HC/GM/Position Coach tracker
-
Folks, teams have been able to block assistant coaches from interviewing for coordinator jobs for maybe 6-7 years now. This is nothing new.
Well, if it just started 6-7 years ago, that makes it a fairly recent situation, all things considered. (of course that makes it like the last 5-6 hires the Browns have made have had to operate with that condition.
So how then, could the Browns hire say, a Joe Woods for DC.....if he is still under contract with SFO?
Well, if it just started 6-7 years ago, that makes it a fairly recent situation, all things considered. (of course that makes it like the last 5-6 hires the Browns have made have had to operate with that condition.
So how then, could the Browns hire say, a Joe Woods for DC.....if he is still under contract with SFO?
His contract is expiring.
-
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/20/report-browns-are-expected-to-hire-bill-callahan/
Bringing in Bill Callahan for OLine after letting Campen go.
-
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/20/report-browns-are-expected-to-hire-bill-callahan/
Bringing in Bill Callahan for OLine after letting Campen go.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/20/report-browns-are-expected-to-hire-bill-callahan/
Bringing in Bill Callahan for OLine after letting Campen go.
Bill Callahan has been around....
....but I would rather put my defense in the hands of his cousin, Harry.
"Go Ahead, Run the Ball, Make My Day"
-
I would rather go with a clean slate with that than bring back Wilks, for sure.
Maybe the Packers will do us a favor today.
Well they lost, so maybe we could bring back Mike Pettine as DC
Just kidding....
I read an article by Ian Rappaport on NFL.com that Mike McDaniel and Mike LaFleur are of interest to be the new OC's. However, in the article it says that the 49er's could block the move. I'm curious because I thought as long as it is not a lateral position a team can not block a hire? In this case LaFleur is the passing game coordinator and McDaniel the run game. Neither call plays. If it is a pay bump and title promotion, i was always under the impression it was good to go. In the same article, it talks how Woods would be allowed to go because he is in his last year of his contract. How does that work?
The previous post was correct. Every assistant coaching position (including OC, DC, and assistant HC) below Head Coach is considered a lateral move, and the coach can be blocked from taking a position with another team below the HC position. IIRC, the Vikings blocked Stefanski from taking the OC position with the Giants....
The only exception to that is if said coach's contract with his team is up- in that case, he can resign with the same team, or look for a better deal elsewhere.....
If assistants coaches had a union, they would fight like hell to get rid of that rule. In fact, I think the operative term you use there is "Now"....because I think it is a fairly new policy. The purpose of which I am curious about. Did owners/GM just not want to lose good asst. coaches to promotions short of HC?
No idea how recent the rule is Gipper, but it was primarily the head coaches that were poed. Because you could make up a BS title that "looked" like a promotion- but in fact wasn't. Is an "assistant head coach" a promotion over a coordinator? Or, LOL, farther down the pecking order- the head quality control coach over just a quality control coach?
No... when there was no consensus the pass was automatic. It's how a consensus process works.
Tour- please you've dodged this way too long, numerous times and almost no one else here believes you. If you have no consensus- then someone has to make a decision. Was it Sashi, or did they just put names in a hat and pull one out?
If no one has the final vote with no consensus, then nothing gets moved forward. Well, 1\2 of us have player "A" or player "B" as the best choice, we can't agree, so let's take lesser talent player "C" that we all agree on. That sounds like how you wind up with a Corey Coleman.
Tour- please you've dodged this way too long, numerous times and almost no one else here believes you. If you have no consensus- then someone has to make a decision. Was it Sashi, or did they just put names in a hat and pull one out?
Your, or anyone else's, refusal to accept the truth is not my problem, h.... but I'll try again.
- You have prospect A... Scouts don't like A; analytics loves A. Discuss, but Scouts hold fast. No consensus. You pass on A and move on to Prospect B.
- Prospect B... Scouts love; Analytics hate... Discuss and not surprisingly no consensus.... on to C.
- Prospect C... Scouts love: Analytics like, but not love value at current pick... discuss trade down. Consensus reached to pick here.
Sashi's job was to shepherd the process and that included leading the discussions, but the decisions are automatic. Either both sides agree to accept... not love, but be willing to live with... the prospect or it's onto the next prospect. That is the consensus process.
The bulk of this work would be done during the creation of the Big Board. Then scenarios would develop about Draft Day trade strategies in an attempt to anticipate as much as possible. With practice the entire decision process can fit into the time allotted to making a given pick.
Got it now?
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/20/report-browns-are-expected-to-hire-bill-callahan/
Bringing in Bill Callahan for OLine after letting Campen go.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/20/report-browns-are-expected-to-hire-bill-callahan/
Bringing in Bill Callahan for OLine after letting Campen go.
Interesting hire. Certainly older than the few staff hires we know about so far as he is in his 60s. I found an article indicating he has experience with the zone blocking scheme Stefanski is expected to run.
-
Appears we are heading towards some different titles on our coaching staff... Passing game coord... Run game coord... maybe even with a slash here and there.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Appears we are heading towards some different titles on our coaching staff... Passing game coord... Run game coord... maybe even with a slash here and there.
Appears we are heading towards some different titles on our coaching staff... Passing game coord... Run game coord... maybe even with a slash here and there.
I always wanted to be a “defensive quantity control coach”.
Coach would ask “How many linebackers do we have?” And l would say “5”.
I would be great at that job.
-
Appears we are heading towards some different titles on our coaching staff... Passing game coord... Run game coord... maybe even with a slash here and there.
I always wanted to be a “defensive quantity control coach”.
Coach would ask “How many linebackers do we have?” And l would say “5”.
I would be great at that job.
I always wanted to be a “defensive quantity control coach”.
The wins coordinator ?
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
I always wanted to be a “defensive quantity control coach”.
The wins coordinator ?
The wins coordinator ?
Do you have to be able to count higher than 20 for that? If so it’s not for me.
-
Tour- please you've dodged this way too long, numerous times and almost no one else here believes you. If you have no consensus- then someone has to make a decision. Was it Sashi, or did they just put names in a hat and pull one out?
Your, or anyone else's, refusal to accept the truth is not my problem, h.... but I'll try again.
- You have prospect A... Scouts don't like A; analytics loves A. Discuss, but Scouts hold fast. No consensus. You pass on A and move on to Prospect B.
- Prospect B... Scouts love; Analytics hate... Discuss and not surprisingly no consensus.... on to C.
- Prospect C... Scouts love: Analytics like, but not love value at current pick... discuss trade down. Consensus reached to pick here.
Sashi's job was to shepherd the process and that included leading the discussions, but the decisions are automatic. Either both sides agree to accept... not love, but be willing to live with... the prospect or it's onto the next prospect. That is the consensus process.
The bulk of this work would be done during the creation of the Big Board. Then scenarios would develop about Draft Day trade strategies in an attempt to anticipate as much as possible. With practice the entire decision process can fit into the time allotted to making a given pick.
Got it now?
Sashi's job was to shepherd the process and that included leading the discussions, but the decisions are automatic. Either both sides agree to accept... not love, but be willing to live with... the prospect or it's onto the next prospect.
In other words, you wind up doing what the dumbest shit of the bunch agrees to do.
No, that's not how it was. If there was no consensus to be reached, then Sashi had final say. It was The Committee of Harvard Think Tankers and Hue. They couldn't agree on the brand of water to drink.
-
Sashi's job was to shepherd the process and that included leading the discussions, but the decisions are automatic. Either both sides agree to accept... not love, but be willing to live with... the prospect or it's onto the next prospect.
In other words, you wind up doing what the dumbest shit of the bunch agrees to do.
No, that's not how it was. If there was no consensus to be reached, then Sashi had final say. It was The Committee of Harvard Think Tankers and Hue. They couldn't agree on the brand of water to drink.
- In other words, you wind up doing what the dumbest shit of the bunch agrees to do.
- No, that's not how it was. If there was no consensus to be reached, then Sashi had final say.
- How do you come to that conclusion?
- And what was said was "moving right along." In a consensus process there simply is nothing else to be said when no consensus is reached.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Tour- please you've dodged this way too long, numerous times and almost no one else here believes you. If you have no consensus- then someone has to make a decision. Was it Sashi, or did they just put names in a hat and pull one out?
Your, or anyone else's, refusal to accept the truth is not my problem, h.... but I'll try again.
- You have prospect A... Scouts don't like A; analytics loves A. Discuss, but Scouts hold fast. No consensus. You pass on A and move on to Prospect B.
- Prospect B... Scouts love; Analytics hate... Discuss and not surprisingly no consensus.... on to C.
- Prospect C... Scouts love: Analytics like, but not love value at current pick... discuss trade down. Consensus reached to pick here.
Sashi's job was to shepherd the process and that included leading the discussions, but the decisions are automatic. Either both sides agree to accept... not love, but be willing to live with... the prospect or it's onto the next prospect. That is the consensus process.
The bulk of this work would be done during the creation of the Big Board. Then scenarios would develop about Draft Day trade strategies in an attempt to anticipate as much as possible. With practice the entire decision process can fit into the time allotted to making a given pick.
Got it now?
Your, or anyone else's, refusal to accept the truth is not my problem, h.... but I'll try again.
- You have prospect A... Scouts don't like A; analytics loves A. Discuss, but Scouts hold fast. No consensus. You pass on A and move on to Prospect B.
- Prospect B... Scouts love; Analytics hate... Discuss and not surprisingly no consensus.... on to C.
- Prospect C... Scouts love: Analytics like, but not love value at current pick... discuss trade down. Consensus reached to pick here.
Sashi's job was to shepherd the process and that included leading the discussions, but the decisions are automatic. Either both sides agree to accept... not love, but be willing to live with... the prospect or it's onto the next prospect. That is the consensus process.
The bulk of this work would be done during the creation of the Big Board. Then scenarios would develop about Draft Day trade strategies in an attempt to anticipate as much as possible. With practice the entire decision process can fit into the time allotted to making a given pick.
Got it now?
That all sounds so feckless...even if it is accurate. And it is exactly that....a compromise to take a guy that each unit sort of likes....Because I think the actual scenario would be: Prospects C....Scouts sorta like, analytics sorta likes......
So, what we end up with is a guy that no one likes and no one hates. I think that implies one term: mediocrity.
-
Do you have to be able to count higher than 20 for that? If so it’s not for me.
19 is as high as you can go.......at least for now and until the owners want to negotiate with the players for a longer season.
-
Tour- please you've dodged this way too long, numerous times and almost no one else here believes you. If you have no consensus- then someone has to make a decision. Was it Sashi, or did they just put names in a hat and pull one out?
Your, or anyone else's, refusal to accept the truth is not my problem, h.... but I'll try again.
- You have prospect A... Scouts don't like A; analytics loves A. Discuss, but Scouts hold fast. No consensus. You pass on A and move on to Prospect B.
- Prospect B... Scouts love; Analytics hate... Discuss and not surprisingly no consensus.... on to C.
- Prospect C... Scouts love: Analytics like, but not love value at current pick... discuss trade down. Consensus reached to pick here.
Sashi's job was to shepherd the process and that included leading the discussions, but the decisions are automatic. Either both sides agree to accept... not love, but be willing to live with... the prospect or it's onto the next prospect. That is the consensus process.
The bulk of this work would be done during the creation of the Big Board. Then scenarios would develop about Draft Day trade strategies in an attempt to anticipate as much as possible. With practice the entire decision process can fit into the time allotted to making a given pick.
Got it now?
Your, or anyone else's, refusal to accept the truth is not my problem, h.... but I'll try again.
- You have prospect A... Scouts don't like A; analytics loves A. Discuss, but Scouts hold fast. No consensus. You pass on A and move on to Prospect B.
- Prospect B... Scouts love; Analytics hate... Discuss and not surprisingly no consensus.... on to C.
- Prospect C... Scouts love: Analytics like, but not love value at current pick... discuss trade down. Consensus reached to pick here.
Sashi's job was to shepherd the process and that included leading the discussions, but the decisions are automatic. Either both sides agree to accept... not love, but be willing to live with... the prospect or it's onto the next prospect. That is the consensus process.
The bulk of this work would be done during the creation of the Big Board. Then scenarios would develop about Draft Day trade strategies in an attempt to anticipate as much as possible. With practice the entire decision process can fit into the time allotted to making a given pick.
Got it now?
Si si senor. Yo comprendo. And it's exactly as I thought- you wind up with a second or third tier choice (like Cory Coleman) because no one can agree on a potentially superior candidate.
That all sounds so feckless...even if it is accurate. And it is exactly that....a compromise to take a guy that each unit sort of likes....Because I think the actual scenario would be: Prospects C....Scouts sorta like, analytics sorta likes......
So, what we end up with is a guy that no one likes and no one hates. I think that implies one term: mediocrity.
Tour- I think Gipper nailed it. There's three voices in the room, the scouts, analytics folks, and the coaches\ FO. The more people you have to keep happy- the lower the odds you're going to get it right.
-
- In other words, you wind up doing what the dumbest shit of the bunch agrees to do.
- No, that's not how it was. If there was no consensus to be reached, then Sashi had final say.
- How do you come to that conclusion?
- And what was said was "moving right along." In a consensus process there simply is nothing else to be said when no consensus is reached.
-
I always wanted to be a “defensive quantity control coach”.
The wins coordinator ?
The wins coordinator ?
I would rather be the losers coordinator. Much more of a sure thing and you never get fired for doing your job with this team. ?
-
Your, or anyone else's, refusal to accept the truth is not my problem, h.... but I'll try again.
- You have prospect A... Scouts don't like A; analytics loves A. Discuss, but Scouts hold fast. No consensus. You pass on A and move on to Prospect B.
- Prospect B... Scouts love; Analytics hate... Discuss and not surprisingly no consensus.... on to C.
- Prospect C... Scouts love: Analytics like, but not love value at current pick... discuss trade down. Consensus reached to pick here.
Sashi's job was to shepherd the process and that included leading the discussions, but the decisions are automatic. Either both sides agree to accept... not love, but be willing to live with... the prospect or it's onto the next prospect. That is the consensus process.
The bulk of this work would be done during the creation of the Big Board. Then scenarios would develop about Draft Day trade strategies in an attempt to anticipate as much as possible. With practice the entire decision process can fit into the time allotted to making a given pick.
Got it now?
Si si senor. Yo comprendo. And it's exactly as I thought- you wind up with a second or third tier choice (like Cory Coleman) because no one can agree on a potentially superior candidate.
That all sounds so feckless...even if it is accurate. And it is exactly that....a compromise to take a guy that each unit sort of likes....Because I think the actual scenario would be: Prospects C....Scouts sorta like, analytics sorta likes......
So, what we end up with is a guy that no one likes and no one hates. I think that implies one term: mediocrity.
Tour- I think Gipper nailed it. There's three voices in the room, the scouts, analytics folks, and the coaches\ FO. The more people you have to keep happy- the lower the odds you're going to get it right.
Si si senor. Yo comprendo. And it's exactly as I thought- you wind up with a second or third tier choice (like Cory Coleman) because no one can agree on a potentially superior candidate.
Tour- I think Gipper nailed it. There's three voices in the room, the scouts, analytics folks,and the coaches\ FO. The more people you have to keep happy- the lower the odds you're going to get it right.
Let me see if I got this right... A judge said that requiring a unanimous decision reduces the odds of getting it right? I guess our jury system needs a major overhaul...
The coaching staff, Hue's coaching staff, had no voice in the draft process. Clearly this is not going to be the case with Stef, but it was under Hue. So it was the Scouting and Analytical Dept. reps that had to come to consensus. To claim that requiring to independent groups to be in agreement is a weaker, more error prone requirement than relying upon one person to break every tie is ludicrous. That makes you only as good as one person... as good as a Farmer... or a Lombardi... or a Heckert... or, yes, even a Dorsey.
Every player passed over is "potentially superior" to who you take next. Remember when we passed on Khalil Mack to trade down for Justin Gilbert? Hell... even I saw that one coming and I did not know jack shit about Gilbert.
Because Jimmuh TOLD us that. Years ago.
Responded to wrong point, O... I was asking about this conclusion: "In other words, you wind up doing what the dumbest shit of the bunch agrees to do."
However, as for Jimmah bestowing the final say on Sashi... yes, he did. The question is how he used it and what he said. I say he used it to say, "Next."If you know of a specific player decision where he broke a deadlock in favor of obtaining the player, please share it and support.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Si si senor. Yo comprendo. And it's exactly as I thought- you wind up with a second or third tier choice (like Cory Coleman) because no one can agree on a potentially superior candidate.
Tour- I think Gipper nailed it. There's three voices in the room, the scouts, analytics folks,and the coaches\ FO. The more people you have to keep happy- the lower the odds you're going to get it right.
Let me see if I got this right... A judge said that requiring a unanimous decision reduces the odds of getting it right? I guess our jury system needs a major overhaul...
The coaching staff, Hue's coaching staff, had no voice in the draft process. Clearly this is not going to be the case with Stef, but it was under Hue. So it was the Scouting and Analytical Dept. reps that had to come to consensus. To claim that requiring to independent groups to be in agreement is a weaker, more error prone requirement than relying upon one person to break every tie is ludicrous. That makes you only as good as one person... as good as a Farmer... or a Lombardi... or a Heckert... or, yes, even a Dorsey.
Every player passed over is "potentially superior" to who you take next. Remember when we passed on Khalil Mack to trade down for Justin Gilbert? Hell... even I saw that one coming and I did not know jack shit about Gilbert.
Because Jimmuh TOLD us that. Years ago.
Responded to wrong point, O... I was asking about this conclusion: "In other words, you wind up doing what the dumbest shit of the bunch agrees to do."
However, as for Jimmah bestowing the final say on Sashi... yes, he did. The question is how he used it and what he said. I say he used it to say, "Next."If you know of a specific player decision where he broke a deadlock in favor of obtaining the player, please share it and support.
Let me see if I got this right... A judge said that requiring a unanimous decision reduces the odds of getting it right? I guess our jury system needs a major overhaul...
The coaching staff, Hue's coaching staff, had no voice in the draft process. Clearly this is not going to be the case with Stef, but it was under Hue. So it was the Scouting and Analytical Dept. reps that had to come to consensus. To claim that requiring to independent groups to be in agreement is a weaker, more error prone requirement than relying upon one person to break every tie is ludicrous. That makes you only as good as one person... as good as a Farmer... or a Lombardi... or a Heckert... or, yes, even a Dorsey.
Every player passed over is "potentially superior" to who you take next. Remember when we passed on Khalil Mack to trade down for Justin Gilbert? Hell... even I saw that one coming and I did not know jack shit about Gilbert.
Yet a lot of Franchises use that model of a final voice in the room to break ties when there's no consensus Tour- I'd be willing to bet on that....
Regarding the Mack\Gilbert fiasco- I just hope we have more intelligent guys in the room this time making their consensus pick.
Credit Depodesta and Sashi for accumulating first round no consensus picks, and with the Hubatross' coaching help- 0-16.
I'll let Gipper comment about the legal system if he cares to.
-
Let me see if I got this right... A judge said that requiring a unanimous decision reduces the odds of getting it right? I guess our jury system needs a major overhaul...
The coaching staff, Hue's coaching staff, had no voice in the draft process. Clearly this is not going to be the case with Stef, but it was under Hue. So it was the Scouting and Analytical Dept. reps that had to come to consensus. To claim that requiring to independent groups to be in agreement is a weaker, more error prone requirement than relying upon one person to break every tie is ludicrous. That makes you only as good as one person... as good as a Farmer... or a Lombardi... or a Heckert... or, yes, even a Dorsey.
Every player passed over is "potentially superior" to who you take next. Remember when we passed on Khalil Mack to trade down for Justin Gilbert? Hell... even I saw that one coming and I did not know jack shit about Gilbert.
Yet a lot of Franchises use that model of a final voice in the room to break ties when there's no consensus Tour- I'd be willing to bet on that....
Regarding the Mack\Gilbert fiasco- I just hope we have more intelligent guys in the room this time making their consensus pick.
Credit Depodesta and Sashi for accumulating first round no consensus picks, and with the Hubatross' coaching help- 0-16.
I'll let Gipper comment about the legal system if he cares to.
Yet a lot of Franchises use that model of a final voice in the room to break ties when there's no consensus Tour- I'd be willing to bet on that....
Some do... no doubt, h... but I'd bet that excepting character issues the Departments in most FOs never get to the point of voicing an up or down opinion on a candidate. Rather they lay out what they do and do not like about them for consideration by the GM. Probably included is an assessment in which round the prospect's value resides.
I'd also bet that nearly as many FOs have one guy driving the decisions such that there are no ties to break. Based on accounts I read this was Dorsey's way. He even talked about others "getting on board" with his decision to take Baker #1 overall. He also intimated that he'd judge scouts by their frequency of agreeing with his assessments.
No one in the NFL uses the consensus decision-making process we tried. It's a newfangled approach that elevates "analytics" to equal footing with traditional scouting. Not a combo an assemblage of old-school, NFL owners are likely to embrace. Jimmah tried it out of frustration with football guys Lombo/Farmer as an alternative to the quest for the next White Whale. Plus he thought he already had the perfect guy to head up the new approach.
At least we agree on Hue playing a part... no telling what the results might have been with a different HC.
-
I would rather be the losers coordinator. Much more of a sure thing and you never get fired for doing your job with this team. ?
Might get a bonus and contract extension !
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login