HC candidates for next year

[NFLfan]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion I don't think a head coach has to have experience to be a leader of men. IMO the head coaching duties are to organize assistant coaches and players. They regulate the team operations.  They don't have to be offensive or defensive coordinators  either.  

 

This leader of men also has to manage the game and make in-game decisions such as clock management decisions and more. Managing men does not help in that aspect, but having experience surely would. 

[crazycolt1]

14 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

This leader of men also has to manage the game and make in-game decisions such as clock management decisions and more. Managing men does not help in that aspect, but having experience surely would. 

No doubt but a guy like Jeff who called the offensive schemes for a very prolific offense is capable of running a team. 

I don't have a clue on how this is going to turn out but to automatically say it's a disaster is way too premature. Thinking outside the box is not a bad thing.  

[Fluke_33]

3 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Minorities should be insulted they are being used as tokens. There is probably better ways to help them get jobs. It’s a mainly a good  old boys club where it’s who you know and not a racist issue.

Getting interviews is how the networking starts.  They may not land that job but their name starts to get talked about for the next ones.  
 

I don’t see a downside to getting an interview 

[EastStreet]

10 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

That’s not how it works. You actually do have to give equal opportunities to minority candidates each year. The NFL mandates it. Clearly the Saturday hire has shown that there is a flaw in the rules.

 

That is probably why an investigation was launched.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/11/17/colts-jeff-saturday-hire-being-probed-by-diversity-group/amp/

 

You're misleading people.... this is not an a NFL sponsored investigation. 

No rules were broke.

This investigation is from a group that is a "foundation"

 

And yes, it's how it works. There is no requirement for interims. To add, it is not logical to expect a full hiring process during a mid-season firing. An "interim" coach is simply an "interim".... A team can't be coach-less for weeks while a hiring process goes on. And other teams won't want their coaches interviewed during the season. That's silly.

 

You should educate your history of the RR. It was created in the early 2000s, partly due to the situation with Dungy and Green. Did you know Jim's first and only "want" was Dungy, and Jim more or less offered him a blank check. Did you know Indy's was a one half of the first SB with two AA coaches? In short, the RR was created to provide more visibility and increased opportunity. Not mandate hiring. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, coming on strong said:

it still doesnt work because all owners have to do is interview a black coach .   so if a owner knows he wants to hire a white coach ,he just brings in a fake interview with a black coach .   that happened with brian flores when the giants already were set to make a hire .      its a rule that has zero affect  on out comes if you wanna increase black coaches you need to hand out higher draft picks or other incentives instead  such as super bowl rights or combine hosting or something better .

 

It doesn't work as intended, which I've stated a couple dozen times. I don't agree that it has zero impact, though. 

 

But I think the real way to address disparities in hiring practices is to start at lower levels. The expansion of the Rooney Rule to coordinators and even QB coaches touches on this to a degree, but similar practices probably need to be implemented across all levels of football. I also think restricting coaching interviews until after the Super Bowl would help.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

If the basis behind it is that typically teams  don’t go outside their organization for interim hires (which is also a part of the precedent of the hiring) and the need for a quick turnaround would conflict with doing a complete interview process, then I can understand it although I may not agree with it. If something like this never happens again, then I guess it’s okay, but there’s always the risk that this could open the door for abuse of the rule. I guess we’ll see though.

 

I get what you mean. It’s a small sample size so there probably isn’t a right or wrong answer. What I’ll say is that there is likely a reason it hasn’t been sufficiently tested. I think majority of the league places a premium value over experience and sees the alternative as super risky. I imagine it will remain the way for awhile. I 

 

To me, the fix for interim hires is simple. If you're going to through the trouble of hiring someone from outside the organization, you have to comply with the Rooney Rule. If you're going to promote from within, no compliance necessary. For the 99 times where an interim coach is someone who was already on the staff, there's no impact. For the rare 1% when a team decides to do something crazy like the Colts did, you're already upending the normal process, so you can take a day or two to comply with the rule.

 

As for valuing experience, I agree and understand. But I think it's worth considering whether anyone in the NFL actually knows what they're doing when they hire HCs. Same question for scouting QBs. The miss rate is high enough that their entire process is certainly not beyond questioning. There isn't a single category of HC hire that seems to be rock solid -- retread HC, hot coordinator, hot college coach, QB whisperer to fix your passing game (never worked for Brian Billick, they won despite poor offense), defensive guru to fix your defense (never worked for Tony Dungy, we won despite poor defense), Andy Reid tree, McVay tree, Belichick tree, Carroll tree, fiery Mike Singletary types (Dan Campbell? I guarantee he's dropped his pants in the locker room by now), understated Jim Caldwell types, great press conference guy, super analytics guy, whatever... success among HCs seems to be totally random. All of them have coaching experience, and almost all of them eventually fail, some faster than others.

 

I'm not advocating for hiring people with no real coaching experience, I don't think that's a good idea. But I am wondering whether there are factors far more important than experience that should be keyed in on. And maybe it's possible for someone who innately gets the game day process, communicates extremely well, and manages really well, to be a good HC without having coaching experience. They'd have to have a great staff. Not willing to bet on it, but I don't think it's totally impossible. 

[NFLfan]

11 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

No doubt but a guy like Jeff who called the offensive schemes for a very prolific offense is capable of running a team. 

I don't have a clue on how this is going to turn out but to automatically say it's a disaster is way too premature. Thinking outside the box is not a bad thing.  

 

I am not sure that anyone says it is a disaster.

 

[stitches]

9 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

Getting interviews is how the networking starts.  They may not land that job but their name starts to get talked about for the next ones.  
 

I don’t see a downside to getting an interview 

Yeah. The way I see the Rooney rule is an attempt to short circuit the old boys club hiring practices. It's not necesserily saying "those owners are racist so we will force them to hire people of color"... because it really doesn't, it just makes them give a candidate a chance to get in front of decisionmakers... a chance that they might not have gotten without that rule. In fact the Rooney rule relies on the owners actually not being racist. If you want to look at it cynically, you might say it introduces people of color into the old boys' club. They might not get the job this time, but it gives them a chance to make a good impression and network, build relationships within the top levels of the league. So maybe this time the owner goes with the guy he wanted all along, but in a few years that guy fails and the owner remembers... hey this candidate X actually looked like a really good candidate the last time we interviewed for a HC/GM... lets give him a legit chance this time... and so on and so forth. 

 

The Rooney rule is NOT a panacea. It will not solve every problem or even most problems of NFL's hiring practices. But IMO it's a step in the right direction. So I completely disagree with the people who say "well, because the Rooney rule is not perfect we should ditch it". Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The questions hould be - is it better than nothing? And if it is. keep it. The second question should be - can it be improved? And if it can be, try to improve it. @Supermanmentioned earlier some ways they can improve it(introduce some version of it at lower levels, make some sensible changes on the rule for interim coaches, etc.). And this also doesn't mean you don't try to improve things in other ways all the way down the ladder - from QC coaches in the NFL to college coaching to high school, etc. 

[NFLfan]

10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

In short, the RR was created to provide more visibility and increased opportunity. Not mandate hiring. 

 

That is accurate. What is wrong with that?

[Fluke_33]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

Yeah. The way I see the Rooney rule is an attempt to short circuit the old boys club hiring practices. It's not necesserily saying "those owners are racist so we will force them to hire people of color"... because it really doesn't, it just makes them give a candidate a chance to get in front of decisionmakers... a chance that they might not have gotten without that rule. In fact the Rooney rule relies on the owners actually not being racist. If you want to look at it cynically, you might say it introduces people of color into the old boys' club. They might not get the job this time, but it gives them a chance to make a good impression and network, build relationships within the top levels of the league. So maybe this time the owner goes with the guy he wanted all along, but in a few years that guy fails and the owner remembers... hey this candidate X actually looked like a really good candidate the last time we interviewed for a HC/GM... lets give him a legit chance this time... and so on and so forth. 

 

The Rooney rule is NOT a panacea. It will not solve every problem or even most problems of NFL's hiring practices. But IMO it's a step in the right direction. So I completely disagree with the people who say "well, because the Rooney rule is not perfect we should ditch it". Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The questions hould be - is it better than nothing? And if it is. keep it. The second question should be - can it be improved? And if it can be, try to improve it. @Supermanmentioned earlier some ways they can improve it(introduce some version of it at lower levels, make some sensible changes on the rule for interim coaches, etc.). And this also doesn't mean you don't try to improve things in other ways all the way down the ladder - from QC coaches in the NFL to college coaching to high school, etc. 

yes!  That is how I see it too.  

[VikingsFanInChennai]

9 hours ago, Superman said:

 

To me, the fix for interim hires is simple. If you're going to through the trouble of hiring someone from outside the organization, you have to comply with the Rooney Rule. If you're going to promote from within, no compliance necessary. For the 99 times where an interim coach is someone who was already on the staff, there's no impact. For the rare 1% when a team decides to do something crazy like the Colts did, you're already upending the normal process, so you can take a day or two to comply with the rule.

 

As for valuing experience, I agree and understand. But I think it's worth considering whether anyone in the NFL actually knows what they're doing when they hire HCs. Same question for scouting QBs. The miss rate is high enough that their entire process is certainly not beyond questioning. There isn't a single category of HC hire that seems to be rock solid -- retread HC, hot coordinator, hot college coach, QB whisperer to fix your passing game (never worked for Brian Billick, they won despite poor offense), defensive guru to fix your defense (never worked for Tony Dungy, we won despite poor defense), Andy Reid tree, McVay tree, Belichick tree, Carroll tree, fiery Mike Singletary types (Dan Campbell? I guarantee he's dropped his pants in the locker room by now), understated Jim Caldwell types, great press conference guy, super analytics guy, whatever... success among HCs seems to be totally random. All of them have coaching experience, and almost all of them eventually fail, some faster than others.

 

I'm not advocating for hiring people with no real coaching experience, I don't think that's a good idea. But I am wondering whether there are factors far more important than experience that should be keyed in on. And maybe it's possible for someone who innately gets the game day process, communicates extremely well, and manages really well, to be a good HC without having coaching experience. They'd have to have a great staff. Not willing to bet on it, but I don't think it's totally impossible. 

Well said. 

 

What Colts did is good as far as hiring an interim coach, as the rule currently stands. But, if NFL wants to fix this, they should do exactly as you stated. Most of the times, interim coach is announced within the current staff, and that should be fine without having to comply with Rooney Rule. It's as simple as that.

 

This shouldn't be a controversy at all, but it's good for the league to reassess the rule for identifying the interim coach without complicating the process and keeping it simple and fair. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Why does Irsay here make me scared of what he might do? Or maybe it’s just crazy Irsay talking and we should be used to it.

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Why does Irsay here make me scared of what he might do? Or maybe it’s just crazy Irsay talking and we should be used to it.

 

 

Lets hire Bill Cowher, he talks a good game, lets see how he does with this roster, Dakich as OC

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Why does Irsay here make me scared of what he might do? Or maybe it’s just crazy Irsay talking and we should be used to it.

 

 

 

Hmmm....college coaches will include Jim Harbaugh, won't it?  

 

 

[richard pallo]

18 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Why does Irsay here make me scared of what he might do? Or maybe it’s just crazy Irsay talking and we should be used to it.

 

 

Jeff is the unknown for obvious reasons and Harbaugh is officially on the radar now.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Why does Irsay here make me scared of what he might do? Or maybe it’s just crazy Irsay talking and we should be used to it.

 

 

 

Here you go, manufacturing a scandal...

 

The quote:

 

Quote

“I’m looking forward to the interview process,” Irsay said. “I think Jeff’s a candidate but there’s a lot of great candidates out there. I think there’s a lot of great candidates in college. I think the pool needs to be broadened somewhat more. There’s some great college coaches that may be capable. There’s some unknown coaches that may be capable.”

 

What's crazy about that comment? 

[chad72]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What's crazy about that comment? 

 

 

The true problem here is the unfair edit  

 

 

The original comment: 

“I’m looking forward to the interview process,” Irsay said. “I think Jeff’s a candidate but there’s a lot of great candidates out there. I think there’s a lot of great candidates in college. I think the pool needs to be broadened somewhat more. There’s some great college coaches that may be capable. There’s some unknown coaches that may be capable.”

 

The edited comment in a headliner that grabbed attention from PFT (notice what is quoted):

Jim Irsay addresses looming coaching search. He suggest that he will consider college coaches and "some unknown coaches."

 

The gullible sure fall hook, line and sinker to that. The ones that want to create a headline will always create a headline.

 

P.S: The right grammar for PFT's sake is, "He suggests" or "He suggested", lol  

[gspdx]

On 12/14/2022 at 11:35 AM, Defjamz26 said:

I also think the rules for coaching hires in general need to be reworked, regardless of color, gender, etc… There should be a minimum amount of experience(similar to how a lot of jobs have prior experience requirements) coaching at the NFL or collegiate level before being eligible to be hired as an interim or permanent HC. I also think the league should require FO’s to interview at least two coaches already on staff for an interim HC role should a coach be dismissed during the season.

 

The Saturday hire regardless of how far it goes, violated a lot of unspoken rules in the coaching world about promotions, and that is why there was such outrage by people inside the NFL.

 

Those kinds of experience requirements are set by the employer and can be waived if an employer still wants to hire someone.  I don't feel more regulation on that aspect adds any improvements to the hiring process. 

 

With that mindset I would have been excluded from a data analyst job that I was hired for since I had no previous experience.   

 

 

[JColts72]

Not the current intern. Get Demarco from 49ers. Doesn't really matter as still have no QB.

[crazycolt1]

10 minutes ago, gspdx said:

 

Those kinds of experience requirements are set by the employer and can be waived if an employer still wants to hire someone.  I don't feel more regulation on that aspect adds any improvements to the hiring process. 

 

With that mindset I would have been excluded from a data analyst job that I was hired for since I had no previous experience.   

 

 

I think there are people hired everyday that starts new jobs with no experience.  One of my 1st jobs I started when I was 18 was sand blasting. That interned into a tuck pointing job within the 2nd year.  

[EastStreet]

On 12/15/2022 at 6:35 AM, NFLfan said:

 

That is accurate. What is wrong with that?

 

Zero. Nothing wrong with that at all. 

What is wrong, is when every hiring is questioned even when they have followed the rules. 

[Myles]

15 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I think there are people hired everyday that starts new jobs with no experience.  One of my 1st jobs I started when I was 18 was sand blasting. That interned into a tuck pointing job within the 2nd year.  

Yep.   "Experience" can be defined in different ways.   Do any of the other candidates have "experience" as the center for a Peyton Manning led offence and did it at an all pro level?

[NFLfan]

8 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

Zero. Nothing wrong with that at all. 

What is wrong, is when every hiring is questioned even when they have followed the rules. 

 

Sounds like hyperbole. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Some of the HC candidates being mentioned as possibilities by media make me want to throw up. Anyone getting excited for Leslie Frazier?

[GoColts8818]

14 hours ago, Myles said:

Yep.   "Experience" can be defined in different ways.   Do any of the other candidates have "experience" as the center for a Peyton Manning led offence and did it at an all pro level?

Yeah but that’s irrelevant to coaching.  If the Colts had a time machine and could age Jeff back to his playing days that would be relevant to replacing Ryan Kelly but not as a coach.  Just because one person was great at one thing doesn’t mean they will be good at something else.  Better players than Saturday have failed as NFL head coaches and that’s no knock on Saturday. 

[crazycolt1]

7 pages of the merry-go-round of opinions that in reality means zero.  

No one knows how Jeff's hiring is going to work out. 

[EastStreet]

7 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

Sounds like hyperbole. 

 

Like an investigation due to an interim hire... which there is zero RRs for him. 

For a team, who has demonstrated a great track record on the topic.... 

 

No hyperbole. 

It's an easy example of the ridiculousness of the current situation on the topic. 

Some people will be on a never ending search to be outraged on anything. 

[NFLfan]

8 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

Like an investigation due to an interim hire... which there is zero RRs for him. 

For a team, who has demonstrated a great track record on the topic.... 

 

No hyperbole. 

It's an easy example of the ridiculousness of the current situation on the topic. 

Some people will be on a never ending search to be outraged on anything. 

 

I'm sure you know what the word "hyperbole" means. When you say "every hiring being questioned" when in reality only a few are, that is hyperbole and needs to be pointed out. 

 

Hyperbole may be an understatement. Perhaps I should have said it was a flat out lie.

[EastStreet]

35 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I'm sure you know what the word "hyperbole" means. When you say "every hiring being questioned" when in reality only a few are, that is hyperbole and needs to be pointed out. 

 

Hyperbole may be an understatement. Perhaps I should have said it was a flat out lie.

 

Hyperbole is an exaggeration. This is no exaggeration. 

 

Perhaps you don't follow HC hiring closely. It's almost always a narrative by some. There was chatter even with Sirianni and Flus when both were hired. There with chatter with the last two hires by the Raiders. Huge stink with Gruden. Multiple years of investigations. And LVR was cleared... 

 

And when the narrative becomes a thing even for interim hire, it's no exaggeration. 

And add that Indy has demonstrated good faith in the past, and is still questioned over a interim, it's not an exaggeration. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

MICHIGAN seems to be attacking the transfer portal with a vengeance. I am doubting Harbaugh leaves. Ir get Harbaugh then draft McCarthy next year lol.

[philba101]

Harbaugh is Not Coming to the Colts Despite His Relationship with Irsay and any money he could offer! This statement from Harbaugh makes that abundantly clear:

“Well, its a lot of that time of the year type of speculation, but I think no man knows the future,” Harbaugh said. “But I think that people that think we’ve done a good job and are pleased with the job that we’ve done here at Michigan, they’re going to be very happy to learn that we will be back enthusiastically coaching the Wolverines in 2023.  “And for those people that don’t approve of the job we’ve done or would rather see somebody else coaching here, I think they’ll be most likely disappointed to learn we’ll be back coaching the Wolverines and in 2023.”

 

Additionally, Harbaugh promised the Michigan AD that his flirtation with the NFL would not be an annual thing. According to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, Harbaugh told Manuel “this would not be re-occurring issue and he would stay at Michigan as long as it wants him.”

 

So, the only way Harbaugh considers the Colts is if Michigan tells him they no longer want him. Seems pretty clear.

 

 

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, philba101 said:

Harbaugh is Not Coming to the Colts Despite His Relationship with Irsay and any money he could offer! This statement from Harbaugh makes that abundantly clear:

“Well, its a lot of that time of the year type of speculation, but I think no man knows the future,” Harbaugh said. “But I think that people that think we’ve done a good job and are pleased with the job that we’ve done here at Michigan, they’re going to be very happy to learn that we will be back enthusiastically coaching the Wolverines in 2023.  “And for those people that don’t approve of the job we’ve done or would rather see somebody else coaching here, I think they’ll be most likely disappointed to learn we’ll be back coaching the Wolverines and in 2023.”

 

Additionally, Harbaugh promised the Michigan AD that his flirtation with the NFL would not be an annual thing. According to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, Harbaugh told Manuel “this would not be re-occurring issue and he would stay at Michigan as long as it wants him.”

 

So, the only way Harbaugh considers the Colts is if Michigan tells him they no longer want him. Seems pretty clear.

 

 

Or Thank you Michigan.  I won you a championship and I have now changed my mind.   I want to win a super bowl now.  Just like my bro.  You understand.

[philba101]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Or Thank you Michigan.  I won you a championship and I have now changed my mind.   I want to win a super bowl now.  Just like my bro.  You understand.

Possibly, but if he is thinking along those lines then he probably just says the first part "No man knows what the future holds," but instead he says that he will be back enthusiastically coaching at Michigan in 2023 is quite different, and anyone who doesn't like that is going to be disappointed is not exactly leaving the window open.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

34 minutes ago, philba101 said:

Harbaugh is Not Coming to the Colts Despite His Relationship with Irsay and any money he could offer! This statement from Harbaugh makes that abundantly clear:

“Well, its a lot of that time of the year type of speculation, but I think no man knows the future,” Harbaugh said. “But I think that people that think we’ve done a good job and are pleased with the job that we’ve done here at Michigan, they’re going to be very happy to learn that we will be back enthusiastically coaching the Wolverines in 2023.  “And for those people that don’t approve of the job we’ve done or would rather see somebody else coaching here, I think they’ll be most likely disappointed to learn we’ll be back coaching the Wolverines and in 2023.”

 

Additionally, Harbaugh promised the Michigan AD that his flirtation with the NFL would not be an annual thing. According to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, Harbaugh told Manuel “this would not be re-occurring issue and he would stay at Michigan as long as it wants him.”

 

So, the only way Harbaugh considers the Colts is if Michigan tells him they no longer want him. Seems pretty clear.

 

 

What is the date of this story? He isn’t going to say anything right now that will hurt recruiting or his transfer portal efforts.

[philba101]

21 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

What is the date of this story? He isn’t going to say anything right now that will hurt recruiting or his transfer portal efforts.

Here is the link to the SI article from December 4th of this year. There are dozens of similar articles written on the same day.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/12/05/jim-harbaugh-michigan-return-2023

[richard pallo]

56 minutes ago, philba101 said:

Possibly, but if he is thinking along those lines then he probably just says the first part "No man knows what the future holds," but instead he says that he will be back enthusiastically coaching at Michigan in 2023 is quite different, and anyone who doesn't like that is going to be disappointed is not exactly leaving the window open.

Nobody says no man knows what the future holds when they are redoing your contract.  You tell them what they want to hear.   The window is always open when you are a coach.  Just the fact he talked with the Vikings last year is proof of that.  

[philba101]

2 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Nobody says no man knows what the future holds when they are redoing your contract.  You tell them what they want to hear.   The window is always open when you are a coach.  Just the fact he talked with the Vikings last year is proof of that.  

I guess I feel like we are splitting hairs here... if they are re-doing your contract and you want that process to be as advantageous for you as possible for you, you say the right things. But, why would you care if you really weren't intending on doing what you were publicly stating you would do, which is enthusiastically return to coach at Michigan? Money? Harbaugh is getting paid big money regardless of what path he chooses.

[Moosejawcolt]

On 12/15/2022 at 11:08 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Lets hire Bill Cowher, he talks a good game, lets see how he does with this roster, Dakich as OC

He wouldnt come here. I think especially with what Irsay did in hiring Saturday.  I think a lot of coaches will avoid Indy. His move to promote Saturday may have miffed the coaching community. As an act of solidarity, they may choose to avoid this franchise so that you will only be left with scraps

[richard pallo]

1 minute ago, philba101 said:

I guess I feel like we are splitting hairs here... if they are re-doing your contract and you want that process to be as advantageous for you as possible for you, you say the right things. But, why would you care if you really weren't intending on doing what you were publicly stating you would do, which is enthusiastically return to coach at Michigan? Money? Harbaugh is getting paid big money regardless of what path he chooses.

Because if you didn't act like you care you wouldn't get the big reworked contract.  Think politics. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

if Harbaugh does end up the coach I imagine Ballard  will be gone. 2 guys with alpha personalities is not a good mix.