If they love Clancy so much, why didn't they make him the HC?

[JeffGollin]

Just because a guy is good at coaching a defense doesn't mean he's precisely what the doctor ordered as a HC in charge of the entire team.

I too wasn't thrilled about some of Clancy's coverages; especially later in the season. But they may have been a function of what he felt his players could deliver.

For example, it became pretty evident during the Denver game that Rolle and Eric Green were somewhat "coverage-challenged" and Mackin lacked a step to cover closely one on one.

It's kind of tough to blitz a lot when each of your corners can't handle solitude on his proverbial "island."

The question we should be zeroing in on is: "With Solomon out of here and hopefully some additional talent in our secondary next season, will Clancy go back to a more aggressive and unpredictable style of defense?

 

[Red Dawn]

I like Ed's definition of Clancy. It seems to me CP's good reputation started with his domination of Vick in the Atlanta game (last year?); he "showed everyone in the league" how to game plan for Vick. I figured the reason for the 10 yard cushion this year was due to our tendacy to use AW in blitzes combined with Griffith's lack of speed = no help over the top for the DB's. Overall our D sucked. The fact that 3 of our top 5 tacklers are in the secondary (AW, Rolle, Griffith) indicates to me that either our DL and linebacker play needs improvement or Clancy's scheme is not working. I hope we get new blood on the defensive coaching side.

 

[Second Deck]

I thought the D played very well early in the season burt seemed to lose the edge when the O kept losing games that should have been wins. Seemed to play well at the end of the year when Dansby returned. The stopping of Gore, Alexander and I think did a good job agaiinst SD. I for one jhope Clancy stays on.