DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns HC Interviews

Don't get me wrong, I hope you're right. It's just that from experience I won't get my hopes up.

I'd like to see JS get the HC position also for the reasons mentioned. If he does and Rees goes to Atlanta Mc Daniel would be the guy I'd like to see for OC. Of course, JS would have to be on board with it.

That was purely for informational purposes.
I didn't remember how he did as the Detroit HC so I looked into it.
I figured others might be intersted, so I posted it

With McDaniel satisfying the Rooney Rule.

Who knows....this might be the final four.

How ironic would it be if it ends up like this:

Udinski- HC
Schwartz- DC
McDaniel/Monken OC. (Most likely McDaniel and Monden joins Harbaugh)

It reminds me of the song by Bad Company. "Shooting Star". We all know how things turned out for Johnny.

Was just logging in to say that's a pretty solid final 4 based on what I know. Monkey being the one I know least about.

Scratch that "final four" take.....

I struggle to understand a move from passing coordinator to HC. OC experience at college level,? No thanks.

I believe you need two in person interviews with outside candidates to meet the newer Rooney Rules. I remember hearing earlier in the week on the radio that virtual don't count, it has to be in person. Except for our in house, to this point they have all been virtual. In that case, we still needed two. With the reported in house we should be good.

Most offensive minded head coaches call their own plays in today's NFL. Trying to hire an OC to a HC position that called the plays is becoming more and more outdated because so few call the plays anymore.

When NFL teams hire offensive minded HCs, the trend will only increase that passing game coordinators make the jump to HC without having ever called plays.

It's probably safe to assume if the Browns hire one of the offensive minded candidates, they too will call their own plays.

It doesn't matter what plays are run if you don't have the horses to run them.

Correct. Mike McDaniel will meet in person this week.

I said the same thing, but now I want to play devil's advocate for a minute. What does SM have to hang his hat on regarding his time in Buffalo? They were a middling team and I believe they had a plus defense when he got there. They took Allen, saw a slight dip Allen's first year and then it's been steady improvement on the back of their QB (who has a strong claim to being the best player in the league regardless of position). One could argue that doesn't leave much room for coaching in terms of explaining the success.

And when you look at the reasons people are piling on Allen for the playoff record, the same thing can be said for SM. His team had a top defense, the best QB in the league, a top RB and strong Oline and the passcatchers were riddled with complementary players.


I feel like I'm missing something from the earlier part of his stint in Buffalo.

Josh Allen is a good QB. He is NOT "the best QB in the league" by a long shot...never has been. Keep him in the pocket and make him make throws all game long...he won't beat you with regularity. He is a weapon with his running...he wants to run...making him into a pocket passer isn't going to happen. Things get real in the playoffs...Denver made him win from the pocket...he was not good.

Look at the (4) QBs in the Conference Championship games (including Nix)...Stafford & Darnold are no threat to run but have decent mobility...Nix and Maye are a threat to run, but that's not the best part of their games. They all will beat you from the pocket, Allen held in the pocket isn't on in the same tier as those (4) guys.

Swap out Josh Allen for Lamar Jackson and the point is the same. It'll be interesting to see how those (2) do playing for a new head coach after having the same guy for their entire careers.

Who is the other person? Remember, we need two now. Scheelhaase will do it, but he can't interview until next week since the Rams are still in it.

At this point the article doesn't elaborate on her title stating the Browns now have to add another interview.If true, it's pretty crappy to (1) have essentially finalized your final candidates of which (2) one of the guys scheduled and confirmed to come on-site to interview satisfies the Rooney Rule, but (3) because he backs out, and you are now forced to start over again with someone knew (which take more time) to make up for the rule?

The guy from LA will make up the other candidate but now we require someone new to replace McDaniel. That just takes more time, and as a result of that, others teams possibly jump in to the guy the one you wanted but now can't because someone walked away?

Maybe there is some stipulation to the rule that will be explained further but a candidate backing out at the last minute after confirming the required interview seems like something an organization shouldn't be responsible for.

All reporting seems to say we need to find someone else, McDaniel won’t count even though he pulled out last minute. Scheelhaase will count for one of them next week and we need to find another one now too, who will clearly know at this point that they are an afterthought.

As an update, MKC confirms the required process.

Silliness.

What is strange to me is say we really want to hire Scheelhaase, we still have to interview another candidate. The rules don’t change if you do a minority hire, you have to interview two no matter what.

Interview one of the in house coaches.

Good point.

I'm just glad he withdrew his name from the process. My biggest fear of this search was that we would name McDaniel our next head coach. He may be a good OC but he stunk as a HC, his game management skills are the worst i've ever seen.

Does Berry interview his assistant, Catherine Raîche, for the head coach position?

You have got to be sh*tting me!

If you like a minority enough to hire him, you still have to interview another one before you do the thing the rule is meant to encourage?

Can't make it up!