety of plays run off the concept with a variety of blocking assignments based on the defenisve alignment and the play call with a lot of disguise and misdirection.

I don't think the coaching balance of the mental and the physical has changed much. Lombardi would have been drilling the boys on these concepts and then take it to the practice field. Conversely, there may not be much in the way of padded or full contact practice these days, but they are on the practice field walking or running through today's concepts which might be very different but no more complex.