Originally Posted by MagicHef:
It's been theorized many times in this thread. I never believed it because I couldn't imagine hiring a head coach based solely on trying to get a 38 year old QB to come with him. It seemed absurdly short-sighted.
Yet, here we are.
After seeing Hackett 'coach' his first 2 games, are you inclined at all to consider the possibility that this is very well what could have happened?
Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin:
After seeing Hackett 'coach' his first 2 games, are you inclined at all to consider the possibility that this is very well what could have happened?
I mean . . . . . .
Either way, it's an awful look for Pay a ton.
1. He actually hired Hackett just to attract Rodgers.
2. He really thought Hackett was a good coach. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Has there ever been a new coach that has looked as unprepared and unqualified for the position as Hackett has so far?
Urban Meyer.
And possibly Freddie Kitchens.
I think there are a lot of bad coaches out there with some horrible blemishes on their resume (like Romeo Crennel) who cut their teeth being very good coordinators, and that's nothing to sneeze at. And when they're placed in the head position, yeah, their weaknesses as team CEOs, leaders, and teachers really start to show, but you can generally look at them and go, "Okay, I can SEE what he was trying to accomplish, but he's just not smart/organized/charismatic/innovative/etc. enough." And quite often those bad coaches are still bad coaches, but there are tons of examples of bad coaches getting dealt amazing hands and fooling the league into thinking they're great at their jobs. But give a bad coach a bad hand, and it's... well... bad.
I do think Hackett is a special kind of bad coach, though. He never had any stunning accomplishments as a coordinator. I know lots of guys get cushy jobs with great teams and end up being pretty good, but Hackett only had the Packers to speak to. Every other gig he's had has been a pretty big tire fire. The Broncos were obviously willing to forgive all of those stints with the Bills and Jaguars as just getting hired at the wrong place, wrong time, but then if that's the case you're going to need SOMETHING to point to, either in the interview or in other parts of your resume.
The only thing Hackett has is, "Aaron liked me because I played darts with him." [Reply]
I think there are a lot of bad coaches out there with some horrible blemishes on their resume (like Romeo Crennel) who cut their teeth being very good coordinators, and that's nothing to sneeze at. And when they're placed in the head position, yeah, their weaknesses as team CEOs, leaders, and teachers really start to show, but you can generally look at them and go, "Okay, I can SEE what he was trying to accomplish, but he's just not smart/organized/charismatic/innovative/etc. enough." And quite often those bad coaches are still bad coaches, but there are tons of examples of bad coaches getting dealt amazing hands and fooling the league into thinking they're great at their jobs. But give a bad coach a bad hand, and it's... well... bad.
I do think Hackett is a special kind of bad coach, though. He never had any stunning accomplishments as a coordinator. I know lots of guys get cushy jobs with great teams and end up being pretty good, but Hackett only had the Packers to speak to. Every other gig he's had has been a pretty big tire fire. The Broncos were obviously willing to forgive all of those stints with the Bills and Jaguars as just getting hired at the wrong place, wrong time, but then if that's the case you're going to need SOMETHING to point to, either in the interview or in other parts of your resume.
The only thing Hackett has is, "Aaron liked me because I played darts with him."
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Even when Reid eventually decides to hang 'em up, I have all the faith in the world that Veach can at least identify a competent replacement.
It will be interesting how Clark handles it. He's going to value Veach's opinion obviously, and the circumstances will be far different this time around in the coach search, but given last time he did everything all by himself, he might take a more strong-handed approach to hiring "his" guy again. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin:
After seeing Hackett 'coach' his first 2 games, are you inclined at all to consider the possibility that this is very well what could have happened?
I mean . . . . . .
Yes. More than inclined to consider the possibility, I'd say. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
It's been theorized many times in this thread. I never believed it because I couldn't imagine hiring a head coach based solely on trying to get a 38 year old QB to come with him. It seemed absurdly short-sighted.
Yet, here we are.
Which seems more absurd...that they were hoping/planning for a package deal, or that they actually thought Hackett was a savant? :-)
And Rodgers might be four years older than Wilson, but he's clearly far better. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Has there ever been a new coach that has looked as unprepared and unqualified for the position as Hackett has so far?
Yes. Gase and Meyer. Denver is not done. You are not out until you are out. They have not been good but neither has Cinci, anyone think they are done?
Don't count you chickens before they are hatched. You will jinx it and we have not just kicked their ass lately even with Lock fucking up their game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Which seems more absurd...that they were hoping/planning for a package deal, or that they actually thought Hackett was a savant? :-)
And Rodgers might be four years older than Wilson, but he's clearly far better.
I guess thinking Hackett is a savant is probably more absurd. Based on Rodgers' previous comments, it was fairly reasonable to think he might come over too. My problem would have been that Rodgers only has a few years left, and then what? I guess we would have hoped that Hackett had learned about football by then.
But, what do I know? I wanted Kellen Moore, who is currently underperforming as the OC in Dallas. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Has there ever been a new coach that has looked as unprepared and unqualified for the position as Hackett has so far?
Not in the 50 years that I've been watching football. There have been some really bad ones over the years, but sofar he's the king of suck mountain [Reply]
Originally Posted by Red Dawg:
Yes. Gase and Meyer. Denver is not done. You are not out until you are out. They have not been good but neither has Cinci, anyone think they are done?
Don't count you chickens before they are hatched. You will jinx it and we have not just kicked their ass lately even with Lock fucking up their game.
Not a great comparison. The Bengals nearly won the SB last year and improved on paper.
The Broncos haven't won squat in years, have a brutal rookie HC, and the QB who was expected to turn everything around does not look good. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Makes me want to bet on Denver, then.
I told my friends before the Charger game, to bet the under on Mahomes passing TDs which was 2.5. Yet 98% of the betting Kansas public was said to have bet on the over. Fans are biased and prisoners of the moment. 3 TDs a game x 17 games = 51 TDs and you pad your stats playing idiots like the Cardinals D Coordinator and Urban Meyers Jags.
You do that. Let me know how it works out for you. [Reply]
