Oh My ........ They are retaining a lot of assistant coaches

[D-Dogg]

I mean, is having Loney or Kruzcek (sp?) on the staff going to be the end of days?

Those are the ONLY two I want to keep.

 

[TheCardFan]

What Graves said was they will be retained and their status will be evaluated by the new head coach...that seems pretty clear.

 

[Russ Smith]

What Graves said was they will be retained and their status will be evaluated by the new head coach...that seems pretty clear.

The new coach is going to be asked to evaluate the holdovers, and the implication from Graves Monday was — in the spirit of continuity — some should be kept as the team goes forward.

“I just didn’t think a wholesale turnover of this staff was necessary,” Graves said.

That's from Urban's column yesterday. That could be interpreted several ways but it sounds to me like he's saying some of these assistants are going to be kept, period?

 

[Skkorpion]

The new coach will not be forced into keeping anybody he doesn't want, IMO. Graves and Mike don't operate that way. This reading between the lines and interpreting it in the worst possible light is unfair to all.

Recent evidence allowing Green to fire 7 assistants and replace them indicates neither money nor front office interference has been a problem.

Give these guys a chance before you eviscerate them.

 

[Redsz]

no, I just think if I'm reading Urban right on what Graves said, that absolutely DID say some of this staff is being retained. He's not saying the new coach will have final say and can clean house if he wants to, he's saying a total overhaul will not happen.

If you keep the right guys and the new coach is able to work with them it's a head start, if you hamper your search because most of your choices won't accept not having total say in their staff, it's a bad move.

That's why I am pretty convinced we want to hire Chow, I think this is something they've already discussed and know how he feels about it.

It sounds that way, Russ. But is that a really a bad thing? Change for the sake of change is a really bad idea IMO. If you have competent guys who are willing to work and co-operate then it's really a better idea to retain them then get rid of them. Espically in the NFL.

If there are personality or idealogical clashes, then you absolutley re-evaluate. But a HC with any sense of reality is going to have know that ownership and admin (of any team) is going to have an influence in the decision making. But other teams are just less transperant about than the Cardinals (which is a good thing IMO).

I would also agree, that Chow sounds like the guy.

 

[ajcardfan]

Maybe because of who the HC brought in? Sounds like Davis maybe made the right choice?

Just because the HC chooses to bring in a guy doesn't make it the right one or the best one.

It's one thing to retain staff from a playoff team. Like when Gruden took over Tampa. It's another to retain staff from gawdawful teams like the Raiders and the Cards. You're keeping guys who are just a little to used to drawing checks while losing. Especially for a perennial loser like our team. I just don't like it. Don't see any losing teams getting turned around that way.

 

[Russ Smith]

It sounds that way, Russ. But is that a really a bad thing? Change for the sake of change is a really bad idea IMO. If you have competent guys who are willing to work and co-operate then it's really a better idea to retain them then get rid of them. Espically in the NFL.

If there are personality or idealogical clashes, then you absolutley re-evaluate. But a HC with any sense of reality is going to have know that ownership and admin (of any team) is going to have an influence in the decision making. But other teams are just less transperant than the Cardinals.

I would also agree, that Chow sounds like the guy.

no it's not a bad thing if you're right, that some of your existing assistants are good and were being held back by Dennis Green. It does make it harder to hire the next coach, there are guys who simply won't take a job if they don't have total say in hiring the staff(green for example), but if you've already targetted Norm Chow and you already know that he agrees with you that some guys are worth retaining, then it's absolutely a smart move.

That's why I am convinced the #1 guy on our coach search "draft board" is Norm Chow.

 

[conraddobler]

The new coach will not be forced into keeping anybody he doesn't want, IMO. Graves and Mike don't operate that way. This reading between the lines and interpreting it in the worst possible light is unfair to all.

Recent evidence allowing Green to fire 7 assistants and replace them indicates neither money nor front office interference has been a problem.

Give these guys a chance before you eviscerate them.

Ok we did that already we gave them a chance and they continue to lose, now they are saying some strikingly bad things and we still have to give them a chance... to do what precisely?

What Russ is saying and I have been saying is that it skews the table of who's chosen, perhaps a good possibility is that no one will outright say you can't fire so and so but by his own statement his preferance is to not tear the staff down.

That means that he's going to be biased on who looks good to him, coach A total turnover just dosen't come across like I want but coach B I can deal with some of those assistants, well that one seems like he's our guy.

He said it not us and he didn't have to say anything, he could have informed the staff that they were not yet terminated pending the new guy's evaluation and left it at that, he didn't leave it at that he made the statement Russ quoted.

I don't think it's money Skorp I think it's loyalty again, I think they feel the guys left did an ok job and don't want to can them, that's fine but the problem is that isn't how it's done.

 

[Russ Smith]

I don't think it's money Skorp I think it's loyalty again, I think they feel the guys left did an ok job and don't want to can them, that's fine but the problem is that isn't how it's done.

I'm guessing of course but I think some of this relates to the perception of where Green "went wrong." That same article Urban says the Cards knew perfectly well that green would make sweeping changes, they simply didn't work out, and they don't feel the next coach needs to "blow up" the roster the way Green did.

Go back 3 years and you'll see several of us saying what we expected when we hired Green was that some of our existing players with talent would get better under his coaching(like Adrian Wilson did) and we were unhappy that some of them were simply being cut instead of "coached up."

I think that's sort of what the plan is, we have some very good pieces in place both players, and assistants, we just need a HC that can get the most out of them, and we don't think that's Dennis Green?

 

[lobo]

The new coach will not be forced into keeping anybody he doesn't want, IMO. Graves and Mike don't operate that way. This reading between the lines and interpreting it in the worst possible light is unfair to all.

Recent evidence allowing Green to fire 7 assistants and replace them indicates neither money nor front office interference has been a problem.

Give these guys a chance before you eviscerate them.

bullseye skorp....why all this chicken little stuff??? as it is written the "implication" is....that does not mean anything is written in stone....the stuff being written is the typical "root for the second string qb stuff"

a non-emotional look at things will certain show that some of the coaches should be considered by the new hc as viable assistants or coordinator level guys...i know people want to write but lets see what happens...by the way i will bet anything that there is a secret "a" list of coaching choices that we may never know about or see anything written about...

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

It sounds that way, Russ. But is that a really a bad thing? Change for the sake of change is a really bad idea IMO. If you have competent guys who are willing to work and co-operate then it's really a better idea to retain them then get rid of them. Espically in the NFL.

If there are personality or idealogical clashes, then you absolutley re-evaluate. But a HC with any sense of reality is going to have know that ownership and admin (of any team) is going to have an influence in the decision making. But other teams are just less transperant about than the Cardinals (which is a good thing IMO).

I would also agree, that Chow sounds like the guy.

Yes it is a bad thing. HC have systems and visions on what will amke their teams, and the talent on those teams, winners. HC's at all levels chose their own staff....Normally these are guys that have been with the coach-or has worked in that system before-and know what they need to do to run the system.

If Rivera comes in and wants to run a striclty Tampa Cover 2, doy ou honestly think Pendy-who doesnt run that scheme-wont be a liability? How is he supposed to coach anyone up if he doesnt know the system?

It doesnt really matter if any of these coaches are considered good or not. Its about the scheme. If Chow comes in and wants to run a man-on-man blocking scheme with pulling guards and centers, do you think it is wise to keep a guy on staff-Loney- who runs and teaches a zone blocking scheme?

If the HC has final say, then I have no problem keeping them on staff until the HC comes in and says yes, no, or Ihave my own guys. But if they dotn have final say, it is a complete disaster and a very bad way to run a football team.

This has the earmarks of the Bidwills all over it.

 

[lobo]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


i really like that definition...gotta' use it sometime...thanks

 

[conraddobler]

I'm guessing of course but I think some of this relates to the perception of where Green "went wrong." That same article Urban says the Cards knew perfectly well that green would make sweeping changes, they simply didn't work out, and they don't feel the next coach needs to "blow up" the roster the way Green did.

Go back 3 years and you'll see several of us saying what we expected when we hired Green was that some of our existing players with talent would get better under his coaching(like Adrian Wilson did) and we were unhappy that some of them were simply being cut instead of "coached up."

I think that's sort of what the plan is, we have some very good pieces in place both players, and assistants, we just need a HC that can get the most out of them, and we don't think that's Dennis Green?

Exactly but there's one problem with that.

The problem is that skews what you think the next HC looks like, if he comes in the interview and says burn the staff to the ground, Tag Big, give me my posse of guys and we'll rock this town.... that guy aint getting the job.

 

[Russ Smith]

Yes it is a bad thing. HC have systems and visions on what will amke their teams, and the talent on those teams, winners. HC's at all levels chose their own staff....Normally these are guys that have been with the coach-or has worked in that system before-and know what they need to do to run the system.

If Rivera comes in and wants to run a striclty Tampa Cover 2, doy ou honestly think Pendy-who doesnt run that scheme-wont be a liability? How is he supposed to coach anyone up if he doesnt know the system?

It doesnt really matter if any of these coaches are considered good or not. Its about the scheme. If Chow comes in and wants to run a man-on-man blocking scheme with pulling guards and centers, do you think it is wise to keep a guy on staff-Loney- who runs and teaches a zone blocking scheme?

If the HC has final say, then I have no problem keeping them on staff until the HC comes in and says yes, no, or Ihave my own guys. But if they dotn have final say, it is a complete disaster and a very bad way to run a football team.

This has the earmarks of the Bidwills all over it.

if done correctly though it could be very good. I have to admit if what I think is happenign really is happening, I'm warming to it.

Look, one of the big complaints of the Green regime was he sucked at hiring assistants, and that he hired friends with questionable qualifications for assistant jobs.

What the Cards appear to be doing is saying these are the guys Green hired who we think are qualified and capable, some more than others. If you hire the right HC who's willing to accept that, you're avoiding one of Green's biggest downfalls, lousy assistants that were hired out of loyalty, or because they were yes men. The Cards are in essence trying to guarantee that the next coach won't do what Green did with assistants?

If that's not what's going on yeah it could be a huge mistake, but the more I think about the more I'm convinced they knew months ago they were canning Green, they spent the rest of the year evaluating the assistants, looking into HC candidates, and they already know who they want.

 

[conraddobler]

if done correctly though it could be very good. I have to admit if what I think is happenign really is happening, I'm warming to it.

Look, one of the big complaints of the Green regime was he sucked at hiring assistants, and that he hired friends with questionable qualifications for assistant jobs.

What the Cards appear to be doing is saying these are the guys Green hired who we think are qualified and capable, some more than others. If you hire the right HC who's willing to accept that, you're avoiding one of Green's biggest downfalls, lousy assistants that were hired out of loyalty, or because they were yes men. The Cards are in essence trying to guarantee that the next coach won't do what Green did with assistants?

If that's not what's going on yeah it could be a huge mistake, but the more I think about the more I'm convinced they knew months ago they were canning Green, they spent the rest of the year evaluating the assistants, looking into HC candidates, and they already know who they want.

And you trust their judgement on this?

I don't.

 

[Russ Smith]

Exactly but there's one problem with that.

The problem is that skews what you think the next HC looks like, if he comes in the interview and says burn the staff to the ground, Tag Big, give me my posse of guys and we'll rock this town.... that guy aint getting the job.

True, but my guess is they wouldn't want to hire anybody who thought that way anyways because that guy wouldn't agree with them that they already had some good pieces in place?

I also think the Bidwills talking about wanting to be in teh Superbowl soon are sort of making an attempt at a quantum leap here. They don't want to rebuild, they think they're somewhat close they just want someone to take what they have, and make it better?

Who knows but if I were a betting man I'd wager we're going to offer Chow the job, keep several assistants, let him hire some at key spots, and go from there.

 

[football karma]

Exactly but there's one problem with that.

The problem is that skews what you think the next HC looks like, if he comes in the interview and says burn the staff to the ground, Tag Big, give me my posse of guys and we'll rock this town.... that guy aint getting the job.

I disagree

I do think if a guy comes into town and says that I need to turn over 60% of the starters and its going to take three years -- he aint getting the job

 

[RonF]

I'm for one glad that we are at least starting off with keeping Graves aboard. He has the tribal knowledge on past dealings the team has gone through, and seems to be willing to sign the better players to a long-term contact. Nothing wrong in nailing down the GM post first, and then look for our new head coach. I just hate starting all over again with new personnel in all the key positions. Let's face it, the chemistry for success would not be there. I don't want a GM who is in lock-step with the head coach. I love my wife dearly, but there are times when we disagree and it's not always pretty, but in the end, after the decision is made, one or the other sees that the other was correct.

Saying that, I do, have some reservations about his ability to stand up and say no, to a strong-willed, head coach, i.e., letting a pretty decent offensive lineman go (Pete Kendall) just because he disagreed with how practice was held; the siging of Oliver Ross, what's that all about? It sure didn't help the Cards. Someone should have stepped in and said no. IMO, that's the GM's job.

Graves is loyal and hardworking so time will tell if the Bidwills made the right choice when it comes to the checks and balances.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

if done correctly though it could be very good. I have to admit if what I think is happenign really is happening, I'm warming to it.

Look, one of the big complaints of the Green regime was he sucked at hiring assistants, and that he hired friends with questionable qualifications for assistant jobs.

What the Cards appear to be doing is saying these are the guys Green hired who we think are qualified and capable, some more than others. If you hire the right HC who's willing to accept that, you're avoiding one of Green's biggest downfalls, lousy assistants that were hired out of loyalty, or because they were yes men. The Cards are in essence trying to guarantee that the next coach won't do what Green did with assistants?

If that's not what's going on yeah it could be a huge mistake, but the more I think about the more I'm convinced they knew months ago they were canning Green, they spent the rest of the year evaluating the assistants, looking into HC candidates, and they already know who they want.

Soin essence what you are saying is that b/c Chow is a first time HC and desperate for the job, he will accept keeping these assistants? Maybe you are right, but man that is a huge risk to take.

I think you might be warming to the idea of Chow, but step back and look at what is going on here. I think Graves and company , if Chow is the choice, dont believe he has the football accumen to pick good assistants, and that they can essentially make him take these assistants if wants a HC position. How is that a good thing?

Alos, dotn you think Greens inability to select good assistants had soemthing to with lack of money for them? He had no problem in Minny with Dungy, Bileck, and Tice.....

I am sorry, but this wreaks of Bidwilliasm to me.

By the way, I hate Chow as a HC if for noother reason that in all his stops and through out his entire career, I have never even heard of anyone putting them on their short list of HC candidiates. Hell, has even been interviewed for a HC position before?

 

[ajcardfan]

Soin essence what you are saying is that b/c Chow is a first time HC and desperate for the job, he will accept keeping these assistants? Maybe you are right, but man that is a huge risk to take.

I think you might be warming to the idea of Chow, but step back and look at what is going on here. I think Graves and company , if Chow is the choice, dont believe he has the football accumen to pick good assistants, and that they can essentially make him take these assistants if wants a HC position. How is that a good thing?

Alos, dotn you think Greens inability to select good assistants had soemthing to with lack of money for them? He had no problem in Minny with Dungy, Bileck, and Tice.....

I am sorry, but this wreaks of Bidwilliasm to me.

By the way, I hate Chow as a HC if for noother reason that in all his stops and through out his entire career, I have never even heard of anyone putting them on their short list of HC candidiates. Hell, has even been interviewed for a HC position before?

lvcardfreak,

You've captured my take on this perfectly. Jeez, we have no history of doing anything right.


Speaking of history ----- in addition to selecting Chow or Sherman because they'll keep the assistants ----I think one factor puts it in Chow's favor. Bill Sr. loves the history of this franchise. I beleive he feels he might have found another Coryell with Chow.

 

[Russ Smith]

By the way, I hate Chow as a HC if for noother reason that in all his stops and through out his entire career, I have never even heard of anyone putting them on their short list of HC candidiates. Hell, has even been interviewed for a HC position before?

Stanford did, he was thought to have the job for sure but they hired Harris instead. Never really knew why, a lot of Stanford fans to this day think that was a colossal mistake. I think he's just not good at interviewing.

Just for fun, take a look at our points scored/points allowed, and compare it to the Titans. Ask yourself how we won 5 games to their 8, and how they scored more points than we did?

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Stanford did, he was thought to have the job for sure but they hired Harris instead. Never really knew why, a lot of Stanford fans to this day think that was a colossal mistake. I think he's just not good at interviewing.

Just for fun, take a look at our points scored/points allowed, and compare it to the Titans. Ask yourself how we won 5 games to their 8, and how they scored more points than we did?

No offense to you Bay area peeps, but it is Stanford. Not a lot of people busting down the door to get in there considering how hard it is to win there and the academic requirements. Frankly though Harris was kinda dumb for leaving Pitt...but oh well.

As for the second point. two words for ya:

Vince Young!.

End of discussion...


EDIT: By the way, why do you not think he is agood at interviewing? Have you heard something?

 

[ajcardfan]

Just for fun, take a look at our points scored/points allowed, and compare it to the Titans. Ask yourself how we won 5 games to their 8, and how they scored more points than we did?

They scored 8 TDs via special teams and defense to our 4. That's the difference. Offensively, we had a slight edge.

The main difference is we choked most close games, they pulled some out. I'd put that down to the difference between having Green vs. Fisher.

 

[Russ Smith]

No offense to you Bay area peeps, but it is Stanford. Not a lot of people busting down the door to get in there considering how hard it is to win there and the academic requirements. Frankly though Harris was kinda dumb for leaving Pitt...but oh well.

As for the second point. two words for ya:

Vince Young!.

End of discussion...

Agreed but he has been interviewed for a HC job before.

For the record, the Titans scored 10 more points than we did. They were outscored by 76 points, us by 75, and they won 3 more games than we did.

Quite frankly I'd argue they shouldn't have won more than 6 games but I think they drastically improved as the season went on. They put in Young, found a way to make him work, resurrected the career of Travis Henry, alot of that is probably attributable to Norm Chow?

I think if I'm bidwill and I am convinced I have the right Qb, right WR's, right RB, Chow looks awfully intriguing.

I agree it's a risk, not in any way saying we SHOULD hire him, just I suspect that's the way we're leaning.

 

[Redsz]

Yes it is a bad thing. HC have systems and visions on what will amke their teams, and the talent on those teams, winners. HC's at all levels chose their own staff....Normally these are guys that have been with the coach-or has worked in that system before-and know what they need to do to run the system.

If Rivera comes in and wants to run a striclty Tampa Cover 2, doy ou honestly think Pendy-who doesnt run that scheme-wont be a liability? How is he supposed to coach anyone up if he doesnt know the system?

It doesnt really matter if any of these coaches are considered good or not. Its about the scheme. If Chow comes in and wants to run a man-on-man blocking scheme with pulling guards and centers, do you think it is wise to keep a guy on staff-Loney- who runs and teaches a zone blocking scheme?

We have heard this line towed before. Just because a coach understands a scheme doesn't mean he can teach it to his players any more effectivley. If our ST's continue to suck, do you really think the players, HC ownership and fans alike are really going to be falling back on the fact that the coach in question knows the system?

Solomon seemed to understand the system and yet I'm not sorry to see him go. That's the same with a number of the guys let go. The 'system' is/can be changed and altered to fit the personnel of the team and the opponent. It isn't set in stone.

That's why, as Graves and Mike B pointed out, that there will be an evaluation process to see which coaches will be retained and which won't be.

How about does Pendergast have experince with the tampa 2 (yes, considering have used the cover 2 a number of times)? Would he be able to coach it? Could Pendergast coach LB's like he has in the past? Can he work with Rivera? etc

It isn't black and white.

If the HC has final say, then I have no problem keeping them on staff until the HC comes in and says yes, no, or Ihave my own guys. But if they dotn have final say, it is a complete disaster and a very bad way to run a football team.

Considering we don't even know who the HC is and who will be retained -maybe everyone is getting a bit ahead of themselves here?