Yeah, I think McDaniel's is several years away from a HC job. He made a lot of poor decisions in Denver and didn't win. And a lot of coaches, once fired, never get offered a HC job again.
A couple years of success as an OC and an owner smart enough not to give McDaniels the same power is all it will take for him to get another shot.
And switching offensive philosophy's involves terminology changes and players other then the QB, so it doesn't always happen easily, even if the QB is comfortable with the style.
That's true, and if there's a lockout it will set back every team adopting new schemes.
I think Bradford will be fine regardless. He's smart and a hard worker.
Don't get me wrong - it will probably prove to be a good move for the Rams. I'm just noting that when a team changes offensive schemes there can be negatives or adjustment periods. It really depends on how the team handles it. For example, this article about how Martz, Cutler, and Smith got on the same page in Chicago shows that even though on the outside it may look like that offensive transition was easy, it really came close to going completely off the rails more then once. And I see that the Rams QB coach is retiring as well.Originally Posted by Mark Asher
In Seattle it looks like the Seahawks are going to make an effort to resign Hasselbeck. I'm kind of torn on the idea, if only because they really need a long-term plan at the QB position.
If they'll resign him with the idea that he can compete with whoever they bring in on equal ground, I'm for it. I'd love to see him stick around another year or two as a rookie developers behind him. Or something along those lines.
That's not how it works anymore. If they are going to wait and see if Whitehurst develops or figure on taking a guy to develop in the later rounds of the draft then fine, but it makes no sense to keep Hasselbeck to compete if you get a first round QB or acquire someone off another roster. Those guys need to play right away. Keeping Hasselbeck means you are basically saying that you have no interest in a major free agent QB or trade possibility. That means the QB transition still hasn't started and I honestly don't think this team is going to challenge for a title in the productive time that might be remaining in Hasselbeck's career.
If by 'those guys' you mean 1st round QBs, there isn't strong enough evidence in either direction to say that's the case. The pressure is there to play them because fans want to see it, but there there are enough examples in all four of the combinations:Those guys need to play right away.
sat/did well: Rogers, McNair, McNabb
sat/flamed out: Druckenmiller, Ware, Maddox, Quinn, Leinart
played/did well: P. Manning,
played/flame out: most 1st round busts (Couch, Klingler, Alex Smith, Akili Smith, Leaf, etc.)
that you can't really draw a conclusion. In the end coaching staff and surrounding talent matter more than just whether they played right away.
If the 'Hawks draft a QB, won't they need a veteran like Hasselbeck while their project develops? There is no NFL-ready QB prospect in this draft. Do you really see Gabbert, Newton or Mallet starting in game one? Gabbert has to transition from a spread, Newton must learn that NFL linebackers will kill him and his "one read then run" instinct, and Mallet probably needs to start his footwork from scratch. All three need to learn how to read NFL defenses.
You forgot Russell in the flamed out and Bradford in the played well. I still think that QB's that you plan on starting need to go ahead and start.
Russell had other issues and I don't think he started right away? And Bradford has had one good year. Rick Mirer's rookie season was pretty good too. =)
I seriously doubt that Bradford is a one year wonder. Russell didn't start and he flamed out, which is what I meant.
Poor Raiders.
http://www.thepostgame.com/features/...ny-linked-bann
YouTube videos where he says things other then what he says now aren't a good way to start things off.
You also have Flacco and Ryan starting from day one.
I think you do like the Rams did. They had a veteran they were planning on starting, Jay Feely, but when Bradford looked so good in preseason they felt good about him starting, so he did.
In other words, if you draft a QB be flexible enough that you don't have to start him right away.
I'll say this about Seattle -- I'm not impressed with Whitehurst at all.
It's funny about Hasselbeck, too. He's turning 36 and Brady is turning 34. I don't get all the talk about him being washed up and Brady being in his prime. Hasselbeck can still throw it. He might have another two-three good years. Warner had a good year at 38. Favre had a great year at 40.
Problem with the Seahawks, and the reason I'd support another year of Hasselbeck, is that we have so many other incredibly huge holes in our team. I'd rather we drafted some great people to fill those holes, and worry about a QB next year.
Never wait on the QB position, s'all I'm saying. QB trumps all else.
Well, you don't spend a #1 pick for a QB unless you're convinced it's your franchise QB. If you have doubts, pass, and hope you get lucky in a lower round.
Just saying, I obviously need to start raising some deer.
Why this isn't a story about Ray Lewis accepting banned supplements I don't know, but whatever.
The NFL gets a big pass on the banned suplements fervor for some reason. They still get players banned for using them on a regular basis, but not half of the uproar that baseball gets about it...
The Seahawks hired Darrell Bevell as their new offensive coordinator, a position he held the last few years with the Vikings. Before that he apparently worked with Rodgers in Green Bay as QB coach. Seattle originally brought him in to interview for their open QB coach position, but he became an OC candidate once Bates was fired.
It looks like the plan is for Cable to basically make the running game work better while Bevell handles the passing game. I was listening to an interview with Trent Dilfer this morning, who noted that many teams now have a kind of split offensive coaching system in place like this as opposed to the traditional idea of a single coordinator handling the whole thing.
Pete tried the split offensive coordinator thing at USC with Sarkisian and Kiffin. It didn't really work that well.
Not directly applicable to football, but I remember a Bill James piece about baseball players in their 30s. The gist was, on average, the good players tend to drop off precipitiously in their mid 30s, whereas the greats have better staying power. So that could be a point against Hasselbeck. Also, the recent history of back injuries doesn't bode well either.
Geoff
Interesting (to me) that with all the big name coaches shuffling around - the Redskins staff has remained completely unchanged.
My (very cloudy) crystal ball takes this as a sign that Shanahan has Danny's faith - and Shanahan believes in the staff he has.
Snyder tends to collect action figures: Sanders, Smith, Taylor, Spurrier, etc. Shanahan is the most recent acquisition. Snyder seems to give the coaches two years, at least if he goes out of his way to pick them -- if Shanahan has another losing season, he'll probably be gone.
Less cynically, everyone fro George Allen on down to the hot dog vendors at FedEx Field told anyone who was willing to listen that the chances of making the playoffs last year were slim in the extreme, so it's possible that Snyder is sitting in his office taking deep breaths and waiting until next year to start seeing a real improvement. But then that would take some discipline and patience, which are things he is not known for.
Rumors are starting to float that Mangini will be the new DC for the Titans. I'm not sure why any coach would join the Titans right now, with a lameduck coach. However, Mangini might be thinking he'd be in line for the HC job in the future.
Excellent work in answering your own question, Robert! (I get what you mean, though. It's kind of all-or-nothing to take a job like that, you either get the promotion or the boot)
I may be in a minority of Cleveland fans here, but I think it was a mistake for Cleveland to let Mangini go. Cleveland faced one of the toughest schedules of opponents in the NFL, and at times showed some real flashes of brilliance, such as beating the Saints and Patriots. Of course, they proceeded to almost lose to the Panthers and outright losing to the Bills, but perhaps a third year is what it would take for Mangini to settle in in Cleveland and bring a beleaguered franchise back around. If nothing else, going through Coaches like tic-tacs can't be a good thing.
Mangini's fate was set when the Browns gave Holmgren the job above him. There was no way that Holmgren was going to keep Mangini long-term, and the only reason he got another year was because of money.
For better or worse, there was no point in bringing in Holmgren if you wanted to keep Mangini.
Since I live in Ohio (a couple of hours south of Cleveland), I talk to other Browns fans who feel the same way. My uncle is a huge fan, and he was conflicted on it, for exactly the reasons you give. He was leaning toward keeping the guy after the Patriots game, but leaning toward letting him go after the Bengals and Bills. I give a pass on division teams, no matter how much they are struggling. The Bills game was pretty bad though.
But I would have given Mangini another year if I were the Browns.
Bradford is not a one year wonder. If anything he reminded me of a young Manning. ST.L has a keeper.
We saw him up close in the preseason, and you could tell, he already 'got it'.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote