DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Head Coach Search Part IV

I cannot disagree with the premise here...

I think Williams/Kitchens are also letting the team play football. By that I mean I feel like under Hue/Haley things had to be a certain way or we did things a certain way, Hue and Haley's way. I get the impression that Williams/Kitchens brought the fun back into the game for our team and we've responded. Things may not be as the appear if we retain those two at their current positions for next year. But maybe they will?

Kitchens comments about letting Baker be Baker are a perfect example. We are letting our players be who they are at the moment...I think our players have more input into the gameplan now (maybe not, but it feels that way). I think we'll need structure down the road, albeit more fun than what we had under Hue, but a McVay type who knows what he's doing but they're having fun at the same time... I get the feeling when the team would bring concerns to Hue, he would turn around and say something like, "I've been in the league a long time, when you've been in the league a long time you can run the team how you want to run the team." We've seen this watching Hard Knocks. And I just think this approach just "turns off" the players... kinda why Baker may not care for Hue.

I also don't know that Kitchens is HC material but I feel he's gained the respect from the players that Hue never had.


Again, this is all just me and my thoughts...

I'm with ya... this was me j/c... didn't mean to make it sound like I was calling you out for anything.

Its amazing what a simple W will do, huh?

BB, Cowher, The Tuna, etc. You don't have to be buddy buddy, you just have to win. If players believe they can win with you - they will respect you. If you can win, they wont.

i think if we are going to replace this staff, McCarthy or Harbaugh makes the most sense. There wouldn't be the question of if a coordinator can handle it..these guy have won superbowls and have won and been in playoffs regularly. I think the greatest fear would be going backwards and losing momentum by picking a coordinator that gets overwhelmed. Gun to head I think if a change is made, i'd bet on McCarthy. Dude is a good coach and I think is alot more responsible for how good AR is than most want to admit

I think at this point if I was forced to rank them my preferences would be:

McCarthy
Ariens
Gregg Williams
Jim Harbaugh

IMHO, the case for Williams is this: He's winning. He's also instilling discipline in a team that hasn't seen much in decades. The fact they went from missing a buttload of tackles in the first half to basically shutting Carolina down in the second half is a testament to Williams' ass reaming ability. Say what you will, he has the players motivated and playing at a high level.

No. Their offense slowed significantly when Koetter took over play calling and then picked it up again when he gave it back to Monken.

Get this defense one more premier presence on the line, one stud LB (Devin White?), and just let us stay healthy in the secondary and it will be dramatically better.

We need a DT like Aaron Donald.. a guy that is going to blow things up.
Thing is, behind that we need LBers that are going to fill without getting themselves out of position... we saw lots of that when Schoebert was out.

Add a Devin White, get Kirksey healthy, then we have an up-and-comer in Genard Avery all to go with Schoebert... raise the level of our secondary's depth and bring in a blue-chip DT and this defense will be premier level.

The more I see how this team and these players are responding to Gregg Williams and Freddie Kitchens, the more the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it until it is" rings through my mind.

Realizing that you may have stumbled onto the solution you were about to search for is just as good as searching for and finding it. Actually, it's better.

Didn't even know that happened. So Monken is probably the one that will get some looks.

I won't cry that we're poor on talent, that's clearly not the case, but I do agree with Purp that we're probably 2-3 pieces away from being elite and having the talent Williams would prefer to run his D. It was very effective in NO & L.A. but he's missing his full compliment in the secondary and in the middle of the line, and we all see the problems he's having at OLB. Personally, I would love to see a defense completely fleshed out for once instead of flipping to a new system every 2-3 years.

Also, I don't know that I agree with William's "Culture beats Scheming" philosophy, but I love the culture he's building. I guess we won't really know until we face the Pats in the AFC Championship game.

J/C

My list of how I would like to see things moving forward

HC- Ariens, OC Kitchens, DC Williams/or DC to be named by Ariens
HC- Williams, OC kitchens, DC to be named later or as is


I think a big drop off to my 3rd choice - would be Harbaugh, only because I don't see him retaining Gregg or Freddie. If he was keeping Freddie I would be higher up on this :

HC- Harbaugh, OC Kitchens, DC- to be named later

I think keeping Kitchens next year is basically inevitable. It might be a prerequisite to getting the job.

yeah, but you then limit your coaching candidates by doing or saying that. I would rather a great HC and move on from kitchens then a mediocre HC and retain Kitchens. JMO.

Serious question that I think really needs definition and I'm not sure I know an answer: Just what is "a 'GREAT' HC"??



In thinking about it, my two cents is this (take with several grains of salt): a "GREAT" HC won't care about being saddled with an OC he didn't choose as long as that OC has shown himself to be competent. A great leader, which is what a HC is supposed to be - a manager and a leader, recognizes other leaders within his ranks and makes use of them and their strengths. A great leader is not so hindered by his ego that that he won't or can't work with people he doesn't hand-pick as long as those people are competent. That, however takes a modicum of humility and that isn't a common trait in the NFL.


That said, the NFL is cutthroat and all coaches are worried about guys that are not their guys backstabbing to try to climb the ladder.... but, that is where Kitchens sets himself apart, I think.

With Kitchens' performance I think anyone would be happy to have him.

He doesn't have the players.

If the just wouldn't have let AJ McCarron go...

Agree, and I'm not advocating for him, just discussing the possibility were it to happen. I fully expect a new HC to bring in his own coordinators and expect to be working under new offensive and defensive schemes. But as long as GW & Freddie keep winning, the possibility exists we maintain status quo.

One of the biggest (nearly only) reason I was for keeping Hue Jackson another season, was that I wanted some resemblance of continuity, just for once. We've been in a constant spin cycle of front office personnel getting fired, the new guys replacing the coaching staff, which in turn replace the players to better fit their "system", which in turn causes us to field a team that look about as familiar with each other as a backyard Thanksgiving Day pick-up team. They lose games because of it, and we go back to Step 1.

Keeping a core of Williams and Kitchens (at least at the coordinator positions) finally gives us some inkling of that long needed continuity. We're finally starting to look competent within our current system, why do we want to blow it up again?

Competency is not the goal.

Also, as I and other have said, a coaching change does not mean blowing it up.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25500888/raiders-fire-general-manager-reggie-mckenzie

someone on here said they expected him to get fired...

Raiders fire general manager Reggie McKenzie
play
5:55 PM ET
Paul Gutierrez
ESPN Staff Writer
Facebook
Twitter
Facebook Messenger
Pinterest
Email
print
ALAMEDA, Calif. -- The Oakland Raiders have fired general manager Reggie McKenzie, effective immediately, the team announced Monday.

"We are grateful for everything Reggie has done for this organization as a player, executive and member of the Raider family," the team said in a statement, adding that the team "will immediately begin a search for a new front office executive and will have no further comment until that process is complete."

ADVERTISEMENT


McKenzie, 55, had been the Raiders' GM since 2012. He was under contract through the 2021 NFL draft as part of a four-year extension he signed in 2016.

EDITOR'S PICKS

McKenzie firing leaves next Raiders' GM with NFL draft capital in Gruden's world
Reggie McKenzie's firing shouldn't be a surprise. His roster had been gutted. These are Jon Gruden's Raiders and the next GM will have to get along.

Many wondered whether McKenzie, the 2016 NFL executive of the year, would fit in the organizational flow chart when head coach Jon Gruden was hired in January. Both insisted they would work together, and McKenzie recently said his job as general manager was to get Gruden the players he wanted, not necessarily players McKenzie liked.

"I'm not going to sit up here today and talk about any disconnect,'' Gruden said. "We were connected. We were very good friends and very connected. I'll leave it at that.''

Gruden said he went home after beating the Steelers 24-21 on Sunday night and was not part of the meeting in which McKenzie was relieved of his duties.

"Obviously, there was a meeting last night, and changes had been made," he said. "I respect everything that this organization is about. I can't exactly answer why the change was made last night, but changes were made, and we've got to continue to fight and continue to build this team back, and that's what we're going to do."

Asked if it was solely a decision reached by Raiders owner Mark Davis, Gruden said, "We all work for the same man."

McKenzie, who was the first major hire made by Davis after he took over the team following the death of his father, Al, in 2011, spoke in late October of reports of a rift between him and Gruden, and he called it "comical."

"You talked about pulling the strings, and you know, Gruden and I, we work together very well," McKenzie said at the time. "Let's make no mistakes about it. Him pushing me out, that's not happening. Me not being able to work with Gruden, that's furthest from the truth. OK? We work really well together.

"We're in each other's offices all the time. Talking about players, who's up, who's down. Who I would like to see play more. Practice squad guys. About moving this guy. Claiming this guy. Trading. Guys calling me about trading this guy -- here's what I think, what do you think?

"Moving forward, when you talk about the negativity that I hear is between me and Gruden, there's been times I want to make a statement and say, 'Really?'"

Asked then who might be "untouchable" on the Raiders' roster as the trade deadline loomed, McKenzie joked, "I'm untouchable."

The Raiders' roster has been torn down with the high-profile trades of All-Pro edge-rusher Khalil Mack on Sept. 1 and Pro Bowl receiver Amari Cooper on Oct. 22, hastening the rebuild in Oakland less than two years before the franchise moves to Las Vegas.

In fact, only nine of McKenzie's 50 pre-Gruden draft picks (from 2012 through 2017) are on the Raiders' 53-man roster, and 36 current players did not spend a single day on Oakland's 53-man roster last season.

Davis lauded the financial efforts of McKenzie, whom he often referred to as his "guy" upon hiring him three months after the death of Al Davis, crediting McKenzie's acumen in getting the Raiders out of "salary-cap hell."

But other than the 2014 draft -- which netted Mack, quarterback Derek Carr, right guard Gabe Jackson and defensive tackle Justin Ellis -- McKenzie's picks have left much to be desired, Davis said in a recent interview.

"It's been all part of an evolution, but I think it's becoming clearer and clearer to Jon, as well, that the talent is just not here at this time," Davis told ESPN.com last month.

"The drafts did not help supplement what we were doing in the free-agent market. If you look at our roster now, it's a bunch of free-agent, one-year guys that are mercenaries. And they're great guys, and they're Raiders. Once a Raider, always a Raider ... but we just don't have the overall talent of a 22-man roster."

Davis said on the night of Nov. 11, when the Raiders fell to 1-8, that the "buck" stopped with him, although he and McKenzie needed to "sit down and talk and figure out how we are going to go about the future. We've got to look in the mirror and figure out where the hell did we go wrong in trying to build this thing?

"We failed. I have failed. But at the same time, we wouldn't have been in the great position we were in without Reggie McKenzie being here."


Since that night, the Raiders are 2-2.

Gruden said he was not sure if he would be involved in the interviewing process for McKenzie's replacement, adding that he would not reveal any potential successors because I don't know of any."

"I know Mark is going to accumulate a list of names and candidates, and I'm sure we'll discuss those people later this week," Gruden said. "Right now, I don't have any idea."

Gruden said Shaun Herock, the Raiders' college scouting director, would handle the day-to-day responsibilities in McKenzie's absence.

"I expect him to be a big part of the organization moving forward, honestly," Gruden said.

The Raiders went 39-70 with McKenzie as GM, 29th in the NFL (.358 win percentage) during that time span.

Fixed it for ya.

But in all likelihood, it does. I can't think of one instance where they replaced the HC and kept the DC and/or OC, can you?

The Bears this past year. They kept Vic Fangio.

Interesting. Thanks for pointing it out. I still think it would be a shot in the dark. Coaches want their people. Also, while it might be difficult to argue the success of Kitchens, GW would have a hard time justifying the point totals. I think the only way they stay is to win out, and Haslam flat out tells Dorsey to keep things the way they are. JMHO.

I believe the Lions also kept Jim Bob Cooter last year.

This will make a lot of fans happy.

I don't think the team has to win out in order for Williams to be retained. If so, Doresy and Haslam might as well come out and say they aren't going to be retained.

That is a high bar. If that's the bar. That would be a 6-2 record after taking over.

If the coach who takes over isn't sitting at 6-2 after the first 8 games next season, should he be fired?

That absolutely is a high bar. While our last three games are winnable, it would be quite an accomplishment to win out. We have both Den and Bal on the road, and they both have something to play for. Their playoff chances are higher than ours.

Winning one more game would be a nice psychological lift. If we win one more, then we will have a single digit loss total. Been a while since we've done that. And we will do that, Cincy at home at the least.

Those are all very good points, and I agree, outside of the NFL for the most part.

You have to remember, HC positions typically are a 3-5 year gig, maybe on average? So to be successful - guys that are HC have to know that everything they say is being directed down to the position coaches from the coordinators, everything they say is being directed down to the players, your gameplan, your scheme, your temperament, etc. So I completely understand knowing that you don't a long time to implement your system that having guys you KNOW and KNOW will instill said system, is imperative.

Also, I think if you want a coach that has been there done that (with the exception of Ariens it seems), they are going to want their guys, no questions asked.

Not if he is running a different style of offense you run. If you an offensive minded coach, and have made your career on the offense side of the ball, your not going to want someone that doesn't know your system. The system that got you where you are.

If we go with a new coach with a new O, I want Riley.

Baker knows that offense, and as long as the QB understands the O, he will get the others to pick it up pretty quick.

I would be curious to know what, if any, interaction Haslam had with Arians at Pittsburgh. They were part of the organization at the same time although I would imagine Haslam was not directly involved in much.

So we know for sure it won't be McCarthy and Jim Harbuagh. I need that 'pat myself on the back' emoticon.

We also now know it won't be Campbell. I suspect he got wind he wasn't going to be considered a serious candidate before singing his extension.

I would say the following are doubtful...Arians and McDaniels. McDaniels is a bit of a wildcard because I read that Haslam loves him. Please, please Jimmuh stay the hell out of this.

So your field at 5% is currently Williams, Toub, Bienemy, Arians, and McDaniels.

Do any of those guys really fit Dorseys requirements...leader of men, high character, football acumen. Toub and Bienemy have never been head coaches, McDaniels fails on character, Arians is too old. Williams started the race as an after thought.

I mean Dorsey and Baker are leaving all kinds of clues that it's going to be Riley.

Riley continues to be your leader at 95%.

My assessment of the situation.

Taub is the leader siting in the clubhouse. I am pretty sure that had we fired Hue at the end of last season, Taub or Nagy would be our HC right now.

Making a run and closing in fast is Gregg Williams. I don't think anyone anticipated this kind of success with a coaching change. If the Browns keep this up the rest of the season then he will be firmly planted into the discussion.

In the same tier as Williams is Lincoln Riley. His pros and cons have been discussed ad nauseam so I am not going to reiterate them except to say that I don't think Dorsey will be scared off by his lack of NFL experience. If Dorsey feels that he is the guy, he'll make a run at him. I don't however, get the feeling that Riley has any interest in leaving Norman.

Others in the mix include McCathy and John Harbaugh. I don't get the feeling that Wolf and Highsmith are very fond of McCarthy and with the Baltimore midseason turn around, I don't see Harbaugh leaving Baltimore. Ariens will get a look but I don't think he is what Dorsey is looking for.

Absolutely out: Jim Harbaugh and Urban Meyer. Pretty sure they don't go the McDaniels route either.

Darkhorse? Bieniemy. I think putting him and Kitchens together could make for a really creative playbook. The issue I would see is that I think they would both want to be the playcaller. Also, I don't think Bieniemy is ready for a HC job yet. I see him in the same light as Kitchens. I smart up and coming offensive coordinator with a bright future who needs some seasoning and experience.

I am sure that there are a half dozen to a dozen other names on Dorsey's short list. Many who we haven't even thought of. The guy I find interesting is Dan Campbell with the Saints.

All these guys know their football. Ultimately I think it ill come down to personality. Are they strong enough to be a leader but not arrogant to the point have having issues getting along with people and that includes willingness to be under the GM in the power structure. Do they have the energy to inspire the team? The drive to put in the added hours and ability to handle the added responsibilities? ...

Of course it's all speculation at this point, but I think it will take a high bar to convince Dorsey to keep GW. Maybe two of the last three if we don't win out? Who knows? I'm not writing off McCarthy yet either. As closed mouth as Dorsey is, and as reticent as McCarthy is, I don't see how anyone but them can know anything about the situation at all. It would also be irresponsible to not at least have him in for an interview once the process begins. I know this, I don't want to play against him twice a year.

Ditto.

Probably not much. He was a 10% owner. Arians was an assistant coach there.

I am not all that sure how much time Haslam was spending in Pittsburgh.