Wade Phillips to Interview with the Redskins

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

I am just gonna start filling up my ignore list. Fun fact up until October of last year, it only had one person on it.

I am sorry. Since last Monday was not Black enough, it is obvious to me that we are on a slow-motion train wreck.

Obviously this makes me an unpleasant, if reluctant, Debbie Downer.

I'll have to figure out a new approach to the Warpath. Until then, I apologize.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I am sorry. Since last Monday was not Black enough, it is obvious to me that we are on a slow-motion train wreck.

Obviously this makes me an unpleasant, if reluctant, Debbie Downer.

I'll have to figure out a new approach to the Warpath. Until then, I apologize.

It's not you, you are actually one of my favorite posters on here.

[skinsguy]

My initial thought, (in a previous thread) was that Wade is 67 years old and probably doesn't plan to coach for much longer. So, whatever he does to better this defense, he better do it in a hurry and leave it in good hands of whoever takes over for him a year or two. Then again, Dick Lebeau is 77 years old and still coaching the Steelers' defense, so age isn't always a factor.

I understand people wanting the young "up and comer", fresh perspective and blah blah blah. I think that is OK when you obviously have the talent, and depth, to allow a young guy to come in and cut his teeth on coordinating a defense. But this defense, while it has a few pieces, needs help. A guy like Phillips has the proven track record of getting the most out of average, or bad, defenses. Why not bring in someone like him to help turn the defense around, while still adding pieces, and then once Phillips is done coaching, a good up and comer of a DC is coming into a great situation.

[Daseal]

I just hope we send Wale to help convince Wade Phillips to come here like we did with DJax...

Wade Phillips going clubbing was a funny mental image for me...

[Schneed10]

I just don't get the unbelievable stupidity in this thread.

You guys need to keep your day jobs, because if you're not hiring based on the most impressive resume, then you're not a good fit for any manager position anywhere, let alone one in football.

This stuff about Wade Phillips being old boy network and old and an inadequate motivator as compared with a Ken Norton - who's resume looks exactly like that of any average LB coach in the NFL - is utter gibberish. Stop flapping your gums.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This stuff about Wade Phillips being old boy network and old and an inadequate motivator as compared with a Ken Norton - who's resume looks exactly like that of any average LB coach in the NFL - is utter gibberish. Stop flapping your gums.

Good point , can you post both resume's ,so we can compare ?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Good point , can you post both resume's ,so we can compare ?

If you can't find their track records on the internet yourself - since Wade's is discussed ad nauseam by Keim, the WP, etc. etc. - then you don't have any business discussing informatively here.

This is Redskins Discussion for the Knowledgeable Fan.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

If you can't find their track records on the internet yourself - since Wade's is discussed ad nauseam by Keim, the WP, etc. etc. - then you don't have any business discussing informatively here.

This is Redskins Discussion for the Knowledgeable Fan.

Go to post #1, hit the links .

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I just don't get the unbelievable stupidity in this thread.

You guys need to keep your day jobs, because if you're not hiring based on the most impressive resume, then you're not a good fit for any manager position anywhere, let alone one in football.

This stuff about Wade Phillips being old boy network and old and an inadequate motivator as compared with a Ken Norton - who's resume looks exactly like that of any average LB coach in the NFL - is utter gibberish. Stop flapping your gums.

You're completely missing the point. Sometimes in business, and in football, it's about taking a risk on someone...and not about who's got the longest resume. Chip Kelly never coached in the NFL but brought new ideas to the NFL. Phillips would be a fine hire. I wouldn't complain. No one is beating his door down but that's besides the point. My point with Norton was he might bring new ideas to the table, like maybe teaching our undisciplined defense the rugby tackling techniques that Seattle uses. But Wade's got the resume so that means he's automatically the best guy for the job!

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

You're completely missing the point. Sometimes in business, and in football, it's about taking a risk on someone...and not about who's got the longest resume. Chip Kelly never coached in the NFL but brought new ideas to the NFL. Phillips would be a fine hire. I wouldn't complain. No one is beating his door down but that's besides the point. My point with Norton was he might bring new ideas to the table, like maybe teaching our undisciplined defense the rugby tackling techniques that Seattle uses. But Wade's got the resume so that means he's automatically the best guy for the job!

Well given that his resume says he's made drastic improvements in yards and points allowed IN HIS FIRST YEAR ON THE JOB in several places, how can you argue with the resume??

I can't even believe I'm entertaining this conversation.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Well given that his resume says he's made drastic improvements in yards and points allowed IN HIS FIRST YEAR ON THE JOB in several places, how can you argue with the resume??

I can't even believe I'm entertaining this conversation.

I would just prefer that we find the next Wade Phillips. Dude is 67 years old. But as I said, it's a solid, safe hire.

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I would just prefer that we find the next Wade Phillips. Dude is 67 years old. But as I said, it's a solid, safe hire.

This is one of the things i was concerned about, and wanted to mention, without sounding discriminatory. I was just thinking along the lines of how long could he stay here when he is already close to 70? My feelings are that we need a guy who is here for the long haul.

Wade is a solid, safe hire, that could easily coach into his 70's. Just figured that maybe the skins were thinking they could get younger, vs again trying to hire an already big name, established veteran coach.

[MTK]

And sometimes there's nothing wrong with going with the most well qualified candidate. Winning isn't all about taking chances.

[CRedskinsRule]

One thing about the established name vs young up and comer. Which is more likely of a scenario assuming both guys actually turn the defense around?

a) the established name leaving after 3 years

or

b) the up and comer leaving after 3 years?

Again, Let's pretend that both guys turn the defense around, so that our defense doesn't cost us games. Our special teams is average, so it doesn't really win or lose games. So our offense, which was up and down would bear the brunt of win/losses.

Scenario 1) team struggles as a whole, and no real positives happen: we still flounder with 6-8 wins for the next 2 years, then we are throwing out the whole scheme, either the up and comer or the established guy might get interim, but likely we go a whole new direction with a whole new staff.

Scenario 2) team improves and makes serious playoff noise: Maybe the up and comer lights it up, but Gruden does enough so he sticks around, and the up and comer gets offers from other teams. He leaves. How many other teams are looking for a HC who hasn't succeeded in the past?

I guess what I am pointing out that if the DC that is hired succeeds, than WP has as much if not more of a chance of sticking around for a while than any young up and comer who would basically be licking his chops at a HC job, and isn't it even possible that he would be eyeing Gruden's position which opens a whole different can of worms.

All I want is the hire to be someone who can effectively run a defense, but things like age, or up and comer status, really should not even be in the discussion, because 3 years in the NFL is an eternity for coaching staffs.

[calia]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

One thing about the established name vs young up and comer. Which is more likely of a scenario assuming both guys actually turn the defense around?

a) the established name leaving after 3 years

or

b) the up and comer leaving after 3 years?

Again, Let's pretend that both guys turn the defense around, so that our defense doesn't cost us games. Our special teams is average, so it doesn't really win or lose games. So our offense, which was up and down would bear the brunt of win/losses.

Scenario 1) team struggles as a whole, and no real positives happen: we still flounder with 6-8 wins for the next 2 years, then we are throwing out the whole scheme, either the up and comer or the established guy might get interim, but likely we go a whole new direction with a whole new staff.

Scenario 2) team improves and makes serious playoff noise: Maybe the up and comer lights it up, but Gruden does enough so he sticks around, and the up and comer gets offers from other teams. He leaves. How many other teams are looking for a HC who hasn't succeeded in the past?

I guess what I am pointing out that if the DC that is hired succeeds, than WP has as much if not more of a chance of sticking around for a while than any young up and comer who would basically be licking his chops at a HC job, and isn't it even possible that he would be eyeing Gruden's position which opens a whole different can of worms.

All I want is the hire to be someone who can effectively run a defense, but things like age, or up and comer status, really should not even be in the discussion, because 3 years in the NFL is an eternity for coaching staffs.

If a new DC comes in and turns our defense into a top 5 D within the next year or two, he should be offered a HC position.