#1 Best Off-Season; #1 Worst Off-Season

[SmittyBacall]

16 minutes ago, scar988 said:

Just don't be surprised if Rodgers has a 3700 yard, 24 TD, 24 INT season.

Rodgers has thrown double-digit INTs 3 times in a 15 year career (highest ever is 13 as a first year starter in 2008). Don't be surprised when he doesn't.

[DawgX]

1 hour ago, scar988 said:

No it's more of a resources thing. Ryan would have been cheaper. And I think Rodgers is falling off this year. Much like how Favre had an awful year in NYJ. I'm projecting Rodgers to have a similar year.

Ryan would have been cheaper for VERY good reason. Because he's no where near as good as Rodgers.

[Steelersfan43]

If Rodgers has a bad season it will be because his YPA will be too low(like between 6.0 to 6.5).He will always be one the best to avoid interception

[NJC33]

1 hour ago, scar988 said:

No it's more of a resources thing. Ryan would have been cheaper. And I think Rodgers is falling off this year. Much like how Favre had an awful year in NYJ. I'm projecting Rodgers to have a similar year.

Favre didn't fall off with the Jets, nor did he have an awful year - through the first 11 weeks he was great, the Jets were AFC front runners at 8-3, then he tore his right bicep (throwing arm) and the wheels came off. Big difference between a player "falling off" and getting injured. Favre went on to have one of the best seasons of his career with Minnesota the next year.

[UKTexans]

On 6/1/2023 at 10:48 PM, Duluther said:

It is kind of funny, isn't it?

I'm glad you can find humor in your team's misgivings. You probably would have dropped the sport long ago if you couldn't.

It's funny you think "you don't hire a DC as a head coach" when DeMeco was the most highly sought after candidate. 

And you showed either ignorance or idiocy when you only focused on Stroud, Ryans and Anderson.

Perhaps you should stop discussing football if you aren't going to watch it.

 

[hburn]

5 hours ago, UKTexans said:

It's funny you think "you don't hire a DC as a head coach" when DeMeco was the most highly sought after candidate. 

And you showed either ignorance or idiocy when you only focused on Stroud, Ryans and Anderson.

Perhaps you should stop discussing football if you aren't going to watch it.

 

Hiring a defensive head coach to pair with a rookie QB is definitely a bad idea. But the Texans have been so successful I’m sure they know what they are doing

[NeptunePenguins]

On 6/2/2023 at 7:30 AM, scar988 said:

Just don't be surprised if Rodgers has a 3700 yard, 24 TD, 24 INT season.

If he has a bad year I imagine it would be more like his numbers last year. 

[BetterCallSaul]

6 hours ago, hburn said:

Hiring a defensive head coach to pair with a rookie QB is definitely a bad idea. But the Texans have been so successful I’m sure they know what they are doing

The only reason why I wouldn’t want to hire a defensive head coach is because if your QB is good, your OC is likely gonna get poached. Now you have to hire a brand new guy to implement a whole new system. Much easier to replace a good DC than an OC. 

[Duluther]

39 minutes ago, BetterCallSaul said:

The only reason why I wouldn’t want to hire a defensive head coach is because if your QB is good, your OC is likely gonna get poached. Now you have to hire a brand new guy to implement a whole new system. Much easier to replace a good DC than an OC. 

If a team is going anywhere of relevancy, the QB has to be good. So even in Houston's best case scenario (Stroud is good and their offense is good), their OC gets poached and Houston falls into the same trap Minnesota did with Zimmer (i.e., a cycle through JDF, Shurmer, Stefanski, etc). This simply isn't a good path to take. The only instance a DC-to-HC hire is good is when an established QB is the true OC (i.e., Manning, Rodgers). Fortunately for NYJ, that ended up happening for Saleh with Rodgers. 

 

12 hours ago, UKTexans said:

It's funny you think "you don't hire a DC as a head coach" when DeMeco was the most highly sought after candidate. 

And you showed either ignorance or idiocy when you only focused on Stroud, Ryans and Anderson.

Perhaps you should stop discussing football if you aren't going to watch it.

 

I'm very familiar with Ryans and his pursuit to being a HC. He was one of the finalists for the Vikings' opening last year before it was clear we were going in a different direction. That is, we wanted a candidate that was more offense focused, likely due to all that's been said here. I watched Ryans play in the 00's, even as a rookie he was acclaimed for having a great understanding of the game which helped him break out day 1. But candidates specializing on defense is just not where the league's heading; Ryans' resume doesn't mirror any recent successful HC hire; the closest is Mike Vrabel and that only highlights the issues I've voiced. Houston better hope Ryans' tenure involves a great and loyal OC... but this is just like an extra hurdle (i.e., hoping their HC AND OC are both good and stick around) that a team doesn't need to undertake if they simply hire an up-and-coming OC. 

If you were rebuilding a team with the assets HOU had heading into this offseason, would your plan A be to:

Hire a first-time DC head coach in a league in which arguably the last successful DC hire was... a decade ago?

Pair said DC HC with a rookie QB.

Groom said rookie QB with a first-time OC whose resume is headlined by working as an underling for a Shanahan-led offense and being a PFF employee. 

Go against conventional logic by, as a team with a plethora of holes, trading multiple high-first rounders and more to acquire but one non-QB rookie.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Duluther

[Soko]

47 minutes ago, BetterCallSaul said:

The only reason why I wouldn’t want to hire a defensive head coach is because if your QB is good, your OC is likely gonna get poached. Now you have to hire a brand new guy to implement a whole new system. Much easier to replace a good DC than an OC. 

This is definitely true, but at the end of the day, if you have a HC who happens to be a defensive mind, and he’s a really good HC, then you’re still happy. 

If you had a good idea that you were getting a Tomlin/Harbaugh/Vrabel type at the HC position, then you don’t pass him up for an offensive guy that you’re less confident in as a HC. It’s more important that they’re good HCs than it is which side they focus on.

All things equal, yeah, you’d want a good OC-HC than a good DC-HC, but you’re just happy if they’re good at all.

[BetterCallSaul]

I do think the best coach available was Ryans. I don’t know if it was the smart hire for that organization, but I doubt Ryans will let them dumpster dwell. Houston will be consistently solid in a year or two.

[BetterCallSaul]

14 minutes ago, Soko said:

This is definitely true, but at the end of the day, if you have a HC who happens to be a defensive mind, and he’s a really good HC, then you’re still happy. 

If you had a good idea that you were getting a Tomlin/Harbaugh/Vrabel type at the HC position, then you don’t pass him up for an offensive guy that you’re less confident in as a HC. It’s more important that they’re good HCs than it is which side they focus on.

All things equal, yeah, you’d want a good OC-HC than a good DC-HC, but you’re just happy if they’re good at all.

Exactly. It wasn’t a bad hire at all. 

[ET80]

11 hours ago, Duluther said:

If a team is going anywhere of relevancy, the QB has to be good. So even in Houston's best case scenario (Stroud is good and their offense is good), their OC gets poached and Houston falls into the same trap Minnesota did with Zimmer (i.e., a cycle through JDF, Shurmer, Stefanski, etc). This simply isn't a good path to take. The only instance a DC-to-HC hire is good is when an established QB is the true OC (i.e., Manning, Rodgers). Fortunately for NYJ, that ended up happening for Saleh with Rodgers. 

 

I'm very familiar with Ryans and his pursuit to being a HC. He was one of the finalists for the Vikings' opening last year before it was clear we were going in a different direction. That is, we wanted a candidate that was more offense focused, likely due to all that's been said here. I watched Ryans play in the 00's, even as a rookie he was acclaimed for having a great understanding of the game which helped him break out day 1. But candidates specializing on defense is just not where the league's heading; Ryans' resume doesn't mirror any recent successful HC hire; the closest is Mike Vrabel and that only highlights the issues I've voiced. Houston better hope Ryans' tenure involves a great and loyal OC... but this is just like an extra hurdle (i.e., hoping their HC AND OC are both good and stick around) that a team doesn't need to undertake if they simply hire an up-and-coming OC. 

If you were rebuilding a team with the assets HOU had heading into this offseason, would your plan A be to:

Hire a first-time DC head coach in a league in which arguably the last successful DC hire was... a decade ago?

Pair said DC HC with a rookie QB.

Groom said rookie QB with a first-time OC whose resume is headlined by working as an underling for a Shanahan-led offense and being a PFF employee. 

Go against conventional logic by, as a team with a plethora of holes, trading multiple high-first rounders and more to acquire but one non-QB rookie.

So... I'm lost here.

- Texans should have passed on the best HC candidate because... They needed a QB?

- Texans should have passed on the best QB prospect in the draft because... They have a defensive minded HC? 

I'm also lost on the best defensive minded HC hire being nearly a decade ago; Mike Vrabel made his start in 2018, and he's had a damn good run as HC. Tennessee was the #1 seed in the AFC two years ago, then beat the #1 seed in the AFC in Baltimore three years ago - if it's not for two of the best QBs in football (Mahomes and Burrow) the Titans probably make a Super Bowl (with Ryan Tannehill throwing for 125 a game, at best). In a pass first era, Vrabel is defying convention and winning with a run game and Jeffrey Simmons.

In what realm of existence was this a bad hire? Oh, we're suddenly judging him in a year where *Josh Dobbs* was his starter in a division clinching game vs the Jaguars? (Despite what VanS tried to tell us, Dobbs is bad at football). For as bad a season the Titans had, they were still in the playoff hunt all season long. They collapsed - but that’s expected when you’re rotating between Malik Willis and Dobbs.

Realistically, if you look at the AFC - your most sustained success in division comes from a non-offensive minded HC (Belicheck, Tomlin, McDermott, Vrabel, Harbaugh as a ST guy, etc). This run from Andy Reid is a recent development, and it's partly due to Pat Mahomes playing at a legendary level (because Alex Smith wasn't getting this done with Reid).

I honestly think you're correlating things that aren't necessarily related. 

[43M]

I hate this argument that you should hire an offensive minded head coach in todays league.    Not saying there is no logic behind it, because there is.   But the fact is, when looking for a head coach, you should be focused on looking for a leader who can bring a team together, rather than what area they specilaize in.   

I actually agree that if you have two equally qualified candidates that specialize on opposite sides of the ball, you should go with the OC, but if the defensive minded guy is far and away your top choice, and the guy you think can help LEAD and UNIFY, thats who you go with.

For every successful offensive head coach who has succeeded, there are probably 5 who have busted or just been meh.    Sure, it happens with defensive coaches too, and could happen with Ryans....but thats why teams do interviews, and should go with who they best feel fits what they want to do.

Back in 2007, everyone criticized the Steelers for hiring Mike Tomlin over guys like Ken Whisenhunt, Russ Grimm and Chan Gailey.    Tomlin isnt perfect by any means, but Id easily take him over those guys.

[ET80]

8 minutes ago, 43M said:

But the fact is, when looking for a head coach, you should be focused on looking for a leader who can bring a team together, rather than what area they specilaize in.   

You said it better than I could, actually.

DeMeco Ryans wasn't hired because he's a schematically proficient coach (I mean, he's been really good in that respect - but that isn't why you hired him). You hired him because he brings culture, credibility and accountability to the building, which is something the Texans have been in short supply of since Gary Kubiak was fired. He's there to build the culture, his coordinators and position coaches are there to install the system. Food for thought: the 2017 Texans were the 27th ranked defense with Mike Vrabel as their DC. Did that stop Tennessee from bringing Vrabel in to be the HC? Has that hire been a good hire for the most part?

You don't hire a HC because he runs a good system, you hire a HC because he brings a good culture. Hiring guys who bring a good system is why guys like Urban Meyer, Matt Patricia, Bill O'Brien and Josh McDaniels get jobs that they fail at - not because their systems aren't good, but because their culture is toxic.