Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

stitches

Colts interview requests and confirmations (merge)

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Mr.Debonair said:

That’s silly. 

May be, not denying it! Maybe my distaste for them is just a little higher than most or may need meds, lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, csmopar said:

I'm thinking it's to fulfill that having to interview a minority candidate. That said, I hope we interview a bunch of folks, be thorough just don't wait too long

If the Colts don't want to be so blatantly obvious regarding the Rooney Rule they'd interview Leslie frazier as well :thmup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve got a question for the people that don’t want McDaniels (I want him here as HC).  With the Lions firing Caldwell, could a Toub as HC & Jim Bob Cooter as OC scenario work if he’s let go with Caldwell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I'm thinking it's to fulfill that having to interview a minority candidate. That said, I hope we interview a bunch of folks, be thorough just don't wait too long

It may be. I get the sentiment of the rule, but honestly it's probably degrading to get an interview just because you are a minority and the team has to interview someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was raiding the Patriots for coaching personnel right now, the guy I want is Patricia, not necessarily McDaniels.  I respect McDaniels' performance with a high powered offense, but we won't have that next year unless we hit a home run in the draft and get a clean bill of health from Luck, both things that can definitely wind up not happening for us.

 

Patricia meanwhile is somehow turning that defense, which has a strong secondary but is very VERY weak on the line, into something that can win football games.  Belichick is the master of bend not break defensive schemes and Patricia has had years to learn from the best.  His style fits what we need FAR more than McDaniels' does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

I’ve got a question for the people that don’t want McDaniels (I want him here as HC).  With the Lions firing Caldwell, could a Toub as HC & Jim Bob Cooter as OC scenario work if he’s let go with Caldwell?

Yeah, but if cooter lives up to the hype Toub would be looking for another OC sooner rather than later. Everyone loves a hot cooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That McDaniels article should salve many of the concerns about the guy. It's candid and revealing. He was too young and arrogant and was given too much power. And he knows it. He sounds like a much better human being today. And coach. I'd be more than fine with him as head coach. He and Luck together would be magic. And he comes from the winningest franchise around. Experience. Success. Perspective. It's all good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, George Peterson said:

If I was raiding the Patriots for coaching personnel right now, the guy I want is Patricia, not necessarily McDaniels.  I respect McDaniels' performance with a high powered offense, but we won't have that next year unless we hit a home run in the draft and get a clean bill of health from Luck, both things that can definitely wind up not happening for us.

 

Patricia meanwhile is somehow turning that defense, which has a strong secondary but is very VERY weak on the line, into something that can win football games.  Belichick is the master of bend not break defensive schemes and Patricia has had years to learn from the best.  His style fits what we need FAR more than McDaniels' does.

I think the complete opposite. Our offense was our weakest link this year.  And I’ve been way more impressed with Patriots offense as opposed to their defense the last few years...  And don’t sleep on the fact that Patricia has maybe the greatest defensive mind of this generation, helping him make in game adjustments and making gameplans...  He won’t have that anywhere else.  

 

Patricia seems to fit more of the mold of the Pat’s assistants that fail when they leave the nest.  McDaniels already left and failed and has learned and grown some more from that experience. I don’t want to be Patricia’s first failing point.  Let him go elsewhere and fail and then get more grooming later and maybe...  But now, I’m hard pressed to separate what’s actually Patricia & what’s Belichick when it comes to that Pat’s defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how none of these interviews is Tom Cable! Thought he had serious consideration? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yeah, I despise the Rooney rule for that reason :(

 

I love the Rooney rule for that reason.

 

You can't get a job if you don't even get an interview.    And before the RR there were off-seasons were no AA were interviewed at all.     It's not perfect, but IMO it's far better to have it than not have it at all...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, krunk said:

Notice how none of these interviews is Tom Cable! Thought he had serious consideration? LOL

 

I seriously hope they don’t even consider him for an interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, krunk said:

Notice how none of these interviews is Tom Cable! Thought he had serious consideration? LOL

There's still time... don't be too quick to celebrate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I think we are seriously overthinking a very important detail:

 

With a franchise QB, a HC's job becomes 2X easier and in the end is more likely to look good and have favorable opinions regardless of his actual job. 

 

Look at Pagano! Even with his terrible game-management, lack of in-game adjustments, and other terrible HC qualities, he still somehow managed to win A LOT of games with Luck. The mistake that we need to make sure that we DON'T make is to hire a full-on risk like we did with Pagano. There were rumors prior to Pagano's hire that he wasn't the best candidate for HC at the time and obviously now we know about the Pagano/Grigson dynamic.

 

My take on all this HC stuff: As long as we hire somebody that can be an effective game-manager, make in-game adjustments, and can assemble a quality staff, we should be fine as long as we have Luck coming back healthy (which I know isn't even guaranteed). I'd rather take a safer option than go all out on a risky move that could back-fire just as easily as it did with Pagano. I think that is partially the reason why Irsay keeps on insisting that we get a former-head coach because chances are, if those former-head coaches had a franchise QB at this disposal, they would still probably be decent-to-good head coaches.

 

My picks for HC: Jim Schwartz or Toub (would be kinda like John Harbaugh and be sorta hands-off and let his coordinators take care of a lot of in-game responsibilities while he takes care of managing stuff). 

 

I DONT want McDaniels because I think he is a risky hire (more so than Toub). There have been reports that players didn't like playing for him, that he butted heads a lot, etc. Toub on the other hand is a highly-respectable person who has led a top unit for the past decade almost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I love the Rooney rule for that reason.

 

You can't get a job if you don't even get an interview.    And before the RR there were off-seasons were no AA were interviewed at all.     It's not perfect, but IMO it's far better to have it than not have it at all...

 

 

My angle was that teams can tend to make the rule a sham sometimes. I agree, you won't win the lottery till you play it but sometimes, the odds of the situations these minority candidates go into are just that, like the odds of winning a lottery!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I love the Rooney rule for that reason.

 

You can't get a job if you don't even get an interview.    And before the RR there were off-seasons were no AA were interviewed at all.     It's not perfect, but IMO it's far better to have it than not have it at all...

 

Perfect example I'm pretty sure is Vance Joseph.

 

Though I do see both sides of the argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

My angle was that teams can tend to make the rule a sham sometimes. I agree, you won't win the lottery till you play it but sometimes, the odds of the situations these minority candidates go into are just that, like the odds of winning a lottery!!

 

The other angle is that most candidates don't get hired until they've been through the interview process a couple times. They get some exposure, the teams give feedback to the league office, and their names get circulated a little bit more. It's definitely not good to just be the Rooney Rule candidate, but I think it helps in a lot of cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

 

Excellent message to send to players. Ballard realizes that the players are the engine that makes things go, and seems to have a good pulse on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

 

I think that is the perfect send off to give prospective to our players. To not just blame coaches, but themselves and be accountable. Sometimes the problem is staring at you in the mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belilcheck or however the hell you spell it always has his hands in that defense. I’d be more reluctant to take the DC under him than I would the OC under him. There has been numerous times where he huddled up with the defense is they are struggling. I haven’t seen much of that when it comes to offense 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

My angle was that teams can tend to make the rule a sham sometimes. I agree, you won't win the lottery till you play it but sometimes, the odds of the situations these minority candidates go into are just that, like the odds of winning a lottery!!

 

Yes...   it can be a sham sometimes....

 

Team X is hiring Coach Y and everyone knows it.    So why should any AA candidate interview in that case?

 

Because interviewing for the top job is a good thing.    Because you might really impress the room of execs.   And even if you don't get the job this time, you might get the job the next time it comes open.    Or, an executive in the room leaves that franchise to become the GM elsewhere.   Maybe he was wowed and now he's got a shot to hire you.

 

I would always tell an AA candidate to interview for every job you can even if it's a sham.   Because it could lead to something someday.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Excellent message to send to players. Ballard realizes that the players are the engine that makes things go, and seems to have a good pulse on that.

 

I feel like Ballard is pushing all the right buttons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

Yes...   it can be a sham sometimes....

 

Team X is hiring Coach Y And everyone knows it.     So why should any AA candidate interview in that case?

 

Because interviewing for the top job is a good thing.    Because you might really impress the room of execs.   And even if you don't get the job this time, you might get the job the next time it comes open.

Or, an executive in the room leaves that franchise to become the GM elsewhere.   Maybe he was wowed and now he's got a shot to hire you.

 

I would always tell an AA candidate to interview for every job you can even if it's a sham.   Because it could lead to something someday.

 

 

True. Jim Caldwell did get interviewed around for the longest time till he got the break with Dungy retiring and then later with the Ravens as OC, and it went from there.

 

Another guy who gets a lot of interviews is the Lions DC, Teryl Austin. I think he is a good DC, not sure if he got let go with Caldwell as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:

Perfect example I'm pretty sure is Vance Joseph.

 

Though I do see both sides of the argument. 

 

The other example is Mike Tomlin at Pittsburgh.   The job was reportedly going to one of two former Steelers players.    Tomlin was just a guy who HAD to be interviewed.   A formality.    And then he interviewed and wowed them and got the job.    

 

So it CAN happen.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Yes...   it can be a sham sometimes....

 

Team X is hiring Coach Y And everyone knows it.     So why should any AA candidate interview in that case?

 

Because interviewing for the top job is a good thing.    Because you might really impress the room of execs.   And even if you don't get the job this time, you might get the job the next time it comes open.

Or, an executive in the room leaves that franchise to become the GM elsewhere.   Maybe he was wowed and now he's got a shot to hire you.

 

I would always tell an AA candidate to interview for every job you can even if it's a sham.   Because it could lead to something someday.

 

It also gives experience to the people being interviewed. It lets them know what teams are looking for and even if they don't get the job this time they will be better prepared to grab the job that really is up for grabs next time around. And next time around league offices and teams will know that the guy is highly regarded, he will get name recognition that helps raise his profile... 

 

It's not as simple as it's a sham, do away with it... there are several levels to it that make having it worth it over not having it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Just curious, and OT, but does Luck hold other players accountable....at all?  I know Manning did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wanted man (or just a Rooney rule guy). List could expand soon, too.

 

edit. Apparently Bears and Cards have requested a permission too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Just curious, and OT, but does Luck hold other players accountable....at all?  I know Manning did. 


I'm pretty sure there's a quote from Castonzo or somebody about Luck ripping into teammates when necessary, holding them accountable. Can't seem to find it though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The other example is Mike Tomlin at Pittsburgh.   The job was reportedly going to one of two former Steelers players.    Tomlin was just a guy who HAD to be interviewed.   A formality.    And then he interviewed and wowed them and got the job.    

 

So it CAN happen.....

 

I agree with the rule but in the case of the Colts this year, I think its a bit irrelevant.  I think the draw is for someone with a short passing game offense experience, hence the McDaniels and Nagy chatter.  If there is a black coach with the reputation on offense the Colts appear to be seeking, then the interview process bears fruit.  But unless there is a candidate with that background, I don't know if the Rooney Rule is going to help the Colts land their next HC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I agree with the rule but in the case of the Colts this year, I think its a bit irrelevant.  I think the draw is for someone with a short passing game offense experience, hence the McDaniels and Nagy chatter.  If there is a black coach with the reputation on offense the Colts appear to be seeking, then the interview process bears fruit.  But unless there is a candidate with that background, I don't know if the Rooney Rule is going to help the Colts land their next HC.

Not relevant for today’s nfl but I wonder if interviewing a woman qualifies despite women being the majority of the population.  Just thinking out loud 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BOTT said:

Yeah, but if cooter lives up to the hype Toub would be looking for another OC sooner rather than later. Everyone loves a hot cooter.

 

So, that's what they're calling it these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Coltsfan1284 said:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21932669/new-york-giants-interview-new-england-patriots-offensive-defensive-coordinators

 

This article also mentions the Colts have asked permission to interview Patricia Patriots DC.

 

How do we know how much influence he really has with the defense? It's also not a great defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably not going to be too many other names mentioned. I bet the next coach comes from Nagy, Toub, or Mcdaniels unless Wilks blows their socks off. I bet the process goes about as long as the GM search did or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, krunk said:

There's probably not going to be too many other names mentioned. I bet the next coach comes from Nagy, Toub, or Mcdaniels unless Wilks blows their socks off. I bet the process goes about as long as the GM search did or less.

They can't hire one of the three before they interview Wilks, so the Wilks interview will have to come pretty soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • HungarianColtsFan

      HungarianColtsFan 2,077

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 420

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IndyEric07

      IndyEric07 8

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • w87r

      w87r 260

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...