DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum What are we REALLY looking for?

So here we are looking for a coach...tons of posts on "this guy" or "that guy". I'm posting this outside of the coaches thread, because I think the real issue is not so much about "who" as it is about how do you get there.

What are we looking for? Long term success... respectability....Super-bowl.

The bottom line is that nobody knows how anyone will do as a head coach.

You can interview, question, guess, flip a coin, go with a gut feeling....you name it.

The only thing that matters is the results.

You can argue that a previously successful head coach like cowher would be good. If he wins he would be, if he don't, well then "the game has passed him by"

You can say a previously failed head coach didn't have what it took then. Unless he learned from his mistakes...or he lands a Tom Brady....or a better group of talent.

You can say that a career coordinator has never been looked at so we shouldn't bother. What's that? Pre-determined failure? Based on what?

Or a college coach with no NFL experience. This means he's gonna screw up sometimes. Fear of the unknown comes to mind.

Sounds to me like we want a "for sure" winner coach who will win the super-bowl over and over....guaranteed....break out the time machine...fire it up...just do me a favor and grab some mega-millions numbers for me while your there.

Unless there was a way to put all of these guys into the exact same situation...meaning front office...players....time. You would have no way of knowing how their choices would affect the results.

Every situation is different. So they can't all be judged that way.

At the end of the day all of these guys we are looking at and talking about were in different situations...different front offices...different controls...restrictions...players...luck...injuries...you name it

Some coaches get time...some don't.
Some get saddled with a crappy gm...some don't.
Some get a meddling owner..some don't.
Some got to establish a system...some didn't.

Some just got promoted to their level of incompetence and suck.

It's all a total unknown.

So what do we really know?

We know that their are many ways to the the results that you want.

The super bowl has been won by teams that were strong on offense...but usually its the defense that wins it.

We know that you can use the 3-4, the 4-3, the tampa 2...and varieties of them all.

We know that you can win with a strong running game...a vertical passing attack, or the west coast offense.


All of these systems require 2 things to be successful.

Talent and experience.

Talent needs no explanation.

Experience is the real key.

Players don't think...they play.
Coaches have more options or plays to choose from.
There are less mental mistakes.
It's easier to adjust on the fly.


This organization only needs to do one thing. Pick someone and stand behind them.

Get them some talented players and let them learn and grow.

Stop the cycle we have been in for years...we're just like Cinci when they used to change coaches every 5 minutes.

Pick a system...pick a philosophy....tweak it as you go for sure.

Pick a guy to teach it...and give him time.
Pick some guys to help them...and give them time.

It's about time we "built" a winner.

That is going to take time and the courage to stay the course.

I think its time for something different...we've tried every other knee jerk reaction possible...

Maybe we should just give time....time.

It seems as though we keep going after unproven head coaches. In 14 years, we have had only one experienced NFL head coach, Manginni, then changed directions and dumped him for an unproven coach. There are two former head coaches on staff, I wonder why we show no interest in them. I would like to find a coach who has been there/done that. Even if they were unsuccessful in their initial experience, it is not saying that they will not do better with different talent. To me, experience means a lot..

I'll give my best guess as to what Haslam's "checklist" is at this point:

1. Offensive Minded (New NFL rules/trend and offense sells tickets)

2. Younger

3. Type A Personality (Confidence/Swagger/Enthusiasm/Arrogance)



Of the people we have interviewed, who receives a "check" for ALL 3?

Chip Kelly (we wanted)
Doug Marrone (we wanted)
Bill O'Brien (we wanted)


Whoever fits those three AND wants to be here will be the next coach.

I think we have enugh talent on this team, that even Shurmur could win 8 games next year.

And if we get improved Quarterback play (weather it's from Weeden or someone else) it almost "doesn't matter" who the coach is, as talent wins in the NFL.

Jimmy and Joe just need to get their guy, put him and a system in place, find a QB (Possibly Weeden) and let it go...

Houston brough in Kubiak, and for a while there they couldn't break through, and he was on the hot seat, they kept him, and boom suddenly he's a great coach...

I don't know if there is such a thing as a SURE thing.

Cowher has been successful at every position he's had. Here, in KC and in Pittsburgh.

Same could be said for Belichick.., he was turning things around here when Modell dropped the move on him.

Then you look at guys that have been successful at every job prior to becoming a HC and then they fail. Like Romeo Crennell.

So much depends on who the players are.

Here, I think we have most of the players. We may still need a QB, another receiver, TE and some guards maybe on Offense. We need a DE another LB or two, a safety and another corner like Haden.

So maybe 9 players away, 12 tops.

Get a few of them this year, a few more next year and if you get another Cowher or Belichick, you'll get a winner in a couple of years. And you'll have fun watching them while they grow.

I'm not against a College coach.. But I'd like him to be a little more traditional than a Chip Kelly.. and if I had my druthers, I'd druther he spent some time in the NFL in some capacity.

I don't care if a guy is firey on the sidelines, or calm and collected on the sidelines. Both types have rings. it's a meaningless condition of employment.

I do what them to be firey in the locker room.. I want him to light up the players, make them want to play.

and I want him to LEAD. I want a leader that gets the most out of the players he's been given and a guy that can help find the talent that's out there.

I want a guy that understands he can't do it all by himself. He needs to delegate so that means he needs to build a staff that he trusts first and foremost.

I want a man that will stand up and say, I screwed up when he does and shuts up when he doesn't. I want a confident man, but not an arrogant man.

His statistical record will tell us if he knows football, anyone we hire will have that knowledge or they wouldn't hit the teams radar. That's actually not the hard part.

Of course, you gotta like his plan when he interviews. He does have to say the right things.

But beyond that, every guy they've interviewed so far is worthy on paper.

SO it comes down to the intangibles I described above.

I agree wth this FO about needing someone with strong leadership qualities.

Besides that, what I'm looking for is someone who has shown the ability to adapt. Someone who has shown the ability to take the talent they have been given to work with, and have made the most with that talent.

ie...... If a HC is going to be a WCO HC, has he shown that he can vary the WCO? While it began as a single system, as time has progressed, there have been many off-shoots of it played.

So what I don't want to see is a, "my way or the highway" type of HC. Someone who has one single minded vision of what he intends to run no matter if the talent we have doesn't equate to success in his system.

While there is nothing wrong with having a vision of the system you plan to eventually run, it may take quite a while to assemble the talent needed to run that system.

So beyond leadership, I'd like to see someone hired who has shown a propensity for adaptability. To me, this combined with leadership are the two keys I am looking for.

Wheather a current OC or former HC is hired, as was mentioned, there is no gaurantee of success. But we have seen people who I believe were more rigid in the system they have ran and some who really lacked that leadership quality.

I also agree that if such a person is found, he be given the time and talent as that time goes by to eventually run his schemes and system.

I also agree that I feel this FO is leaning strongly towards an offensive minded HC. As was also mentioned, as the rules have evolved, the game favors the offense in todays game. And let's face it, those high powered offenses are the ones grabbing the spotlight and winning SB's for the most part.

After all, it's all about marketing, right?

You bring up a good point about the unproven coaches....

We are a victim of our own (well lerner's) creation.

Because we have constantly blew it up every few years...fired coaches....changed schemes, changed general managers, we have been in constant rebuild mode.

What big name coach wants to walk into that? Because barring a huge, huge amount of luck they would have only begun to turn it around before they are canned. Then there reputation is tarnished.

We lost billick to balt because they were more talented. Heck holmgren was probably dying to coach and he could have stepped in and did it, and he didn't.

I don't see us getting an experienced coach that has won (like cowher or gruden) until we have more stability and talent. Or they absolutely know that the organization is in it for the long haul. Then their ego will say, "I can do better with that talent".

I see this organization leaving no stone unturned. We all bitched when lerner just jumped at mangini...we cried because holmgren picked shurmur, without finding someone "better".

They may have interviewed our own guys....who knows.

Continuity will change the perception and talent will come if we draft smart.

Then if we don't have a good coach we have a shot at getting them.

I like your checklist.

As long as they cover the bases they will be fine. They could get a defensive coach if they get a great offensive coordinator. I do think they will go offensive though with a good defensive coordinator.

Age is subjective...i don't like this 2-3 year and reset crap....If an older guy is the best option...or if the younger guys right now aren't what you are looking for, then get someone that will give you 5-7 years....then you find your coach like pitt and balt did. One that fits into your philosophy, and keep on rolling.

Younger would be better, as long as you are willing to ride out the bumps. Get who you think is the best with age playing a part.

As far as personality I think thats what we all want...because thats how we all feel. We want the coach to be an extension of us.

Deep down I want a guy that will chuck a "Kardiac brick" at the ref and say "what are you new?"

But I wouldn't complain about a guy that shows no emotion while we beat the ever loving crap out of the opponent either.

I think they are being very careful because they need to, even if it comes down to covering their own arses down the road.

They are on record IIRC multiple times stating they are going to get the coach they want and commit to him. So they better damn well make sure they pick the right dude because if they hire a guy who goes 2-14, then 3-13, they're either going to fire him and look like hypocrites or keep around a coach whose HC skills are most likely abysmal.

Nice post...I agree completely.

You bring up a great point about coaches.

Some have it...some don't.

I would add, (and you basically said the same when your brought up players), that others maybe did have it but their situation caused them to fail.

To me this games success comes from much more than just the coach...it's drafting, development, time, and continuity.

You can call exactly the best play for a situation, and if the players can't run it then it will fail. Everyone will say the coach doesn't use his players strengths.

By the same token, you can call a sub-par, or bad play, and your talent will turn it into something because they can. Then everyone says "that coach thinks outside the box"

I think Haslam will pick someone and stand behind his choice for the long haul. I'm sure the qualities you mentioned are what he is looking for because that is a guy players can respect.

I don't really care if it's offense or defense, although I buy the argument that you should go offense, because of how much this league is geared towards scoring... The Patriots won Super Bowls keeping it close to the vest. Belichick has since adjusted his philosophy, and although they haven't won while they have been this scoring machine, they still score a ton and have been to the Super Bowl twice, and the playoffs every year.

I would prefer a young and upcoming coordinator over a head coach who has won before. You can't discount either side of the argument, because we have had previous head coaches, young coordinators, college coaches, etc.. and they all have not sustained anything. We've also had calmn, composed coaches, and fiery, motivating types. I don't care about any of that. I'm interested in plans, structure, philosophy,

I think we can all agree that if we get a coordinator who has never been a head coach, that he should have good experience as a coordinator. Pat Shurmur's resume should not have got him the Browns job 2 years ago. No way. A lot us questioned that as soon as he was hired so you can't even call hindsight 20/20 on that.

I think it would be unfair to play odds, because this isn't the lottery, but coaches taking multiple teams to Super Bowls is not exactly something that happens a lot, so do you want Lovie Smith or Ken Whisenhunt? It would be unfair to just say, well they did it there, so that automatically means they can't because of the history/odds. If you go into why coaches who do it in one place and not the next, what is the reason? Organization/players? parity?

What about a guy like Bruce Arians? Long time coordinator, has had success. Great history with QB's. He gets interviewed a lot when seasons are over, yet he's always passed over, why?

I think we can all agree, the thing we look for the most with a new coach, is a guy who can weather the storm and get through these first few seasons, and come out with more than hope for the future.

Some fans scream that we keep changing coaches and never get anywhere, but what guy since '99 have we regretted letting go? If anything, the Browns were 100% right in firing each and every coach. I think it's time to stop crying about firing coaches every year, and start demanding that we pick the right guy instead of having to put us all in this position that we are so used to.

let's see if my checklist looked good?

1. Offensive minded? Check

2. Young? Check

3. Type A personality???

When I read your post I can sort of agree and disagree at the same time.

When you talk about the WCO, you ask the question of can the coach "vary" it. This imply's that their is a weakness to the system, or something needs to be fixed.

The very essence of that offense is variety. If you look at Walsh's offense, the receivers had 4 different routes to run based on the defensive look they got. Tons of plays and variations of those same plays.

Before that in a traditional offense a receiver would run a pre-determined route...it was the qb's job to find the open guy and throw it. Some routes were going to be open, and some weren't. A receiver just had to know how to run the routes. And catch the ball. The qb had to have the time to find the open guy.

The WCO in essence would have a receiver run a route that was open based on the defense shown. And since it was timing based the ball was out quick right when the receiver made his break.

This in and of itself is probably very had to defend if executed properly. The only problem is that it takes some time to perfect the precision and timing to make it function properly.

I don't think its fair to say "is he running a outdated version" or he needs to "update" it. Maybe the players just need the time to learn and practice it.

Obviously you can take any system, add your personal beliefs to it and call it an off-shoot. This doesn't necessarily make it any better, just different. Obviously if you have a stud running back or a great tight end, you could add some plays, or call more plays to try and get them the ball.

The problem is that the defense knows what you have too. If you are running the ball successfully, they are going to call every defensive play that they have to try and stop it. This in effect creates a weakness somewhere else. A balanced offense will then exploit that....but what if they can't?

That's the big chess game...take away your strengths, and force you to do something your not as good at.

Then when you say "my way or the highway"...this imply's pride...and failure. Now if you have a mobile qb, and you call alot of roll outs, and he goes down and your backup is bernie...then i get your point.

On the other hand if sticking to your system means repetitions, experience, growth, and finally success, then I would rather have the "my way or the highway"

Denver modded their system for tebow and won some games..but it didn't allow tebow to learn the original system. Did it play to his strengths? Sure. But it didn't have lasting success.

Look at us...people were clamoring to put weeden in the shotgun since he did that in college. Seems like we did start to put him in the shotgun more towards the end of the season. But this isn't helping him learn his drops and timing...and it's also not the best formation for running the ball either. So we lessened richardson's game in doing so. Are we really better for it?

Then you go on to say even if he doesn't have the talent for the system....or to put it another way the talent we do have doesn't fit the system.

If this is truly the case then I have to wonder what is going on, if the players were brought in for the chosen system. Sucky talent is going to be beat by better talent no matter what you do.

If you are talking about our constant changing of the defense back and forth, then I agree with you. No reason to switch up the d from a 4-3 now...we've got some talent and depth there.


I think we quickly point the finger at these guys and say "it's them"

We do need a leader in a head coach...since well that's his job...to lead.

I do think they all adapt to situations more than we realize. it's just that when the results aren't to our liking we say that they should have done something else.

Time will tell if we give him some time....