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

    • It sounds like Collins was trying to surround himself with better support prior to joining Indy, but yes, it's great that we've got enough high-character guys on this team who can help keep him clean.  https://www.colts.com/news/jalen-collins-grateful-for-the-opportunity-with-colts   I tend to agree with you regarding who Ballard considers 'bad apples.'  Kelly was dismissed from Clemson because he snapped at coaches after being benched as a sophomore in a Spring Game (and then got in a 'minor fender-bender' in the team's parking lot, which did not lead to any police report -- sounds like he was heated when he left and probably drove a little recklessly).  Prior to joining Clemson, Kelly did send a few tweets or social media messages suggesting he was going to come in and win the starting position right away.  He was ~17-19 years old when these incidents occurred.  Sure, they're not great, but I imagine being a very highly-touted prospect and the nephew of a HOF QB comes with quite a bit of stress, especially at that age.  Not that those were great incidents, but it doesn't necessarily make him a bad person (kind of like you eluded to, these incidents are nowhere near as serious as domestic violence or endangering a child, etc.).    When he was 21, Kelly got in a scuffle with some bouncers at a nightclub in his home town.  Again, not a great incident, but keep in mind he was 21 and was probably going through some hard times as he was being scrutinized nationally for recently being kicked off Clemson and probably had a bit too much to drink with some of his hometown friends.  Not that getting in a scuffle in a nightclub is a good thing, but there are a LOT of 21 year olds who get in scuffles when they've had too much to drink and no big deal is made of it because they're 'normal' kids, not highly touted football players with a celebrity uncle.  Of course,  being a 'star' comes with responsibility and you'd like to think kids know enough to keep themselves under the radar, but I don't think it's an incident which makes him an evil person.   Then, when he was 23-24 he left a Halloween party at Von Miller's house and stumbled into the wrong house.  He didn't steal anything from the house or attempt to injure anyone in the house, from all accounts I've read... he simply had too much to drink and went in and sat on a couch, got chased out by the husband in the house and then went and slept in his SUV.  Again, not a great incident, but I don't think it's something which makes him a terrible person.  Sounds like the kid needs to understand his limits in terms of partying a bit better, but if he wasn't an NFL football player, that charge would be a pretty common thing to read in a police blotter in a large city like that.  He needs to understand, he's going to get more scrutiny as an NFL athlete and due to his past and his ties to Jim Kelly... and it sounds as though he's gotten some counseling and is doing his best to stay away from situations like that in the future.     Ballard and his staff always seem to do their due diligence before bringing players into this team.  The fact that Reich and J. Kelly were teammates for just under a decade probably also helped Chad Kelly in this situation.  I imagine Reich has known Chad for a long time (probably since he was a toddler) and had some conversations with Jim to get assurance that Chad is trying to clean up his act.  While not all of his actions were the greatest, he doesn't seem to have done anything that would be a huge deal and make him a terrible human being if he was just an average Joe.   Jalen Collins' suspensions it sounds like were 2x for smoking weed and 2x for PEDs.  Not great decisions, but again, those aren't things that make him a terrible person.  And as @Scott Pennock said, it's easy, if he slips up again, we release him and move on (well, if he slips up for PEDs again, we won't have to deal with him, the NFL will suspend him for 2 years and by that time, he'll probably be too old to come back and compete for an NFL roster spot).  To be honest, I am more concerned with the PED use than the weed from a young man in the NFL... but I don't know all the circumstances (e.g., did he just not do his research and took a supplement on the banned list by accident (this seems to happen a lot, and in other sports you are starting to see guys winning cases by proving they accidentally took a tainted substance)? was he battling a nagging injury and took something to try to help recover faster (this also happens, e.g., Andy Pettite admitted he took PEDs several times in his career, but moreso for recovery than to enhance his performance, like being put on the 10 day -DL instead of the 60 day-DL)?  Or did he actually knowingly try to cheat by taking substances to give him a major advantage over other players (all these guys take supplements, but there are supplements which are more advantageous than others)?).  I would be more worried if this guy is actually a major cheater who felt he didn't have enough raw ability to play in this league to the point he had to take banned substances... but he already is well aware, if he screws up again, his NFL days are over.   In terms of Okerere, Ballard and others have already said numerous times that they did their due diligence about his alleged incident and talked to his coaches and others around him and found no reason not to bring the guy to Indy.     If allegations turn out to be true, I doubt Ballard would bring in a guy like Tyreek Hill.  Maybe it's just my opinion, but assaulting your spouse or your child are way more serious issues about someone's character than smoking weed, pulling a McAfee and falling into a canal, or having too much to drink and accidentally stumbling into the wrong place (especially without attacking anyone or vandalizing the place).  I, for one, am happy Ballard isn't against giving guys who have not done anything very seriously wrong another chance.  Like Ballard says "Kids make mistakes."      
    • Addai was great in pass pro, but as an overall RB give me MJD anyday.    Mack is a little low, but overall hes still in the 15-20 range IMO. If healthy he definitely moves up though. 
    • I loved the "with the next pick" series. Watched it multiple times. I'll look at the site again and see if it changes my opinion. Maybe the video series on Cain will spark my interest.
    • it was just an ugly ugly ugly game.   to me, our O was the issue. you can't punt your first four possessions and then miss a FG to end the half. then you punt your first two possessions of the 2nd, fumble on your 3rd, and punt again on your 4th. When special teams is your only score for 3Qs, it's your offense lol....   our D actually held them under their average so i can't blame them too much. we actually had more sacks and QB hits they them.   Biggest issues 1. they doubled a hobbled TY, and the rest of our WR group were mediocre to begin with 2. O play calling sucked. horrible game plan from Reich, and good one from Andy. 3. our LB's played bad...  4. we abandoned the run too early (only 14 rushes the entire game). Our YPC was pretty good. 5. weather/field
    • They had the better team and were at home. KC winning doesn't surprise me at all. This upcoming season is a different story. If you ask 99% of Houston fans were they surprised we beat them in the playoffs, they would probably say yes. I wasn't, because we had the better QB. Mahomes and Luck are pretty even regarding KC and they were at home.
  • Members

    • Smoke317

      Smoke317 851

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Blueblood23

      Blueblood23 229

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • esmort

      esmort 1,518

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • markabrown96

      markabrown96 122

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nesjan3

      Nesjan3 934

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DrWhom

      DrWhom 31

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • egg

      egg 597

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • 2006Coltsbestever

      2006Coltsbestever 21,064

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mvp7

      Mvp7 0

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