2018 NFL Coaching Carousel

Vinho Tinto

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 9, 2003
7,047
Auburn, MA
The fine print they omitted from the last 2 points would be:

0-7

Hue Jackson, Vance Joseph
What does Jackson and Joseph have anything to
do with Lewis?

I am torn about Lewis. Brown gives him some good players but there are a lot of headcases on that team. Brown has never spent enough to make them better especially in a division with the Steelers and Ravens.
I have zero doubt in my mind that Lewis has a strong hand in their drafting. Brown’s drafts prior to Lewis were consistently among the worst in the league.

I’ll say this again: IMO Lewis has done a brilliant job considering what a handicap his owner gives him. There is irony that his owner’s frugality has given Lewis a long leash, but he deserves it considering the Bengals went without a winning season from 1991 until he did it in 2005.
 
Last edited:

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,333
I have zero doubt in my mind that Lewis has a strong hand in their drafting. Brown’s drafts prior to Lewis were consistently among the worst in the league
They’re not drafting Akili Smith and Peter Warrick in the top five anymore (although the early returns on Ross aren’t good), but their ‘14 and ‘15 drafts (and ‘13 to an extent) are a large reason of why they are where they are.

I’ll say this again: IMO Lewis has done a brilliant job considering what a handicap his owner gives him. There is irony that his owner’s frugality has given Lewis a long leash, but he deserves it considering the Bengals went without a winning season from 1991 until he did it in 2005.
I had no problem bringing him back after 2010 when any other coach would’ve been fired. We’re seven years later now, he still hasn’t won a playoff game and his results have been poor for the last two years.

There’s no doubt Brown is a bigger problem and whoever they bring in may not be an upgrade. That being said, I’m willing to take my chances at this point.

Edit: The reboot in 2011 was about the roster while apparently this reboot is about the coaching staff. Unfortunately, it seems that Bill Lazor is going to stay as OC and DC Paul Guenther is leaving for Oakland. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they bring in Del Rio for DC (he and Marvin are longtime friends) which would be a pretty terrible choice.
 
Last edited:

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
6,055
I came to this thread to make sure ESPN wasn't onioning their headlines.

The Marvin Lewis extension is one of the most amazing things in life.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
What does Jackson and Joseph have anything to
do with Lewis?
They both coached under him and, so far, haven't done very well, and the spin from the Bengals was about his coaching tree.
 
Last edited:

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
I heard some radio guy insisting Sean Payton is going to the Giants based on his super-secret inside information. So I'll call McD to the Saints based on nothing.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Lewis is an above-average coach, so the next coach Cincy hires will probably be worse ... but if your goal as an organization is to win a championship, you can't keep rolling out Lewis / Dalton. Maybe the Bengals just care about kind of competing, in which case standing pat is probably the right move. But they aren't serious contenders without a change.
There’s an unusual number of openings this year; seemingly every head coach besides Lewis and Hue Jackson who was even sort-of on the hot seat got sacked. Cincy would not have been among the more enticing openings. So if the Bengals’ FO read the situation the same way you do, what they did makes tons of sense (both the decision to give Lewis another year, and their slowness in reaching that decision).

Personally, I would’ve sacked Lewis midseason and told the interim coach to start AJ McCarron. But having decided not to do that, I can see the logic in kicking the can down the road.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
Conor Orr continues to distinguish himself

Still, given Gruden’s place in the current football landscape—he is a wildly popular analyst on ESPN’s “Monday Night Football,” and his hands-on evaluations of collegiate quarterback prospects have become must-see television during the draft process—luring him away from one of the cushiest jobs in media would be a gargantuan hire at a time when the franchise is planning to leave Oakland and start anew in Las Vegas after next season.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/01/02/jon-gruden-oakland-raiders-head-coach-rooney-rule
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
I get this if you're talking about the 2011 Packers that went 15-1 and scored 560 points, but the 2014 team? 10 points better than everyone else is clearly hyperbole; they lost to the Seahawks twice, split with Detroit, and barely got out of the divisional round. You could argue the Patriots were better than Green Bay on offense, defense, and special teams that season, though I certainly wasn't looking forward to seeing Rodgers in the playoffs (Seattle was a pretty scary opponent, too, of course).
No, no you can't. It is awesome how you mention the week 3 game against Detroit, but fail to mention the week 13 game where Green Bay punted once, scored the first five times they had the ball, possessed the ball for 36+ minutes and outgained the Pats 478-320.

The other incredible play from that strange NFC Championship game in Seattle that this conversation reminds me of is Morgan Burnett going down after intercepting Wilson when he had 30+ yards of open field in front of him. The incredible Super Bowl that followed will always overshadow it, but next to the 98 Vikings, I don't think any team choked away a Lombardi as clearly as that Packers team did.

We need to revisit this conversation during the dark, football free days of May or June- "Greatest teams to choke in the playoffs" or "Lombardi's that never happened"
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
No, no you can't. It is awesome how you mention the week 3 game against Detroit, but fail to mention the week 13 game where Green Bay punted once, scored the first five times they had the ball, possessed the ball for 36+ minutes and outgained the Pats 478-320.
Yeah, the Packers won by 5 in Green Bay. They were a really good team. You could still argue the Patriots were better on offense (where they scored more points prior to a Week 17 game that didn't matter because they'd already locked up the 1 seed; they also scored way more points in the playoffs), allowed fewer points and yards on defense, and had better kicking and punting. The Patriots finished with the same record (even after punting on Week 17) and a better point differential. I stand by what I wrote.

If you want to argue GB was better than the Patriots, there's an argument there, but you said 10 points better than everyone else in the league, which seems pretty hyperbolic.

The other incredible play from that strange NFC Championship game in Seattle that this conversation reminds me of is Morgan Burnett going down after intercepting Wilson when he had 30+ yards of open field in front of him. The incredible Super Bowl that followed will always overshadow it, but next to the 98 Vikings, I don't think any team choked away a Lombardi as clearly as that Packers team did.
That Burnett play was nuts. There was also a two point play where Wilson threw just a prayer jump ball all the way across the field and a Seahawk came down with it. So much awful football by the Packers. They still would have had to beat NE though, who led the NFL in point differential. It wasn't like the Pats blowing the AFCCG in '07 and missing a chance to go against the Rex-Grossman-led Bears (or all the blown games in the Super Bowl by various teams).

That was a weird playoff where Detroit lost a heartbreaker to Dallas (when a key PI flag was picked up and never explained), Dallas then lost a heartbreaker to the Packers (that was the Dez "catch" game), then the Packers blew the game to Seattle, then Seattle blows the Super Bowl (in the AFC, you also had the Pats coming from 14 down against Baltimore twice).
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
No, no you can't. It is awesome how you mention the week 3 game against Detroit, but fail to mention the week 13 game where Green Bay punted once, scored the first five times they had the ball, possessed the ball for 36+ minutes and outgained the Pats 478-320.
The way I saw that game was that the Pats ended up on the GB 20-yard line with four minutes left and a chance to score the go-ahead TD in Green Bay. They didn't score and lost, which is a surprise to all of us alive during this century, but big whoop it happens. I would have been fine to take my chances with the Packers again this time on a neutral field since that Green Bay team, like so many Packers teams before and since, sucked outside of Lambeau. Of course it never happened because as soon as they left Green Bay they lost in the playoffs to give them a final road record of 4-5.

Edit: FYI over the past three years the Pats have a winning record when outgained (12-8).
 
Last edited:

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
It should be called the Al Davis rule. The Raiders are not "typically progressive," they are historically progressive relative to the rest of the NFL when it comes to hiring coaches and staff and drafting with diversity. The Raiders now have the only African American GM in the league (assuming Rick Smith is really gone), and are the only team to have had three minority head coaches (over 4 tenures) and had the highest ranking female (non owner) executive in league history.

Gruden has apparently reached out to USC(sort of) OC Tee Martin to be part of his staff, so it wouldn't surprise me if they interview him to meet the requirement. I hope someone asks Reggie McKenzie for his thoughts on the topic at the hiring press conference.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
It should be called the Al Davis rule. The Raiders are not "typically progressive," they are historically progressive relative to the rest of the NFL when it comes to hiring coaches and staff and drafting with diversity. The Raiders now have the only African American GM in the league (assuming Rick Smith is really gone), and are the only team to have had three minority head coaches (over 4 tenures) and had the highest ranking female (non owner) executive in league history.

Gruden has apparently reached out to USC(sort of) OC Tee Martin to be part of his staff, so it wouldn't surprise me if they interview him to meet the requirement. I hope someone asks Reggie McKenzie for his thoughts on the topic at the hiring press conference.
I think people fail to recognize that even sham “Rooney Rule” interviews elevate the profiles of the people of color who are selected for those interviews. I think this is an intended effect of the Rule.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
It should be called the Al Davis rule. The Raiders are not "typically progressive," they are historically progressive relative to the rest of the NFL when it comes to hiring coaches and staff and drafting with diversity. The Raiders now have the only African American GM in the league (assuming Rick Smith is really gone), and are the only team to have had three minority head coaches (over 4 tenures) and had the highest ranking female (non owner) executive in league history.

Gruden has apparently reached out to USC(sort of) OC Tee Martin to be part of his staff, so it wouldn't surprise me if they interview him to meet the requirement. I hope someone asks Reggie McKenzie for his thoughts on the topic at the hiring press conference.
Ozzie Newsome.

But the larger point stands.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
No, no you can't. It is awesome how you mention the week 3 game against Detroit, but fail to mention the week 13 game where Green Bay punted once, scored the first five times they had the ball, possessed the ball for 36+ minutes and outgained the Pats 478-320."
Football Outsiders would say the Patriots were the stronger team by weighted DVOA, 31.4% to 24.0%. Component-wise, they have the Patriots stronger on defense and special teams, with the Packers stronger on offense.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2014/final-2014-dvoa-ratings
 

kelpapa

Costanza's Hero
SoSH Member
Feb 15, 2010
4,638
I think people fail to recognize that even sham “Rooney Rule” interviews elevate the profiles of the people of color who are selected for those interviews. I think this is an intended effect of the Rule.
Agreed. Also, the experience of going through the interview itself is beneficial to the interviewee. That could prepare them for more serious interviews down the line.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
If you want to argue GB was better than the Patriots, there's an argument there, but you said 10 points better than everyone else in the league, which seems pretty hyperbolic.
That's a pretty charitable response. Taken at face value, it was probably one of the most preposterous statements ever made in this forum. Im not sure that ten point statement would be true about any team in the history of the NFL, certainly during the salary cap era. Never mind trying to apply it to the 2014 Packers, a team who squeaked by Dallas at home by the skin of a catch rule, went off as 8.5 point dogs in the NFC championship game, and probably would have gone off as betting line underdogs in the Super Bowl against a Patriots team they beat by 5 at home (if not, it would have been something around pick em at worst). I dont think the Pats have closed at 10 point underdogs in a game in like 15 years (maybe you could have found a few 10's at kickoff @ Arizona in the opener last year). May as well say the Earth is flat, it would be about as grounded in reality.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,433
I think people fail to recognize that even sham “Rooney Rule” interviews elevate the profiles of the people of color who are selected for those interviews. I think this is an intended effect of the Rule.
There was a pretty good discussion about this on ESPN, and it sounds like some AA coaches who feel they need more name recognition or experience (and thus aren't legit HC candidates yet) indeed find a "sham" interview helpful, while AA coaches who have good name recognition or are close to getting a HC job will not participate if it seems like the interview is for Rooney Rule purposes only.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
It's not--the Rooney Rule says minorities have to be interviewed for head coach and senior football ops jobs, but I assume an overwhelming percentage of those interviewed under this rule are African-American.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
I was asking nattysez why he's making the Rooney rule synonymous with African American coaches.

EDIT: Better yet, after rereading his post, it sounds like ESPN was?
Well there’s like one female position coach and I imagine very few Hispanic/Samoan coaches and even less Asian coaches, if not any. Technically it’s all minorities but 99.9% of the rule’s application has directly dealt with African Americans.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,826
Needham, MA
I think people fail to recognize that even sham “Rooney Rule” interviews elevate the profiles of the people of color who are selected for those interviews. I think this is an intended effect of the Rule.
This is exactly right. If you are implementing any kind of D&I program to deal with an underrepresentation of females or minorities in certain jobs, the first and most effective step you can take is to ensure you are always interviewing a diverse slate of candidates, regardless of whom you ultimately hire. It is a bit unusual in the case of the Raiders that candidates pretty much know that it is Gruden's job if he wants it, but generally speaking the Rooney Rule is a good thing even if in some cases people get fixated on "sham" interviews.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,433
I was asking nattysez why he's making the Rooney rule synonymous with African American coaches.

EDIT: Better yet, after rereading his post, it sounds like ESPN was?
The only coaches ESPN quoted/mentioned were AA, but I assume ESPN was more careful than I was in using "minority" rather than just AA when talking about this issue generally. For example, they do a good job of that here.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,620
Interesting to look at this article through the lens of minority coaching hires in the NFL:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21947511/nfl-head-coaching-candidates-hire-45-espn-analysts-rank-their-choices-jim-harbaugh-leads-way

The good news, is that David Shaw is the #2 guy on the list, and I imagine many owners would rather have a little less certainty with Shaw than deal with Harbaugh's drama.

The bad news is you get to #17 until you run into another non white guy in Teryl Austin.

Interesting list. I’d put Urban way higher. I also think Mangini is a notable absence. He was fine with the Jets and with no QB in Cleveland he beat the Pats, Steelers, and a good Saints team. Do the Browns have any wins that good since then?
 

Dr. Gonzo

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2010
5,213

Mularkey more than likely out with a Titans loss today. Titans will make a run at McDaniels.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
Hasn't McD always been fascinated with Mariota?

Also, Titans GM Jon Robinson is an ex-Pat.

Makes a lot of sense IMO.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,676
I just don’t get hiring people that've had mediocre success as coordinators into head coaching positions for teams in transition.
I agree. This is a poor hire in my opinion. Nagy didn't even start calling plays until like midway into this season. And his game plan against Tennessee was terrible. This screams terrible hire to me.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Hiring Nagy seems a lot like hiring Patricia, except that you’d obviously rather have a BB protege than an Andy Reid protege. (Though perhaps that’s debatable — BB’s coaching tree has been underwhelming.)

I’ve been fairly impressed at what the Chiefs have managed to do on offense given the limited talent on hand, so maybe this isn’t the worst hire.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I agree. This is a poor hire in my opinion. Nagy didn't even start calling plays until like midway into this season. And his game plan against Tennessee was terrible. This screams terrible hire to me.
I only had the game on in the background. What was wrong with the offensive game plan? They were up 21-3 at halftime, right?
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,676
I only had the game on in the background. What was wrong with the offensive game plan? They were up 21-3 at halftime, right?
Kareem Hunt ran the ball 11 times in that game. With an 18 point lead its time to start shorten the game with the leading rusher in the NFL and work the clock.
 

MillarTime

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
1,338
Hiring Nagy seems a lot like hiring Patricia, except that you’d obviously rather have a BB protege than an Andy Reid protege. (Though perhaps that’s debatable — BB’s coaching tree has been underwhelming.)

I’ve been fairly impressed at what the Chiefs have managed to do on offense given the limited talent on hand, so maybe this isn’t the worst hire.
Kareem Hunt, Tyreek Hill, Travis Kelce. After the Steelers (and probably the Pats), they might have the best trio of skill position players in the AFC. Giving Kareem Hunt 11 carries is inexcusable...downright malpractice when you consider they were up 21-3 at the half.