Stan Hixon

I think it's funny that people want to blame Hixon for the WR troubles. It's an easy assumption to make -that he's the problem- but the arguments are baseless, or shallow at best.

We have no idea what his duties are behind the scenes. Yes, he's the WR coach, but what does that entail under Zorn? Does he come up with his own teaching tools, or use those dictated by Zorn and/or Sherman Smith? How much time does he get to "teach" each week? What do the players think about his coaching skills?

There are hundreds of pertinent questions like these that we just do not know the answers to. Without that knowledge, I don't think anyone here is qualified to give an opinion, with any expectation respectability, about the replacement of coach Hixon.


I think that Hixon should be replaced because he doesn't know the WCO.
One of the WR coaches duties under the traditional Bill Walsh WCO scheme
is to create part of the weekly game plan. IMO a coach that knows the WCO
will have a huge advantage over Hixon in the gameplanning department and
can add overall WCO 'know how' to the coaching staff.

It would be different IMO if Hixon was a young coach or if he had an
accomplished track record for receiver developement. But, he doesn't.
Also, IMHO part of any coaches job is to get his players ready to produce
and Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly didn't. If they had a hard time picking
up the playbook he should have spoon fed it to them.

yea, get Gary Clark

Funny. I have been screaming this all season. I was just looking up some other answers to a WR coach and was looking for my first place to put my first choice:

Clyde Christensen from the Colts....

Clyde Christensen enters his seventh season as wide receivers coach of the Colts. Christensen joined Indianapolis from Tampa Bay, where he served as offensive coordinator during the 2001 season.

In 2007, Christensen’s receiving corps continued producing outstanding numbers.

Christensen spent six seasons at Tampa Bay, tutoring tight ends from 1996-98 and quarterbacks from 1999-00 before being promoted to offensive coordinator. In 2001, Christensen presided over an attack that saw WR-Keyshawn Johnson post a franchise seasonal-best 106 receptions for 1,266 yards, while QB-Brad Johnson set a club seasonal mark with 340 completions. The offense set several club marks in 2000, including points scored and touchdowns.

We could call it a promotion and put him at OC. He could work with Zorn on designing plays and he could work with the WR's and TE's. Zorn could still call plays on game day.

If Christensen came here, he might be driven to put a pistol in his mouth after watching what pass patterns Zorn likes put our receivers in.

I think it's funny that people want to blame Hixon for the WR troubles. It's an easy assumption to make -that he's the problem- but the arguments are baseless, or shallow at best.

We have no idea what his duties are behind the scenes. Yes, he's the WR coach, but what does that entail under Zorn? Does he come up with his own teaching tools, or use those dictated by Zorn and/or Sherman Smith? How much time does he get to "teach" each week? What do the players think about his coaching skills?

There are hundreds of pertinent questions like these that we just do not know the answers to. Without that knowledge, I don't think anyone here is qualified to give an opinion, with any expectation respectability, about the replacement of coach Hixon.

If you believe that a coach's ulitmate responsibility is to get players ready to play, then the WR coach has failed miserably. If you disagree that this was Hixon's most basic duty, then what do you think his job entails, exactly?

If by week 17 Devin Thomas is still behind James Thrash on the depth chart, then I'm sorry. Rookie season or not, that's a huge problem.

I would agree that this would seem like scapegoating if it weren't for the fact that people have been questioning Hixon's ability since prior to this season.

IMHO, this thread is just one of the various "Okay, season's over let's discuss changes" that is both a rehash and collectivization of previous threads (i.e. the threads concerning age along the O-line, what to do about the pass rush, etc.).

We are all wondering what it will take to make this team a perrenial playoff team as it was in the 80's and early 90's. Now is the time for analysis, rehash and review.

As for Hixon, yes lots can go wrong with the passing game that is not his responsiblity BUT I have not heard or seen any evidence, either from players, other coaches or through performance, that he has taken players and made/helped them perform to the best of the abilities. Further, under his tutelage, the receiving corp has been mediocre at best. To me, these things evidence a less than stellar coach who has failed to truly develop talent in his area of responsibility.

I think the negatives concerning Hixon are obvious through the performance of his pupils. I would welcome any one who can provide any evidence that he is doing his job well.

Good post.

If Christensen came here, he might be driven to put a pistol in his mouth after watching what pass patterns Zorn likes put our receivers in.

If Christensen came here he would know enough about the WCO and the
passing game in general to tell Zorn...hey maybe we should
try_______ because we know it worked in Indy.

If Christensen came here he would know enough about the WCO and the
passing game in general to tell Zorn...hey maybe we should
try_______ because we know it worked in Indy.

Yeah, that sounds great. But based on what Zorn has said, he's not changing a damn thing with regard to his scheme, or his philosophy. And he sure as hell isn't going to do it for some guy named Clyde Christensen.

To me, that's the most alarming thing about Zorn. Officially, I'm against the idea of firing him. But if he shows absolutely no willingness to adjust his system to the players we have, especially if the players are better suited to a different system, and if he refuses to at least show he's got an open mind about tweaking his offense if there isn't marked improvement in '09, then that's a problem.

Yeah, that sounds great. But based on what Zorn has said, he's not changing a damn thing with regard to his scheme, or his philosophy. And he sure as hell isn't going to do it for some guy named Clyde Christensen.

To me, that's the most alarming thing about Zorn. Officially, I'm against the idea of firing him. But if he shows absolutely no willingness to adjust his system to the players we have, especially if the players are better suited to a different system, and if he refuses to at least show he's got an open mind about tweaking his offense if there isn't marked improvement in '09, then that's a problem.

Maybe he's purposely trying to be overconfident (possibly to a fault) because so many people questioned his hiring as HC??

Hey could someone add a poll component to this thread? Just a simple: "Should Hixon be retained or fired?" I'm very curious whether there is a consensus.

Maybe he's purposely trying to be overconfident (possibly to a fault) because so many people questioned his hiring as HC??

Could be. He's never been in a position like this, that's for sure. He's now having to answer for everything he's done all season long, so his shields are up in a sense.