Who do you want to see as our next HC and GM?

[NYRaider]

On 12/20/2023 at 3:22 PM, ronjon1990 said:

Now, Bo Hardigree would likely be point guy on it. I don't know how I feel about it. We've seen good and bad from him, so the context has to be taken into account- he's calling plays from a partial sheet and is still in the early days of his OC career. He could be the next McVay.

 

24 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Show me exactly where I touted him as the next McVay. I dare you to find it. 

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, NYRaider said:

My one concern is that we miss out on some quality candidates like Ben Johnson and Frank Smith this cycle while AP flames out in a year or two and we're back to square one.

Hot candidates pop up every year or so though. Someone will almost inevitably be available 2025 or 2026 if we need. 

At this point the difference between AP and others is the incumbent advantage. Our staff would largely be retained, I would imagine. So we have a shot at continuing to trend upwards following more minor tweaks to the staff amd roster. 

If we go with a different newbie HC (I'm out on Harbaugh, so I'm bot even counting him as an option) we're more likely conceding the 2024 season anyway as they'll likely bring in their own staff, want their own guys, guys less likely to re-sign, the usual hoopla that comes with a new regime. 

By and large, 2024 will at least be a soft reboot as we likely need at least 1 WR, a couple RBs (doubt Abdullah and Bolden return, Jacibs is good as gone, need 2 new OL, need a franchise QB, the system itself will likely change to a large degree, so on so forth. 

Do we want to scrap most of it and go hard reboot with someone else or try and build on the base we already have? Because I really don't see someone new coming in and keeping much the same without some pretty significant moves we may or may not want.

For better or worse, AP has an undeniable head start in terms of knowing the roster and forming an idea of what's needed next. Ben Johnson or Feank Smith or Jim Harbaugh or Lou Anarumo or whoever don't give two sh!ts about the Raiders or their roster or impending  FAs or draft and FA needs. Totally understandable, they all have jobs to do right now and are all facing big weeks ahead. But that does mean that they would have but a few weeks to cobble a vision together for a roster that's totally foreign to them that has some needs they almost certainly aren't privy to right now.

Moreover, Harbaugh notwithstanding, who would they bring with in terms of players? Usually a new HC brings some of his guys along. Any Lions or Dolphins offensive players we can think of that might follow Johnson or Smith? I genuinely can't think of any other than maybe some depth RBs from Miami. A lot of their better players are in the beginning or middle of their deals and highly unlikely to become available. That's just a minor consideration, but a consideration for planning nonetheless. 

I will readily concede that AP isn't the flashiest name out there and, here, I'll say it, isn't the best overall HC candidate likely to be available. But he is probably the best for our individual situation. Peyton Manning is infinitely better at QB than Lamar Jackson ever will be, but Manning would be awful in the Raven's system as it has been the last few years. You aren't running an RPO offense with him. Yet the Ravens look like the best team in the NFL by about a mile right now. 

Point is, it's not always about chasing the consensus "best" overall. Sometimes it's about chasing what's best for individual circumstances. Ben Johnson is a much better HC prospect than Shane Steichen was, but people would be seriously confused if Indianapolis canned him for Johnson right now. I

[ronjon1990]

7 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

 

"Could be" does not equal "is".  That's  the proper use of the word "touting". 

Holy smokes you're awful at this lol. Good try though, C+ for effort. If you're going to use words you don't understand, I suggest a dictionary and a thesaurus. 

Edited December 26, 2023 by ronjon1990

[NYRaider]

4 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Ben Johnson is a much better HC prospect than Shane Steichen was, but people would be seriously confused if Indianapolis canned him for Johnson right now. I

I disagree, Steichen had a lot more success in Philly then Ben has had in Detroit.

[ronjon1990]

2 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

I disagree, Steichen had a lot more success in Philly then Ben has had in Detroit.

Success or hype? Steichen indeed had more success in Philly than Johnson in Detroit. But Johnson has more hype behind him as a HC candidate than Steichen did- though some can definitely be attributed to a larger number of obvious candidates last cycle. 

[NYRaider]

4 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

"Could be" does not equal "is".  That's  the proper use of the word "touting". 

Holy smokes you're awful at this lol. Good try though, C+ for effort. If you're going to use words you don't understand, I suggest a dictionary and a thesaurus. 

Bo's resume includes:

2015 Offensive Assistant (Bears) - One of Cutler's worst seasons before he was benched and his career was ultimately over. 

2016-2018 QB Coach (Dolphins) - Tannehill never lived up to the hype which led to Miami continually getting worse before Tannehill was traded and he was canned.

2018-2019 (Jets) - One of the worst offenses in the league in back to back seasons as Darnold regressed big time and led to him being shipped out of town. 

2021 (Patriots) - Their offensive staff did a solid job with rookie Mac Jones but then he ultimately became a bust.

2022-2023 (Raiders) - QB coach for Carr in one of his worst seasons that ultimately led to him getting cut. Then the QB coach for Jimmy G in his worst season which will ultimately lead to him getting cut.

So over the course of his career in 5 different teams where a QB has had one of the worst years of their career, regressed, and ultimately gotten shipped out under Bo's coaching. Like it happened with Cutler, Tannehill, Darnold, Carr, and Jimmy G. 

And that's the man you said could be the next McVay and is who you'd potentially trust to develop our young franchise QB. If it happened once I wouldn't really care but to do it 5 times is insane and makes it clear that he is a pretty terrible coach.

 

[Jeremy408]

3 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

Success or hype? Steichen indeed had more success in Philly than Johnson in Detroit. But Johnson has more hype behind him as a HC candidate than Steichen did- though some can definitely be attributed to a larger number of obvious candidates last cycle. 

I think with Ben Johnson/frank smith right now has more to do with what's in the air in terms of whenever a team's offense does really well that offensive coordinator needs to become a head coach immediately. This was put on hyperdrive by the fact that Mike McDaniel transformed the dolphins offense(which I think having the fastest player in the NFL has something to do with that). It's created this myth that if you don't have some offensive guru as your head coach you're not gonna win in the NFL. All I have to say to that is look at the ravens currently. 

[NYRaider]

12 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

I think with Ben Johnson/frank smith right now has more to do with what's in the air in terms of whenever a team's offense does really well that offensive coordinator needs to become a head coach immediately. This was put on hyperdrive by the fact that Mike McDaniel transformed the dolphins offense(which I think having the fastest player in the NFL has something to do with that). It's created this myth that if you don't have some offensive guru as your head coach you're not gonna win in the NFL. All I have to say to that is look at the ravens currently. 

Harbaugh started as an offensive assistant and his brother was an NFL QB and offensive guru, so I think he has a pretty good understanding of offensive football chief. 

The last 4 Super Bowls featured 8 offensive minded head coaches.

[Jeremy408]

9 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Harbaugh started as an offensive assistant and his brother was an NFL QB and offensive guru, so I think he has a pretty good understanding of offensive football chief. 

The last 4 Super Bowls featured 8 offensive minded head coaches.

John Harbaugh is the leader of men and was a special teams coach(which is the first and foremost most important thing a head coach needs to have). Who cares if his brother is an NFL quarterback lol

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Jeremy408

[NYRaider]

1 minute ago, Jeremy408 said:

John Harbaugh is the leader of men and was a special teams coach(which is the first and foremost most important thing a head coach needs to have). Who cares if his brother is an NFL quarterback lol

 

He started as an offensive coach though.

And like I said recent history has shown offensive coaches are the wave, I don't think it's a coincidence that 10/12 Super Bowl coaches over the last 6 years came from an offensive background with the only exception being Bill Bellichick.  

[Jeremy408]

Just now, NYRaider said:

He started as an offensive coach though.

And like I said recent history has shown offensive coaches are the wave, I don't think it's a coincidence that 10/12 Super Bowl coaches over the last 6 years came from an offensive background with the only exception being Bill Bellichick.  

If you look at the last 10 years it's been 11 offensive coaches to 11 defensive coaches. And even then there were other factors like who had the better quarterback who had the better defense who had the better overall roster etc. To try to minimize the sample size so that it fits the offensive narrative is lazy. 

[NYRaider]

Just now, Jeremy408 said:

If you look at the last 10 years it's been 11 offensive coaches to 11 defensive coaches. And even then there were other factors like who had the better quarterback who had the better defense who had the better overall roster etc. To try to minimize the sample size so that it fits the offensive narrative is lazy. 

I think the last 3-5 years is a much better example of where the league is currently at. Do you really learn a lot about what's going to work now from looking at what worked when guys like Kapernick, Newton, Manning, and Brady in his prime were playing?

I think a smaller sample size shows you what's currently working and it's obviously offensive minded head coaches.

Even for the non-offensive coaches that are in the playoff picture this year, basically all of them have great offensive coordinators that are going to be head coaches in the next two cycles. 

[NYRaider]

7 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

If you look at the last 10 years it's been 11 offensive coaches to 11 defensive coaches. And even then there were other factors like who had the better quarterback who had the better defense who had the better overall roster etc. To try to minimize the sample size so that it fits the offensive narrative is lazy. 

And tbh I think AP can succeed, especially if he can keep PG in the fold. But hiring the right OC is going to be huge for him, just like Dan Campbell hiring Ben Johnson has been super key for his success. I think AP is pretty comparable to DC.

[Jeremy408]

3 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

I think the last 3-5 years is a much better example of where the league is currently at. Do you really learn a lot about what's going to work now from looking at what worked when guys like Kapernick, Newton, Manning, and Brady in his prime were playing?

I think a smaller sample size shows you what's currently working and it's obviously offensive minded head coaches.

Even for the non-offensive coaches that are in the playoff picture this year, basically all of them have great offensive coordinators that are going to be head coaches in the next two cycles. 

Not necessarily. There are the outliers that I mentioned for example majority of the teams that are in the Super Bowl during those times were the patriots and the Chiefs. One is defensive one; the other is offensive minded. But there are also again different things you have to take into account like what division do they plan how much better was their defense in the other team they played the conferences like during those times. Overall rosters. Take the Niners for example. I have an office of coach but their defense was the best in the league in both of those years. They weren't necessarily winning because of their offense they were winning because of their defense. The eagles that went to the Super Bowl last year they led the NFL in sacks by a large margin regardless of the fact that their Head coach was offense of minded. Again to basically say "offensive minded coach are the most likely to be successful is mythology

[NYRaider]

Just now, Jeremy408 said:

Not necessarily. There are the outliers that I mentioned for example majority of the teams that are in the Super Bowl during those times were the patriots and the Chiefs. One is defensive one; the other is offensive minded. But there are also again different things you have to take into account like what division do they plan how much better was their defense in the other team they played the conferences like during those times. Overall rosters. Take the Niners for example. I have an office of coach but their defense was the best in the league in both of those years. They weren't necessarily winning because of their offense they were winning because of their defense. The eagles that went to the Super Bowl last year they led the NFL in sacks by a large margin regardless of the fact that their Head coach was offense of minded. Again to basically say "offensive minded coach are the most likely to be successful is mythology

But there's definitely a reason why teams currently covet offensive minded head coaches after seeing guys like Shannahan, McDaniel, Siranni, etc. And we've seen the last 8 Super Bowls feature almost all offensive minded head coaches.