DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Coaching Search Continued

I think if you're hiring from within the organization, you're exempt.

*edit* - not according to this: "The rule does not apply if an assistant coach has language in his contract guaranteeing him the head coaching job in case of an opening.[13] For example, this was the case when Mike Martz took over as head coach of the St. Louis Rams before the 2000 season." I highly doubt that GW has this in his contract.

I asked this question before too, if they promote from within the Rooney Rule doesn't apply. Speaking of the Rooney Rule, I think it needs to go away. It just doesn't make sense. Noone isn't getting a job just because their skin is a certain color. The rule also doesn't even promote hiring, only interviewing. If owners know who they want already Do you really want to be a token interview just to comply with the Rooney Rule? Knowing full well you are only being interviewed because of that. Thats worse to me than not even being asked. I get why it came about and it was probably needed to promote diversity. But I think its safe to say that minority HC's are growing organically. Success of minorities in HC and FO positions have helped. On the flipside, its probably here long term. Its a great rule in theory but I think it could use some refinement to make it more modern. It's pretty aged at 15 years

I don't believe they have to do so for an in season promotion who becomes head coach.

Seems I missed some message-board drama...

To the point, there's almost nothing the Browns can do to retain Kitchens if he's offered a job as a head coach. The NFL puts all assistants on an equal plane, from assistant position coaches, to position coaches, to coordinators, to assistant head coaches, etc. And, under the rules, a team cannot prevent an assistant coach from seeking a promotion to head coach.

If Kitchens drew interest from other teams, the only option the Browns would have is offering to pay him like a head coach as an offensive coordinator. It has worked for the Patriots with McDaniels - I think he makes around $4 million - but I can't think of other examples and wouldn't bet on Kitchens to refuse advancement.

As far as the Rooney Rule goes, in addition to being required to interview a minority candidate before hiring Williams, I believe the NFL amended its protocols to state that a team must interview a league-approved minority candidate. The Raiders were set on Jon Gruden from the beginning, but interviewed their tight ends coach and Tee Martin to fulfill the requirement and, if I recall correctly, it prompted the NFL to make those changes to limit token interviews.

No drama here, just par for the course, friendly discussion. Stick around for a while and you will see some really silly message-board drama...

Agreed that the Browns can't really do anything to retain Kitchens if he's offered a job as a head coach. That said, I think it's very unlikely that he'll be offered a head coaching job this off-season. That's a really big jump in a very short amount of time. Then again, teams are looking for innovative offensive minds, so it can't completely be ruled out.

Great post. The upside of keeping Kitchens with Baker is a huge factor. I tend to wonder if the interview process wouldn't start with a statement saying as much from Dorsey. One one hand, you can say that a great QB makes the OC better anyway. On the other, it has to be evident that keeping a good relationship intact could only propel Baker to greater heights sooner.

I think we as fans (and the media) are putting way to much weight on "hiring the right HC" as if the proposition is now or never. I understand that all GMs want to put their stamp on the hierarchy by hiring their own coach (and the fact that Dorsey has never enjoyed that luxury yet), but success speaks for itself. Keeping things intact is not "failure", it is biding time to watch things develop. No reason why you couldn't make this same journey before the 2020 season. At that point you know exactly what you have in GW, Kitchens and Baker. Seems apparent to me as the greatest luxury of all and there is no real risk of "failure" in doing so. In this, as in all business, mitigating risk is always one of the most important keys to success.

It's easy to think we are all wearing orange colored glasses and maybe a little too giddy at our play down the stretch, but GW has shown me nothing to doubt his ability down the stretch. I keep thinking back to "game balls" after the first win... Hue mentioned GW as the guy always sitting in his office and giving Hue the wink as he walks by. "Yes, I know you've got this" was the response Hue said he usually gives. Seems even then GW may have been doing his best to remove himself from the chaos and just focus on his responsibilities. I think he's the right man for the job in the here and now.

All the talk of Kitchens being the "heir apparent" is jumping the gun a bit. Six weeks ago there were people laughing at the notion of him even calling plays. That has got to extend to the league as a whole. Would other GMs really be willing to bet their future on a guy that was recently elevated to OC (and enjoyed the fruits of Baker's efforts) as their new Head Coach? I don't see that... not this off-season.

To me, the best move is no move at all.

The situations were completely different. You do realize that, right?

You also went through and commented on the situation as a head coach. Well done, but you used a generic 4th and 1 situation.

I think the situation at hand was lost on you... you never mentioned the fact that if you gained that 1 yard for a first down, the game is over. I don't think it matters who your kicker is and I don't think it matters whether you will score a touchdown, at least not in this scenario.


First, I'd look where we are on the playing field.
If we are inside their 20, and I believe we were, I ask myself does this 1 yd win us the game. If the answer is yes, then GO FOR IT!

The fact that we are debating this is asinine. The fact some posters are calling it moronic to go for it is asinine. Anyone who says they would kick the FG is either lying or has ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I would be willing to bet that 32 head coaches out of 32 head coaches would go for it...

You tell me if I have 1 yard to gain to win the game, I'm going for it every time! And yet, there are people here who would kick a FG (which isn't guaranteed) and give the ball back to the opponent. Ludicrous. Now we're moving on....

I agree with those that believe Kitchens isn't a head-coaching candidate for 2019 openings. Teams will likely want more than an eight-game sample size from him.

My contention is that Kitchens will be a head-coaching candidate for 2020 openings, assuming the Browns offense continues to develop and perform at a high level in 2019, which I believe is a realistic possibility.

Given the value placed on sharp offensive minds, and the annual churn of 5-10 NFL head coaches, I believe Kitchens would be one of the hottest names on the market. Everyone else noticed the drastic offensive turnaround with identical personnel. Obviously, they want to see more from Freddie, but they're watching.

And, at that point, the Browns are powerless to prevent another team from poaching him. That's my only issue. You aren't hiring Williams and Kitchens for the long term. You are only hiring Williams. Because, if everything goes according to plan (and the Browns win games), you're losing Kitchens.

you must never of coached.

I tend to agree that it's not a now-or-never proposition.

The counterpoint, however, would be the razor-thin margins of winning in the NFL. The biggest competitive advantage in the modern NFL is having a good quarterback on a rookie contract. Right now, Baker accounts for 2.47% of the cap. A premier veteran quarterback typically accounts for 12-16% of the cap. The $16-24 million difference can be invested elsewhere and represents an asset.

It seems crazy to think ahead so soon, but Baker only has three years left on his rookie contract. Assuming he performs to the organization's expectation, he's going to receive a cap-intensive, $30+ million salary, so pairing him with the right coach as soon as possible is ideal.

I understand what you're saying in principal, but there are way too many variables to assume Kitchens would be gone after next year. One of them being the fact that some are already crowning him "heir apparent". If we progress on offense as expected but can't stop teams from running up and down the field, it would be GW gone and Kitchens interviewing to stay with Mayfield... would there really be more attractive HC jobs?

Some OCs around the league have been rumored as attractive HCs for years, yet they stay in their comfort zone. How long will McDaniels be waiting for BB to retire? Definitely can't worry about the "what ifs" associated with eminent success by Kitchens.

^That^ was a reply to your first post. As far as the second, great analysis, but ask yourself this... What would be more likely to stifle Baker's success? A new HC and staff or Williams and Kitchens. It's Baker's success that determines his next contract, and his success seems to be a given regardless of the other changes. Pairing him with the perfect HC will have little to do with the cap hit imo. Pairing him with the perfect HC will have much more to do with the success of the team.

Besides, according to the poster BakerBrown, Mayfield will stay here and work for peanuts to allow us to sign/keep other important pieces.

LOL. Ok.

Absolutely. I concede there are a multitude of scenarios where Kitchens remains for longer than a season. We could fall on our faces through injuries and/or regression, the Class of 2020 could be much smaller considering the Class of 2019 is likely to be a big one, Kitchens could decide that continuing to work with Baker will afford him the luxury of waiting for the perfect fit, etc.

I'm just stating the less optimal outcomes for consideration.

As far as the next head coach maximizing Baker or the team's potential, I'm sure Dorsey is looking for the best of both worlds. Williams has shown capable of instilling discipline throughout a young team, whereas it's possible Dorsey views someone like Riley as instrumental to Baker developing into a superstar and thereby carrying the franchise with him. Obviously, both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses and it's Dorsey's job to weigh those. Frankly, I don't envy him.

There are many many different factors to consider. I think you are being overly simplistic in saying 'you go for it if you win the game' ....

To me it's a question of probability. What's more likely?

[1] gain a first down.
[2] lose the game on a short field to a field goal.
[3] prevent a TD with a kick off after a successful FG

I thought at the time GW made the wrong call. Option 3 above looked way way way way the best option.

If we went for it on 4th down I would want a creative playcall and not a run up the gut.

It was the first major mistake by GW in my opinion. In understand it but didn't agree with it at all.

This x1000. Especially after we already showed our hand when Williams called the timeout. Also, the Broncos had one healthy corner. And the clock was stopping no matter what (or we win).

I don't envy him at all. Six weeks ago, hiring a new head coach was a no-brainer with almost zero risk. Now he has to deal with jerking with the karma of what has been the uncanny success of a "shotgun marriage". Good problem to have, but a much tougher decision!

Ok... you're right. There are probably some coaches who would kick the field goal. On the flip side to say it was "moronic" to go for it is just the same.

I was aligning my answer with our exact situation. If we were in that situation 100 times, I would go for it 100x ESPECIALLY with the season on the line and the ability to win the game with 1 yard.

The situation would be different if the opponent was different. Yes, your opponent is also a factor. My point is that in that very situation, it was not moronic to go for it. We have one of the worst rated defenses in the league. Trying to end the game with one yard wasn't as stupid as some will lead you to believe.

BS ... he very well may have coached before ..

I’d be STUNNED if he LASTED LONG ... but he still could have done it ... ....

Your right .... it was DUMBER and MORE MORONIC than I made it out to be ...

...

King John was just handed a NICE, NEW SHINY option ...

GOOD OPTIONS are never a bad thing in this situation ... the more GREAT OPTIONS the BETTER ....

Sorry device, my response was uncalled for and I certainly didn't mean to denigrate your opinion regardless of whether I agreed with it or not.

I just didn't see any way Denver could of scored a touchdown on us with under 2 mins with the way the game played out up till that point....and really, a PI call or roughing the passer etc could of put them in field goal range...I understand people thinking the better route was to make 1 yard and win...obviously the head coach of our team did and he's forgotten more about football than I'll ever know

King John?

In my best Dennis Green voice... "If you want to crown him, crown his a$$!"

If we do, I would suggest that we interview Hue Jackson. We then put a camera on him and ask him if the roster has enough talent to win football games. Playing that tape to players, (no matter how he answered), would be priceless.

j/c:

I want to be clear about something. My first post on this thread was meant to talk about football, as in what I woud have thought about if I were the HC.

I was not calling Williams a "moron." Not even close. I also don't think it was a huge deal. I thought I even said something along the lines of people making too big of a deal out of these types of decisions.

Question about the verbiage of the Rooney Rule. Does it say teams need to interview a minority candidate or a black candidate? It seems like the two terms get used interchangeably but they don't mean the same thing.

Hypothetical questions:
If black is the term used then why are they singled out?
If minority, then what defines a minority? Would a white woman be considered a minority? What about someone who was Jewish? What if the person is 1/16th Native American?

Welcome to the boards.
It's always good to get new voices in the mix, especially ones that show thought.

Agreed. He is well-spoken and comes across as intelligent.

With all due respect.....

No.

Chemistry is vital. Keep GW.

My guess is that any non-white man would be considered a minority. The definition of white is up for interpretation.

That's just mean.

I guess it depends if you're an analytical person or not. Analytics would certainly say go for it.

I don't think Denver would score a touchdown either, but why give them the opportunity? There's still a chance they could score, but there's zero chance they score if you get 1 yard.

To say that, I'm not sure you fully understand the magnitude of the situation.

If it's North of the two minute warning or Denver has a timeout it's far more questionable to go for it but still not moronic. I might be more inclined to kick the field goal in such a scenario.

But you're on the 13 yard line with 1 yard away from victory and calling it moronic to go for it. It would be interesting to hear your stance if we had kicked the field goal and with over a minute and half to go Denver marches down the field and scores a touchdown. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if you'd be here pounding the table that we should have gone for it.

Dude we won and i called it MORONIC ... it worked and i said it was DUMB ... if thats the case i clearly didn’t consider the outcome at all when evaluating the situation ... my stance is ...

It was a great outcome resulting form a bad decision .... that was my conclusion ...

So why would u think if we lost My conclusion would be..... it was a bad outcome resulting from a bad idea ...

Naaa ... i’m Just a MORON ... i’m not a HYPOCRITICAL MORON like some .... *L* ....

Sorry ... to me the KEY piece of ANALYTICS would be the first # Haus used right out of the gate ...

60% SUCCESS RATE on 4th and 1 .... i could care less what comes after that .... RIGHT THERE as a HC it just became a NO-BRAINER .... when u consider that

- it was a 38 yard FG attempt in perfect weather conditions ...
- they had scored 1 TD and 3 FG’s when they were under no time constraints ...
- Case Keenum and a bunch of rookie recievers were on the other bench .. not Brees/Thomas or Rodgers/Adams ...
- it forces them to score a TD instead of a FG ... thats at least a 35 YARD DIFFERENCE in line to make .... considering who was on the other bench ...
- 1:48 with no TO’s left ....

- and last but not least ... IT WAS A FULL YARD .... Haus’s 60% stat includes from 4th and a pubic hair to 4th and a full yard .... 4th and 2 inches is included in 4th and 1 for statistical purposes ...

U guys may not consider that ... but old relics like me actually THINK ITS IMPORTANT from experience ... *L* ...

Your barking up the wrong tree dude ...

Just curious ... u ever heard of the word HYPERBOLE? .... ...

It was dumb but listening to the players, they loved the confidence Williams showed in them by saying now go win it. It is starting to give me a new perspective on what's behind all these aggressive decisions.

Anyway, I am all in on Williams and Kitchens. Williams is 60, groom kitchens for Hc.

In Niolen's first post, he pointed out that if Kitchens' success continues through 2019, other teams with HC openings WILL come a-callin. Freddy will be faced with a decision; "do I continue to work with Baker and hope that when Williams is done I move up to HC? Or do I take one of the opportunities being offered right now?" Heck, there's a solid chance Arizona will come a-callin in January. They know him, and after what he's shown this year, might well make their move before anyone else gets the idea.

Who is more important for the Browns moving forward, Williams or Kitchens? As Niolen pointed out, the right move might be to make Kitchens HC just to keep him with Baker long term.