Tom Cable

[NYRaider]

2 minutes ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

I don't know? Gurden got rid of them cause they're too expensive.

You're always gonna ask an expert what he thinks

Does Gruden's track history not indicate that he trusts his assistant coaches and lets them have a ton of input on our draft/free agent decisions? We literally drafted/signed players almost entirely based on how they fit PG's scheme...

[Bitty 2.0]

1 hour ago, NYRaider said:

Does Gruden's track history not indicate that he trusts his assistant coaches and lets them have a ton of input on our draft/free agent decisions? We literally drafted/signed players almost entirely based on how they fit PG's scheme...

Of course you're gonna get players to fit a scheme.

That doesn't mean he can reallocate funds from the O-line to the defense. That was an GM and HC idea.

[NYRaider]

19 minutes ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

Of course you're gonna get players to fit a scheme.

That doesn't mean he can reallocate funds from the O-line to the defense. That was an GM and HC idea.

Our entire starting offensive line is guys that were acquired with Cable in the building. I'm assuming he had some input on us drafting Simpson, Leatherwood, resigning James, etc. 

[Bitty 2.0]

1 hour ago, NYRaider said:

Our entire starting offensive line is guys that were acquired with Cable in the building. I'm assuming he had some input on us drafting Simpson, Leatherwood, resigning James, etc. 

Yes the position coach would evaluate the players but he's not the one draft them, signing FAs or cutting them. He works with what the GM gives him.

[drfrey13]

1 hour ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

Of course you're gonna get players to fit a scheme.

That doesn't mean he can reallocate funds from the O-line to the defense. That was an GM and HC idea.

I am sure he was consulted about how they could handle the situation if they got rid of them.  Also Hudson being traded saved nothing.  His dead money plus James' new contract where the same as Hudson's cap hit.

[drfrey13]

Just now, Bitty 2.0 said:

Yes the position coach would evaluate the players but he's not the one draft them, signing FAs or cutting them. He works with what the GM gives him.

Cable tells them who he wants and everyone knew what position we were drafting.  Cable probably has more input than Mayock when it comes to the offensive side of the ball and we all know Gruden makes the final decisions.

[Turnobili]

I hated the pickup originally. The success of Kolton Miller bought him a lot of goodwill. It's starting to run out. Kinda like how Reggie rode the goodwill of the 2014 draft his whole time here.

I didn't mind moving off of Gabe given his salary and play, nor did I mind getting rid of Trent Brown with his injury issues. And our guard issues are bad luck given that our top 2 guys are hurt.

But Rodney Hudson was a massive decision and was only made because this guy went to bat for Andre James.

and then we made the Leatherwood pick, and you already know how I felt about that one.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Turnobili

[NYRaider]

2 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

Yes the position coach would evaluate the players but he's not the one draft them, signing FAs or cutting them. He works with what the GM gives him.

The GM/Coach obviously have the final say but Mayock said that Cable was pounding the table for Leatherwood just like he did with Brandon Parker. Mayock also said the main reason we drafted Divine Deablo was because our LB coach loved him at the Senior Bowl. And we drafted Ferrell and Arnette because they fit Guenther's scheme. 

Quote

“Our linebacker coach Richard Smith jumped on the table and said, ‘This is a starting will linebacker in the NFL,” Mayock said in April. “At 227 pounds, he ran a 4.42 and is a looser athlete than you would think for that size.

 

Quote

"Clelin is exactly what I'm looking for," Guenther said recently, via NBC Sports Bay Area. "That's the kind of guys we had. The Michael Johnson's and the Carlos Dunlap's we had in Cincinnati that are every-down ends, that are big men that can both rush and play the run. So he's exactly what we're looking for."

 

[G]

The problem I have with how it all went down was the timing. Getting rid of Brown until after the draft would at least looked like we were trying to bluff our hand. Jackson could have waited too as we didn’t get a good pick. Hudson wanted out but maybe we could have smoothed that over. Right now I think we’d all rather have Rodney than not. I’d kept Jackson at his pay too had it kept Hudson. Just like with cutting King before the draft and trading Mack right before the season that we just can’t run basic football operations without looking like idiots. Mark hired Gruden and gave him the power. So it all starts at the top.

[raidr4life]

3 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

Yes the position coach would evaluate the players but he's not the one draft them, signing FAs or cutting them. He works with what the GM gives him.

And the GM gave him everything he wanted is the point.

[Jeremy408]

12 hours ago, G said:

The problem I have with how it all went down was the timing. Getting rid of Brown until after the draft would at least looked like we were trying to bluff our hand. Jackson could have waited too as we didn’t get a good pick. Hudson wanted out but maybe we could have smoothed that over. Right now I think we’d all rather have Rodney than not. I’d kept Jackson at his pay too had it kept Hudson. Just like with cutting King before the draft and trading Mack right before the season that we just can’t run basic football operations without looking like idiots. Mark hired Gruden and gave him the power. So it all starts at the top.

I thought the plan was good provided incognito in Denzel good didn’t get hurt at the same time(which I don’t think even they expected)

[Darbsk]

I genuinely am quite unsure when it comes to Tom Cable. I didn't like the hire initially but his work with Kolton Miller has been excellent and when our OL was in flux with injuries last year was impressive I thought. Obviously he has a lot of input when we draft or sign guys and it seems like in the plus column are Miller, Incognito, Good. In the debit column are Parker, James, Leatherwood (so far) and Simpson. 

I'm really not sure how much blame to ascribe him on the whole ripping apart of the OL, maybe that was a Gruden and Mayock thing and Cable was just told to get on with it and make it work. He also could have sold Gruden and Mayock on the idea that being the great coach he is, he could get production from a random collection of guys at a fraction of the cost..........

I do hold him accountable for drafting Parker over Orlando Brown, we all knew who was the better player here and I do hold him accountable for James starting instead of an experienced veteran when he clearly isn't remotely ready. Leatherwood doesn't look great at the moment but it's far from certain so I can't really say that was a big error just yet.

The thing I have trouble with is the fact we changed tact so quickly almost out of desperation or a knee jerk reaction it seems which does seem to be a Gruden MO more than the others.

Did we have to get rid of all these guys in one off season, an off-season where our most experienced veteran was coming back off a serious season long injury at 38 years old? Couldn't we have placated Hudson for a year to tide us over? I don't have an issue with getting rid of Brown, though who banged the table for signing him in the first place should come under serious scrutiny as he had obvious red flags. Jackson again, I can live with that deal as he wasn't playing up to his contract even though he'd been a loyal servant and played hurt and we thought we had Good waiting in the wings. But we're effectively getting rid of 3 starters and relying on a fourth who's 38 and coming off a season ending injury and whilst I really like Incognito an injury reoccurance would seem likely at some stage. So unless they really were oblivious they knew we'd likely have four new starters at some stage and they didn't bring in any experienced vets as a contingency to the presumed 4. Martin is the only real veteran brought in and he was brought in as a back up obviously with James simply handed the start.It seems like Cable in Seattle all over again but I really don't know how much blame to apportion TBH.

[reddevil]

3 hours ago, Darbsk said:

I genuinely am quite unsure when it comes to Tom Cable. I didn't like the hire initially but his work with Kolton Miller has been excellent and when our OL was in flux with injuries last year was impressive I thought. Obviously he has a lot of input when we draft or sign guys and it seems like in the plus column are Miller, Incognito, Good. In the debit column are Parker, James, Leatherwood (so far) and Simpson. 

I'm really not sure how much blame to ascribe him on the whole ripping apart of the OL, maybe that was a Gruden and Mayock thing and Cable was just told to get on with it and make it work. He also could have sold Gruden and Mayock on the idea that being the great coach he is, he could get production from a random collection of guys at a fraction of the cost..........

I do hold him accountable for drafting Parker over Orlando Brown, we all knew who was the better player here and I do hold him accountable for James starting instead of an experienced veteran when he clearly isn't remotely ready. Leatherwood doesn't look great at the moment but it's far from certain so I can't really say that was a big error just yet.

The thing I have trouble with is the fact we changed tact so quickly almost out of desperation or a knee jerk reaction it seems which does seem to be a Gruden MO more than the others.

Did we have to get rid of all these guys in one off season, an off-season where our most experienced veteran was coming back off a serious season long injury at 38 years old? Couldn't we have placated Hudson for a year to tide us over? I don't have an issue with getting rid of Brown, though who banged the table for signing him in the first place should come under serious scrutiny as he had obvious red flags. Jackson again, I can live with that deal as he wasn't playing up to his contract even though he'd been a loyal servant and played hurt and we thought we had Good waiting in the wings. But we're effectively getting rid of 3 starters and relying on a fourth who's 38 and coming off a season ending injury and whilst I really like Incognito an injury reoccurance would seem likely at some stage. So unless they really were oblivious they knew we'd likely have four new starters at some stage and they didn't bring in any experienced vets as a contingency to the presumed 4. Martin is the only real veteran brought in and he was brought in as a back up obviously with James simply handed the start.It seems like Cable in Seattle all over again but I really don't know how much blame to apportion TBH.

Excellent post and exactly how I feel. 

It really beggars belief -  the arrogance and/or stupidity to think you could swap a highly paid, celebrated and experienced group for rookies and players with limited game time and expect similar or even adequate results.

There is a repeated horror 3 point sequence when supporting a poorly run sports team; the mistake itself that everyone and his Nan knows is a mistake; the trying to rationalise it and hope, on a wing and a prayer that it won’t be totally as bad as you expect; and then the cold, hard reality that bites when you realise that your first instinct was correct, and your team’s management did indeed crap the bed.

[G]

12 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

I thought the plan was good provided incognito in Denzel good didn’t get hurt at the same time(which I don’t think even they expected)

Having two vets next to the inexperienced James would have helped

[Jeremy408]

For what it’s worth