Post MM firing -- coaching search: who we want -- ALL threads merged

[Dantés]

This is way more information than anyone needs on my opinions re: coaches, but I want to think out loud.

Guys I Don't Want:

• Josh McDaniels, OC, NE: I understand the arguments in his favor: he's run a consistently great offense with a ton of creativity for a long time and he's had the experience of being a HC once already. However, his tenure in Denver was full of drama and then he was a total weasel this last offseason with IND. Plus the BB coaching tree is pretty much fruitless. Pass.
• Jim Harbaugh, HC, Michigan: I know he brings some great qualities as a head coach, but he also seems to be pretty unstable.
• Matt LaFleur, OC, TEN: He may prove in time to be a great offensive mind, but his first go at the helm hasn't been very impressive.
• College Only Coaches: I'm certainly not anti college experience, but I don't want any of the guys who have zero NFL background (i.e. Riley, Campbell, Kingsbury, Rhule, Stoops, etc.).
• David Shaw, HC, Stanford: Shaw is a college coach with a lot of NFL experience, but he's way too conservative for me-- I think he would have a lot of the same weaknesses as MM.
• Nick Saban, HC, Alabama: If you take away the recruiting advantage, I'm not sold that Saban would be a difference making HC and I don't know how pro's would react to his style.
• Defensive Coordinators: The reality of the NFL game is that it's skewed to the offense. It's hard to consistently field a great defense year over year. If my HC is going to bring a particular skill set, I think the maximum impact should ideally be on offense or as a well-connected, global team leader. This would rule out some guys like Kris Richard, George Edwards, Vic Fangio, Brian Flores, etc. I'd also pass on the defensive retreads (Del Rio, Schwartz, Bradley, Pagano).
• Rams Assistants: Zac Taylor and Shane Waldron are getting a lot of love, and it's easy to understand why, but I'm skeptical. McVay has completely handed over the defense and special teams to his respective coordinators. He is, essentially, a glorified OC. So I don't know that I trust his assistants because I am unsure of how much they actually have to do with that offense.

Outside the Box:

• Bruce Arians, Former HC, ARI: Rumor has him wanting back in the game. I'm sure he's not thinking of a long stint, so he might be a good option to team up with Rodgers for the back nine of his career. I think he would stand as great a chance as anyone getting AR back on track. Frankly, I would love the heck out of this.
  
• Dave Toub, ST/AHC, KC: Special teams coaches rarely get consideration for HC jobs, but Toub has been consistently excellent for a long time and deserves a look. He added the Assistant Head Coach title this year. He's spent so much time on great coaching staffs that I would trust him to be able to put together a great OC/DC tandem.

Offensive Coordinators I Like:

• Eric Bieniemy, KC: The RB coaching path has proved successful for the LAC offense-- why not in GB? Reid's coaching tree is excellent and Bieniemy seems ready. Perhaps a guy without the QB coach background doesn't butt heads with Rodgers as much?
• John DeFilippo, MIN: While the Vikings offense hasn't been great overall, he's gotten a ton out of their best talent (Cousins and the WR duo).
• Dan Campbell, NO: Technically not an OC (AHC/TE), but he has a little HC experience and has been around a stellar offense.

Unrealistic:

• John Harbaugh, HC, BAL: He would be my top choice, but I don't think he gets fired at this point.

So my realistic top 5:

1. B. Arians
2. E. Bieniemy
3. D. Toub
4. J. DeFilippo
5. D. Campbell

 

[Mondio]

Not a bad list

 

[Dantés]

HC: Bruce Arians
OC: Freddie Kitchens
DC: Keep Pettine OR (if Arians prefers not to) Todd Bowles

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Evidently, Gute really likes John Harbough. The advantage of hiring a guy like Harbough is he isn't just an offensive guy, I think he is more well rounded than some of the current OC's that people are throwing around. I think the OC that is brought in will almost be as equally if not more important of a hire, especially given what is reported to be going on with Rodgers.

 

[Mondio]

I'm not up on all the coaches or candidates. I think someone with some "street cred" is probably going to be needed. I think Dantes list is a pretty good one overall. I'm cool with the don't wants and like the wants. and as much as most fans won't want to hear it again, whoever it is, is going to have to get this team to focus on the fundamentals I watched Brady last night hit White, perfectly in stride with a LB'er in persuit at about 3,4 yards on a 3rd and 5, he ran for about 12 because he just kept on running. in contrast I see most of those type passes being short, behind, or otherwise requiring a big change of direction from the pass catcher in GB and it's incomplete or dropped or tackled where they stand. Poor oline play, etc.

Whoever the coach is, the biggest step is going to be getting those players to do the basics again, and do them well. Then go from there.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Whoever the coach is, the biggest step is going to be getting those players to do the basics again, and do them well. Then go from there.

I agree with you and call this a hangover effect from some pretty miserable drafts and personnel decisions by TT. As the talent got thinner at each position over the last several years, I think the coaching didn't adjust enough or wasn't good enough to really coach guys up and get them to do what they were suppose to. On offense #12 can mask a lot of issues, but he had to be fully on his game to do so, he hasn't been. On Defense, lack of talent, some injuries and Capers and his staff's inability to coach guys up killed us for too long. Special teams to me is a good indicator of overall coaching and discipline, the Packers special teams has been far from special or disciplined. With special teams you have players from just about every position participating, these guys have spent time with a position coach as well as Zook. Maybe Zook was dealt a band hand with some of these guys, but as an NFL coach, he needed to figure out how to do things better and he didn't.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Are you saying that Pelt wasn't really fired, he decided not to return? I guess he left when his contract expired.

What's been reported (from Wilde and others) goes like this:

• Van Pelt's contract ran through 2017.
• The Packers offered him an extension as QB coach prior to 2017.
• Van Pelt declined the extension because he wanted to pursue OC opportunities after 2017.
• Evidently he declined the extention because in the past McCarthy had blocked assistants under contract from pursuing other opportunities.
• Van Pelt's contract expired at the end of 2017 and the Packers did not offer him a new one at that point.

So, technically, he was not fired, but it's evident McCarthy did not want him back. Consider the time line:

• Van Pelt's "firing" was reported on Jan. 3, i.e., he was not being offered an extension at that point.
• The Packers signing of Cignetti as QB coach (a guy with ties to McCarthy going back to Pittsburgh and New Orleans days) was reported on Jan. 10.
• Van Pelt's signing with the Bengals as QB coach was reported on Jan 12.

So, it sure looks like Van Pelt was not getting any OC offers, Rodgers comments indicated he would have wanted to come back, McCarthy went with his guy instead, and Van Pelt then promptly took his next best offer.

So, in essence, it looks like Van Pelt was kinda fired much to Rodgers' upset.

In retrospect, there's a couple of ways to interpret McCarthy's motivation:

• Van Pelt's job was not just to be Rodgers' QB whisperer. It was also to make sure Hundley was ready to play in the McCarthy system. McCarthy had stated that Hundley was going to be running the same playbook as Rodgers. In other words, compromises were not going to be made as with the remarkable Philly-Foles-RPO gear shifting. Hundley was not ready to do that.
• But then Hundley was traded, which kinda goes against that first point, as a question of being able to run the system vs. being ready, which would not be Van Pelt's fault.
• However, that trade may have been a Gutekunst call in the able vs. ready question.
• It's now easy to think it was a case of McCarthy viewing the Rodgers-Van Pelt relationship as conspiratorial, but if that was the case he would not have been offered that extension prior to 2017.
• Or maybe McCarthy, being a strict process-oreiented guy, was just p*ssed off going back to the start of 2017 that Van Pelt wanted to leave him hanging for 2018 while he looked for another job, consistent with McCarthy's habit of not allowing guys under contract to interview.

So, it is probably best to view Van Pelt as being "fired" but the exact reason or reasons--people like more than one reason for a decision--will remain a matter of conjecture.

What we do know is that Rodgers was not happy.

 

[Stanger37]

taking a step back and looking at everything as un-bias as possible. Without a doubt Rodgers is one of, if not THE best overall talent the QB position has ever seen. The cameras zoom in and show the eye rolls, show the blatant disrespect, the uninterested looks, passive aggressive smirks. Coaches want to make their name and boost themselves, is this going to be as desirable job opening as we think? Or has Rodgers deemed himself difficult? It is easy to think of all the reasons why you'd want to coach the Packers, but is bringing in a younger guy that you hope can be the next McVay and it fails...is his name tarnished now because he couldn't do anything with Rodgers? MM at least won a superbowl with them to land on his feet somewhere.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think it was just a simple case of AVP having bigger aspirations than being just a QB Coach and MM and the Packers didn't see him as anything but at the moment. I don't blame AVP for not staying on board if doing so prevented him from climbing up the NFL ladder. I also don't blame the Packers for not changing their ways at the time and treating him like everyone else, "you have to be qualified for the job". Now in hind site, maybe the smart move would have been for MM to promote him up to keep him in Green Bay and possibly keep AR happier. Hiring Philbin didn't seem to bring any success.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

taking a step back and looking at everything as un-bias as possible. Without a doubt Rodgers is one of, if not THE best overall talent the QB position has ever seen. The cameras zoom in and show the eye rolls, show the blatant disrespect, the uninterested looks, passive aggressive smirks. Coaches want to make their name and boost themselves, is this going to be as desirable job opening as we think? Or has Rodgers deemed himself difficult? It is easy to think of all the reasons why you'd want to coach the Packers, but is bringing in a younger guy that you hope can be the next McVay and it fails...is his name tarnished now because he couldn't do anything with Rodgers? MM at least won a superbowl with them to land on his feet somewhere.

Agreed and while a year ago the Packer HC job and having AR as your QB might have been viewed as a dream job by many, your points are valid that today, some may not view it as a situation they want to go to.

 

[PackAttack12]

What's been reported (from Wilde and others) goes like this:

• Van Pelt's contract ran through 2017.
• The Packers offered him an extension as QB coach prior to 2017.
• Van Pelt declined the extension because he wanted to pursue OC opportunities after 2017.
• Evidently he declined the extention because in the past McCarthy had blocked assistants under contract from pursuing other opportunities.
• Van Pelt's contract expired at the end of 2017 and the Packers did not offer him a new one at that point.

So, technically, he was not fired, but it's evident McCarthy did not want him back. Consider the time line:

• Van Pelt's "firing" was reported on Jan. 3, i.e., he was not being offered an extension at that point.
• The Packers signing of Cignetti as QB coach (a guy with ties to McCarthy going back to Pittsburgh and New Orleans days) was reported on Jan. 10.
• Van Pelt's signing with the Bengals as QB coach was reported on Jan 12.

So, it sure looks like Van Pelt was not getting any OC offers, Rodgers comments indicated he would have wanted to come back, McCarthy went with his guy instead, and Van Pelt then promptly took his next best offer.

So, in essence, it looks like Van Pelt was kinda fired much to Rodgers' upset.

In retrospect, there's a couple of ways to interpret McCarthy's motivation:

• Van Pelt's job was not just to be Rodgers' QB whisperer. It was also to make sure Hundley was ready to play in the McCarthy system. McCarthy had stated that Hundley was going to be running the same playbook as Rodgers. In other words, compromises were not going to be made as with the remarkable Philly-Foles-RPO gear shifting. Hundley was not ready to do that.
• But then Hundley was traded, which kinda goes against that first point, as a question of being able to run the system vs. being ready, which would not be Van Pelt's fault.
• However, that trade may have been a Gutekunst call in the able vs. ready question.
• It's now easy to think it was a case of McCarthy viewing the Rodgers-Van Pelt relationship as conspiratorial, but if that was the case he would not have been offered that extension prior to 2017.
• Or maybe McCarthy, being a strict process-oreiented guy, was just p*ssed off going back to the start of 2017 that Van Pelt wanted to leave him hanging for 2018 while he looked for another job, consistent with McCarthy's habit of not allowing guys under contract to interview.

So, it is probably best to view Van Pelt as being "fired" but the exact reason or reasons--people like more than one reason for a decision--will remain a matter of conjecture.

What we do know is that Rodgers was not happy.

I know that they say players play and coaches coach, but I'm sorry. A player of Rodgers' caliber should at least be given a heads up about a decision like that being made. Not that he had to have a say in the matter, but to find out like the casual fan to me wasn't the right way to go about it.

Not saying you agree or disagree with that, just throwing it out there. Good post.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I know that they say players play and coaches coach, but I'm sorry. A player of Rodgers' caliber should at least be given a heads up about a decision like that being made. Not that he had to have a say in the matter, but to find out like the casual fan to me wasn't the right way to go about it.

Not saying you agree or disagree with that, just throwing it out there. Good post.

Maybe. I don't agree or disagree. I'm not in the room or rooms.

On the other hand, I can't say I approve of Rodgers expressing public displeasure over it. Temperamentally, I would not go public with this kind of displeasure any more than I approved of Rodgers laying the blame on play calling early in the season. It goes beyond being right or wrong. Teammates and other coaches can't be oblivious to these evident schisms. It's better to create the illusion that everybody is pulling in the same direction than to make it explicit they are not. Rodgers seemed to get that eventually, putting blame on himself whether he meant it or not, but I think we can say the damage was done. I think Murphy would have taken Rodgers call if he had serious complaints. Those calls may have been made. Or maybe there was a call going the other way asking him to cool it. If anything, going over the boss's head is better done privately than publicly.

When there's organizational dysfunction it is often the case everybody is to blame to one degree or another.

 

[mongoosev]

Nelson didn't retire. Yesterday he had a pretty decent game against the Chiefs. He caught 10 of 11 targets for 97 yards.

oh well. there goes the season. seriously though thought he retired. good for nelson. he still has some years left to show off that great talent.

 

[HardRightEdge]

taking a step back and looking at everything as un-bias as possible. Without a doubt Rodgers is one of, if not THE best overall talent the QB position has ever seen. The cameras zoom in and show the eye rolls, show the blatant disrespect, the uninterested looks, passive aggressive smirks. Coaches want to make their name and boost themselves, is this going to be as desirable job opening as we think? Or has Rodgers deemed himself difficult? It is easy to think of all the reasons why you'd want to coach the Packers, but is bringing in a younger guy that you hope can be the next McVay and it fails...is his name tarnished now because he couldn't do anything with Rodgers? MM at least won a superbowl with them to land on his feet somewhere.

Or more like a Frank ***** type looking, again, at the Philly-Foles-RPO success. You would not want a guy locked into a specific system to which Rodgers must conform. What Philly did was remarkable, a major scheme adjustment in a short time frame to adapt to the replacement's ability. What's needed is a guy with that kind of flexibility, a tolerance for the playground, and a dose of QB whispering skills to get buy-ins to adjustments.

I do not believe that Rodgers is inherently inflexible. But if his coach wants change, he better get on the same page and changes need to be pursuasive.

 

[HardRightEdge]

oh well. there goes the season. seriously though thought he retired. good for nelson. he still has some years left to show off that great talent.

2 games out of 12? That kinda sounds like Fackrell. He may have been the beneficiary of poorly performing coverages. The "great talent" is in the rear view mirror.

 

[DarkHelmet]

I want a coach who:

1) Can actually manage the clock
2) Makes effective use of his challenges
3) Makes good decisions on 4th and short
4) Never takes his foot off the gas
5) Doesn't burn timeouts because of failure to get substitution pattern right
6) Is willing to situationally substitute running backs
7) Runs up-tempo most of the time -- not just when he's way behind
8) Can figure out a way to score 35 or more points per game
9) Takes steps to minimize mental mistakes by his players

 

[DarkHelmet]

Regarding Jordy Nelson, here are some interesting data:

Jordy Nelson in 2018: 450 yards, 3 TD, 13 yards/catch
MVS (the closest thing we have to a number 2 receiver at this point): 432 yards, 2 TD, 16 y/catch

Keeping Jordy around would have helped this team given his chemistry with Rodgers.

Along those lines:

Jared Cook in 2018: 709 yards, 6 TD, 13 y/catch
Jimmy Graham in 2018: 536 yards, 2 TD, 12 y/catch

We should have kept Cook. His two replacements have been bad and mediocre, respectively.

 

[Dantés]

Regarding Jordy Nelson, here are some interesting data:

Jordy Nelson in 2018: 450 yards, 3 TD, 13 yards/catch
MVS (the closest thing we have to a number 2 receiver at this point): 432 yards, 2 TD, 16 y/catch

Keeping Jordy around would have helped this team given his chemistry with Rodgers.

Along those lines:

Jared Cook in 2018: 709 yards, 6 TD, 13 y/catch
Jimmy Graham in 2018: 536 yards, 2 TD, 12 y/catch

We should have kept Cook. His two replacements have been bad and mediocre, respectively.

The Jordy/MVS comparison is unfair. Both Allison and Cobb were playing ahead of the rookie but got injured. It's not like replacing Jordy with MVS in 2018 was the plan.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Just pointing out that the scariest thing I've heard is Mark Murphy saying that part of the reason they fired MM now was so that they could give Philbin a chance to show them what he could as head coach...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Just pointing out that the scariest thing I've heard is Mark Murphy saying that part of the reason they fired MM now was so that they could give Philbin a chance to show them what he could as head coach...

I'm more scared that you think Joe Philbin would be considered to be the next HC.

Of course Murphy is going to say that, he isn't going to say "We put old Joe in charge for now and then plan oh kicking his *** to the curb at the end of the season." I doubt they had to explain the situation to JP, nor does JP not understand that this is temporary. I would be curious to know if they thought about asking Mike Pettine to be the interim HC, but if they have the desire to keep him as the DC, that could have backfired if MP and the Packers have 4 crappy outings in a row.

 

[DarkHelmet]

The Jordy/MVS comparison is unfair. Both Allison and Cobb were playing ahead of the rookie but got injured. It's not like replacing Jordy with MVS in 2018 was the plan.

Allison and Cobb's numbers are worse because they couldn't stay healthy. Our top three receivers this year are Adams, Graham and MVS. Adams has been excellent. Everything you want from a number 1. Graham has underperformed Jared Cook and MVS, Cobb and Allison have each underperformed Jordy.

I think management made a dumb error in letting Jordy go. He would have played for cheap and he and Rodgers had great chemistry. It was also dumb to let Jared Cook go last year. An accumulation of bad decisions = bad team = losing record. Most of it is on Ted Thompson, who burned a bushel basket of draft picks on defensive backs who couldn't get the job done. (Some of that may have been on Capers, too, obviously.)

Gute has his work cut out for him.

 

[DarkHelmet]

Just pointing out that the scariest thing I've heard is Mark Murphy saying that part of the reason they fired MM now was so that they could give Philbin a chance to show them what he could as head coach...

If Philbin can get Rodgers to convert third downs at a respectable level he'll have earned a look.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

So ... question may be, which stock of coaches do you select from? College or those who are already NFL insiders?

I do think both can offer some advantages and disadvantages, but seems like current NFL coordinators turned HCs have higher success rates IMO.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm more scared that you think Joe Philbin would be considered to be the next HC.

Of course Murphy is going to say that, he isn't going to say "We put old Joe in charge for now and then plan oh kicking his *** to the curb at the end of the season." I doubt they had to explain the situation to JP, nor does JP not understand that this is temporary. I would be curious to know if they thought about asking Mike Pettine to be the interim HC, but if they have the desire to keep him as the DC, that could have backfired if MP and the Packers have 4 crappy outings in a row.

Philbin being anywhere near a HC vacancy I care about is something scary. I don't care if he's driving by on his way to get donuts, if he's near a vacancy, I'm concerned.

 

[Dantés]

Allison and Cobb's numbers are worse because they couldn't stay healthy. Our top three receivers this year are Adams, Graham and MVS. Adams has been excellent. Everything you want from a number 1. Graham has underperformed Jared Cook and MVS, Cobb and Allison have each underperformed Jordy.

I think management made a dumb error in letting Jordy go. He would have played for cheap and he and Rodgers had great chemistry. It was also dumb to let Jared Cook go last year. An accumulation of bad decisions = bad team = losing record. Most of it is on Ted Thompson, who burned a bushel basket of draft picks on defensive backs who couldn't get the job done. (Some of that may have been on Capers, too, obviously.)

Gute has his work cut out for him.

We could debate the other things, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't make any sense to criticize the FO for replacing Nelson with Valdes-Scantling when that was never the plan. They replaced Nelson with Allison and also planned to have Cobb on the field. They could not have foreseen losing both of them.