Players reportedly did not like playing for McDaniels

[WoolMagnet]

1 hour ago, BOTT said:

 

Connection ?

or u just like McDaniels and you are grasping?

[PrincetonTiger]

IMO

 once you become the face of franchise or program you become a role model for everyone who follows the program and IMO anyone tied to B.B. will not be a good one

[Superman]

Allow me to share my thoughts on McDaniels, because I've gone from wanting nothing to do with him to being in favor of adding him, and it took several years for my viewpoint to change.

 

1) When McDaniels was hired in Denver, he was 32 years old, one of the youngest head coaches of all time. He had never experienced any real adversity in his coaching career, everything had been positive and amazing. He joined the Pats in 2001, the first year they won the SB. They won 3 times over four years. He took over play calling in 2005, then was named the OC in 2006. In 2007 the Pats went 18-0 and lost the SB. In 2008, they lost Brady in Week 1, and went 10-5 in his absence, with Matt Cassel looking like a legit NFL starter. Never a losing season, only missed the playoffs twice in that early run -- 2002, after the first SB, and 2008, when they finished three games ahead of the AFC West winning Chargers. Even when things weren't as good as they hoped, they were still pretty doggone good.

 

Then he gets hired by Denver, and is considered a young phenom. They gave McDaniels control over the personnel department, and let him try to run the entire program in the model of Bill Belichick. 

 

It's obvious that he didn't handle the Denver job the right way, and he's openly admitted as much. But for a young coach who had never dealt with any real adversity, who was brought up in a well-functioning organization with little to no drama or discord, being asked to reshape an entire football operation -- that he messed up isn't entirely surprising, and that he had a problem with ego/arrogance/inability to motivate isn't shocking either.

 

2) Between Denver and going back to New England, he worked for the short-lived Spagnuolo operation in St. Louis. Among other things, he got another taste of adversity as the Rams went 2-14, and then the entire coaching staff got axed. These two experiences would hopefully have brought him down to earth, taught him some humility, and helped him realize that being an NFL coach isn't always going to result in a deep playoff run. 

 

He would have seen the impact that a head coach's mistakes have on the rest of the coaching staff -- his failures led to the loss of employment for 20-ish assistants. 

 

He would have seen that he wouldn't always be the favored son, that at any moment he could have his legs cut out from under him, even if he didn't think he was being evaluated fairly. Reportedly, his quick hook in Denver -- didn't even get to finish his second season, after starting 6-0 his first year -- had an impact on him, and is part of the reason he's been selective in going after other openings.

 

He also came to realize that he couldn't always rely on having a great QB who was eager to compete and be coached. Going from Tom Brady to Jay Cutler, Kyle Orton, Sam Bradford, Kellen Clemens and AJ Feeley would have been eye-opening for anyone.

 

3) Much is made over the way he handled Cutler in Denver, and while he obviously didn't handle the situation perfectly, I was on McDaniels side at the time. The feud resulted in the Broncos losing a young, promising QB when they didn't have to, but I always felt that Cutler was being a petulant, whiny man-child, and over the last decade, it's been well-documented that Cutler can be difficult to work with, off-putting, etc. So I don't blame McDaniels solely for the messy Cutler situation.

 

And I think the main basis for McDaniels having a reputation of not being easy to work with in Denver was the Cutler situation.

 

4) Chad posted this article earlier, but I'm posting it again. It's a lengthy piece, but in it McDaniels exposes a lot of his own shortcomings in Denver, and what he hopes to have learned from them. The fact that he bombed out partly because he was trying to be Belichick 2.0 -- and sat down with Tony Dungy, who is in many ways the opposite of Belichick, to figure out how to make his way forward -- is impressive to me. He sought counsel from a lot of other people as well. This is a sign of humility, IMO, which was the chief quality he lacked in Denver.

 

I believe that there's a lot of learning and growing a person can do in a decade. There are several examples of good to great head coaches in the NFL who didn't succeed in their first stop, but went on to have great success later on. If they had been counted out after their first failure, the NFL landscape would be very different today. Over the last 20 years, guys like Mike Shanahan, Tony Dungy, Pete Carroll, and of course, Belichick, have shown that some coaches can make the most of a second (or even third) chance in the NFL.

 

5) In Indy, the head coach isn't going to have full control over personnel. Chris Ballard is the guy there, and whoever comes in will report to him and have to work directly with him on player personnel. The idea of McDaniels trying to emulate the Belichick model in Indy isn't something to be concerned with.

 

6) As for McDaniels pedigree as a coach, there's little doubt that he knows the game and understand how to get the most out of his personnel. The Patriots have sustained many injuries on the offensive side of the ball over the years, but they always regroup and get back to optimum performance right away. McDaniels actually started his coaching career as a graduate assistant to Nick Saban at Michigan State. Then his first two years as an assistant coach on Belichick's staff were as a defensive assistant, working with DBs. He has a varied background, which is something a lot of the best head coaches have. Everyone probably already knows how I feel about the way McDaniels runs the offense.

 

7) The single most concerning element with McDaniels is the overall lack of success of former Belichick assistants. None of them have done anything impressive away from New England, and several have been terrible. Charlie Weis had a good start at Notre Dame, but that didn't last. Bill O'Brien hasn't done anything with Houston, but for the half a season he had good QB play they looked dangerous; still, he might be fired soon. I think the Belichick Effect is a real phenomenon, but that doesn't mean no Patriots assistant can be successful. If anyone has a shot, I think McDaniels' experiences and the fact that he wants to be completely comfortable with a situation before making a change puts him in good position to have success if/when he leaves.

 

TL;DR, my thoughts on McDaniels have gradually evolved over the years, and I've gone from not wanting anything to do with him to thinking he's probably the best head coaching candidate in the NFL. 

[BOTT]

Just now, WoolMagnet said:

Connection ?

or u just like McDaniels and you are grasping?

The "we are talking about the * kicker" part.  Ok, maybe a reach, but it still makes me laugh.

[WoolMagnet]

1 hour ago, PrincetonTiger said:

He has to much BB in him for me

 

that sounded funny! Painful,  but funny.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Agreed.  And I'm not sure why people think he is good at Xs and Os. 

 

The Pats O has been good with him or without him, so what exactly does he bring to the table that another short-pass based OC with Brady, Gronk, and Edelman wouldn't? 

 

Specific to football, the bolded is a fallacy. The Patriots offense is whatever it needs to be. Brady actually started out this season as one of the best downfield passers in the league, after being one of the worst over the last three seasons.

 

McDaniels was also the Pats coordinator in 2007, when they were anything but a short-pass based offense.

 

The EP is the most versatile offensive approach in the NFL. Categorizing it as anything else is a mistake.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

IMO

 once you become the face of franchise or program you become a role model for everyone who follows the program and IMO anyone tied to B.B. will not be a good one

 

That's unfair. Holding any Patriots assistant responsible for the presumed sins of Bill Belichick is nonsensical.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's unfair. Holding any Patriots assistant responsible for the presumed sins of Bill Belichick is nonsensical.

JMO Not really since most coaches take on the attitude of their mentors I know I did

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's unfair. Holding any Patriots assistant responsible for the presumed sins of Bill Belichick is nonsensical.

Everyone of his assistants who got HC tried to make their no homes NE satellites 

 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Everyone of his assistants who got HC tried to make their no homes NE satellites 

 

 

In what way has Bill O'Brien done that?

 

And really, that's not what we're talking about. You're talking about Belichick being a jerkish, arrogant bully who will push the envelope and even break the rules if he thinks it will help him win. Presuming that every Patriots assistant will follow that path is unfair, and really, inaccurate. While other Pats assistants haven't succeeded, they definitely haven't all been jerks in the model of Belichick.

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, Superman said:

 

In what way has Bill O'Brien done that?

 

And really, that's not what we're talking about. You're talking about Belichick being a jerkish, arrogant bully who will push the envelope and even break the rules if he thinks it will help him win. Presuming that every Patriots assistant will follow that path is unfair, and really, inaccurate. While other Pats assistants haven't succeeded, they definitely haven't all been jerks in the model of Belichick.

His Coordinators were/are NE Assistants and not to mention a few of his players

 

  not sure why you think I am so negative just raised by two by the books teachers and coaches

 

 unless the person(s) prove otherwise anyone tied to BB, Bob Knight, and UL are on my list

 

[Coltsman1788]

2 hours ago, chad72 said:

I guess the OP hasn’t read this, this is a must read article about Josh McDaniels:

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2666428-the-redemption-of-josh-mcdaniels-failure-taught-pats-oc-how-to-pick-his-spots

 

He won’t have control over personnel decisions and I trust Irsay and Ballard to make the right decision. I cannot play conjecture but I can present published articles.

Very good article. Thanks for sharing Chad72. Helped to give me more insight into Josh McDaniels the man.  If he has truly learned his lessons and Ballard decides he is the best candidate after a thorough interviewing process involving multiple qualified candidates then  I will support and hope for the best. 

[DougDew]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Specific to football, the bolded is a fallacy. The Patriots offense is whatever it needs to be. Brady actually started out this season as one of the best downfield passers in the league, after being one of the worst over the last three seasons.

 

McDaniels was also the Pats coordinator in 2007, when they were anything but a short-pass based offense.

 

The EP is the most versatile offensive approach in the NFL. Categorizing it as anything else is a mistake.

That's true, but not that relevant.  We're not going to add a Randy Moss and cater to his talents by being a bomb's away offense.  Arians can do that kind of McDaniels better than McDaniels can do it. 

 

Ballard appears to be looking at Nagy too, so I'd be more interested in how each candidate succeeded in a short game offense and consider the talent level they each had to work with.  Perhaps Nagy has little to do with KCs success, and that is something Ballard would have to determine.

 

And even though McDaniels had experienced some football adversity, there is no indication he has learned from it in any significant way.  I'd be more confident if he took what he learned to another team as OC and had success there instead of going back to the comfort of BB and Brady.

 

I'm not against McDaniels if he becomes HC, because Ballard would have probably vetted him correctly, but at this point there are enough red flags that I can't jump on the bandwagon.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

His Coordinators were/are NE Assistants and not to mention a few of his players

 

  not sure why you think I am so negative just raised by two by the books teachers and coaches

 

 unless the person(s) prove otherwise anyone tied to BB, Bob Knight, and UL are on my list

 

 

Coaches always hire other coaches they are familiar with. I don't think that qualifies as trying to turn the Texans into a Patriots satellite. If that's the case, then McVay tried to turn the Rams into a Washington satellite, since he hired a handful of Washington assistants. 

[The Fish]

38 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

TL;DR, my thoughts on McDaniels have gradually evolved over the years, and I've gone from not wanting anything to do with him to thinking he's probably the best head coaching candidate in the NFL. 

 

I didn't disagree with most of that, but here's what I'd add. If he's the best, it's because he's got the most knowns and you do have to assume he would approach things differently. It's one thing to say it..

I'm not totally sold on the idea, but I don't think he's as toxic as I once did.

The offense needs to be better and I'm as confident he'd do that as anyone in the pool of candidates.

[chad72]

9 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Very good article. Thanks for sharing Chad72. Helped to give me more insight into Josh McDaniels the man.  If he has truly learned his lessons and Ballard decides he is the best candidate after a thorough interviewing process involving multiple qualified candidates then  I will support and hope for the best. 

 

Like I said, it is like that monkey on his back, his resume in Denver, for McDaniels.

 

Ballard, if he is the thorough GM that I think he is, will vet it out with the right questions. At some point, a new HC needs to feel wanted more than second guessed, and that is what McDaniels needs to feel as well if all the vetting checks out on the Colts' side.

 

You can't interview a guy by starting off with "well, let us talk first about your stint in Denver". We first need to know how he can improve us, what his thoughts on our state of roster is, where he can bring the improvements, what his vision is for the team and roster, before bringing up his Denver stuff. The same goes with interviewing a guy with a negative reference for a new job at your company. At least that is how I'd approach it because if the candidate is a great fit, you don't want to blow it for your company because the pros heavily outweigh any cons.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That's true, but not that relevant.  We're not going to add a Randy Moss and cater to his talents by being a bomb's away offense.  Arians can do that kind of McDaniels better than McDaniels can do it. 

 

Ballard appears to be looking at Nagy too, so I'd be more interested in how each candidate succeeded in a short game offense and consider the talent level they each had to work with.  Perhaps Nagy has little to do with KCs success, and that is something Ballard would have to determine.

 

And even though McDaniels had experienced some football adversity, there is no indication he has learned from it in any significant way.  I'd be more confident if he took what he learned to another team as OC and had success there instead of going back to the comfort of BB and Brady.

 

I'm not against McDaniels if he becomes HC, because Ballard would have probably vetted him correctly, but at this point there are enough red flags that I can't jump on the bandwagon.

 

First, Arians can't do that kind of offense better than McDaniels. Keep in mind that Brady was only sacked 21 times in 2007. Arians has only had a QB who played an entire season and was sacked fewer than than 40 times once, Carson Palmer in 2015. Arians gets QBs beat up, and his QBs aren't nearly as efficient as Brady was in 2007.

 

Besides, that's not the point. The point is that the EP offense can do whatever it wants/needs. It's not a short pass based offense.

 

Nagy has little experience as the coordinator, so I'm hesitant there. No question the Chiefs offense has looked good with him calling the plays.

 

As for McDaniels, there's actually plenty of indication that he's learned from his adversity, but that won't be sufficiently proved until/unless he leaves the Pats and has success. 

 

No need to jump on the bandwagon. Like I said, it took me a long time to be comfortable with the idea of McDaniels. As recently as January 2015, I wanted nothing to do with him. 

[jameszeigler834]

2 hours ago, csmopar said:

Yeah the more I read about McDaniels the more I want to stay away from him

Ya normally in a season fans are most worried about the players being a locker room cancer but when the coach is one that's a no win situation for both sides. and always results in the destruction of the team.

[NorthernBlue]

That's why you interview him, you know? To actually see if he's improved since then. 

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

First, Arians can't do that kind of offense better than McDaniels. Keep in mind that Brady was only sacked 21 times in 2007. Arians has only had a QB who played an entire season and was sacked fewer than than 40 times once, Carson Palmer in 2015. Arians gets QBs beat up, and his QBs aren't nearly as efficient as Brady was in 2007.

 

Besides, that's not the point. The point is that the EP offense can do whatever it wants/needs. It's not a short pass based offense.

 

Nagy has little experience as the coordinator, so I'm hesitant there. No question the Chiefs offense has looked good with him calling the plays.

 

As for McDaniels, there's actually plenty of indication that he's learned from his adversity, but that won't be sufficiently proved until/unless he leaves the Pats and has success. 

 

No need to jump on the bandwagon. Like I said, it took me a long time to be comfortable with the idea of McDaniels. As recently as January 2015, I wanted nothing to do with him. 

I guess my biggest concern is that he hasn't ever successfully branched out on his own.  Even though he has been a successful OC in the NFL for 10 years, he has never successfully transformed another teams offense.  I know the next step for an OC is HC and not another OC, but he is someone who has baggage and the best way to prove you've shed it is to leave the nest and succeed elsewhere under another GMs eyes.  Other OCs might not have to prove that first.

 

If what he has learned from this is that he wants to only pick and choose his spots, as one of the articles suggests, it sounds like he might have a bratty personality that feels he's entitled or is scared of not having the right environment.  Maybe what he has learned is that he can only succeed under certain conditions, and that's another red flag.  

 

[The Fish]

8 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:

That's why you interview him, you know? To actually see if he's improved since then. 

pff. no.

I've got sources that say Ballard is conducting this search by wrapping newspaper around his head and consulting with psychics. 

My sources are solid.

[chrisfarley]

2 hours ago, chad72 said:

I guess the OP hasn’t read this, this is a must read article about Josh McDaniels:

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2666428-the-redemption-of-josh-mcdaniels-failure-taught-pats-oc-how-to-pick-his-spots

 

He won’t have control over personnel decisions and I trust Irsay and Ballard to make the right decision. I cannot play conjecture but I can present published articles.

that was a long read, but one well worth the time.  top to bottom, we can glean very positive things from this, as McDaniels did from his tenure in Denver & St. Louis.  --- Being the head-coach at such a young age was disastrous at times, but time will tell if he deserves another chance.....has he truly learned his lesson, or would he come into a very disjointed Colts organization and see that he can power his way around because of a soft owner in Irsay?  An owner that gets kicked around by bully GM's (Grigson), that allowed a sub-standard coaching staff for so many years, that now has a culture of pushing the wrong buttons with personnel and critical decision making?  I am one who thinks that this guy should be considered but heavily vetted through interviews with Josh himself and with his current and former close work colleagues & staff.  If I was Ballard, I'd go on my own gut instincts and NOT weigh very heavily if at all , the input of Jim Irsay.  This is an NFL position that might be more unique than any other job in sports, and it requires a very well balanced individual with high intelligence, off the charts interpersonal skills ,  and a two-way respect developed between player & coach that leads to accountability, work-ethic, and a true caring for one another that also lends itself to "putting it all out there".  If we can find that, we take this to the next level, and that could come fairly quickly.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

I guess my biggest concern is that he hasn't ever successfully branched out on his own.  Even though he has been a successful OC in the NFL for 10 years, he has never successfully transformed another teams offense.  I know the next step for an OC is HC and not another OC, but he is someone who has baggage and the best way to prove you've shed it is to leave the nest and succeed elsewhere under another GMs eyes.  Other OCs might not have to prove that first.

 

If what he has learned from this is that he wants to only pick and choose his spots, as one of the articles suggests, it sounds like he might have a bratty personality that feels he deserves something or is scared of adversity.  Maybe what he has learned is that he can only succeed under certain conditions, and that's another red flag.  

 

 

Not surprisingly, I don't agree with your cynical viewpoint here.

 

First, you'd basically never give McDaniels a chance if he never leaves New England, but he's obviously not going to leave New England unless he has a head coaching opportunity. Catch 22. Seems unreasonable.

 

Second, the idea that it's bratty or cowardly of him to want to be comfortable with his next spot is also unreasonable. As I said earlier, I think he got fired sooner in Denver than most head coaches, which probably had more to do with his personality and impact on the locker room than it did the team's win/loss record. Usually a young coach coming in his first job gets at least two full seasons unless he's absolutely atrocious. 

 

Then he went to the Rams, with a new staff, and they got a relatively quick hook. He reportedly took himself out of consideration for the Niners job last year because they went through three coaching staffs in three years, and there was concern about stability. That same concern led to the Niners giving their new GM and coach six year contracts, which is almost unheard of, especially for first time guys. 

 

He has the best coordinator job in the NFL. Why would he leave unless he was convinced he was joining a solid organization that is going to make sure he has what he needs to succeed, and that they're going to give him a fair chance to establish his program? Some coaches never get a second shot; most don't get a third.

 

His determination to be selective is easy to understand, especially since he can just stay in New England and work for the best run organization with the best head coach and the most accomplished QB, where he and his family feel at home, and where they contend for a SB every season by default. 

 

Pete Carroll was similarly selective, and the same goes for other highly sought after candidates in the past. It doesn't mean he's entitled or scared of a challenge. It means he's in no rush, and is willing to wait for a situation he feels good about. 

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, chrisfarley said:

that was a long read, but one well worth the time.  top to bottom, we can glean very positive things from this, as McDaniels did from his tenure in Denver & St. Louis.  --- Being the head-coach at such a young age was disastrous at times, but time will tell if he deserves another chance.....has he truly learned his lesson, or would he come into a very disjointed Colts organization and see that he can power his way around because of a soft owner in Irsay?  An owner that gets kicked around by bully GM's (Grigson), that allowed a sub-standard coaching staff for so many years, that now has a culture of pushing the wrong buttons with personnel and critical decision making?  I am one who thinks that this guy should be considered but heavily vetted through interviews with Josh himself and with his current and former close work colleagues & staff.  If I was Ballard, I'd go on my own gut instincts and NOT weigh very heavily if at all , the input of Jim Irsay.  This is an NFL position that might be more unique than any other job in sports, and it requires a very well balanced individual with high intelligence, off the charts interpersonal skills ,  and a two-way respect developed between player & coach that leads to accountability, work-ethic, and a true caring for one another that also lends itself to "putting it all out there".  If we can find that, we take this to the next level, and that could come fairly quickly.

 

I'd rather Irsay let his GM and coaches do the work than meddle like Jerry Jones. I strongly disagree that qualifies as being kicked around by bully GMs; I look at it like giving enough rope to the football guys you hired till it starts hurting the organization. When he felt it hurt the organization, 1 year into a new 4 year contract, he pulled the plug on Grigson. That does not sound like an owner who got kicked around.

 

I think you are short selling Irsay on his penchant for getting football guys and giving them the freedom to operate, his history says otherwise. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I'd rather Irsay let his GM and coaches do the work than meddle like Jerry Jones. I strongly disagree that qualifies as being kicked around by bully GMs; I look at it like giving enough rope to the football guys you hired till it starts hurting the organization. When he felt it hurt the organization, 1 year into a new 4 year contract, he pulled the plug on Grigson. That does not sound like an owner who got kicked around.

 

Right, the Colts have had some recent issues, but this idea that they are a mess and have a bad owner is nonsense. 

 

Pagano showed that he wasn't a very good coach, but it's still hard for me to understand why anyone was trying to run him out of town three years ago. Even after 2015, when I was ready for him to go, he had just gone 6-3 without his star QB, and it was reasonable to give him another crack at it. Even this idea six years later that Irsay messed up by hiring Grigson and Pagano is kind of ludicrous to me. Those two guys had a lot more success in their first three seasons than anyone anticipated.

 

Irsay is not this brash, impetuous, meddling owner that people paint him as. He's a thoughtful, deliberate owner, and everyone who has worked for him has a high opinion of him. The way he handled his GM search last year -- coming away with one of the most highly respected candidates in the league -- and the way he gave Pagano a chance to prove his worth, those are two of the reasons the Colts are considered to be one of the best openings in the league right now.

[DougDew]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Not surprisingly, I don't agree with your cynical viewpoint here.

 

First, you'd basically never give McDaniels a chance if he never leaves New England, but he's obviously not going to leave New England unless he has a head coaching opportunity. Catch 22. Seems unreasonable.

 

Second, the idea that it's bratty or cowardly of him to want to be comfortable with his next spot is also unreasonable. As I said earlier, I think he got fired sooner in Denver than most head coaches, which probably had more to do with his personality and impact on the locker room than it did the team's win/loss record. Usually a young coach coming in his first job gets at least two full seasons unless he's absolutely atrocious. 

 

Then he went to the Rams, with a new staff, and they got a relatively quick hook. He reportedly took himself out of consideration for the Niners job last year because they went through three coaching staffs in three years, and there was concern about stability. That same concern led to the Niners giving their new GM and coach six year contracts, which is almost unheard of, especially for first time guys. 

 

He has the best coordinator job in the NFL. Why would he leave unless he was convinced he was joining a solid organization that is going to make sure he has what he needs to succeed, and that they're going to give him a fair chance to establish his program? Some coaches never get a second shot; most don't get a third.

 

His determination to be selective is easy to understand, especially since he can just stay in New England and work for the best run organization with the best head coach and the most accomplished QB, where he and his family feel at home, and where they contend for a SB every season by default. 

 

Pete Carroll was similarly selective, and the same goes for other highly sought after candidates in the past. It doesn't mean he's entitled or scared of a challenge. It means he's in no rush, and is willing to wait for a situation he feels good about. 

Cynical?  No, reasonable.

 

I understand wanting a comfortable job rather than a difficult one.  If that's the goal, then stay OC at NE forever and take over for BB when he leaves.  He wants to move on to another level, (so we assume) and apparently wants to go somewhere where he can succeed immediately due to the parts already in place, instead of finding the parts and building it himself.  I get the desire for that.  I don't get the expectation of it.   When I think of someone who feels they have the ability to pick and choose his spots in order to succeed at the next level, humility doesn't come to mind.  Some entitlement combined with a lack of confidence in his own competence comes to mind.

 

 

[#12.]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Specific to football, the bolded is a fallacy. The Patriots offense is whatever it needs to be. Brady actually started out this season as one of the best downfield passers in the league, after being one of the worst over the last three seasons.

 

McDaniels was also the Pats coordinator in 2007, when they were anything but a short-pass based offense.

 

The EP is the most versatile offensive approach in the NFL. Categorizing it as anything else is a mistake.

They've gone through stretches of downfield play or stetches where they have ridden Dillon or the rushing attack, but at heart, for most of the past 15 years, it's been the Weis quasi-West Coast thing.

 

Of course, as you say, they do whatever works, and generally that's what works best in this era.

[RockThatBlue]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

TL;DR, my thoughts on McDaniels have gradually evolved over the years, and I've gone from not wanting anything to do with him to thinking he's probably the best head coaching candidate in the NFL. 

My thoughts have evolved on him too. A few years ago I wouldn't have wanted him. But watching the Colts offense struggling has made me want an offensive guy. And theres really not many better than McDaniels in that department. 

 

I kind of hope our  hire will be either McDaniels or Nagy. Unleash the offense and hire a good DC and see what happens.

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, #12. said:

They've gone through stretches of downfield play or stetches where they have ridden Dillon or the rushing attack, but at heart, for most of the past 15 years, it's been the Weis quasi-West Coast thing.

 

Of course, as you say, they do whatever works, and generally that's what works best in this era.

 

I think that's an overly simplistic view of their offense. Their approach has been varied in many different ways over the years. 

 

Even with Weis, the Pats offense was significantly different in 2003 than it was in 2001. Then they added Corey Dillon in 2004, and made him the focal point of their offense.

 

Then Weis leaves in 2005, and over that season they basically adopted a spread offense with lots of shotgun passing and 4 receiver sets, revolving more around Brady than before. In 2007, they attacked every level of the field, and didn't change that until 2009. 

 

They adopted a two TE offense later on, and with the short options, they still attacked up the seams in a way that's not heavily featured in most WCOs. 

 

As Brady has gotten older, they've continued to stress the underneath passing, adding more and more receivers and backs who can make defenders miss. And since Brady has never been fond of getting hit and always willing to hot potato the football, they've often had the look of a WCO, based on timing and quick throws.

 

But as we all know, all offenses feature the same plays and the same routes, and good coordinators rely on the plays that their players run best. What's unique about EP is the way they install the plays, the way the plays are called, and the way the players are taught their assignments. It's also known for being more versatile in its emphasis, from run/pass balance to blocking schemes to route combinations. One week it can look like a power run, deep passing Coryell offense, and the next week it can look like an Andy Reid offense. But it's still the same plays and concepts.

[Cynjin]

4 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Not really

 

Not really?  Belichick is the best head coach in NFL currently and you don't think it would be a good thing for another coach to have those same coaching abilities?  Okay, to each their own.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Not really?  Belichick is the best head coach in NFL currently and you don't think it would be a good thing for another coach to have those same coaching abilities?  Okay, to each their own.

See my above posts it is how he is perceived outside of Boston that is my problem 

[Roger]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Right, the Colts have had some recent issues, but this idea that they are a mess and have a bad owner is nonsense. 

 

Pagano showed that he wasn't a very good coach, but it's still hard for me to understand why anyone was trying to run him out of town three years ago. Even after 2015, when I was ready for him to go, he had just gone 6-3 without his star QB, and it was reasonable to give him another crack at it. Even this idea six years later that Irsay messed up by hiring Grigson and Pagano is kind of ludicrous to me. Those two guys had a lot more success in their first three seasons than anyone anticipated.

 

Irsay is not this brash, impetuous, meddling owner that people paint him as. He's a thoughtful, deliberate owner, and everyone who has worked for him has a high opinion of him. The way he handled his GM search last year -- coming away with one of the most highly respected candidates in the league -- and the way he gave Pagano a chance to prove his worth, those are two of the reasons the Colts are considered to be one of the best openings in the league right now.

I have not seen anything on the bolded section. Can you steer me to one? Thanks.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Roger said:

I have not seen anything on the bolded section. Can you steer me to one? Thanks.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000900026/article/whats-the-best-head-coaching-job-nfl-execs-weigh-in

[Cynjin]

34 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

See my above posts it is how he is perceived outside of Boston that is my problem 

 

I wasn't commenting on his personality, only on his ability to coach.  Belichick is the best head coach in the league right now.  If another coach has anywhere near those same abilities then, imo, that is a good thing.

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

I wasn't commenting on his personality, only on his ability to coach.  Belichick is the best head coach in the league right now.  If another coach has anywhere near those same abilities then, imo, that is a good thing.

JMO but I feel very different about him

[Roger]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000900026/article/whats-the-best-head-coaching-job-nfl-execs-weigh-in

That's pretty weak.  It doesn't really have any source except for the author, and it qualifies the attraction of the Colts with Luck's fitness for play.  Nowhere did the author talk about Colts meeting his own criteria, except for a blurb about Ballard's perceived respect around the league.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Roger said:

That's pretty weak.  It doesn't really have any source except for the author, and it qualifies the attraction of the Colts with Luck's fitness for play.  Nowhere did the author talk about Colts meeting his own criteria, except for a blurb about Ballard's perceived respect around the league.

 

So what do you want to see? A definitive ranking of all the head coaching jobs in the league? Why? 

 

My point was that I think the Colts have one of the best job openings this year, based on what I've seen and heard. 

[Roger]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000900026/article/whats-the-best-head-coaching-job-nfl-execs-weigh-in

Thanks.

[Roger]

Just now, Superman said:

 

So what do you want to see? A definitive ranking of all the head coaching jobs in the league? Why? 

 

My point was that I think the Colts have one of the best job openings this year, based on what I've seen and heard. 

It's fine.  I just imagined something more definitive, I guess.  We'll see soon how desirable HC of the Colts is by the candidates who interview.  McDaniels should be interviewed next week.

[Mr.Debonair]

Man anytime anyone has a ounce of “non-perfectness” (yes its made up) you all on your high horse want no parts. It truly is silly