BroncoSojia Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 On 6/2/2023 at 6:39 AM, 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. Quick question: Did you watch Matt Ryan play last year? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duluther Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 4 hours ago, 43M said: 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. I wouldn't disagree with this either. Tbh, the bolded in particular seems like a bit of a tautology that anyone would agree with. But saying hire x philosophy is better than hire y philosophy isn't the heart of this current discussion (at least not from my side). The initial post I responded to was one saying the Texans had (or up for contention for) the best offseason; the coach-centric prong of my pushback is: generally, a defensive-minded coach isn't going to be part of any 'best offseason' resume because they don't have the same high-end success as their OC counterparts do in the past decade-plus. It is reasonable to say the relationship between OC/HC's and their hand in their offense's performance and the long-term stability of the performance (specifically in their relationship in developing a good or franchise QB) has a positive correlation with this. Ryans can be the guy who embodies the bolded, but how far is that likely to go? What DC-to-HC examples from the past decade plus make the hiring of Ryans look like part of a best offseason resume? People are firing back with the likes of Vrabel, and it's just funny because (like Zimmer) he embodies the fatal flaw (i.e., their relationship in developing a good or franchise QB and providing an approach for a productive offense, regardless of a few unforseen hurdles) of modern DC hires (that's not to say Ryans or someone cannot ascend beyond this flaw and transcend Vrabel, but modern examples don't yet exist). Beyond Vrabel, who are we looking at... Tomlin hired not this decade, not last, but two decades ago (who wasn't burdened with the same task of leading an organization that has a yet-to be-developed rookie QB)? Bill Belichek a HC since last century? On the flipside, there is Sean McDermott. I won't spin his success in a manner not reflective of his background and success - he's a defensive mind whose done very well and, with him, the Bills certainly don't have a cap on their success. I also won't say he's not the main proponent to the Bills' success... but it should be stated that in order for the Bills to climb out of the purgatory they were in with him (the same as with Vrabel and Zimmer), they needed Josh Allen to develop and Brian Daboll (and perhaps even Ken Dorsey) perhaps deserves more credit for this. So this is the one model for success with a modern DC hire. As stated in a prior post, Houston then needs to not only bank on a hypothetical OC-HC working out, but now is banking on a DC-HC, rookie QB, and a QB and-or-OC coach/es to work out. It's just not the best offseason that some would think solely for how many extra qualifiers they needlessly thrust upon themselves. (And we didn't even go into the other issues people have with their offseason approach, of which I'm equally if not more concerned with.) Finally, to address something you touch on: were there better HC candidates - as in, actually good offensive minded candidates who aren't the second comings of "Whisenhunt, Grimm, Gailey"? I don't know. Beyond beginning with the prerequisite that a candidate needs to have the ability to develop and sustain good QB and offensive play, the qualities I'd look for really can only be gleamed through interviews and the like. I have high hopes for Ben Johnson (Lions OC) though, and I bet that his tune of wanting to stay in Detroit another year would have changed if he received interviews and subsequent offers from openings he felt good about. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INbengalfan Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 5 hours ago, ET80 said: 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. Exactly this all day. In my team's case, Zac Taylor wasn't some prodigee that fell from the McVey coaching tree. He sold a vision, complete with locker room overhaul and a drastic change of culture. While I think Duluther has a point about wanting a HC paired with a rising QB star, Burrow alone did not take this team into territory Marvin Lewis could never reach. It's all about the guys that Zac Taylor and Duke Tobin brought in, from coaches to players to equipment guys. And that is what has been the catalyst in our resurgence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 1 hour ago, Duluther said: I wouldn't disagree with this either. Tbh, the bolded in particular seems like a bit of a tautology that anyone would agree with. But saying hire x philosophy is better than hire y philosophy isn't the heart of this current discussion (at least not from my side). The initial post I responded to was one saying the Texans had (or up for contention for) the best offseason; the coach-centric prong of my pushback is: generally, a defensive-minded coach isn't going to be part of any 'best offseason' resume because they don't have the same high-end success as their OC counterparts do in the past decade-plus. It is reasonable to say the relationship between OC/HC's and their hand in their offense's performance and the long-term stability of the performance (specifically in their relationship in developing a good or franchise QB) has a positive correlation with this. Ryans can be the guy who embodies the bolded, but how far is that likely to go? What DC-to-HC examples from the past decade plus make the hiring of Ryans look like part of a best offseason resume? People are firing back with the likes of Vrabel, and it's just funny because (like Zimmer) he embodies the fatal flaw (i.e., their relationship in developing a good or franchise QB and providing an approach for a productive offense, regardless of a few unforseen hurdles) of modern DC hires (that's not to say Ryans or someone cannot ascend beyond this flaw and transcend Vrabel, but modern examples don't yet exist). Beyond Vrabel, who are we looking at... Tomlin hired not this decade, not last, but two decades ago (who wasn't burdened with the same task of leading an organization that has a yet-to be-developed rookie QB)? Bill Belichek a HC since last century? On the flipside, there is Sean McDermott. I won't spin his success in a manner not reflective of his background and success - he's a defensive mind whose done very well and, with him, the Bills certainly don't have a cap on their success. I also won't say he's not the main proponent to the Bills' success... but it should be stated that in order for the Bills to climb out of the purgatory they were in with him (the same as with Vrabel and Zimmer), they needed Josh Allen to develop and Brian Daboll (and perhaps even Ken Dorsey) perhaps deserves more credit for this. So this is the one model for success with a modern DC hire. As stated in a prior post, Houston then needs to not only bank on a hypothetical OC-HC working out, but now is banking on a DC-HC, rookie QB, and a QB and-or-OC coach/es to work out. It's just not the best offseason that some would think solely for how many extra qualifiers they needlessly thrust upon themselves. (And we didn't even go into the other issues people have with their offseason approach, of which I'm equally if not more concerned with.) Finally, to address something you touch on: were there better HC candidates - as in, actually good offensive minded candidates who aren't the second comings of "Whisenhunt, Grimm, Gailey"? I don't know. Beyond beginning with the prerequisite that a candidate needs to have the ability to develop and sustain good QB and offensive play, the qualities I'd look for really can only be gleamed through interviews and the like. I have high hopes for Ben Johnson (Lions OC) though, and I bet that his tune of wanting to stay in Detroit another year would have changed if he received interviews and subsequent offers from openings he felt good about. Some good points, but at the end of the day, unless there is an extremely season and successful head coach available (which is very rare), picking a coach is alot like drafting rookies. Its largely a crapshoot, and alot of variables will inevitably affect their success, both things within and beyond their control. If the Texans organization feels Ryans is their best option, then thats who they need to go with. Is it guaranteed to be the perfect or even best choice? No, and I personally dont believe ANY organization should hire SOLEY based on who the hot OC or DC is, and I hope the Texans didnt do that, because in THAT case, I wouldnt be a fan. But if they interviewed several candidates, and Ryans was truly the one they felt best about, then I wish them the best and believe thats the right approach. Alot of top HC candidates from both sides of the ball have failed, sometimes miserably....which is why I said teams shouldnt just simply go straight for the hottest name based on offensive/defensive success, which would be alot like drafting a player simply because they were great in college and Mel Kiper liked them. The best chances of finding the right coach is to interview them, regardless of what side of the ball they specialize in, and hire based on who you feel fits best what you are looking for in a leader, and will be able to handle all the adversity and challenges of being a head coach in the NFL. Is that Ryans? I dont know and wont for a few years. But if the Texans believe that and actually did their due diligence to find out if he is the right guy....then he IS the right guy. Again, doesnt mean he will be successful, but its still the correct approach IMO. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scar988 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 7 hours ago, BroncoSojia said: Quick question: Did you watch Matt Ryan play last year? Yup. And he was bad. But so was Rodgers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelersfan43 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 6 minutes ago, scar988 said: Yup. And he was bad. But so was Rodgers. Rodgers was not a turnovers machine like Matt Ryan last year.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 10 hours ago, 43M said: 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. This is a symptom of the league changing toward a QB-lead league. The number of QBs who could get their HCs fired is trending up, and has been for some time. More and more, teams are viewing the HC job as about enabling the QB, not leading the team IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted June 4, 2023 Share Posted June 4, 2023 10 hours ago, ET80 said: 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. Putting it bluntly, well run teams don't need to hire a HC for these things because the culture is already there. Not that I disagree with your overall take that Ryans is a good fit for the Texans. You have to wash the Easterby off the team. But a defensive coach limits the ceiling, even if they have an incredible track record as a HC and leader. In 3-4 years when the culture is there and the team goes 7-10, then you bring in an offensive mind to get the most out of the team schematically. That's what the Rams did rebuilding that 2-14 dumpster fire, first with Fisher to get back to mediocrity, then McVay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroncoSojia Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 2 hours ago, scar988 said: Yup. And he was bad. But so was Rodgers. Rodgers was "bad" by his standards, whereas Ryan was washed bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scar988 Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 13 minutes ago, BroncoSojia said: Rodgers was "bad" by his standards, whereas Ryan was washed bad. Sure. Rodgers also isn't going to be playing behind one of the best pass protecting OLs in the NFL in GB anymore. He's not going to be throwing to the same guys he's always thrown to either. That is a big change for a guy like him. Could it be fine in the end? sure. but I'm expecting it to be a rougher transition than everyone else here is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetterCallSaul Posted June 5, 2023 Author Share Posted June 5, 2023 15 minutes ago, scar988 said: Sure. Rodgers also isn't going to be playing behind one of the best pass protecting OLs in the NFL in GB anymore. He's not going to be throwing to the same guys he's always thrown to either. That is a big change for a guy like him. Could it be fine in the end? sure. but I'm expecting it to be a rougher transition than everyone else here is. This is the best set of skill guys he has had in a while, if not ever if they reach their potential. And their OL is a downgrade, but it’s not like their OL is hot garbage. It’s about league average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinerNation21 Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 I don't know if this will be considered the best, but I really like what Carolina did this offseason. I feel like they built a really solid foundation to build upon. The coaching staff seems really solid and they added some talent. They may only win 5 games or so, but they're trending in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 On 6/4/2023 at 6:17 PM, ramssuperbowl99 said: Putting it bluntly, well run teams don't need to hire a HC This is more accurate. How many well run teams even need to hire a HC? Outside of the occasional retirement, stable franchises don’t really have turnover at the top. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ET80 said: This is more accurate. How many well run teams even need to hire a HC? Ha I mean yeah that's the sign of a good HC or any workplace manager really. If you're good at it, it should look like you don't have anything to do. Edited June 8, 2023 by ramssuperbowl99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Ha I mean yeah that's the sign of a good HC or any workplace manager really. If you're good at it, it should look like you don't have anything to do. Does anyone *really* know what Mike Tomlin does? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.