Andy Reid

[rmontro]

Andy Reid has won two of the last four Super Bowls. He's had a heck of a talented team though. Anyone want to argue that we should have promoted him to head coach back in the day?

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Andy's great, my guess is if we hired him and stuck with him we'd have a few more banners and rings. Andy beating the Eagles in the Superbowl was pretty cool, especially as it was a come from behind victory.

 

[PackerDNA]

Andy Reid has won two of the last four Super Bowls. He's had a heck of a talented team though. Anyone want to argue that we should have promoted him to head coach back in the day?

Maybe I missed it, but I always wondered why after Holmgren left after the 98 season that we didn't promote Reid to head coach.

 

[OldSchool101]

Andy's great, my guess is if we hired him and stuck with him we'd have a few more banners and rings. Andy beating the Eagles in the Superbowl was pretty cool, especially as it was a come from behind victory.

That’s 2 Superbowls where Reid entered the 4th Qtr a TD or more behind and won in regulation

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Maybe I missed it, but I always wondered why after Holmgren left after the 98 season that we didn't promote Reid to head coach.

Rhodes probably had the stronger resume, he was a former coach of the year. Hiring from within what was a stacked coaching tree makes way more sense in hindsight.

 

[tynimiller]

After the fact is always an easy game to play and seem intelligent. Fact is at the time many didn’t feel he was the stronger candidate.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I think the biggest issue was losing Holmgren after not letting him be HC/GM (he was a ****** GM from what I recall with Seattle, happy to be corrected). If Holmgren stays I think we also have more rings. And probably no Aaron Rodgers but you never know. Favre may have led to some cardiovascular events with Holmgren or Reid if they stuck around longer though, lol.

 

[Mondio]

I think the biggest issue was losing Holmgren after not letting him be HC/GM (he was a ****** GM from what I recall with Seattle, happy to be corrected). If Holmgren stays I think we also have more rings. And probably no Aaron Rodgers but you never know. Favre may have led to some cardiovascular events with Holmgren or Reid if they stuck around longer though, lol.

you're probably right. He drove those guys nuts

 

[OldSchool101]

Rhodes probably had the stronger resume, he was a former coach of the year. Hiring from within what was a stacked coaching tree makes way more sense in hindsight.

It’s possible they didn’t see the ultimate potential.
Reid had absolutely zero OC or DC experience which had never happened to that date. Reid would also be the 2nd youngest HC in the NFL behind Jon Gruden. Also the Eagles had lobbied hard to attain Reid. They were looking for a detail oriented Coach and the guy showed up at the initial interview with massive Ring Binder with intricate plans on how he would transform the franchise. The Eagles were looking for detailed and in walks Reid, who is the epitome of detailed.

So to summarize, Reid was a relative unknown, not the Reid we know today He fit exactly what the Eagles were looking for after having a more unorganized coach in Rhodes.

 

[LambeauLombardi]

I think the biggest issue was losing Holmgren after not letting him be HC/GM (he was a ****** GM from what I recall with Seattle, happy to be corrected). If Holmgren stays I think we also have more rings. And probably no Aaron Rodgers but you never know. Favre may have led to some cardiovascular events with Holmgren or Reid if they stuck around longer though, lol.

It took some time but in hindsight he turned out to be a solid GM. Steve Hutchinson, Shaun Alexander, and Matt Hasselbeck were all his moves and probably the 3 of the 4 biggest pieces (Walter Jones too) that the 05 team had that made he SB.

Chmura is the source for this but as others have said Holmgren basically was relaying orders to Mariucci, Reid and other assistants to Favre because he felt like he pushed Favre as much as he could and didn't want Favre to completely block him out. But this type of thing isn't uncommon at all with coaches and superstars. To a different level, Phil Jackson did this with Shaq and Kobe.

 

[LambeauLombardi]

Andy Reid has won two of the last four Super Bowls. He's had a heck of a talented team though. Anyone want to argue that we should have promoted him to head coach back in the day?

I have asked this many times and have never found a great answer. I was a kid at the time and wasn't following the off season too closely. We probably beat Phily on 4th and 26 game in 03 playoffs and potentially end in Super Bowl vs New England at the very least. Favre with Reid transitioning Rodgers with Reid would have been a deadly combo. But the current Chiefs GM (I believe) says he likes Reid so much because he isn't overcontrolling in the draft, he let's the GM do their job. I wish our GM's plan and our head coach's game plan coincided more like KC (shrug)

 

[rmontro]

I wish our GM's plan and our head coach's game plan coincided more like KC (shrug)

I'm sure a lot of teams around the league do. KC seems to have caught lightning in a bottle.

 

[Mondio]

I'm sure a lot of teams around the league do. KC seems to have caught lightning in a bottle.

It also helps to have guys who execute it well. Their Oline, their QB, their RB, their WR's their TE, all making the plays they're supposed to make. No missed blocks with free rushers every series. No dropped balls coupled with some pretty good catches to constantly create positive yards. No penalties, TE's who get yac for big plays and first downs, etc. and that's just the offensive side of the ball.

 

[Scotland Yard]

I believe Ron Wolf publicly admitted it was perhaps his biggest mistake hiring Rhodes instead of Reid.

Likewise, Wolf blew it again a year later by hiring Mike Sherman instead of Marty Schottenheimer (who wanted the job). Between 1986 and 1997 Schottenheimer posted nine double-digit winning seasons as HC at CLE and KC, including 13 win seasons in 1995 and 1997. His fatal flaw was losing three AFC Conference Championship games, so, Wolf tried Sherman instead. Sherman never even made it past the divisional round.

I've always mused over what might have been if Favre had Reid or Schottenheimer, and a WR like say...

Randy Moss. In 1998 Wolf traded up from #29 to #19 and drafted DE Vonnie Holliday. Moss went two picks later to MIN. Holliday was a good player, but, never made a pro bowl...Moss of course is a Hall of Famer. I was furious that day as I believed Moss was a top-five pick who had fallen into the Packers' lap and was the reason they traded up. Alas, Ron Wolf wanted a replacement for the aging Reggie White.

Much like the Packers did with Rodgers, they just refused to use high draft assets on WR's, thereby wasting most of two Hall of Fame QB's careers.

Anyway, hard to imagine Reid, Favre and Moss together in GB not capturing a Super Bowl ring or two.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm sure a lot of teams around the league do. KC seems to have caught lightning in a bottle.

Yeah much of success is about the timing. There’s dozens of Andy Reid’s out there that never made it past High School coaching for a variety of reasons. I often wonder how many guys played or coached football but missed key opportunities and we don’t know their names. Reid is a great Coach, but he should be thankful that God put him in positions to succeed. It can all get yanked away in a NY minute.

 

[pacmaniac]

I think the biggest issue was losing Holmgren after not letting him be HC/GM (he was a ****** GM from what I recall with Seattle, happy to be corrected). If Holmgren stays I think we also have more rings.

And after they fired Rhodes, they let Sherman be HC/GM.

 

[rmontro]

It also helps to have guys who execute it well. Their Oline, their QB, their RB, their WR's their TE, all making the plays they're supposed to make. No missed blocks with free rushers every series. No dropped balls coupled with some pretty good catches to constantly create positive yards. No penalties, TE's who get yac for big plays and first downs, etc. and that's just the offensive side of the ball.

Sometimes I think if you put together good enough of an offense, the defense will not only get more rest, they'll get caught up in the success and play harder. Of course, if you look at our 2011 team, our offense was crazy good but that didn't exactly work out for us. It was a fun season though, until the end.

Alas, Ron Wolf wanted a replacement for the aging Reggie White.

There is no replacement for Reggie White.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It also helps to have guys who execute it well. Their Oline, their QB, their RB, their WR's their TE, all making the plays they're supposed to make. No missed blocks with free rushers every series. No dropped balls coupled with some pretty good catches to constantly create positive yards. No penalties, TE's who get yac for big plays and first downs, etc. and that's just the offensive side of the ball.

I agree. It's the responsibilty of the general manager to find players that are able to execute the scheme at a high level.

There's no doubt the Chiefs have done a better job in that regard as the Packers lately.

Sometimes I think if you put together good enough of an offense, the defense will not only get more rest, they'll get caught up in the success and play harder. Of course, if you look at our 2011 team, our offense was crazy good but that didn't exactly work out for us. It was a fun season though, until the end..

Actually that hasn't worked out for the Packers when they had an elite offense since 2011. They ranked in the top 10 in scoring seven times over that period, leading the league three times but never had a top 10 scoring defense in any of those seasons.

 

[pacmaniac]

Sometimes I think if you put together good enough of an offense, the defense will not only get more rest, they'll get caught up in the success and play harder.

During the mid 90s, I heard people say the Packers offense was too good and it hurt their defense. The offense would score too quickly, which meant the defense would have to get back on the field without much of a break and end up getting exhausted.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

During the mid 90s, I heard people say the Packers offense was too good and it hurt their defense. The offense would score too quickly, which meant the defense would have to get back on the field without much of a break and end up getting exhausted.

I actually don't put any stock into that as the defense is allowed to get off the field quick as well.

 

[pacmaniac]

I actually don't put any stock into that as the defense is allowed to get off the field quick as well.

You are talking about the opponent's defense? I am talking about the Packers' defense.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Andy Reid has won two of the last four Super Bowls. He's had a heck of a talented team though. Anyone want to argue that we should have promoted him to head coach back in the day?

This is now and that was back then ! Do you seriously believe he could have done any different with the players we have now ?? I`m sorry but your comment carries no credit at all. No offence intended. He was learning his craft then.

 

[rmontro]

I`m sorry but your comment carries no credit at all. No offence intended. He was learning his craft then.

I wasn't advocating anything really, I'm just asking what I think is a fun question. If we had hired Reid, it would have been in the late '90s, so I think it's very unlikely he would still be our coach today. So it doesn't really have anything to do with the current team. The real question is would he have done as well or better than Rhodes, Sherman, and/or McCarthy?

As for him just learning his craft, he went from Green Bay directly to being head coach of the Eagles, so it's not like he wasn't ready to be a head coach. And he did a pretty decent job with the Eagles.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You are talking about the opponent's defense? I am talking about the Packers' defense.

??? The Packers defense is allowed to get off the field quick as well.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I wasn't advocating anything really, I'm just asking what I think is a fun question. If we had hired Reid, it would have been in the late '90s, so I think it's very unlikely he would still be our coach today. So it doesn't really have anything to do with the current team. The real question is would he have done as well or better than Rhodes, Sherman, and/or McCarthy?

As for him just learning his craft, he went from Green Bay directly to being head coach of the Eagles, so it's not like he wasn't ready to be a head coach. And he did a pretty decent job with the Eagles.