KSpan

One would think so. Time will tell.

The point of my post was in response to taking yours to be saying that no sources indicating hit seat meant it wasn't the reality. The only ways that would be true is if there was confidence that this year would somehow be different. Perhaps a misunderstanding there.

After the debacles that was last season and the crumbling in 2020, if Rhule isn't on the hot seat to some degree then I really don't know what to make of Tepper. That's not to say it's a guarantee things won't improve this year, but how does someone look at 2020 and 2021 objectively and think 'yep, that's quality work'?

What am I in denial about? All I asked was to share thoughts on what makes him qualified beyond 'Chiefs offense good.' I've already acknowledged that race may unfortunately be playing a part.

So it's not any different then?

He's still over at Donald LaFell's house.

And that knowledge, and perhaps more importantly the way he has chosen to act on said knowledge, is pretty much the sole reason the team is in the current state it's in. Soooo... yeah.

You're one who consistently laughs when the ambiguous 'sources' are cited in articles such as this. How is this one different?

Harbaugh fielded winning teams his first 6 of his first 7 years (went 11-5 his first year after they were 5-11 the year before) as an HC including the first 5 in a row, won at least 1 playoff game each of those years including the Super Bowl in year 5, and has 2 seasons below .500 during his entire tenure, one of which was last year. His 3 'pretty bad years' included 5-11, 8-8, and 9-7 records. Coaches like Harbaugh have earned that leeway. Guys like Rhule have not, especially when year 2 is worse than year 1.

Looks like the Pro Bowl, not the Senior Bowl. The thread title threw me for a loop there.

Objective anticipation of continued (key word there) failure based on the 2 years of incompetence he's already shown is in no way equivalent to actively wanting him or the team to fail, and is not mutually exclusive to hoping the team somehow turns it around.

Since you mentioned it, O'Connell did call plays in Washington in 2019. Again though I haven't said anything about any other candidates, previously acknowledged that race may be involved, and am just interested in some more detailed perspective for him to be an HC given the seemingly-nebulous responsibilities and confounding factor Reid's historical offenses.

At least 2001 was somewhat entertaining as the team invented new ways to lose. Amen - we knew change was coming. Now, though, the light at the end of the tunnel appears to be just another train.

Your question wasn't asked to me and I didn't make that claim you were asking about, so it was a simple branch in conversation. Perfectly reasonable.

It doesn't matter to me how it started - my initial question was to you based on your comment. It's a question that you still haven't answered, but that's fine. Like I said there I was mainly asking to play devil's advocate. You then brought up the current guys that got hired instead of him and I responded showing that they are more experienced and that may equate to better qualification, particularly since he doesn't have full responsibility over the offense and it's not clear (at least from the outside) how much he carries in the offense. I fully agree that race unfortunately plays a role in these things, but it may be more difficult to discern with a candidate like Bieniemy that doesn't seem to have a clear-cut resume. No doubt though that it hasn't stopped other hires before.

I'm asking you to make your case for Bieniemy, and it sounds like all you have is 'because other guys got hired too'. I'm just asking to please explain what qualifies him. Reid has had quality offenses for 20 years and his OCs have not turned into quality HCs, with only 2 being HCs and Childress and Shurmur being .500 or below. There have bene other guys however, like Harbaugh, McD, and Pederson, who have had success, but not from the OC position specifically. Regarding the other guys you brought up, McDaniels has been coordinating to some degree for 15 years, including calling plays for a decade or more, and was an actual HC before (though it didn't go particularly well) and Hackett has also been an OC for 8 years, 5 of them with full play-calling responsibility, including getting Blake Bortles to the AFCCG. They're both much more experienced at those levels than Bieniemy. It ultimately makes no difference to me; I was just asking since you're the one attempting to make the case. IMO, from my perspective here in KC and following the Chiefs guys give him a lot of credit but it's not clear what Bieniemy is actually responsible for. This article, for example, specifically states that the offense is a collaboration between him and Reid: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/eric-bieniemy-head-coach-andy-reid/rlhpfarvho8m10k3v2f2kjto1

What is that product with respect to Bieniemy? He's not ultimately fully responsible for the offense and there is decades of evidence showing that a good offense under Reid is effectively coordinator-agnostic, almost always in the top 10 regardless of who is coordinating it.

To play devil's advocate, what part of his experience makes one think he'll be a good head coach? Reid has always had good offenses and none of his OCs have been particularly good, so that doesn't seem particularly compelling.

If this ended up happening, and that's a huge if of course, it would be done in a manner/with timing that puts the team at a disadvantage. Just like many of his other decisions, really, so a fitting end.

Some of them even more than once... #smokescreen

And if/when that happens, it will still be a dumb name.

At least Cleveland Browns rolls off the tongue. There is nothing smooth about saying Washington Commanders.

Sounds like something from a footballl video game that doesn't have an NFL license.

Rutgers you say?