Rank Your Choices for Head Coach

[champ11]

59 minutes ago, Counselor said:

I think if you come off a season with a Rooney rule qualifier as your head coach you shouldn’t have to meet that requirement the next hire round. But that’s just me. 

They need to figure out a better way to promote diversity in coaching. No idea what that is from my level of understanding, but the Rooney rule not only seems ineffective, but borderline detrimental. 

[broncofan48]

47 minutes ago, champ11 said:

They need to figure out a better way to promote diversity in coaching. No idea what that is from my level of understanding, but the Rooney rule not only seems ineffective, but borderline detrimental. 

Yeah its just given guys token interviews it seems like.  No real intentions a lot of the time

[broncosfan_101]

I also like the idea of bringing in Taylor in a non-HC role, but to lure him away from the Rams, you’d need to give him the type of role most of us assume Kubiak’s getting. Full control of offence plus playcalling. Kubiak + Taylor won’t happen. 

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, broncosfan_101 said:

I also like the idea of bringing in Taylor in a non-HC role, but to lure him away from the Rams, you’d need to give him the type of role most of us assume Kubiak’s getting. Full control of offence plus playcalling. Kubiak + Taylor won’t happen. 

Yeah, I think you have to make Taylor an OC if you are bringing him in and getting him to leave McVay.   Any title you give Kubiak would pretty much make him an advisor to the coaching staff, not the de factor OC.

[germ-x]

Here is my ultimate take on the current HC search.

No one wants Chuck Pagano or Mike Munchak.  Even if they have them ranked #1 or #2 in this forum, it is always with a caveat.  The thought process is these 2 will bring stability, which is needed, and Denver can target a better HC in 2-3 years or groom a young coordinator to take over. 

My response to the above is; when has that actually happened and do you really think organizations are thinking in that regard?  I get people will go back the the Fox/Kubiak HC exchange and point to that scenario, but that’s few and far between and Denver had a SB winning caliber team for 3 years before that move and the HC lasted 2 years with the organization. As far as the grooming portion, I literally can’t point to a scenario in recent memory where that has actually happened and if it did it wasn’t successful.  99% of the time organizations hire outside of the current staff. 

Pagano and Munchak are better than Joseph, no doubt.  They’ll account for a few more wins and bring more stability.  They’ll be good for making this organization 8-8, 9-7, maybe throw in a 10-6 here or there.  But they aren’t great coaches.  They will put Denver in NFL purgatory, which sadly seems to be the current mission.

The 2 things Denver needs most is a QB and offensive innovation.  The 2 names above I don’t see helping in either of those areas.  

Denver seems to be in an old boys club mentality.  Where connections mean more than anything.  Elway can’t seem to get away from the past or Colorado connections.  They landed Manning who took the franchise away from this for 4 years and as soon as he left he reverted back to the only thing he knew.  Late 90s/early 2000s football and people he had relationships or connections with.

I have been a huge supporter of Elway and defended his stability with the organization.  However, this is the hire that will make or break him, IMO.  If he goes with Pagano/Munchak/Kubiak I think it will be his undoing in his role as the Denver Broncos VPO.

[Broncofan]

10 minutes ago, germ-x said:

Here is my ultimate take on the current HC search.

No one wants Chuck Pagano or Mike Munchak.  Even if they have them ranked #1 or #2 in this forum, it is always with a caveat.  The thought process is these 2 will bring stability, which is needed, and Denver can target a better HC in 2-3 years or groom a young coordinator to take over. 

My response to the above is; when has that actually happened and do you really think organizations are thinking in that regard?  I get people will go back the the Fox/Kubiak HC exchange and point to that scenario, but that’s few and far between and Denver had a SB winning caliber team for 3 years before that move and the HC lasted 2 years with the organization. As far as the grooming portion, I literally can’t point to a scenario in recent memory where that has actually happened and if it did it wasn’t successful.  99% of the time organizations hire outside of the current staff. 

Pagano and Munchak are better than Joseph, no doubt.  They’ll account for a few more wins and bring more stability.  They’ll be good for making this organization 8-8, 9-7, maybe throw in a 10-6 here or there.  But they aren’t great coaches.  They will put Denver in NFL purgatory, which sadly seems to be the current mission.

The 2 things Denver needs most is a QB and offensive innovation.  The 2 names above I don’t see helping in either of those areas.  

Denver seems to be in an old boys club mentality.  Where connections mean more than anything.  Elway can’t seem to get away from the past or Colorado connections.  They landed Manning who took the franchise away from this for 4 years and as soon as he left he reverted back to the only thing he knew.  Late 90s/early 2000s football and people he had relationships or connections with.

I have been a huge supporter of Elway and defended his stability with the organization.  However, this is the hire that will make or break him, IMO.  If he goes with Pagano/Munchak/Kubiak I think it will be his undoing in his role as the Denver Broncos VPO.

Just so we're clear - are you suggesting Taylor is the best choice?  I agree Pagano and even Munchak are just safe, caretaker choices.  Right now, the problem is that we're not left with other choices other than Flores or Fangio.

 

[germ-x]

3 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Just so we're clear - are you suggesting Taylor is the best choice?  I agree Pagano and even Munchak are just safe, caretaker choices.  Right now, the problem is that we're not left with other choices other than Flores or Fangio.

I’m saying Taylor or Flores.  Fangio came out today and said he isn’t even preparing for these interviews.  No wonder he hasn’t gotten one in the last decade.

[Broncofan]

10 minutes ago, germ-x said:

I’m saying Taylor or Flores.  Fangio came out today and said he isn’t even preparing for these interviews.  No wonder he hasn’t gotten one in the last decade.

OK, gotcha.   Man, it's hard to get behind Fangio with statements like that.  I get he's got a playoff game, but there are much better ways to make that kind of reply - communication as a HC is kinda important.   SMH.

I know it seems lazy - but man, Flores being from the Belichick tree - it's so uninspiring.  And it's not like the Pats D has overachieved this year to make me think he's different than the rest, either.  Jeez.

FWIW, I think Taylor has the greatest risk because his body of work is so short, and so it's scary as hell for HC.  It's a no-brainer unless he blows the interview to at least offer him the OC spot (and not a position that's name only, but full O control).   But I get your point on being too conventional.  If your roster talent is really good, being conventional is a smart move.   With our roster talent, we have to take some chances if we want to accelerate the rebuild - and that also means we take on more risk of a full-on implosion for 2019.  But as that would only help our draft stock for 2020, the pivotal year for us IMO, well, I don't see that as a problem TBH.  But it's obviously a tough PR sell for Elway to the fanbase and FO if that happens.   

The ironic part is that draft wise, Elway's been the reckless riverboat gambling GM who's gone all-ceiling/tool and low-skill/bust-floor in Day 2 of our draft for so many years (and Day 3, which works there - not so much Day 2).   That's where the approach failing costs us eventually.   Yet it's probably the approach we need to look at how our team is set up coaching wise.  Safe choices likely make us 1-2 wins better - but don't really move the needle.    Yet Taylor was probably the only real out-there risky interview.  Really wish we had at least gone after Kitchens or Monken (maybe he did, and they turned him down, to be fair, like McCarthy).

[germ-x]

5 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

OK, gotcha.   Man, it's hard to get behind Fangio with statements like that.  SMH.

FWIW, I think Taylor has the greatest risk because his body of work is so short, and so it's scary as hell for HC.  It's a no-brainer unless he blows the interview to at least offer him the OC spot (and not a position that's name only, but full O control).   But I get your point on being too conventional.  If your roster talent is really good, being conventional is a smart move.   With our roster talent, we have to take some chances if we want to accelerate the rebuild - and that also means we take on more risk of a full-on implosion for 2019.  But as that would only help our draft stock for 2020, the pivotal year for us IMO, well, I don't see that as a problem TBH.  But it's obviously a tough PR sell for Elway to the fanbase and FO if that happens.   

The ironic part is that draft wise, Elway's been the reckless riverboat gambling GM who's gone all-ceiling/tool and low-skill/bust-floor for so many years.   That's where the approach failing costs us eventually.   Yet it's probably the approach we need to look at how our team is set up coaching wise.  Safe choices likely make us 1-2 wins better - but don't really move the needle.  

Here is what I like less about this HC search if what some of our thoughts are true.

The entire search and 5 interviews were to pick between Pagano and Munchak.

I do not agree with it because I like Flores, but it very easily could’ve been a Rooney Rule check and he was never a serious candidate.

Zac Taylor, as some believe and may be true, is more of a feeler interview for maybe an OC gig or future hire.

If Fangio really isn’t even preparing, I’d cancel that interview in a heartbeat.  Pointless guy to even bring in.  Considering he’s had many over the years and hasn’t landed a job with a solid track record it’s hard for me to doubt this.  It’d be even harder to sell if he is the hire.

So basically, Denver may have brought in 5 candidates with only 2 they were actually considering.  Not good business, IMO.  Though, I’d love to be surprised.

[Broncofan]

4 minutes ago, germ-x said:

Here is what I like less about this HC search if what some of our thoughts are true.

The entire search and 5 interviews were to pick between Pagano and Munchak.

I do not agree with it because I like Flores, but it very easily could’ve been a Rooney Rule check and he was never a serious candidate.

Zac Taylor, as some believe and may be true, is more of a feeler interview for maybe an OC gig or future hire.

If Fangio really isn’t even preparing, I’d cancel that interview in a heartbeat.  Pointless guy to even bring in.  Considering he’s had many over the years and hasn’t landed a job with a solid track record it’s hard for me to doubt this.  It’d be even harder to sell if he is the hire.

So basically, Denver may have brought in 5 candidates with only 2 they were actually considering.  Not good business, IMO.  Though, I’d love to be surprised.

If we hire Pagano or Munchak, it will be hard to say otherwise than it was set up that way - although to be fair, it sounds like McCarthy was approached behind the scenes, and declined (Elway said publicly he was on DEN's radar - then poof, nothing - not hard to read between the lines).    It may actually be that Elway asked, and a bunch of targets (like Monken/Kitchens) declined, as they are in high demand.    Still, the list we came up with, especially if Fangio really is that uninspiring in his replies, well man.   If we do hire Taylor as HC, well, can't accuse Elway of being safe, though - but Pagano/Munchak will certainly get that label.  We'll see.

[Broncofan]

@germ-x 's point does bear bringing up this Q - why are we only interviewing 5 guys?   I mean, look at Green Bay - to be clear, I want no part of McDaniels or Caldwell, and it's not even that they are interviewing Dan Campbell or Matt Lafleur (although it would be nice to see another O-minded alternative).   But that's 8 targets.   Yet we stopped at 5.   Maybe no one wants to come here and keeping it to 5 saves face (I do think the top O minds don't see us as a prime destination, but there's a limit to this effect), but other than that very unlikely scenario that we can't get more legit candidates to interview, it's pretty disappointing that other teams are much more exhaustive than we are being.  I mean, it's kind of an important decision.  

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2019/01/01/packers-still-planning-pat-fitzgerald-pitch-while-arranging-interviews/2410436002/

Their interview list has 7 guys already booked/done, and they want to make 1 last run at Pat Fitzgerald of NWU (who has said repeatedly he's going nowhere):

 

Quote

Since Monday, the Packers have requested to speak to:

» Josh McDaniels, New England offensive coordinator

» Brian Flores, New England linebackers coach (defensive play caller)

» Dan Campbell, New Orleans assistant head coach/tight ends

» Mike Munchak, Pittsburgh offensive line coach

» Matt LaFleur, Tennessee offensive coordinator

They have already interviewed former head coaches Jim Caldwell (Indianapolis, Detroit) and Chuck Pagano (Indianapolis).

 

[jolly red giant]

Let's be clear - the HC pool this year is not great - whoever we get will have a 2/3 or if we are lucky 4 year tenure. The chances of rebuilding the team with any HC we hire this time around is small.

Take any of the HC candidates that have been spoken about by any team - would anyone regard any of them as a potential long-term solution?

There is no Kyle Shanahan, no Sean McVay, no Matt Nagy.

The question that needs to be answered is which candidate can help stabilise the team, coach up the young players, instill a mentality of winning and help build the roster.

I will still go for Shanahan and Kubiak - because I cannot see anything better - because they know the culture of the franchise under Bowlen - because they won't be afraid of Elway - because IMO they will act in a team-first approach/way - because they won't be looking over their shoulder at the possibility of being sacked (it will be a final gig for both of them) - because they can finish their coaching career by rebuilding the Broncos.

 

[jsthomp2007]

1. Bill Bellychick 

2. Pete Carroll 

3. Mike Zimmer

4. Andy Reid 

5. Ron Rivera. 

[broncos67]

One thing that I read yesterday that fascinated me on MHR was in regards to the actually interview structure. Ellis came out and said Elway needed to spend 1:1 time with the coaches to build a better rapport. Reading between the very obvious lines there, it tells me that Joseph was brought in without a true 1:1 with Elway and the two of them didn't mesh well together. I'm not sure how else to take that comment. Seems like the interview process this time around consists of Elway meeting 1:1 with the guy, and then the rest of the brain trust meeting as a group. 

This team is pretty horrendous when it comes to interviewing and organizational stability. That said, it's clear the goal right now is to steady the ship. There will be no "HC in waiting" because that rarely happens, especially with a team that just isn't good right now. Someone like Munchak will be brought in, primarily because he's known to be a great teacher (which, IMO, this team needs more of) and then in a few years he'll be shown the door and the whole thing will start again, but at least they'll keep the next coach for 3-4 years (unless the wheels fall off)

[bMiller031]

I'd like to see Zac Taylor as head coach. 

If we tap him for OC this year he'll be someone else's HC within 3 years. Similarly, if we go w/ a HC with a defensive background and bring on a different OC who has success  turning around the offense, he'll be a candidate for other teams in the market for a HC in the next few years. 

If we want to have a perennially dynamic offense, you need to have either an elite QB or an innovative offensive minded HC - but we definitely can't have neither.