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

    • My take   1. We overachieved last season. Period 2. We played at KC 3. TY limited the offense because he was so injured.  4. We played a very very good coach with time to prepare and his guys got some rest too and time to scout the team. Remember, Reich is well known to Reid as well by now.  5. Not having Hooker really mattered 6. Play calling was a bit blah 7. How does Vinny automatic miss those kicks? 8. A strip sack for us turns into a strip sack for them a few plays later, that hurt.  9. A young team who wasn’t supposed to be in the playoffs, let alone a second game in the playoffs had some factor here.  10. KC had a pretty good team   my concern from that game would be how poorly our run game was going forward. Kelly better play better than he did this season or I don’t see a 15 million/yr contract coming his way in Indy. I think with a healthy TY, the additions of DF and Cain and Paris and others should really boost that offense. An offense with TY, Paris, Doyle, EE and Mack, now that’s gonna be a tough group to match up with and defend. Run or pass, heck coach, idk what they are doing lol.    Gonna be fun to see this team evolve and have better back ups coming off the bench. I just hope we have enough beef in the middle to stop the run and I just hope that Kelly was hobbled in that KC game because it was one of his worst games that year. 
    • This again boils down to you hanging on to 'this is how it's always been done.' And you don't get that I don't care about that rationale. I think it can be done better. Which is why, in my first post in this thread, I said "to me, it's a no brainer." To me. It should be obvious that this is my stated preference, not me saying that teams that don't do it this way are stupid.   There should be nothing more that I have to say about that, except you continue to rely on that appeal to authority, and I'm telling you that 'how it's always been done' isn't legitimate reason for not examining potential alternatives. Not just in this area, but in everything.      You're missing an important detail, and I think it's because you've put my argument in a box and are unwilling to actually examine it on its merits.   As I said initially, and have said since, my argument is to make this change six months sooner, not six months later. "Imagine if we had fired Grigson in June 2016 instead of January 2017." Did you miss that part, again? What about "if the Texans had waited until January 2020 to fire Gaine..."?    I want him in asap. You want him asap, but not until January.   My statement about it being just one draft is referencing the worst case scenario, which is 'we just blew a draft cycle by letting a lame duck GM stay,' to which I say 'get over it, I'm okay with that if that's what it takes to get the guy I want in the building, with the staff he wants.' And that's where my argument about it potentially being easier to interview candidates in the down season after the draft is critical. The Jets wanted Joe Douglas; he evidently didn't want to entertain a move during draft season, but jumped at it in May/June. (There's the matter of moving his family during the school year, etc.) In theory, this approach could make it easier to interview good candidates. Whether you agree with that or not, whether it's important to you or not, this is mostly an aside. As I said, this was my response to the alarmist reaction of 'they just blew a draft!' Which I think is overstated, especially in the Texans' case.     Not at all. Again, if Ballard started in June 2016, he theoretically could have changed coaches a year sooner.      This is a hindsight fallacy. Go back to the Texans wanting to hire Caserio. I'm not arguing that he's going to be a great GM, I'm arguing that he's the guy they want to hire, and he's available in June. Same for the Jets and Douglas. The Chiefs and Veach.    We know that every person hired doesn't succeed. I never argued that they do. That's true of whoever you rush to hire in January. The point is that there is always a pool of qualified candidates from which to choose. I won't be retracting that, I firmly believe it, and I said it when the Colts were interviewing coaches in 2012, when they interviewed GMs in 2017, and when they interviewed coaches in 2018. You choosing to reject that is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. There are always qualified candidates. Choosing the right one is a different story.   And again, if there's one guy you really, desperately want, why wait until January to get him?     You could give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that if I'm saying it, I mean it. Especially this far into the discussion...    And going back to what I said earlier, this is and always has been my opinion. I'm not offering studies and conclusive evidence to support this opinion because it's a personal preference, it's what I think would be best (although I have offered evidence and rationale to support my opinion, you've just chosen to reject, for reasons I don't agree with).    I'm okay with the disagreement. What I find personally off-putting is the insistence that, because you don't understand my angle, it means I either haven't actually thought it through, or I don't actually believe it. As I said earlier, I understand that general consensus disagrees with my viewpoint, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to conform. The fact that I'm presenting an argument in earnest should be enough.
    • I'm an Iowa fan but I'd kind of like to see Michigan win that game so that it can maybe move back towards the appearance of a real rivalry.     That is unless an Ohio State victory would somehow help Iowa, in that situation I would root for the Buckeyes. 
    • 1. Turay - He looked pretty promising at times.   2a Nelson, 2b Leonard - They say that the biggest improvement comes in the 2nd year.  Amazing to think that 2 all pros could get better. 3. Rock Yan Sin  4. Hooker 5. Campbell
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...