McDaniels in Denver: What he learned

[JARROD]

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I'll ask the McCarthy question a different way. If I had a coach that had a 59.4% winning percentage, only 1 losing season out of six, 3 Division titles and 4 playoff appearances.....would you be interested in that coach?

Versus 125-77, 61% regular season record, 6 NFC North titles and a Super Bowl?

[kungfoodude]

5 minutes ago, JARROD said:

Whereas the 49ers did what with Seifart?

Won. A lot. Same as Green Bay. 

How is this for a stat, Mike McCarthy is the only Green Bay coach to have more than one losing season(he had 4) of any coach during the Favre/Rodgers era. 

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, JARROD said:

Versus 125-77, 61% regular season record, 6 NFC North titles and a Super Bowl?

No, not as a comparison, just as a question. Would you be interested in a coach with those statistics(which would compare favorably to Mike McCarthy)? 

[JARROD]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

Won. A lot. Same as Green Bay. 

How is this for a stat, Mike McCarthy is the only Green Bay coach to have more than one losing season(he had 4) of any coach during the Favre/Rodgers era. 

Ok and how many coaches? 
 

are your also counting this one season sample? 

[kungfoodude]

Just now, JARROD said:

Ok and how many coaches? 
 

are your also counting this one season sample? 

During the Montana/Young dominance, three coaches. Also, notice that I am only including the time periods from both Green Bay and San Francisco that included the two HOF QB's for obvious reasons. 

I am unclear what you mean by a one season sample. If you can clarify that question, I will respond to that specific point. I just am not really sure what you are asking. 

[JARROD]

7 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Won. A lot. Same as Green Bay. 

How is this for a stat, Mike McCarthy is the only Green Bay coach to have more than one losing season(he had 4) of any coach during the Favre/Rodgers era. 

And did you look at how that compared with Sherman?

[Woodie]

4 hours ago, thennek said:

I would like to understand what happened with the Colts job. He was obviously interested in the job because he interviewed for it and was chosen for it.

Then all of a sudden changed his mind and decided not to take the job. There were a lot of people having a lot of negative things to say how he handled this. 

This is a red flag that did not happen during his Denver debacle. It happened recently after he supposedly learned his lesson. 

From what I understand, he did tell them he'll tentatively take the job, but there were still some things to iron out before making it official.  However, Ballard went ahead and publicly announced the hire before all negotiations had been completed and the hire made official.  So, when an impasse came up on certain issues and things broke down, it looked like Josh just walked away for no other reason than a whim.

The truth is that negotiations break down all the time (in business, sports, all aspects of life), that's why public statements aren't made until they are 100% completed.  Ballard has even acknowledged that he shouldn't have gone public until it was official.  However, because it was so public, it looked worse than it was.  No, it wasn't ideal, but deals break up at the 11th hour all the time...we just usually don't hear about them because they are handled behind closed doors.

[joeyxfresco]

1st choice is Bieniemy 

2nd is McDaniels 

[JARROD]

5 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

During the Montana/Young dominance, three coaches. Also, notice that I am only including the time periods from both Green Bay and San Francisco that included the two HOF QB's for obvious reasons. 

I am unclear what you mean by a one season sample. If you can clarify that question, I will respond to that specific point. I just am not really sure what you are asking. 

You flipped script.

you said Mike McCarthy had more losing seasons than other modern Packers coaches. Then you went to SF.

also, Sherman had more losing seasons than Mike.

sample size for one season, still sticking to Packers is this one, first season under new HC.

[hepcat]

45 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I will be honest---what I do not know about these candidates is more significant that what I know---so I am going to trust the process.

McCarthy is perhaps the safest bet.  He has experience and the clout to assemble a top-notch staff--something that I have not read yet as one of the top reasons to hire a coach.  

For example, you may like Stef or EB as a coach, but what kind of staff could each put together?  You can have the best conductor in the world, but if the orchestra is inexperienced.....

 

McCarthy would be the best candidate if the Panthers plan to move on from Cam Newton. Of all the coaches being interviewed, he has the most experience and success developing QBs, including Jake Delhomme.

[JARROD]

1 minute ago, hepcat said:

McCarthy would be the best candidate if the Panthers plan to move on from Cam Newton. Of all the coaches being interviewed, he has the most experience and success developing QBs, including Jake Delhomme.

Except I think McCarthy would do great for Cam.

Rodgers does run sometimes, just has less designed runs. 
 

What I noticed was Cam used to take off when he had to, which had to be a lot with our lack of WR and Oline talent. 

under Getts when he emphasized the pocket, Cam only did the designer runs and started being more of a statue. He also refused or was confused about taking off.

i don’t think McCarthy would discourage that.

[Woodie]

Also, for what it's worth, everything coming out of NE says they love him up there.  Players enjoy playing for him and coaches enjoy coaching with him (Dante Scarnecchia said Josh is one of the main reasons he came out of retirement).  It appears that his self-analysis wasn't just lip service, he has put what he has learned to practical use.  

 

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, JARROD said:

And did you look at how that compared with Sherman?

Mike Sherman was the coach I was asking you about. Mike Sherman was also never given a head coaching position again, despite his obvious success(albeit not in the playoffs).

I have to get to an event, so I will lay out some the rest of my case for you to respond to and we can resume this debate later this afternoon or this evening. Also, I am not particularly anti-McCarthy, I just view him as another John Fox-esque pick of decent but not great coaches. 

If you look at both San Francisco during their period of success(Montana/Young) and Green Bay during their recent period of success(Favre/Rodgers) there are a lot of similarities in the results, that being that they were almost always successful as teams(winning percentages, division titles, playoff appearances, Super Bowls, etc) across multiple coaches. You talk about McCarthy being at Green Bay through a rebuild(which I would argue they never truly had to rebuild during those years) but Seifert also was at San Francisco as they moved on from Montana and transitioned to Steve Young(something that McCarthy did going from Favre to Rodgers). In fact, Seifert won a Super Bowl with both of those QB's. 

The greater overall point I am trying to make is that sometimes coaches during these dynasties are more a product of the success of the overall franchise/team than they are themselves responsible for the successes solely. To that point, both Green Bay and San Francisco had front offices that relatively consistently were able to assemble very talented and competitive rosters. Similarly, all these coaches had the benefit of Hall of Fame QB's and many other Hall of Fame caliber talent. 

That isn't going to be the situation in Carolina. We are going to need a coach that can BUILD a success here, not take over the reigns of an already successful franchise(like Seifert, Mariucci, Sherman, McCarthy did) and just maintain that dominance. That doesn't mean any of those coaches are bad but that they were the product of the success and talent around them rather than the REASON for that success. 

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Lol. Parcells took over a 2-14 team (that was 6-10 and 1-15 right before that. Carroll took over an 11-5 team that just went the SB. Spin it however you want but Carroll made the team worse and it was much more talented (not rookie Blesdoe, but 5th year Bledsoe) than when Parcells took over. I went to games before Parcells took over and they were awful. Parcells did a really good job and Carroll didn’t.

Here’s some guys that Parcells drafted in his four years: Bledsoe, Brusci, Milloy, Martin, Glenn, Law, Brown, Slade and a few OL that started for years.

You can try and make Carroll’s tenure look as good including making the playoffs at 9-7, but he added Damien Woody and Kevin Faulk in 3 drafts. He was handed a very good roster and it got worse. It’s why Belichick went 5-11 in his first year and then didn’t have another losing season. There were several really good players (Bruschi, Milloy, Law, etc. that anchored Belichick’s early teams.

Parcells was a great draft guy. No argument from me there. I do think that New England would have been successful had they stuck with Pete Carroll, although likely nowhere even close to successful as they are now.