mav1234

The Jets story was a bit different and was from a previous year, and based on Rhule's comments, it does appear Tepper forced him to choose a different OC... which didn't work so well for us at the time. But Rhule wasn't just media hype, he was set to interview for multiple teams and his hire by the Panthers forced the Giants to scramble as he was clearly their target. I don't really see this as Tepper thinking he'd "out-thought" the league as much as just spent enough money to keep anyone else from getting involved. I don't entirely disagree with the train wreck - college coaches are usually either very successful in the NFL or terrible. Hopefully he's learned his lesson, but we'll see.

What do you mean? Rhule was viewed as one of the hotter candidates and he was expected to be offered the Giants job, as well.

I have a feeling we'd be hearing "generational talent" about him, lol.

People said a 9-7 didn't deserve to be in the playoffs (or a 7-8-1). fug em. We control our own destiny. These players want Wilks as their coach? Win a playoff game. Guarantee you he's hired then.

Yeah I actually don't think we would get blown out by Dallas if we make it that far IF: -Sam keeps developing/playing smart -McAdoo finds ways to get our receivers involved -our D improves against the run or at least stays steady I think we can run on the Cowboys, just not like we did the Lions. Dallas has a much better D overall, but their rushing D isn't their strength.

There were a few posters that did want him top 10... A few of us thought he seemed raw for that spot but if the scouts were sold on him as a franchise talent then it makes sense to take him. But few of us were as bullish on him as Fields imo, I feel like the board wasnt really sold on any QB last year

What?? In recent NFL history, that is absolutely false. The 3 interim coaches in 2020 went a combined 9-19. Since 2013, including Wilks' 5-5 (and keep in mind I don't think he should just get the job if he losses out or something), interim coaches are 44-80. Definitely not resounding success - but is this being brought down by a few very bad interim coaches? The answer is no. The only two interim coaches with winning records beyond one game were Bisaccia last year and Greg Williams in 2018. The only interim head coach to take over a team with a winning record in the last 10 years was Bisaccia. Most interim coaches take over trash teams, and perform like trash. A few take over for a one or two games - those guys are sometimes at .500. Excluding Wilks and Bisaccia, and the coaches that coached fewer than 4 games, the average interim coach wins 2.7 games and coaches for 8.4 games. https://usbettingreport.com/news/how-have-interim-head-coaches-fared-in-the-nfl-in-the-past-10-years/

When was the last time an interim coach made the playoffs? When was the last time one took a team from 1-5 to winning the division? Yes it's a poo division. Doesn't matter. ALL this is assuming Wilks does win the division, which I'm not certain will happen. If it does, it says a lot about him as a coach though.

Still has a worse record as HC. edit: also, talk about different circumstances LOL

How's Josh McDaniels doing? Lol

5-1 down the stretch with Sam Darnold deserves an interview and probably the job. These are still huge ifs, mind you - beating two division opponents, even if they are pretty bad, is still a tall task. I also think if we get into the playoffs but get embarrassed, well, that might change things too. sure was a good thing the Raiders brain trust went in the direction they did

posted this some place else, but only 2 teams in like 20 years have won the SB without being in the playoffs in one of the previous three seasons - the Eagles and the Bucs. And the Eagles were in the playoffs 4 seasons before, and the Bucs roster was loaded with people that had extensive playoff experience recently. It DOES matter to make the playoffs IMO. It probably means Wilks should get a shot, since we will have gone 7-5 and 5-1 down the stretch, which IMO is a great accomplishment given how we started. This team could have easily folded after starting 1-5 or once we hit 2-7... It DOESN'T mean we have to stand pat at important positions like QB.

He's a new owner. Mistakes happen. He needs to get the next hire right.

There's zero chance Wilks isnt retained if we make the playoffs behind two more wins. He's earned a shot at an interview either way.

That's fair. And if we make the playoffs this year, I'll be disappointed in future years we don't hit a Superbowl. But I respect your take on this too.

The Panthers have sucked for years and yet we're nothing like the Browns. That is how bad they've been. They've won their division once in 2+ decades, and yet we are competing for ours now. We aren't a QB away, and yes, there are challenges, but we've got a decent young roster that needs some pieces beyond QB. I don't want Carr because of his contract, but I'm not going to pout and whine and stamp my feet about how this team is "the new Browns" when we're in the middle of a run at the division to finish out the season. Derek Carr is better than any QB that has played for the Browns in 2-3 decades. That is not true of the Panthers (Though he would be our 2nd best QB ever to play for us in all likelihood).

The Browns have been to the playoffs 3 times in the last 3 decades. We've been four times in the decade, which includes our recent drought. We're not the Browns, and Carr wouldn't make us them (but I also don't want him).

I mean having a star WR and a star RB is pretty good for weapons... I think coaching is the bigger problem there myself.

Love to see it. Good for Sam!

That 3rd and 13 bomb to DJ was a great throw.

Most of us would love a Superbowl, but also recognize the importance of the playoffs in building a team. Over the last 20 years only 2 teams have won the Superbowl without being in the playoffs in the last three years: The Bucs and the Eagles. Large portions of the Bucs roster had significant playoff experience in those last three years (especially Brady and Gronk), and the Eagles were in four years before and had a stacked roster.

so the only reason I go with Darnold over Carr is I think Carr's contract (even a new one with him signed as FA) would limit our overall roster building and whatever vet we bring in/back is a bridge option to a rookie developing. Carr is the kind of QB that immediately elevates this team, and actually quite a bit. We probably win 10+ games with Carr. But I'm not sure he wins us a Superbowl at this point in his career and with this roster. I think we are close, but not quite that close.... Unless he somehow brings Davante Adams with him, haha.

His performance vs PIT was actually pretty similar to vs DEN and vs DET (his game vs SEA he was efficient but had a very low YPA). My take (basically the same, but...) is that it's less he was shut down and more that even when he does execute at his version of a high level, it isn't enough without significant run game support. IMO from the below total passing yards, total TDs, and y/a, it is impossible to pick out the loss: 120 yards, 1 td, 5 y/a 225 yards, 1 TD, 9.78 y/a 164 yards, 1 TD, 8.63 y/a 250 yards, 1 TD, 11.36 y/a

Agree with that.

I agree with your general point in your post so only copied this bit.Other than vs Seattle, where our gameplan seemed to limit that deliberately (perhaps we had a lot of faith in their secondary? Hard to be sure), Darnold has had 25/64 of his passes thrown at least 10 yards past the line of scrimmage (and 13 >20 yards). This is not a bad rate IMO, esp for a backup/bridge. He's also completed at least one 30+ yard pass thru the air in each week but vs Sea where he had a terrible underthrow, too. All this is air yards traveled btw, not based on YAC. We aren't asking him to throw often, but when we do, it is often to take the top off the defense.