Jump to content

Archived

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

stitches

Colts interview requests and confirmations (merge)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

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

 

Or they just interview a minority internally. There are a lot of ways to get around the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:

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 

The rule is there to make sure qualified minority candidates are not passed over because of their minority status.  I don't think interviewing someone just because they are a minority has anything to do with it.  Most coaches in the NFL are technically qualified I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think if Ballard came in the door wanting Toub as early as last year hes got a pretty good idea of what he wants. Nagy hes got real good Intel on, and Mcdaniels hes got great incite on now. I just think he has a really good idea of what he wants and who the top candidates are who can fulfill that. So far he really hasn't gone outside of who we were expecting. I dont think this will take all that long to be honest. He cane in the door knowing what we needed last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stitches said:

According to Garafolo we have requested interview with Panthers DC Steve Wilks. Anybody know something about him? 

Look at Panthers defense. That’s all you need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 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.

 

No.   it's not.    I agree.

 

But we have to interview an AA candidate anyway.   I hope that candidate takes the interview and kills it.    And I hope that experience leads to that man getting a HC job somewhere down the road.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about an off the street rule. I would like to request an interview for the job.

Share this post


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

 

No.   it's not.    I agree.

 

But we have to interview an AA candidate anyway.   I hope that candidate takes the interview and kills it.    And I hope that experience leads to that man getting a HC job somewhere down the road.

 

 

Just to nitpick, the rule requires interviewing a minority candidate. Doesn't have to be AA candidate. Ron Rivera was a Rooney Rule interviewee a few times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, a06cc said:

What about an off the street rule. I would like to request an interview for the job.

 

So would I. If they'll fly me out to Indy for a few days, put me up in the the JW Marriott and let me meet some of the guys, I'll satisfy their Rooney Rule interview and I won't complain about it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

I have a feeling we hire McDaniels if he is willing to leave NE.

I tend to agree, makes sense with having Brissett as well in the event Luck doesn't play. 

 

In Colts best interest regarding Luck is to build around QB whether he plays or not. With Brissett in building QB is not a pressing issue right away, at least IMO. 

 

Also, if McDaniels is hired I believe TY will serve better and stay. TY's money(guaranteed) is payed out and would be an easy out if Ballard wanted to part ways, however with how the Pats utilize their receivers, I think TY remains an asset.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

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

That defense isn't really talent rich tho. Specifically that front seven is pretty thin.

Share this post


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

 

Just to nitpick, the rule requires interviewing a minority candidate. Doesn't have to be AA candidate. Ron Rivera was a Rooney Rule interviewee a few times.

 

Yes....     I was being intellectually lazy.    I was using AA as a catch-all for all people of color and that's wrong.

 

My bad.

 

Share this post


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

The rule is there to make sure qualified minority candidates are not passed over because of their minority status.  I don't think interviewing someone just because they are a minority has anything to do with it.  Most coaches in the NFL are technically qualified I believe.

I meant a female coach not some random woman

Share this post


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

Also, if McDaniels is hired I believe TY will serve better and stay. TY's money(guaranteed) is payed out and would be an easy out if Ballard wanted to part ways, however with how the Pats utilize their receivers, I think TY remains an asset.

 

 

I don't think there's any reason to even consider getting rid of TY. The offense has been disjointed schematically and personnel wise, obviously this season, but even going back to 2015. Hilton led the league in receiving yards last season. He played with a limited backup QB who doesn't know the playbook, and still had his 'unstoppable TY Hilton' moments.

 

Also, he's one of only two receivers still under contract. We have enough roster work to do without getting rid of a good player who can still break a game open on his own.

Share this post


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

 

I don't think there's any reason to even consider getting rid of TY. The offense has been disjointed schematically and personnel wise, obviously this season, but even going back to 2015. Hilton led the league in receiving yards last season. He played with a limited backup QB who doesn't know the playbook, and still had his 'unstoppable TY Hilton' moments.

 

Also, he's one of only two receivers still under contract. We have enough roster work to do without getting rid of a good player who can still break a game open on his own.

Whether true or not TY was floated as trade possibility before deadline and his contract does make it easier in some sort. I'm not agreeing with getting rid of him at all, however it's hard for me to know what Colts brass could be thinking behind the scenes. In a Pats system tho, for sake of discussion, I believe he would be much more productive

Share this post


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

Whether true or not TY was floated as trade possibility before deadline and his contract does make it easier in some sort. I'm not agreeing with getting rid of him at all, however it's hard for me to know what Colts brass could be thinking behind the scenes. In a Pats system tho, for sake of discussion, I believe he would be much more productive

 

A trade scenario is different, as that depends largely on the return. If someone wants to give us a really good pick for him, I'd listen, but I still think I'd rather have him, especially next year.

Share this post


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

 

A trade scenario is different, as that depends largely on the return. If someone wants to give us a really good pick for him, I'd listen, but I still think I'd rather have him, especially next year.

I agree and I wasn't necessarily implying we would release him without getting something in return even if my answer was vague, leading to that assumption. I have never viewed TY as a true number 1 and have always wanted/wished the Colts had a better outside game/threat to free Hilton to slot work or at least field roaming with less attention

Share this post


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

I agree and I wasn't necessarily implying we would release him without getting something in return even if my answer was vague, leading to that assumption. I have never viewed TY as a true number 1 and have always wanted/wished the Colts had a better outside game/threat to free Hilton to slot work or at least field roaming with less attention

 

I think we need a possession receiver, for sure. Ir that guy is a prototypical #1 and red zone threat, even better, but I'd take a solid guy who can get open and move the chains. I'd also keep Moncrief on a small deal, if he's willing to stay. 

 

But I think Hilton is very valuable, especially if Luck is healthy. The Colts don't have to make any decisions based on cap considerations this year, and Hilton at $11m is barely top ten this year, based on average salary. 

Share this post


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

 

I think we need a possession receiver, for sure. Ir that guy is a prototypical #1 and red zone threat, even better, but I'd take a solid guy who can get open and move the chains. I'd also keep Moncrief on a small deal, if he's willing to stay. 

 

But I think Hilton is very valuable, especially if Luck is healthy. The Colts don't have to make any decisions based on cap considerations this year, and Hilton at $11m is barely top ten this year, based on average salary. 

Not sure what everybody's take on Robinson would be, however with the emergence of Westbrook and Cole and Hurns still in the mix, he might be able to be had. I personally wanted a shot at Adams, however I also knew GB would've been fools not to tie him up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, a06cc said:

What about an off the street rule. I would like to request an interview for the job.

 

That's the "off your rocker" rule.

Share this post


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

Not sure what everybody's take on Robinson would be, however with the emergence of Westbrook and Cole and Hurns still in the mix, he might be able to be had. I personally wanted a shot at Adams, however I also knew GB would've been fools not to tie him up

 

The Packers always keep their own.

 

I'd take Robinson on a reasonable deal, but he's coming back from his ACL and will probably want to stay where he's known if he's going to do a one year deal before trying to cash in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coltsfan77 said:

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

I don't think you are in the minority!                

Share this post


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

That defense isn't really talent rich tho. Specifically that front seven is pretty thin.

 

Front seven is really good. Secondary is not.

Share this post


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

 


Not a fan of that idea. I don't think he's ready yet.

That's alright though, hope Ballard keeps getting interviews.

Share this post


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

 

That's the "off your rocker" rule.

Was playing Irsay “but ummm” game. Got too drunk lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

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

I agree just adding any new candidates that are being verified I don’t want him either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the rule on asking to interview a coach? I thought permission was only required when that coach was in post season play. I also thought the option to deny a request exists until such team is eliminated from post season play.

 

If this correct, there are potentially many other candidates already scheduled for interviews that are not noted, because no formal public request is required.

 

Some one get me up to speed on this please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derakynn said:

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.

Maybe the NFL should require every team to invite at least one caucasian cornerback to training camp.

Share this post


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

 

There's a name I wasn't expecting...

5 minutes ago, Douzer said:

What is the rule on asking to interview a coach? I thought permission was only required when that coach was in post season play. I also thought the option to deny a request exists until such team is eliminated from post season play.

 

If this correct, there are potentially many other candidates already scheduled for interviews that are not noted, because no formal public request is required.

 

Some one get me up to speed on this please...

I think if the candidate is under contract, permission has to be obtained. If they contract is set to expire, or has expired, they don't need permission. 

Share this post


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

 

 

Maybe it's to help get McDaniels? I don't see why we would even entertain this. Texans defense, albeit had tons of injuries, wasn't that good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Maybe it's to help get McDaniels? I don't see why we would even entertain this. Texans defense, albeit had tons of injuries, wasn't that good

The year before it was very good. Vrabel seems like an option, if not at head coach, maybe d-coord? Idk if that’s even possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Derakynn said:

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.

 

Its only degrading if you think the person being interviewed isn't qualified.   And I think the candidates being talked about are very qualified.

 

I think it's far more degrading to have all these job openings and have zero AA candidates be interviewed.     And that happened so often that the Rooney Rule was created.

Share this post


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

The year before it was very good. Vrabel seems like an option, if not at head coach, maybe d-coord? Idk if that’s even possible

 

But he was LB coach that year not DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hired Vrabel in madden one time. 

 

We went 16-0 and won the super bowl until the salary cap bug made it impossible to continue. 

 

Just sayin. 

Share this post


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

There's a name I wasn't expecting...

I think if the candidate is under contract, permission has to be obtained. If they contract is set to expire, or has expired, they don't need permission. 

 

It's basically a formality. A team can't keep an assistant from interviewing for a head coaching job, but the new team still has to request permission.

 

A team can request to interview an assistant for another assistant job, but teams usually don't grant those requests. Sometimes you'll see a position coach be requested for a coordinator job, but again, teams don't have to give permission, so even that doesn't happen that often anymore. 

 

Also, it seems typical that assistant coaches contracts don't expire until after the Super Bowl, so even if a guy has an expiring contract, if a team wants to interview him, his current team has to give permission. We did the same thing with Chud in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

I hired Vrabel in madden one time. 

 

We went 16-0 and won the super bowl until the salary cap bug made it impossible to continue. 

 

Just sayin. 

:headspin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I wouldn't consider #10 a diss..... but I have a bit of an issue with the Cowpies ranked #2 at the same time.   We not only shut them out last season, we out manned, out-muscled and intimidated them in a way that none of us have seen a Colts team do to any team in a long, long time.   You could say "well its only one game".... and that's true.   But that was a statement game, and I just don't see how Brandt can justify a #2 ranking for Dallas given each team's additions this off-season....not to mention all those other teams he has them ranked ahead of.   As for the Colts...on our own merits.... I would have us closer to the middle of the pack on this list, around 7th and certainly ahead of Dallas.
    • His mom sounds awesome.  
    • Sigh...........   This is beyond really frustrating.    You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done.     That's very Irish of you.    Really annoying.      You ask for benefit of the doubt while never giving it out yourself.   I've put certain things into bold.   I'll try taking them one at a time.   Your first bold...   that this is not me saying that teams that aren't doing this are stupid.    I'm sorry, but when you declare that you've come up that you think is clearly and obvously better,  that you think you've re-invented the wheel and sliced bread,  it certainly feels like you're casting a disapporving eye toward any team that's not doing things your preferred way as a matter of course.   Then you claim,  that I want Ballard in the building ASAP,  but not before January.    Let me see if you understand this word.....   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!   Was that clear enough for you?       If Irsay had decided in the spring of 16 to fire Grigson and hire Ballard in the spring, I would've been ok with it.   It's not desirable,  but if Irsay made that call THEN,  I'd be ok with it.     Where YOU mis-read me,  is that roughly 95 of owners make this decision during the season.    They see things they don't like and they decide during the season to make a change -- typically when the season ends.    Sometimes, an exec will be fired during the season and someone like Dorsey comes in during the season to oversee things and learn about the organization.    I'm fine with that.  There's no record of me opposing that.   I start with January,  because that's when the business season starts for front office and coaches.   Period.   The NFL views it as preferrable.    But making the switch in the spring is doable, as I've said in every post, and which you have ignored or confused badly.    But if Ballard had been hired in the spring of 16,  I'd have been fine with it.   This isn't the first time I've said some version of this.    This is not some ah-ha moment.   As to the bold declaring that there are tons of qualified guys and that CHOOSING the best guy is another story.   Here's my reponse to that.   No.   nonsense.     They are the same story.    They are connected.    Because you play down the fact that most GM's and most HC's fail.   They get fired before their 4 or 5 year contracts expire.   The owner has seen enough and makes a change.   Saying there are always qualified guys is meaningless.    Because FINDING the best guy who will succeed, isn't just important,  it's EVERYTHING.   All 32 teams can announce they hired a qualified guy.    That isn't hard.    But the vast majority of teams are introducing his successor in a few years.    That's why a franchise like Pittsburgh has very little turnover either in HC or the front office.   While franchises like the Jets or Buffalo or Miami are introducing someone new so often, you can practically set your watch to it.     Generally speaking,  the new GM has a long history of scouting and evaluating talent.   The new HC has a history of success, both as a position coach and a coordinator.   They can easily be called qualified,  (though new guys like Kliff Kingsbury and Zack Taylor do NOT have a long track record of success)  But the vast majority of hires...   are soon enough fired.   That doesn't speak well to their qualifications.      As to you meaning what you're saying...   Of course you mean what you say and I stated that clearly.  I don't know why this should rub you the wrong way.  I literally wrote that I know you mean what you say.    I said what I said as a rhetorical point,  not an attacking point.    My ultimate point was made at the end of my first post to you.   You typically write persuasive arguments.    You're able to frequently made me see your viewpoint.    But not here.    You accuse me of not considering your argument.    I'm sorry,  I am considering what you write.   But I don't see the typical high quality Superman argument.   I don't see points that connect.    Your argument feels like the one you'd make for doable.   It doesn't convince me at all that it's preferable.  
    • Yeah, Ballard said he's a patient guy, and he doesn't mind waiting to pick. We almost traded back from 34 as well if Rock wasn't there. I personally love the "trade back" strategy at the end of round 1, and wouldn't mind doing it in most every draft. A late 1st for a mid-second and early/mid second (from the Redskins) over two drafts is fine with me!
    • Haven't done research on the 2020 draft yet, but if it ends up having an elite WR or OT, I wouldn't mind trading up this year. We'll have to see where we finish (hopefully 32 ), and make a decision from there. Ballard landing the Redskins 2nd rounder may be a brilliant move.
  • Members

    • 2006Coltsbestever

      2006Coltsbestever 21,095

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ClaytonC

      ClaytonC 23

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PeterBowman

      PeterBowman 2,807

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shadow_Creek

      Shadow_Creek 416

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CoachLite

      CoachLite 369

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Jared Jammer

      Jared Jammer 97

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Surge89

      Surge89 965

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Jcrane

      Jcrane 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SVFD Colts Fan

      SVFD Colts Fan 37

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,322

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...