Thread: Educate me on the New HC options. Who do we want and why?

I read your post. You're not showing me anything I don't understand my friend. Here's the thing, you can have something in common with a coach and still be radically different.

What you're missing is that you can be 100% factual in your words--you are--and still have a comparison that doesn't find many things in common. You're using the 'comparison' to find things in common. There's barely any once you get to the specifics. Because you're using comparison to essentially say "look what they have in common," and there's little, then it's a bad comparison. I might use the comparison to show how there's little in common. That would be a good comparison.

There is a world of difference between their success. Reid was arguably a HoF coach when he left Philly. Quinn isn't that. They don't have similar winning percentages, deep playoff runs, they coach opposite sides of the ball, one is a true blue player's coach and the other more is more laced up. That comparison shows massive differences.

They both lost a SB. Yes, they did. How indicative is that of their similarities? Well, https://www.profootballhof.com/news/super-bowl-coaches/ lists all the losing HC's. How much in common does that SB loss show commonality between Quinn and Bud Grant, or Gregg, or Carrol, or Martz, etc.? It is more specific than 'well they're both head coaches' but it doesn't speak to commonality.

Your comparison, to show commonality between AR and DQ is akin to apples and oranges.

Reid sucks. KC needs to fire him.

Originally Posted by King87

I read your post. You're not showing me anything I don't understand my friend. Here's the thing, you can have something in common with a coach and still be radically different.

What you're missing is that you can be 100% factual in your words--you are--and still have a comparison that doesn't find many things in common. You're using the 'comparison' to find things in common. There's barely any once you get to the specifics. Because you're using comparison to essentially say "look what they have in common," and there's little, then it's a bad comparison. I might use the comparison to show how there's little in common. That would be a good comparison.

There is a world of difference between their success. Reid was arguably a HoF coach when he left Philly. Quinn isn't that. They don't have similar winning percentages, deep playoff runs, they coach opposite sides of the ball, one is a true blue player's coach and the other more is more laced up. That comparison shows massive differences.

They both lost a SB. Yes, they did. How indicative is that of their similarities? Well, https://www.profootballhof.com/news/super-bowl-coaches/ lists all the losing HC's. How much in common does that SB loss show commonality between Quinn and Bud Grant, or Gregg, or Carrol, or Martz, etc.? It is more specific than 'well they're both head coaches' but it doesn't speak to commonality.

Your comparison, to show commonality between AR and DQ is akin to apples and oranges.

Reid has been an established head coach for a number of years with a good track record. How many years has Dan Quinn been a head coach? Not long enough if I have to ask. I don’t even remember him being the head coach of the Atlanta Falcons

Originally Posted by King87

I read your post. You're not showing me anything I don't understand my friend. Here's the thing, you can have something in common with a coach and still be radically different.

What you're missing is that you can be 100% factual in your words--you are--and still have a comparison that doesn't find many things in common. You're using the 'comparison' to find things in common. There's barely any once you get to the specifics. Because you're using comparison to essentially say "look what they have in common," and there's little, then it's a bad comparison. I might use the comparison to show how there's little in common. That would be a good comparison.

There is a world of difference between their success. Reid was arguably a HoF coach when he left Philly. Quinn isn't that. They don't have similar winning percentages, deep playoff runs, they coach opposite sides of the ball, one is a true blue player's coach and the other more is more laced up. That comparison shows massive differences.

They both lost a SB. Yes, they did. How indicative is that of their similarities? Well, https://www.profootballhof.com/news/super-bowl-coaches/ lists all the losing HC's. How much in common does that SB loss show commonality between Quinn and Bud Grant, or Gregg, or Carrol, or Martz, etc.? It is more specific than 'well they're both head coaches' but it doesn't speak to commonality.

Your comparison, to show commonality between AR and DQ is akin to apples and oranges.

Beating a dead horse here, but I'll point out once again that I specifically pointed out the commonalities upon which I was commenting. If you would have said "you're right but I think it's a flawed comparison", or something to that effect, and elaborated on that, I'd have probably agreed with you. But you said "there's no comparison", which is factually incorrect. They both went to a Super Bowl, and they both lost that one Super Bowl, on the first team they coached. They were both later fired when the team they coach regressed. Hey, look! A comparison!

Now, you may ask why I chose Andy Reid. It's because I was responding to Horsepower's post:

True, but great teams rarely change coaches. New head coaches normally end up on bad teams, just like #1 overall picks. Just because they failed in their first attempt on a bad team doesn’t mean they’re a bad coach. If that was the case guys like Shanahan, Bellicheat, and Andy Reid would’ve never gotten a second chance and wouldn’t have SB rings.


So there's your context.

Originally Posted by dogfish

kyle shanahan was the driving force behind atlanta's super bowl run. . . quinn was below mediocre after shanny left. . .

Quinn got Thomas Dmitroff’d. After that Super Bowl, they were in such cap hell that they had to dismantle the majority of the team that got them there (Like Tevin Campbell and Devonte Freeman) to afford the huge contracts he was paying to Ryan and Julio Jones. If Quinn wasn’t a good coach, they wouldn’t have made it to the Super Bowl. It wasn’t all Shanahan. Quinn made chicken soup out of a chicken poop defense whose stars were such juggernauts as Vic Beasley and Adrian Clayborn. I think it’s unfair to give Shanny Jr all the credit for Atlanta’s successes and only hold Quinn accountable for their failures. That’s like giving Shanny Jr props for all of SF successes the year they went to the Super Bowl even though it was their defense that got them there.

Wins and losses are a team sport. There are lots of coaches out there who people clamor about who’ve never coached a team to a Super Bowl, even as a coordinator. John Fox, for example, gets a lot of ire from people for Fox ball or whatever, but he did coach 2 completely different teams to Super Bowls. Everyone seems to wanna suck on McVay’s crank all the time, but he’s got the most expensive/mercenary/non-drafted/non-sustainable roster in the league and he hasn’t won a Super Bowl. He got them there once and then his supposed unbeatable, innovative offense couldn’t even score a TD. He bombed out just like Shanny Jr and like, dare I say, Fox and Quinn. If McVay or Shanny Jr were available, I’m sure everyone would be pounding the table for them, though. Because they’re innovative? They have the same track record as Quinn right now.

Quinn, 51, has generously given Moore advice about the process. Sources tell us he and Paton are "already on the same page'' regarding a vision for the Broncos.


https://www.si.com/nfl/cowboys/news/...e-george-paton

I know it sounds like I’m trying defend Quinn and rally for him or something, I’m not. He is the only guy with DC in his title that might be a decent hire for us, but he’s not who I want. I’ve already stated I want pretty much anyone with a background in offense over him. I’ve prepared myself for him to be the new HC, though. I’m not gonna re-write history to run him down, either.

Nor will I make up bullshit like certain folks are doing with Andy Reid who was “always the bridesmaid and never the bride” for 2 decades until he finally lucked into Mahomes. Reid was almost a running joke in Philly and the league. He was Dick Vermiel pre Kurt Warner with less crying. Essentially, he was just like he’s been in KC. A great offensive mind who isn’t a great HC. He has the exact same problems that Fangio did. He focuses on his side of the ball and the rest of the team management goes to shit. There’s all this revisionist history about how great Fat Andy was in Philly now that he finally won a chip with KC. He was fired for the same reason as Fangio, only for the first decade of his coaching career he had a franchise QB in McNabb and had a great DC in Jim Johnson to keep the other side of the ball respectable.

It seems to me like the same people in the media telling us Quinn is all but a done deal are the same people that were telling is there's a good chance Fangio would be retained as HC. I won't believe any of it until Paton introduces us to our new HC. He's been pretty tight lipped and I have a hard time believing all these people speculating know what Paton is planning on doing.

Originally Posted by HORSEPOWER 56

I know it sounds like I’m trying defend Quinn and rally for him or something, I’m not. He is the only guy with DC in his title that might be a decent hire for us, but he’s not who I want. I’ve already stated I want pretty much anyone with a background in offense over him. I’ve prepared myself for him to be the new HC, though. I’m not gonna re-write history to run him down, either.

Nor will I make up bullshit like certain folks are doing with Andy Reid who was “always the bridesmaid and never the bride” for 2 decades until he finally lucked into Mahomes. Reid was almost a running joke in Philly and the league. He was Dick Vermiel pre Kurt Warner with less crying. Essentially, he was just like he’s been in KC. A great offensive mind who isn’t a great HC. He has the exact same problems that Fangio did. He focuses on his side of the ball and the rest of the team management goes to shit. There’s all this revisionist history about how great Fat Andy was in Philly now that he finally won a chip with KC. He was fired for the same reason as Fangio, only for the first decade of his coaching career he had a franchise QB in McNabb and had a great DC in Jim Johnson to keep the other side of the ball respectable.

Good post, and good point on Reid. I lived in the Philadelphia media market during his Eagles tenure (and still do) and you are 100% correct. The Philly media and fans were very much done with him well before he was fired. It is interesting how narratives evolve!

Originally Posted by Mozzafiato

Beating a dead horse here, but I'll point out once again that I specifically pointed out the commonalities upon which I was commenting. If you would have said "you're right but I think it's a flawed comparison", or something to that effect, and elaborated on that, I'd have probably agreed with you. But you said "there's no comparison", which is factually incorrect. They both went to a Super Bowl, and they both lost that one Super Bowl, on the first team they coached. They were both later fired when the team they coach regressed. Hey, look! A comparison!

Now, you may ask why I chose Andy Reid. It's because I was responding to Horsepower's post:

True, but great teams rarely change coaches. New head coaches normally end up on bad teams, just like #1 overall picks. Just because they failed in their first attempt on a bad team doesn’t mean they’re a bad coach. If that was the case guys like Shanahan, Bellicheat, and Andy Reid would’ve never gotten a second chance and wouldn’t have SB rings.


So there's your context.

Originally Posted by king87

Fight me!!!

Originally Posted by Mozzafiato

Fight me!!!

But...we're supposed to love one another.

I would rather have a retread like Belichick, Reid, Carrol, or Mike Shanahan than an unproven first timer "with fresh ideas" like Fangio, Joseph, and McDaniels. Even Kyle Shanahan is still unproven with a losing record after 5 years.

Originally Posted by MasterShake

We may have only had success with retreads because Elway and Manning were our QBs during their tenures. My biggest fear is that until we get our QB situation figured out, we are going to struggle regardless of who we pick at coach. Even Belichick floundered with subpar QB play last year and you see the stats for Kyle Shannahan with and without Jimmy G its amazing, and he's just an average QB!

Manning is not really why Kubiak had success. He only had 9 TDs and 17 INTs with 59% completion in 2015. He sucked. Kubiak may have won the SB with the worst QB in history, but he did have Oz in the most important regular season games that clinched home field advantage in the playoffs. Defense and home field were more important factors in the SB 50 run than Peyton and his 12 yard duck passes.