Kingsbury interviewing for NFL Jobs

[Burt Macklin 18998]

14 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

This is why I think KK could possibly be more successful at the pro level than the college level. It's an offense-driven league at this point, and he should be able to produce good offenses. At Tech he had to lure defensive players to Lubbock via recruiting (which he apparently wasn't very good at); in the NFL they don't have a choice. So if they have a competent GM, who not only ensures that they draft quality players but also ensures that they have a competent defensive coaching staff...I could see it. But who knows. 

I think you're oversimplifying. First, KK is going to have to make major changes to his offense if he wants it to work. Different hash lines will negate some of the spacing he likes in his formations and generally faster defensive players will negate the effectiveness of some of his bread and butter plays at Tech. Andy Reid is having success because he's incorporating some college concepts into an NFL offense. KK doesn't have the foundation of NFL offense. He's going to have to create that.

Also, this idea that the only reason KK's defense was bad was due to personnel is a joke. KK had bad defenses because he prioritizes offense in his practices. He focuses on speed and high repetitions in practice which is good for an offense but creates bad habits and leads to a lot of issues on defense. 

KK will have to fundamentally change how he runs practices and make major changes to his offensive system in order to have success in the NFL. 

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I think KK has demonstrated a competency for installing and running the air raid at the collegiate level, but not anything more than that, and his offenses without Mahomes were nothing special.  He's like an Air Raid Sterlin Gilbert - he's not the Art Briles...he's not even the Dino Babers of his coaching tree.  I don't see anything about him that indicates that he will be capable of adapting his offensive system to the NFL.  Did they try to get Riley interview?  He's someone who has demonstrated far more than competency as an offensive mind.  

Every NFL team with an opening at HC would rather have Riley than the guy they just hired.  The NFL doesn't just get to pick who from college they want as most of the best coaches have no reason to leave.

[Fozzz 152]

3 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Every NFL team with an opening at HC would rather have Riley than the guy they just hired.  The NFL doesn't just get to pick who from college they want as most of the best coaches have no reason to leave.

No kidding.  So they went from Riley to someone who can't even hold down a HC job at Texas Tech?  There have to be Air Raid guys out there more promising than a failure like Kliff.  Hell, why not hire someone like Dino who has shown more competency at managing a program than Kliff?  

Edited January 10, 2019 by Fozzz

[Fozzz 152]

This sounds promising.

Quote

Cardinals coach Kliff Kingsbury’s reported interest in hiring as his offensive coordinator the new head coach at Texas State University underscores one of the major challenges Kingsbury will be facing right out of the gates.

With no NFL coaching experience of any kind and, thus, a limited set of NFL contacts, how will Kingsbury put together an NFL coaching staff?

He’ll do it, apparently, by tapping into the network he has developed at the college level, with Jake Spavital the first in a list of names that would strike NFL coaches as something right out of the witness protection program.

The Cardinals, who were intent on hiring Kingsbury from the get-go (even though that was news to everyone including Kingsbury until recently), surely were aware of this complication. Perhaps Kingsbury will simply decide to keep some of Steve Wilks’ assistant coaches. Perhaps Kingsbury won’t have much of a choice.

Regardless, the success of any head coach hinges largely on the quality of his staff. And that could end up being an impediment for Kingsbury, since he’s at a clear disadvantage when it comes to tapping into a network that he simply doesn’t have.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/01/09/kliff-kingsbury-could-have-a-hard-time-putting-a-staff-together/

 

[Hank Chinaski 6310]

17 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

I think you're oversimplifying. First, KK is going to have to make major changes to his offense if he wants it to work. Different hash lines will negate some of the spacing he likes in his formations and generally faster defensive players will negate the effectiveness of some of his bread and butter plays at Tech. Andy Reid is having success because he's incorporating some college concepts into an NFL offense. KK doesn't have the foundation of NFL offense. He's going to have to create that.

Also, this idea that the only reason KK's defense was bad was due to personnel is a joke. KK had bad defenses because he prioritizes offense in his practices. He focuses on speed and high repetitions in practice which is good for an offense but creates bad habits and leads to a lot of issues on defense. 

KK will have to fundamentally change how he runs practices and make major changes to his offensive system in order to have success in the NFL. 

Oh I'm definitely oversimplifying. I'm just saying that if he is aided by others in the organization (GM, defensive coaches) and he is willing and able to adapt, he could be OK. I wouldn't bet on it though. 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

16 hours ago, slorch said:

It's in the quote, but yeah, you're rolling...

Your words:  Kingsbury benefited from the services of an apparent Pro Bowl-caliber QB, yet couldn't even win half his games in college. This is ultimately why Tech showed him the door.

 

2013 Total offense: 11th

2014 Total offense: 25th

2015 Total offense: 4th

2016 Total offense: 8th

2017 Total offense: 18th

2018 Total Offense: 28th

2013, 2014, and 2018 had true Freshmen QBs playing the majority of the snaps for the season. 2017 had a guy who wouldn't have beaten out many starters elswehere in the Big XII.  Some of what Kliff did WITHOUT Mahomes on offense was borderline miraculous and is why he was sought after in this offseason.

The performance away from the ball, including special teams and game management, along with recruiting are the biggest contributors to his failure at the college level.  It will be interesting to see how much power his OC is given with regard to game management. Special Teams Corch and DC should shore up his other opportunities, along with the GM on the talent acquisition front.

I'm wondering how much these folks considering Kliff as a candidate were also influenced by visions of Andy Reed constantly having his little pow-wows on the sideline with Mahomes in between possessions.  Yeah...Kliff can do that too, right?

We don't know that answer yet.  Following the template hasn't exactly worked out for the Cards, so why not go all-in on a guy if you're fucked anyway?

 

IMHO, Rosen is shit as a QB and will not be remotely close to Mahomes 2.0, or even Mayfield.

 

Influencing and developing QBs is what Kliff can do beyond the shadow of a doubt.  I think Rosen will be his toughest project yet.

Sounds like the job of a qb coach or offensive coordinator, not a head coach. 

Do you think the dc at tech wasn’t left to his own devices to implement the defense?

[Guest]

I think Gibbs had plentyof rope, yes.

 

It was hardly a mirror image of Tuberville jacking with Neal Brown’s offense.

[Fozzz 152]

 

 

 

[Moby Ric 2058]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

 

 

 

JFC, what an ass.

[Fozzz 152]

Dale's right though.

[Valmy77 13094]

Are NFL head coaches especially youthful?

Also: we will see about Kliff's "genius". We had bigger geniuses in this conference.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Valmy77

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

Assuming you believe Kliff is an offensive genius that would be a pretty big justification for giving him a job.

[veritas aequitas 436]

23 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

 

 

 

Dale's daughter banging black buys in college has had an odd effect on him.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

You say that as though it's some sort of scarlet letter or something. 

[Fozzz 152]

Very classy making light of the crime committed against Dale's daughter.  

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Catdaddyhorn said:

You say that as though it's some sort of scarlet letter or something. 

He's making a joke about this.

Quote

Hansen discloses that his daughter was raped while attending the University of North Texas, and that he believes that not naming the victims of sexual assault is doing more harm than good.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/05/19/dale-hansen-wants-names-sexual-assault-victimsto-known

[veritas aequitas 436]

Just now, Catdaddyhorn said:

You say that as though it's some sort of scarlet letter or something. 

You would have to ask Dale about that. I just say that as Dale prior to that versus Dale today. He is not the same guy at all.

[Valmy77 13094]

Damn this thread got serious all the sudden.

[Huckleberry 32703]

Why do people think the percentage of black coaches should approximate the percentage of black players in a league moreso than the percentage of black people who follow the sport? Do they believe that being a good player generally means you're a good coach? That's been pretty roundly debunked by reality going all the way back to Ted Williams's disastrous managing career and even further.

This is something that routinely happens, of course. There was a recent article that said the increase in black quarterbacks is still happening way too slowly because it has moved from 18 to 19 percent. Why is that viewed as underrepresentation when it's a higher percentage than they hold of the overall population? It's compared to the higher number, that being the percentage of black players overall in the NFL.

This argument and debate is absolutely never going to go away because nobody has any idea what the right number should be. That includes me, of course. If a completely unbiased and blind computer selected the best 32 possible candidates for the position of NFL head coach out of the entire American population, how many do people think would be black? My instinctive guess would be 4, because that is roughly their population percentage. Right now there is one Latino head coach in the NFL, despite the fact that Latinos make up 17% of the American population (the USA is about 13% black). I would expect the computer to come up with 5 Latino head coaches. But that's not a big deal PR wise. Obviously the answer is that, yes, people instinctively compare the coaching and front office position percentages to the player percentages. Why is that simply accepted as the correct percentage that it should be compared to?

Female referees are now a thing, and that seems reasonable as there is no reason they can't inherently officiate as well as men. So there's a disconnect there somewhere when the apparent assumption is that playing a game makes you better at coaching it but not officiating it. Are we trying to get the non-player position demographics to match the player demographics or not? The NBA has had some female assistant coaches come into the league recently, I believe. Why is that acceptable if the premise is that playing in the league should correlate to coaching in it?

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

Black people have an extra bone in their leg that makes them more athletic.  #science

[TwiceHorn 31283]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Why do people think the percentage of black coaches should approximate the percentage of black players in a league moreso than the percentage of black people who follow the sport? Do they believe that being a good player generally means you're a good coach? That's been pretty roundly debunked by reality going all the way back to Ted Williams's disastrous managing career and even further.

This is something that routinely happens, of course. There was a recent article that said the increase in black quarterbacks is still happening way too slowly because it has moved from 18 to 19 percent. Why is that viewed as underrepresentation when it's a higher percentage than they hold of the overall population? It's compared to the higher number, that being the percentage of black players overall in the NFL.

This argument and debate is absolutely never going to go away because nobody has any idea what the right number should be. That includes me, of course. If a completely unbiased and blind computer selected the best 32 possible candidates for the position of NFL head coach out of the entire American population, how many do people think would be black? My instinctive guess would be 4, because that is roughly their population percentage. Right now there is one Latino head coach in the NFL, despite the fact that Latinos make up 17% of the American population (the USA is about 13% black). I would expect the computer to come up with 5 Latino head coaches. But that's not a big deal PR wise. Obviously the answer is that, yes, people instinctively compare the coaching and front office position percentages to the player percentages. Why is that simply accepted as the correct percentage that it should be compared to?

Female referees are now a thing, and that seems reasonable as there is no reason they can't inherently officiate as well as men. So there's a disconnect there somewhere when the apparent assumption is that playing a game makes you better at coaching it but not officiating it. Are we trying to get the non-player position demographics to match the player demographics or not? The NBA has had some female assistant coaches come into the league recently, I believe. Why is that acceptable if the premise is that playing in the league should correlate to coaching in it?

Diana Moon Glampers will be along shortly to rectify this situation.

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Why do people think the percentage of black coaches should approximate the percentage of black players in a league moreso than the percentage of black people who follow the sport? Do they believe that being a good player generally means you're a good coach? That's been pretty roundly debunked by reality going all the way back to Ted Williams's disastrous managing career and even further.

 

I don't think it's necessarily a thinking of the better the player the better the coach, but pretty much every coach plays their sport at a higher level than high school, so if that's the pool for potential coaches I'm assuming the demographics would be different than the general population.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

31 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Why do people think the percentage of black coaches should approximate the percentage of black players in a league moreso than the percentage of black people who follow the sport? Do they believe that being a good player generally means you're a good coach? That's been pretty roundly debunked by reality going all the way back to Ted Williams's disastrous managing career and even further.

This is something that routinely happens, of course. There was a recent article that said the increase in black quarterbacks is still happening way too slowly because it has moved from 18 to 19 percent. Why is that viewed as underrepresentation when it's a higher percentage than they hold of the overall population? It's compared to the higher number, that being the percentage of black players overall in the NFL.

This argument and debate is absolutely never going to go away because nobody has any idea what the right number should be. That includes me, of course. If a completely unbiased and blind computer selected the best 32 possible candidates for the position of NFL head coach out of the entire American population, how many do people think would be black? My instinctive guess would be 4, because that is roughly their population percentage. Right now there is one Latino head coach in the NFL, despite the fact that Latinos make up 17% of the American population (the USA is about 13% black). I would expect the computer to come up with 5 Latino head coaches. But that's not a big deal PR wise. Obviously the answer is that, yes, people instinctively compare the coaching and front office position percentages to the player percentages. Why is that simply accepted as the correct percentage that it should be compared to?

Female referees are now a thing, and that seems reasonable as there is no reason they can't inherently officiate as well as men. So there's a disconnect there somewhere when the apparent assumption is that playing a game makes you better at coaching it but not officiating it. Are we trying to get the non-player position demographics to match the player demographics or not? The NBA has had some female assistant coaches come into the league recently, I believe. Why is that acceptable if the premise is that playing in the league should correlate to coaching in it?

The line of reasoning in the bolded sentence belies the fact that we have other sports where this entire discussion almost never takes place in any reasonable form because there's a prevailing sense among all involved parties that there's some semblance of fairness in how these jobs are levied out. Fuck, even baseball, where American blacks have almost completely abandoned the sport, doesn't have this level of consternation about these issues because, you guessed it, most people can't sense any level egregious unfairness surrounding the topic. What was it, 1989 or 90 before they had an actual black head coach. The NFL's history in this area is trash. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Catdaddyhorn

[totallynotabuttpirate 5342]

18 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Black people have an extra bone in their leg that makes them more athletic.  #science

Isn't it between their legs? 

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

1 minute ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

Isn't it between their legs? 

I like you, so I’m not gonna make the ‘between your mom’s legs’ joke.  

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

28 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Female referees are now a thing, and that seems reasonable as there is no reason they can't inherently officiate as well as men. So there's a disconnect there somewhere when the apparent assumption is that playing a game makes you better at coaching it but not officiating it. Are we trying to get the non-player position demographics to match the player demographics or not? The NBA has had some female assistant coaches come into the league recently, I believe. Why is that acceptable if the premise is that playing in the league should correlate to coaching in it?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently

The ‘no reason women can’t ref as well’ part is debateable.  Many of the stereotypical differences between the sexes have scientific evidence backing them.  

[ClubWhatever 12087]

30 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

Why do people think the percentage of black coaches should approximate the percentage of black players in a league moreso than the percentage of black people who follow the sport? 

 

Because that’s what they want to happen (or claim to want).  People often think what they want to happen is what should happen.  Wanting this to happen makes them look and feel good.  Ultimately existence is about surviving followed by feeling good.  

[Valmy77 13094]

Can we stay on the fact that Kliff is not a genius and the Cardinals just made a stupid move? I feel like we are getting sidetracked here.

[Fozzz 152]

15 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

The line of reasoning in the bolded sentence belies the fact that we have other sports where this entire discussion almost never takes place in any reasonable form because there's a prevailing sense among all involved parties that there's some semblance of fairness in how these jobs are levied out. Fuck, even baseball, where American blacks have almost completely abandoned the sport, doesn't have this level of consternation about these issues because, you guessed it, most people can't sense any level egregious unfairness surrounding the topic. What was it, 1989 or 90 before they had an actual black head coach. The NFL's history in this area is trash. 

There is also evidence that black head coaches are currently held to a higher standard than white head coaches in the NFL.

Quote

In the history of the NFL, there have only been 17 black head coaches who have coached at least one entire season (minimum 16 games) with a team. But four of these — or 23.5% — were fired from winning teams.

Since 1978, there have been 174 white head coaches who led a team for at least 16 games. Of these, only 12 — or 6.9% — were fired from a winning team. So black head coaches appear much more likely — relative to white head coaches — to be fired coming off a winning season.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/01/02/black-head-coaches-in-the-nfl-are-much-more-likely-to-be-fired-with-a-winning-record/#26a31ca11cb8

[Moby Ric 2058]

Great derail fellas.  Take this crap to the CR.

Back on track, KK is a wait and see.  I say he is way over his head, but I could be wrong.  His hire is due to Pat Mahomes success and AZ is thinking KK will be the next Andy Reid.  I see that logic.  But still think Kliff is in too deep.  He had no success at Tech, how would that transfer to success in the NFL?

[Huckleberry 32703]

16 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

I don't think it's necessarily a thinking of the better the player the better the coach, but pretty much every coach plays their sport at a higher level than high school, so if that's the pool for potential coaches I'm assuming the demographics would be different than the general population.

Pointing out that front offices have a terrible track record of hiring coaches isn't that instructive, though. Why has pretty much every coach played after high school? It's not because there aren't people who stopped after high school who would make great coaches. My entire question is about the illogical shrinking of the candidate pool to those who played at the highest level. You've essentially just rephrased the issue I'm asking about - why is that assumed to be the candidate pool? Look at the best coach in the recent era of football, Bill Belichick. He played small college ball, never even sniffed the NFL. And playing for Wesleyan for a couple of years barely rates as playing college ball.

I get that it relates to the number of people who are actively trying to be coaches, but that also assumes that the same percentage of black players try to get into coaching as white players. Is that the case?

[Huckleberry 32703]

5 minutes ago, Moby Ric said:

Great derail fellas.  Take this crap to the CR.

Back on track, KK is a wait and see.  I say he is way over his head, but I could be wrong.  His hire is due to Pat Mahomes success and AZ is thinking KK will be the next Andy Reid.  I see that logic.  But still think Kliff is in too deep.  He had no success at Tech, how would that transfer to success in the NFL?

He's been hired now, you could start a 2019 Arizona Cardinals thread. The ongoing public discourse regarding Kingsbury's ability to get an NFL job is fair game for this thread.

[Valmy77 13094]

4 minutes ago, Moby Ric said:

Great derail fellas.  Take this crap to the CR.

Back on track, KK is a wait and see.  I say he is way over his head, but I could be wrong.  His hire is due to Pat Mahomes success and AZ is thinking KK will be the next Andy Reid.  I see that logic.  But still think Kliff is in too deep.  He had no success at Tech, how would that transfer to success in the NFL?

Andy Reid has several years as a successful NFL assistant coach before he was hired as a head coach. Are they under the impression that experience was not important for Andy Reid to become a success? I don't think AZ is thinking about Andy Reid at all. Why did you make this comparison?

[Moby Ric 2058]

1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

Andy Reid has several years as a successful NFL assistant coach before he was hired as a head coach. Are they under the impression that experience was not important for Andy Reid to become a success? I don't think AZ is thinking about Andy Reid at all. Why did you make this comparison?

Don't get me wrong, I think its is an irresponsible move by AZ.  KK does not have the experience.  I made the comparison because Andy is an offensive guru that is having huge success right now with Mahomes, a QB Kliff found and groomed.  Not to mention the other QB's that Kliff has put in the NFL.  KK is being looked at as the next offensive guru by NFL teams, so I think AZ sees KK as the next Andy Reid.  It's just my opinion.

[Valmy77 13094]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

He's been hired now, you could start a 2019 Arizona Cardinals thread. The ongoing public discourse regarding Kingsbury's ability to get an NFL job is fair game for this thread.

We have a sample size of two dudes who were handed NFL Head Coaching jobs for no good reason way before they were ready: Kiffin and Kliff. I guess it makes sense to look at what they have in common. But, again, there are only two.

Quote

There is also evidence that black head coaches are currently held to a higher standard than white head coaches in the NFL.

If we are looking at how coaches are currently being treated than why is the sample from 1978? Also I am not sure we can come to that conclusion based on one data point only.

I mean...it wouldn't surprise me but I am just saying.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Valmy77

[sushihorn 3233]

11 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/01/02/black-head-coaches-in-the-nfl-are-much-more-likely-to-be-fired-with-a-winning-record/#26a31ca11cb8

Quote

When we look at the 16 coaches who were fired from winning teams, though, something immediately jumps out. Four of these coaches — Art Shell, Tony Dungy, Lovie Smith and now Caldwell — were black.

Dungy is the only guy out of that group that was clearly a good coach.  The rest are basically Jeff Fisher, now available in black.

Dungy was fired because TB kept making early exits in the playoffs, basically the same reason Tony Romo lost his job.  Dungy's subsequent performance at Indy makes the decision look stupid in hindsight but that data was obviously not available at the time and it's also hard to argue that replacing him with Gruden was a bad decision.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

Does a conference championship game really count as an early exit?

[Valmy77 13094]

It seems crazy to me to fire any NFL coach with a winning record. But then I am a Redskins fan.

Smith, Shell, and Dungy were long tenured coaches at least and all would get jobs afterwards. Caldwell will be retread as well. He was before.

Why did Detroit fire him? That seems particularly undeserved considering he is coaching a cursed team.

 

[Burt Macklin 18998]

11 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

Dungy is the only guy out of that group that was clearly a good coach.  The rest are basically Jeff Fisher, now available in black.

Dungy was fired because TB kept making early exits in the playoffs, basically the same reason Tony Romo lost his job.  Dungy's subsequent performance at Indy makes the decision look stupid in hindsight but that data was obviously not available at the time and it's also hard to argue that replacing him with Gruden was a bad decision.

I'd also add that the Glazers are notorious for having a short leash with coaches. They're morons who fire coaches too early all the time regardless of race. 

[sushihorn 3233]

6 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Does a conference championship game really count as an early exit?

Nah.  It's the wild card round losses that really stung.  No way they should even have been in the WC round in 2000, much less getting blown out by Philly.  Too much talent not to win the division over Minnesota.  That was a sick defense Sapp and John Lynch.  9 pro bowlers.

[po elvis 2070]

29 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

There is also evidence that black head coaches are currently held to a higher standard than white head coaches in the NFL.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/01/02/black-head-coaches-in-the-nfl-are-much-more-likely-to-be-fired-with-a-winning-record/#26a31ca11cb8

The number of black head coaches have gone up at a time where coaches are more likely to be fired at a much earlier point then they would have in the past. The writer needs to take that into consideration.

[futureman 22415]

the majority of NFL players are black, and yet they make up less than 20% of the population.  why are there not more white players on NFL rosters?  seriously.  

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

14 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Pointing out that front offices have a terrible track record of hiring coaches isn't that instructive, though. Why has pretty much every coach played after high school? It's not because there aren't people who stopped after high school who would make great coaches. My entire question is about the illogical shrinking of the candidate pool to those who played at the highest level. You've essentially just rephrased the issue I'm asking about - why is that assumed to be the candidate pool? Look at the best coach in the recent era of football, Bill Belichick. He played small college ball, never even sniffed the NFL. And playing for Wesleyan for a couple of years barely rates as playing college ball.

I get that it relates to the number of people who are actively trying to be coaches, but that also assumes that the same percentage of black players try to get into coaching as white players. Is that the case?

I agree.  No one even knows what a justifiable number should be or why that number is even justified. 

As far as the shrinking pool, I think the general logic is people who played more were just exposed to more football than anyone else and therefore knew the game better.  30 years ago that likely was a fair conclusion as there weren't really any avenues to study the game like there are today.

[Brothahorn 10085]

Dale's daughter banging black buys in college has had an odd effect on him.

Only on Surly does banging black guys lead to rape.

This is why I think KK could possibly be more successful at the pro level than the college level. It's an offense-driven league at this point, and he should be able to produce good offenses. At Tech he had to lure defensive players to Lubbock via recruiting (which he apparently wasn't very good at); in the NFL they don't have a choice. So if they have a competent GM, who not only ensures that they draft quality players but also ensures that they have a competent defensive coaching staff...I could see it. But who knows. 

Is this the same competent GM that hired Steve Wilks.

The whole qb whisper thing is a myth. Mahomes had a year of NFL coaching with a noted offensive guy in Reid. Manziel sucked ass and Mayfield spent two years with Riley.

Hell Steve Spurrier had some pretty good college QBs, but look at their pro careers. This hire is just throwing shit on the wall and Hoping it sticks.

[po elvis 2070]

i applaud for NFL teams throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks versus the old practice of hiring the old retreads that sucked at 4 different NFL head coaching jobs.

[Parliament 14138]

He just hired deposed, DESPISED, former Ohio State LB coach for the same role.

Not
A
Good
Hire
At
All

[baboso 6050]

4 hours ago, Moby Ric said:

Great derail fellas.  Take this crap to the CR.

Back on track, KK is a wait and see.  I say he is way over his head, but I could be wrong.  His hire is due to Pat Mahomes success and AZ is thinking KK will be the next Andy Reid.  I see that logic.  But still think Kliff is in too deep.  He had no success at Tech, how would that transfer to success in the NFL?

Well, you see he's the anti-Saban.  Nick won a MNC at LSU and was wooed away by the Miami Dolphins and shit the bed.

So, success in college means you won't be a good NFL HC.  Failing as a college HC equates to great success as a NFL HC.

Simple, really.

[Valmy77 13094]

I just realized one of the other NFL head coaches to be fired after a winning season was John Mackovic. Well it should be an honor just to be mentioned in the same breath as him.

[Brothahorn 10085]

1 hour ago, po elvis said:

i applaud for NFL teams throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks versus the old practice of hiring the old retreads that sucked at 4 different NFL head coaching jobs.

Well, they don't have to go with the old retreads. If you are going to throw shit on the wall might as well grab an NFL assistant(Kitchens, Taylor). Not a spare ass college coach, that got fired.

[Dnaguy 11777]

4 hours ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

Isn't it between their legs? 

I belive there are quite a few BBC documentatries on this subject.