Browns to interview McCarthy

[Icecube]

3 hours ago, jrb12711 said:

I’m fine with Mike. I’m so weary to this process that the only thing I want for sure is a coach who’s done this shit for a while at least at a coordinator level. I’m glad real a guy like Rhule didn’t want to interview. He may be the next great guy, but the Browns don’t need that.

We need someone who can come in and knows how to set the tone. Mike easily could do that.

Looks like he will "easily do it" in Dallas. 

[Icecube]

1 hour ago, MDDawg said:

Admittedly my doubts were creeping in about Baker this season but when I read about how Bienimy prepares Mahomes for games ( I linked it in the HC/GM thread) which obviously lacked here I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not endorsing Bienimy but I want someone like him who pays attention to detail and coaches his players hard.

Did you read about how Eric studies every play in so much detail that he knows every player's role for every play? He said he does this so he doesn't let anyone down. Freddie did nothing along the sort. Browns mirrored Freddie - loosey goosey, sloppy, ghastly short on attention to detail. A complete joke. As the season went along, it became painfully obvious just how sloppy FK was. 

[Gunz41]

3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

No grey area in the record books.   Colts were 1968 NFL champions and they are no more than the 51 Super Bowl other Super Bowl losers since then.  NFC/AFC champions. Or even any more than say last year the Ravens were the AFC North Champions. 

Maybe you also want to call all the "Division Championship" winners"Champions  since then as well.  They do call them Champions.

The better question is:   Why do we call any team that did not win the Super Bowl "Champions"  if they have simply won their won a step on the way to the right to get the "ultimate" championship game? Division champions?    We need better terminology.

Again, nobody ever claimed they were SB or Ultimate champion.

And by your logic there, Browns have ZERO championships since they didn't win a SUPER BOWL. 

Everyone here knows that if it were this team that did what the Colts did then you would have a different opinion.

So you can keep rambling on and on to hear yourself, get your post count up, whatever you want, I am done with this one. As all you are doing is saying the exact same thing over and over and not saying a single word that anyone has disagreed with here. You just keep saying these bigger championship games when I nor anyone ever said they won them. 

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, Gunz41 said:

Again, nobody ever claimed they were SB or Ultimate champion.

And by your logic there, Browns have ZERO championships since they didn't win a SUPER BOWL. 

Not by my logic, no sir:   my logic says that a team has to win their last game to be champions.

Everyone here knows that if it were this team that did what the Colts did then you would have a different opinion.

Nope, sure wouldn't.  It has happened, and my criteria has not changed. You can't lose a championship game and be a champion.

So you can keep rambling on and on to hear yourself, get your post count up, whatever you want,

I care about neither of those.....but I do care about the facts. And the fact is:  the Colts lost.  The Chiefs in '66, the Raiders in '67, the Colts in '68, the Vikings in '69 do not get to claim a championship beyond what the SB loser gets to claim today....that they won a "Conference".

 

I am done with this one. As all you are doing is saying the exact same thing over and over and not saying a single word that anyone has disagreed with here. You just keep saying these bigger championship games when I nor anyone ever said they won them. 

Sorry if the truth makes you constipated.  How Trumpian of you. 

 

[Flugel]

On 12/31/2019 at 1:33 PM, hoorta said:

Him and Rodgers couldn't get along supposedly.... His last two seasons were less than stellar. As Tour pointed out- they went from 6-9 to 13-3 this year- essentially same team, without McCarthy. Something to consider. I'm totally ambivalent on hiring him.  

As I've been saying- you bring in Mike, you have to accept the whole package of assistant coaches he's already recruited. 

The last point you make Larry has me wondering how much better off we would be waiting 3-4 more weeks just to hire another Coordinator from a competent ownership/FO/HC and talented playoff team not ready for the culture shock of the shitttt at the top of this organization.   We've witnessed countless Coordinators coming from way better ownerships that underestimated the culture shock of the horrible ownership here.  Salt to wound, if you hire somebody too late - the challenge becomes finding the guy's first choice of assistant coaches that are still available.   IMO, this is the part I think McCarthy has an advantage over others in terms of getting the help he wants that is well acquainted and experienced with his system (that worked well a large percentage of the time his QBs weren't on IR with an injured and surgically repaired collar bone). He also trained and developed Aaron Rodgers to achieve multiple Pro Bowl honors aside from all the post seasons and 1 SB Championship they won together.  

Dan Marino didn't win ANY Superbowls with Don Shula and Jimmy Johnson as his HCs over a combined longer period of time than Aaron Rodgers has played. That doesn't have to mean Jimmy Johnson and Don Shula weren't any good. 

[Gorka]

15 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

So anywhere you look says Don Shula won 2 Super Bowls and an NFL Championship in '68 but you know better?

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, Gorka said:

So anywhere you look says Don Shula won 2 Super Bowls and an NFL Championship in '68 but you know better?

His team lost to the Jets in the Super Bowl.    Do you consider the loser of the NFL-AFL Championship game....which is what it was called at the time, (the name Super Bowl was not created yet)  the Champion?   He lost the 1964 Championship game to the Browns.  So why not just give him a championship there to.  Those "league championship games" were tantamount to the NFC/AFC championship games we have had for 50 years now.  Nothing more.    Here from  the same source that Gunz used (note...this list only looks at NFL titles...not at AAFC or AFL titles)

Appearances/Top 2 Finishes	Franchise	Wins	Losses/Runner-Ups	Win %	Seasons
22	New York Giants	8	14	.364	1927, 1929, 1930, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1944, 1946, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1986,1990, 2000, 2007, 2011
19	Chicago Bears	9	10	.474	1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1937, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1946, 1956, 1963, 1985, 2006
18	Green Bay Packers	13	5	.722	1927, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1936, 1938, 1939, 1944, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1996, 1997, 2010
11	New England Patriots	6	5	.545	1985, 1996, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018
11	Washington Redskins	5	6	.455	1936, 1937, 1940, 1942, 1943, 1945, 1972, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1991
9	Cleveland Browns	4	5	.444	1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1957, 1964, 1965
9	Cleveland/St. Louis/Los Angeles Rams	3	6	.333	1945, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1955, 1979, 1999, 2001, 2018
8	Pittsburgh Steelers	6	2	.750	1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1995, 2005, 2008, 2010
8	Dallas Cowboys	5	3	.625	1970, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1992, 1993, 1995
8	Denver Broncos	3	5	.375	1977, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1997, 1998, 2013, 2015
7	Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts	4	3	.571	1958, 1959, 1964, 1968, 1970, 2006, 2009
7	Philadelphia Eagles	4	3	.571	1947, 1948, 1949, 1960, 1980, 2004, 2017
6	San Francisco 49ers	5	1	.833	1981, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1994, 2012
6	Detroit Lions	4	2	.667	1931, 1935, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957
5	Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders	3	2	.600	1967, 1976, 1980, 1983, 2002
5	Miami Dolphins	2	3	.400	1971, 1972, 1973, 1982, 1984
4	Chicago/Arizona Cardinals	2	2	.500	1925, 1947, 1948, 2008
4	Minnesota Vikings	0	4	.000	1969, 1973, 1974, 1976
4	Buffalo Bills	0	4	.000	1990, 1991, 1992, 1993
3	Seattle Seahawks	1	2	.333	2005, 2013, 2014
2	Canton Bulldogs	2	0	1.000	1922, 1923
2	Baltimore Ravens	2	0	1.000	2000, 2012
2	Frankford Yellow Jackets	1	1	.500	1926, 1928
2	Kansas City Chiefs	1	1	.500	1966, 1969
2	Cincinnati Bengals	0	2	.000	1981, 1988
2	Carolina Panthers	0	2	.000	2003, 2015
2	Atlanta Falcons	0	2	.000	1998, 2016
1	Akron Pros	1	0	1.000	1920
1	Cleveland Bulldogs	1	0	1.000	1924
1	Providence Steam Rollers	1	0	1.000	1928
1	New York Jets	1	0	1.000	1968
1	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	1	0	1.000	2002
1	New Orleans Saints	1	0	1.000	2009
1	Buffalo All-Americans	0	1	.000	1921
1	Pottsville Maroons	0	1	.000	1925
1	San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers	0	1	.000	1994
1	Tennessee Titans	0	1	.000	1999
0	Jacksonville Jaguars	0	0	—
0	Houston Texans NOTICE that the Colts are credited ONLY for a loss, making them the Runnerup in 1968	0	0	—

[Tour2ma]

On 1/3/2020 at 6:22 PM, Neo said:

The Browns approach to finding a HC has always been throw something at the wall and see what sticks except NOTHING EVER STICKS. Just look at the list of candidates Eric Bienimy, Greg Roman, Robert Saleh, all the same see what sticks type of candidates.

Not saying one of these guys can't be an instant phenom, but the odds are HIGHLY unlikely. McCarthy can bring stability, which is the first step of changing the culture. If they gave Hueless two years, they would have to give McCarthy at least three years minimum. 

How HIGHLY? First time HCs seem to have had a pretty good run lately.

As for the Coordinators we are interviewing... they may enter the process with a fair degree of homogeneity, but they are going to emerge as ranked, individual candidates... each with particular strengths and weaknesses.

On 1/3/2020 at 6:31 PM, Neo said:

You know,  it really doesn't matter what I or anybody thinks ...

Always the last stop in a retreat from a losing argument.

 

[Gunz41]

18 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

Even though I said I wouldn't, I gotta respond.

So when St. Thomas Aquinas (FL) beat Saint Louis (HI) for a national championship, does that mean that Saint Louis isnt a champion? I mean they did win a state championship.

Or let's look at it in legal setting. OJ Simpson was acquitted in his criminal trial. Yet he lost his civil suit. That is like saying he is GUILTY of it BECAUSE of the civil suit.

And you obviously missed the point on Cleveland. "Why do we call any team champion that did not win the Super Bowl. So those AAFC championships don't qualify to you. And those NFL championships don't qualify for you. 

See all you want to do is argue, or try and prove that you know something. Because you initially responding was to point out that Colts didn't win the SB, Ultimate championship, etc. Clue 1 prick, NOBODY EVER said they did. 

Clue 2 Dunce, whether YOU want to believe it, accept it, etc. The Baltimore Colts are UNIVERSALLY recognized as the 1968 NFL CHAMPIONS. Nowhere in that statement does it say ANYTHING about winning another game, etc.

Clue 3 doofus, you are the ONLY one who would try and reach to call the NFL a conference. They were separate entities. In fact, those Colts won their CONFERENCE against the Vikings. Then they won their LEAGUE, the NFL against the Browns. One can now look back at it and say that it was essentially a Conference championship, yet that would be rewriting history.

Clue 4 ninnyhammer: so with your criteria/facts, then aren't the Colts CHAMPIONS since they won their last game in the NFL? Wouldn't that make them the NFL CHAMPIONS. Same with Chiefs, Raiders, Vikings?

Clue 5 simpleton: politics certainly aren't my thing, but it seems by that post you aren't a fan of Trump. While I don't care what you think of politics, and I find that ironic as some of your ways on here are Trumpian. You make some claim, yet when either called out on it, or proven wrong, you either deflect, play the victim, attack character or double down on the claim. So your "everyone deserves their opinion (when you don't respect others opinion) is "fake news, they hate me, etc. And your "well you misread, this is what I meant, etc" is "biggest crowd ever... well it was, but "they use the bad pictures, etc."

So yep, I apologize. Here I was calling you Ghool** Jr., when you remind me more of DJT. So with that in mind, all your posts are PERFECT, BIGLY, and GREATEST EVER.

[Tour2ma]

On 1/3/2020 at 6:58 PM, WarriorsRpussies said:

I've actually coming around to the idea of McCarthy being the head coach. Saw his interview and it appears the year off ...

The year off bothers me... it wasn't as if it was by his choice. Plus he sat around with his coordinators??? Not much demand for them either?

23 hours ago, Icecube said:

Did you read about how Eric studies every play in so much detail that he knows every player's role for every play? He said he does this so he doesn't let anyone down. Freddie did nothing along the sort. Browns mirrored Freddie - loosey goosey, sloppy, ghastly short on attention to detail. A complete joke. As the season went along, it became painfully obvious just how sloppy FK was. 

While you may be right about Freddie (although I doubt it), Bienemy's approach s the norm, not the exceptional. Most plays have strategic goals be it attacking a weakness, or flooding a zone or pounding a DL and from that goal all the tactical moves fall... blocking assignments, routes, etc. It ain't rocket science and it doesn't require memorization.

Ever seen a QB white board session like what Gruden used to do with the top prospects in each Draft and wonder how the prospect could regurgitate a pass play he was shown 15 minutes earlier? It starts with recognizing the goal of the play.

[The Gipper]

35 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

Even though I said I wouldn't, I gotta respond.

So when St. Thomas Aquinas (FL) beat Saint Louis (HI) for a national championship, does that mean that Saint Louis isnt a champion? I mean they did win a state championship.

Or let's look at it in legal setting. OJ Simpson was acquitted in his criminal trial. Yet he lost his civil suit. That is like saying he is GUILTY of it BECAUSE of the civil suit.

And you obviously missed the point on Cleveland. "Why do we call any team champion that did not win the Super Bowl. So those AAFC championships don't qualify to you. And those NFL championships don't qualify for you. 

See all you want to do is argue, or try and prove that you know something. Because you initially responding was to point out that Colts didn't win the SB, Ultimate championship, etc. Clue 1 prick, NOBODY EVER said they did. 

Clue 2 Dunce, whether YOU want to believe it, accept it, etc. The Baltimore Colts are UNIVERSALLY recognized as the 1968 NFL CHAMPIONS. Nowhere in that statement does it say ANYTHING about winning another game, etc.

Clue 3 doofus, you are the ONLY one who would try and reach to call the NFL a conference. They were separate entities. In fact, those Colts won their CONFERENCE against the Vikings. Then they won their LEAGUE, the NFL against the Browns. One can now look back at it and say that it was essentially a Conference championship, yet that would be rewriting history.

Clue 4 ninnyhammer: so with your criteria/facts, then aren't the Colts CHAMPIONS since they won their last game in the NFL? Wouldn't that make them the NFL CHAMPIONS. Same with Chiefs, Raiders, Vikings?

Clue 5 simpleton: politics certainly aren't my thing, but it seems by that post you aren't a fan of Trump. While I don't care what you think of politics, and I find that ironic as some of your ways on here are Trumpian. You make some claim, yet when either called out on it, or proven wrong, you either deflect, play the victim, attack character or double down on the claim. So your "everyone deserves their opinion (when you don't respect others opinion) is "fake news, they hate me, etc. And your "well you misread, this is what I meant, etc" is "biggest crowd ever... well it was, but "they use the bad pictures, etc."

So yep, I apologize. Here I was calling you Ghool** Jr., when you remind me more of DJT. So with that in mind, all your posts are PERFECT, BIGLY, and GREATEST EVER.

Sure.....the fucking Colts were the Champions of creation.   It doesn't matter that they lost....or that your own source called them Runnerups.

They were runnerups, like you. 

And the Cleveland Browns AAFC style won their final game...they didn't lose it. 

And your ignorance of politics is as massive as Trump's ego. 

[Dutch Oven]

When two people on here go at it, I mean really go at it, and both insult Captain BoneSpurs, we all win. 

[Gunz41]

2 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Sure.....the fucking Colts were the Champions of creation.   It doesn't matter that they lost....or that your own source called them Runnerups.

They were runnerups, like you. 

And the Cleveland Browns AAFC style won their final game...they didn't lose it. 

And your ignorance of politics is as massive as Trump's ego. 

Well, like usual you don't respond to the specific points mentioned, there's that deflection.

And again, as usual, you take what you want out of a post and try to spin it to where nothing was said to that point.

So here we go AGAIN.

Nobody said the Browns weren't the champions of the AAFC. What WAS said, that by the criteria that YOU posted, the why would any team not SB champion... then those AAFC or NFL championships wouldn't count. Me, I think they count.

My own source? I run Wikipedia? Dang, I must be rich, or really poor since they are always asking for money. If that is the source you refer to, let's do this since you keep bringing it up, IF they didn't win the NFL championship I will bow to your greatness and leave. And if they did you do the same. Or go even further numb skull, if I EVER said they did any of the following: won their last game, won the SB, won the Ultimate game, whatever else criteria you seem to allude that I said. If not, then do EVERYONE a favor and SHUT THE F**K UP.

As for politics, I never said I knew anything about it. But you responding like that makes me KNOW that I was spot on. I don't care if you like him or not (Dutch, I didn't know that I insulted him, but that doesn't bother me), but I will guarantee that there are A LOT of people here that would agree that the way you post Gipper resembles that.

As for being a runner up, I don't think I quite know what you are alluding to, but I will try to decipher it. Runner up to you in age, YEP. Runner up in career, Yep. Runner up in pissing people off, you betcha. Oh, runner up in number of posts. You betcha. Runner up in number of asinine comments on here, yep you win that one by a landslide. Runner up in number of subjects changed to try and grasp at straws. Yep, you got me, you win.

But runner up in these debates/arguments, why don't we let the other people on here decide who "wins" or shows more knowledge. Or do we mean actually football knowledge? 

You like to result in impugning my character, or make unsubstantiated claims often. Yet when pressed about it, you never show even the 1st piece of evidence. 

So its VERY simple loud mouth, unless you want to be looked at as a complete joke on here (or more so than you already do), since you have said both of these things in last 2 weeks: provide one iota of either: A POOR OPINION, or an IGNORANCE ON POLITICS.

Because I can substantiate every things I have said about you. Case in point, you got into a pages long debate about JOE BRADY. And instead of thinking to yourself (hmm, why do these idiots keep referring to someone as Coach) you just keep on arguing about it. While we knew EVERY SECOND WHO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. And then the resemblance to DJT, you BLAMED @Flugel and myself for how it was written. 

Or how about this discussion, you keep referring to all these other things. Exactly where did I (or ANYONE) else say that is what the Colts won? 

Or do we want to go back to last college season, where you again wrong yet blamed others. To refresh your memory, since you can't seem to keep track yourself. 

Paraphrasing the 1st part. Stupid Clemson bragging about being 1st team to go 15-0. Then "How is it that they... and no one else was allowed to schedule an extra regular season game?" And we the other posters are supposed to know that you meant that it could have been Alabama, or OSU in 2014, etc. So again that wasn't YOUR fault.

Maybe we should put up a poll and ask a few things. 1. Who shows more knowledge on here 2. Who is a more likeable person 3. Who makes excuses when they say something incorrectly 4. Does Gipper give off a resemblance of traits to someone else 

[The Gipper]

Here is a clue for you:   you are talking to yourself.  Why?  Because you have not talked football the last month or so.  You seem to be only on here to whinge about me.   But, sorry, I don't love you like you want me to.   And no one else cares about your obsession of me.    Whatever life you have outside of thinking about everything I say....good luck to you.  

[Tour2ma]

6 minutes ago, Gunz41 said:

So here we go AGAIN.

Life is short...

[gumby73]

Dutch you should have had a career as a Stand-up Comedy 😂... the Browns saga fits ... BTW.... WAS there ever a ending story (or made up) where MM was while Haslam gave his presser? Lunch? Gone? taking a pop quiz?

[Gunz41]

28 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Here is a clue for you:   you are talking to yourself.  Why?  Because you have not talked football the last month or so.  You seem to be only on here to whinge about me.   But, sorry, I don't love you like you want me to.   And no one else cares about your obsession of me.    Whatever life you have outside of thinking about everything I say....good luck to you.  

Wrong again. Does it hurt to be wrong so many times and look foolish. For one, when I responded in THIS thread, it wasn't to you, so that blows that theory about it being about you out the water.

Two, talking about the Colts is football. Talking about Joe Brady and Joe Burrow is football. I wouldn't expect you to know that though since you thought they were the same person 

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, Gunz41 said:

Wrong again. Does it hurt to be wrong so many times and look foolish. For one, when I responded in THIS thread, it wasn't to you, so that blows that theory about it being about you out the water.

Two, talking about the Colts is football. Talking about Joe Brady and Joe Burrow is football. I wouldn't expect you to know that though since you thought they were the same person 

[hoorta]

5 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Here is a clue for you:   you are talking to yourself.  Why?  Because you have not talked football the last month or so.  You seem to be only on here to whinge about me.   But, sorry, I don't love you like you want me to.   And no one else cares about your obsession of me.    Whatever life you have outside of thinking about everything I say....good luck to you.  

He only brings it up- because there's somefact in what he's saying. 

3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Absolutely- and that's you perennially chasing your tail spinning history to suit your view of it. 

[The Gipper]

51 minutes ago, hoorta said:

He only brings it up- because there's somefact in what he's saying. 

There may be, if you can get through  9 paragraphs of BS.

Absolutely- and that's you perennially chasing your tail spinning history to suit your view of it. 

Larry, I haven't even read like his last 5 posts.  That is why I put the memes on there.   All he had been doing is worrying  and obsessing about what I say. 

I will stick by my view of history....Bottom line, if you and he think the Colts in 1968 are considered to have been the Champions of Football.....go ask Don Shula, Unitas, Morrall, etc. if they think the same thing.   (Shula turned 90 yesterday....at least he is still alive to ask.  I think I know what his answer would be)

[TexasAg1969]

20 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

When two people on here go at it, I mean really go at it, and both insult Captain BoneSpurs, we all win. 

Clearly they are not polyboard material.😂

BTW McCarthy is off the board - headed for Dallas NFL Net reports this morning.

[luke8878]

So now who is out there with head coaching experience? I'm sick of coordinators. So here we go again.

[SdBacker80]

21 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

The year off bothers me... it wasn't as if it was by his choice. Plus he sat around with his coordinators??? Not much demand for them either?

While you may be right about Freddie (although I doubt it), Bienemy's approach s the norm, not the exceptional. Most plays have strategic goals be it attacking a weakness, or flooding a zone or pounding a DL and from that goal all the tactical moves fall... blocking assignments, routes, etc. It ain't rocket science and it doesn't require memorization.

Ever seen a QB white board session like what Gruden used to do with the top prospects in each Draft and wonder how the prospect could regurgitate a pass play he was shown 15 minutes earlier? It starts with recognizing the goal of the play.

I actually see the year off as a benefit.  
Cooling off period.  Mental reset.  He coached 13 years with one team.  
 

He didn’t just take any job either.  He’s weighed options obviously.  Followed football from a different perspective.  
 

 

[SdBacker80]

McCarthy to the Boys...wow that was quick 

[Westside Steve]

We figured that wasn't happening when he stayed a couple days down there. So we are fighting with Carolina for Mike Daniels? After that it's Mike Pettine volume two

WSS

[hx214]

3 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

We figured that wasn't happening when he stayed a couple days down there. So we are fighting with Carolina for Mike Daniels? After that it's Mike Pettine volume two

WSS

Yep. This. 

Although.... I will say I think I like Mike as a coach the most out of the last 6 we had.... dude got saddled with that drunk midget and Farmer.

[jiggins7919]

35 minutes ago, SdBacker80 said:

McCarthy to the Boys...wow that was quick 

Starting to get a little nervous now. 

[MDDawg]

7 minutes ago, jiggins7919 said:

Starting to get a little nervous now. 

Chill, although McCarthy studied analytics for a year I don't think he would've aligned well in this organization. McDaniels is a better fit among the former head coaches and I read he's interviewing today.

[jiggins7919]

1 minute ago, MDDawg said:

Chill, although McCarthy studied analytics for a year I don't think he would've aligned well in this organization. McDaniels is a better fit among the former head coaches and I read he's interviewing today.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking too. I guess my worry with a younger coach is whether or not he can command the locker room. Being a Bill disciple, perhaps McDaniels knows a thing or two about discipline and keeping a team together...at least that's my hope. I have a feeling that our team was a bigger cluster chicken than we even thought, so perhaps the right coach can unlock our potential. 

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, luke8878 said:

So now who is out there with head coaching experience? I'm sick of coordinators. So here we go again.

McDaniel.  Two years in Denver, Remember.