Players reportedly did not like playing for McDaniels

[WoolMagnet]

4 hours ago, 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.

Never been an O'Brien fan after he bailed on his commitment to Penn State.  And i see some Belichek "attitude" in O'Brien. (Not a complement). Its a "holier than thou", condecending, "my time and opinion is more valuable than yours" attitude.  I see it with McDaniels too.  We reslly dont know, we dont know them as people.  

Even past Ne Players.... brusci, mcginest, heath ... they have defensive type  attitudes.  Just not warm and fuzzy... at sll.  This may be some of the meat behind the talk of players not "feeling" mcdaniels.  You just cant mimic BB's style if you arent BB.  Wont work unless you win 5 SBs.  

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

Never been an O'Brien fan after he bailed on his commitment to Penn State.  And i see some Belichek "attitude" in O'Brien. (Not a complement). Its a "holier than thou", condecending, "my time and opinion is more valuable than yours" attitude.  I see it with McDaniels too.  We reslly dont know, we dont know them as people.  

Even past Ne Players.... brusci, mcginest, heath ... they have defensive type  attitudes.  Just not warm and fuzzy... at sll.  This may be some of the meat behind the talk of players not "feeling" mcdaniels.  You just cant mimic BB's style if you arent BB.  Wont work unless you win 5 SBs.  

 

You'll have to quantify at least some of that regarding O'Brien's attitude. I don't get that from him, but to whatever extent it does exist, that doesn't mean that he's imitating Belichick or even that it's a product of him being a Belichick assistant.

 

As for him leaving Penn State, different people have different feelings about this, but coaches leave. It is what it is. To me, that doesn't speak to his qualifications as a head coach. And in this case, it has nothing to do with McDaniels.

[WoolMagnet]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You'll have to quantify at least some of that regarding O'Brien's attitude. I don't get that from him, but to whatever extent it does exist, that doesn't mean that he's imitating Belichick or even that it's a product of him being a Belichick assistant.

 

As for him leaving Penn State, different people have different feelings about this, but coaches leave. It is what it is. To me, that doesn't speak to his qualifications as a head coach. And in this case, it has nothing to do with McDaniels.

Sure its related.  Come on.  Most coordinators and players take on similarities to the coach.  It happens in the workplace too.

i dont dislike them, i dont know them.

o'brien always strikes me as being in a Belichek-ish "bad mood".  I'm sure you've heard him talk.  He looks constipated half the time too, just like the hoodie.  Now, that said, i also understand that O'Brien has a son with special needs that is challenging.  So i'm not gonna judge the guy, he just rubs me the wrong way.  May be just my perception. 

  And Penn State needed a coach to "finish what he started" more than any program in recent memory.  He promised alot, then jumped ship (reminding me of Saban, carroll, ) when a better offer came.

sorry, just not a fan.  Nothing personal, just not impressed.  McDaniel either.  But i'm no GM.  If Ballard thinks either would work, i'd support it.

i actually have no idea at this point who i would even want at this point.  What an important and confusing  decidion.

[Superman]

17 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

Sure its related.  Come on.  Most coordinators and players take on similarities to the coach.  It happens in the workplace too.

i dont dislike them, i dont know them.

o'brien always strikes me as being in a Belichek-ish "bad mood".  I'm sure you've heard him talk.  He looks constipated half the time too, just like the hoodie.  Now, that said, i also understand that O'Brien has a son with special needs that is challenging.  So i'm not gonna judge the guy, he just rubs me the wrong way.  May be just my perception. 

  And Penn State needed a coach to "finish what he started" more than any program in recent memory.  He promised alot, then jumped ship (reminding me of Saban, carroll, ) when a better offer came.

sorry, just not a fan.  Nothing personal, just not impressed.  McDaniel either.  But i'm no GM.  If Ballard thinks either would work, i'd support it.

i actually have no idea at this point who i would even want at this point.  What an important and confusing  decidion.

 

I'm not saying it's not related. I'm saying that even if O'Brien is sometimes crabby at pressers, that doesn't mean it's only because he worked with Belichick, nor does it mean that everyone who worked for Belichick is/will be the same way. 

 

I also don't agree that coordinators and players necessarily take on traits of the coach. 

 

Either way, I'm fine with you not feeling all that great about any of these guys, but just because someone rubs you the wrong way doesn't mean that your impression of them is accurate. It could be that you're already convinced that all Belichick assistants are jerks, so a weird facial expression from O'Brien plays right into your preconceived opinion. 

 

This also has nothing to do with McDaniels, who was the original subject.

 

It doesn't bother me when coaches leave for better opportunities. Penn State's needs weren't the exclusive responsibility of Bill O'Brien, and he shouldn't have been obligated to pass up on an opportunity that could be good for himself just because Penn State was coming out of a tough situation. That's the business. Loyalty is a two-way street. If O'Brien had gone 2-10 the next season, there's little doubt they would have pushed out the back door. 

[krunk]

I'm not- real hot on Mcdaniels either but he seems to check a lot of the boxes when you listen to some of the things Ballard is talking about. No team has more of an "All About The Team" mantra than the Pats. You know that's what he'd be teaching here. You know they emphasize execution and preparedness there. I'm sure he'd stress the same things here. Heard Ballard talking about getting a guy who is interested in teaching the whole Indy Colts, not just Andrew Luck. The Pats dont always have the best players but they are always the best taught. I just see a lot of matches in terms of what Ballard states hes looking for. My major concerns are on the people side of things. He'd have to exhibit that hes grown. Tom Coughlin had similar issues in New York rubbing people the wrong way. He eventually learned to adjust. Hopefully we could say the same about Josh if Ballard pulls the trigger.

 

 

 

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

I'm not- real hot on Mcdaniels either but he seems to check a lot of the boxes when you listen to some of the things Ballard is talking about. No team has more of an "All About The Team" mantra than the Pats. You know that's what he'd be teaching here. You know they emphasize execution and preparedness there. I'm sure he'd stress the same things here. Heard Ballard talking about getting a guy who is interested in teaching the whole Indy Colts, not just Andrew Luck. The Pats dont always have the best players but they are always the best taught. I just see a lot of matches in terms of what Ballard states hes looking for. My major concerns are on the people side of things. He'd have to exhibit that hes grown. Tom Coughlin had similar issues in New York rubbing people the wrong way. He eventually learned to adjust. Hopefully we could say the same about Josh if Ballard pulls the trigger.

 

 

 

You can the same thing about the guys from KC

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Mr.Debonair said:

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 

I think its a matter of alternative choices and the candidate with the fewest nonperfectnesses in the most important areas usually wins the job.

 

I think all candidates mentioned would be an upgrade from Pagano, so we've already made progress.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Roger said:

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.

 

This is something I read yesterday: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2751800-which-coach-can-help-andrew-luck-save-the-colts?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

Quote

One of the potential candidates told me weeks ago he thought the Colts job is one of the best in football because of their injured three-time Pro Bowl quarterback. He added that the Colts have some offensive weapons around Luck and it likely wouldn't take too much to rebuild their offensive line (a necessity, as Luck was sacked 41 times last season). Luck could also be re-engineered to commit fewer turnovers. He had 16, 12 and 13 interceptions, respectively, from 2014-16, and about a cabillion fumbles.

Others with whom B/R spoke shared a similar overall belief: that the franchise could be fixed with the right head coach and it wouldn't actually take all that much to do so.

League sources believe there are only four or five serious candidates for the job.

 

 

Again, not definitive, but claims to be a little more substantial.

[WoolMagnet]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not saying it's not related. I'm saying that even if O'Brien is sometimes crabby at pressers, that doesn't mean it's only because he worked with Belichick, nor does it mean that everyone who worked for Belichick is/will be the same way. 

 

I also don't agree that coordinators and players necessarily take on traits of the coach. 

 

Either way, I'm fine with you not feeling all that great about any of these guys, but just because someone rubs you the wrong way doesn't mean that your impression of them is accurate. It could be that you're already convinced that all Belichick assistants are jerks, so a weird facial expression from O'Brien plays right into your preconceived opinion. 

 

This also has nothing to do with McDaniels, who was the original subject.

 

It doesn't bother me when coaches leave for better opportunities. Penn State's needs weren't the exclusive responsibility of Bill O'Brien, and he shouldn't have been obligated to pass up on an opportunity that could be good for himself just because Penn State was coming out of a tough situation. That's the business. Loyalty is a two-way street. If O'Brien had gone 2-10 the next season, there's little doubt they would have pushed out the back door. 

Agree on some.  Dont on others.

but thats fine, reality is probably somewhere between.

but i think we can do better than O'brien or McDaniels.

[Two_pound]

Mcdaniels would be as bad a hire as Cable. Mcdaniels was awful in Denver and just as bad as the oc in St. Louis. He has failed miserably everywhere he has been except NES.

[Mr.Debonair]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I think its a matter of alternative choices and the candidate with the fewest nonperfectnesses in the most important areas usually wins the job.

 

I think all candidates mentioned would be an upgrade from Pagano, so we've already made progress.

I understand but I’ve seen the same reaction to players. Once you screw up one time nobody here wants anything to do with you