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.

  • 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

×
×
  • Create New...