Patriots ask for permission to speak with Josh McDaniels

[RobertWeathers]

Just heard that Josh hiring is imminent. He will immediately join as a "OC-assistant" thru the playoffs and will be OC, next season.

I just hope Josh does not butt heads with OBrien during the playoffs!

I don't think that there is anything to worry about.

 

[zipster9]

Schefter on ESPN (TV) just sais to expect Josh to join the team IMMEDIATELY, for this year's playoffs, as an offensive assistant and to be coordinator next year

Cool pict you have (Kraft raising Lombardi Trophy)..

 

[mrscruff]

Good point by Mike Reiss:

4. What can McDaniels provide now? In his work as Rams offensive coordinator this year, McDaniels drew up plans against these playoff teams -- Giants, Ravens, Packers, Saints, Bengals, Steelers and 49ers. There is significant value in McDaniels' work for the Patriots in this regard.

Rapid reaction: Josh McDaniels - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

 

[MaineMan]

What?
You think the Miami Dolphins had a VERY GOOD OFFENSE THIS YEAR?
22nd in yards, 20th in points? How is bottom 1/3 in the league VERY GOOD?
Even you don't believe that.
His team was 6th in points allowed and was 6-10 and you think that is a VERY GOOD OFFENSE. Are you on drugs?

Hey, I agree with your take on Maroney as (paraphrasing) making solid contributions even though he didn't quite live up to the expectations of being a #21 overall pick. But your vitriolic condemnation of Daboll is way off the mark.

Just to be clear, I'm not going to claim that Daboll is an exceptional OC or "as good as" McDaniels might be. But I will claim that he has some pretty decent accomplishments to his credit, especially given the context in which he was working, that you're ignoring.

First of all, basing ANY claim of success or failure on an absolute ranking in terms of points/yards/whatever is really thin. I laugh every time Reiss so studiously reports the Pats' ranking in, say, 3rd down conversions allowed by the defense. Several times over the course of a season, I've seen the defense improve by a couple of percentage points while simultaneously DROPPING a couple spots in the ranking. In terms of your argument against Daboll, there's a mere 50 yards/game and one FG/game difference between being ranked 22nd and being ranked 12th.

Second, there's the context, which seems especially important when comparing Daboll and McDaniels. For example (without even getting into the respective O-line quality):

In 2006, with an established Pats team, McD had, above all else, TFB. He also had the Maroney-Dillon tandem and got what was at the time Ben Watson's best receiving performance of his career.

In 2009 with a re-building Browns team, Daboll had future HoFers Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson and rookie Mo Massaquoi. Jerome Harrison had his ONLY good season that year, Cribbs had his only good rushing season that year and rickety old Jamal Lewis even managed 500 yds in his last NFL season ever.
-----
In 2007, McD had TFB, PLUS Welker and Moss.

In 2010, Daboll had rookie Colt McCoy plus the illustrious Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace. UDFA Peyton Hillis (let go by McDaniels, ironically enough) suddenly became a household name, Ben Watson had his BEST season as a receiver and Colt McCoy actually looked pretty good.
-----
In 2008, McD did very well with Cassell replacing TFB, but he still had Welker and Moss and some other well-established offensive pieces.

In 2011, under "legendary offensive guru", Pat Shurmur, with basically the same roster Daboll had, the Browns offense managed to score three FEWER points per game.

Meanwhile, in Miami, Daboll was operating under an HC who was ALMOST replaced by impatient ownership in the off-season. Nevertheless, Henne, in the season opener against the Pats, looked like he might be a decent QB after all. Within a couple weeks after Henne went down with an injury, Daboll had freshly-acquired Matt Moore performing at his highest level ever. Reggie Bush got his first 1000-yard rushing season ever and did a lot of it doing something no one thought he was capable of - running between the tackles as an every down back. Even rookies Daniel Thomas and FB Charles Clay made contributions that not many expected.

Now, I don't really understand how it could be a shock to anyone that an OC's record might be tied to the on-field talent he has to work with and how well THOSE guys execute his coaching and gameplans, but to say that Daboll "sucked" in his first three years as an OC because he didn't have the Browns and Miami performing at a level close to what McDaniels did with the Pats in HIS first three years as an OC is simply willful ignorance. It seems pretty clear that he did a damn fine job with the tools and talent at hand.

 

[Ring 6]

Hey, I agree with your take on Maroney as (paraphrasing) making solid contributions even though he didn't quite live up to the expectations of being a #21 overall pick. But your vitriolic condemnation of Daboll is way off the mark.

Just to be clear, I'm not going to claim that Daboll is an exceptional OC or "as good as" McDaniels might be. But I will claim that he has some pretty decent accomplishments to his credit, especially given the context in which he was working, that you're ignoring.

First of all, basing ANY claim of success or failure on an absolute ranking in terms of points/yards/whatever is really thin. I laugh every time Reiss so studiously reports the Pats' ranking in, say, 3rd down conversions allowed by the defense. Several times over the course of a season, I've seen the defense improve by a couple of percentage points while simultaneously DROPPING a couple spots in the ranking. In terms of your argument against Daboll, there's a mere 50 yards/game and one FG/game difference between being ranked 22nd and being ranked 12th.

Second, there's the context, which seems especially important when comparing Daboll and McDaniels. For example (without even getting into the respective O-line quality):

In 2006, with an established Pats team, McD had, above all else, TFB. He also had the Maroney-Dillon tandem and got what was at the time Ben Watson's best receiving performance of his career.

In 2009 with a re-building Browns team, Daboll had future HoFers Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson and rookie Mo Massaquoi. Jerome Harrison had his ONLY good season that year, Cribbs had his only good rushing season that year and rickety old Jamal Lewis even managed 500 yds in his last NFL season ever.
-----
In 2007, McD had TFB, PLUS Welker and Moss.

In 2010, Daboll had rookie Colt McCoy plus the illustrious Jake Delhomme and Seneca Wallace. UDFA Peyton Hillis (let go by McDaniels, ironically enough) suddenly became a household name, Ben Watson had his BEST season as a receiver and Colt McCoy actually looked pretty good.
-----
In 2008, McD did very well with Cassell replacing TFB, but he still had Welker and Moss and some other well-established offensive pieces.

In 2011, under "legendary offensive guru", Pat Shurmur, with basically the same roster Daboll had, the Browns offense managed to score three FEWER points per game.

Meanwhile, in Miami, Daboll was operating under an HC who was ALMOST replaced by impatient ownership in the off-season. Nevertheless, Henne, in the season opener against the Pats, looked like he might be a decent QB after all. Within a couple weeks after Henne went down with an injury, Daboll had freshly-acquired Matt Moore performing at his highest level ever. Reggie Bush got his first 1000-yard rushing season ever and did a lot of it doing something no one thought he was capable of - running between the tackles as an every down back. Even rookies Daniel Thomas and FB Charles Clay made contributions that not many expected.

Now, I don't really understand how it could be a shock to anyone that an OC's record might be tied to the on-field talent he has to work with and how well THOSE guys execute his coaching and gameplans, but to say that Daboll "sucked" in his first three years as an OC because he didn't have the Browns and Miami performing at a level close to what McDaniels did with the Pats in HIS first three years as an OC is simply willful ignorance. It seems pretty clear that he did a damn fine job with the tools and talent at hand.

If and when Daboll ever successfully coordinates an offense, I would consider those excuses.
To say he has done a VERY GOOD job and is as good as McDaniels, which was the discussion is moronic. Daboll's rating is not exclusively compared to McDaniels, it is compared to all his peers, many of which had the same issues, or worse with talent.

 

[MaineMan]

If and when Daboll ever successfully coordinates an offense, I would consider those excuses.
To say he has done a VERY GOOD job and is as good as McDaniels, which was the discussion is moronic. Daboll's rating is not exclusively compared to McDaniels, it is compared to all his peers, many of which had the same issues, or worse with talent.

Excuses? On the contrary, I believe that what I wrote demonstrates that Daboll HAS been successful - perhaps even more successful than might have been expected, IN SPITE OF his circumstances. The fact that his successes working within those circumstances didn't translate to a lot of Ws or even top-half league "rankings" isn't entirely on him by any stretch. No one can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and I seriously doubt that even Josh could have done much better in CLE than Daboll did. And that's as far as I'll go in comparing Daboll to McDaniels because there's no way to ever directly do so.

And "many" of Daboll's peers (rookie OCs) faced "the same issues or worse with talent" as Daboll did in CLE in 2009? A few, perhaps, but "many"? I doubt it. And these "others" were wildly more successful? I seriously doubt that.

For reasons I don't understand at all, you appear to be convinced that Daboll is talentless trash who has accomplished next to nothing and that McDaniels is an offensive "God" in comparison. So be it. By the same token, you're not going to convince me that either of these guys is anything more or less than human and that both have done some very good work and both have made some mistakes. I am not and never have been interested in ranking one over the other, except for the obvious fact that McDaniels has had considerably more experience, especially with running a Pats offense featuring a lot of talent that includes a future HoF QB. Should Daboll ever get such an opportunity, what he does with that could become a basis for comparing/ranking the two. Until then, all such conclusions are pretty much personal bias.

 

[Ring 6]

Excuses? On the contrary, I believe that what I wrote demonstrates that Daboll HAS been successful - perhaps even more successful than might have been expected, IN SPITE OF his circumstances.

He has been an OC 3 years. In 2 he had one of the few worst offenses in the NFL. In the 3rd he coached an offense that had the #6 D in points allowed and ended up 6-10.
Yes, blaming the players is an excuse.

The fact that his successes working within those circumstances didn't translate to a lot of Ws or even top-half league "rankings" isn't entirely on him by any stretch.

There are no successes

No one can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and I seriously doubt that even Josh could have done much better in CLE than Daboll did. And that's as far as I'll go in comparing Daboll to McDaniels because there's no way to ever directly do so.

They stunk and would have stunk with anyone is entirely opinion and a poor argument.

And "many" of Daboll's peers (rookie OCs) faced "the same issues or worse with talent" as Daboll did in CLE in 2009? A few, perhaps, but "many"? I doubt it. And these "others" were wildly more successful? I seriously doubt that.

His peers are OCs not rookies, esp since he is in his 3rd (and maybe last btw) year.
In each of those seasons you can find half a dozen teams or more that had the same or worse talent.

For reasons I don't understand at all, you appear to be convinced that Daboll is talentless trash who has accomplished next to nothing and that McDaniels is an offensive "God" in comparison.

Where did I say any of that?
Where did I call Daboll 'talentless' or 'trash'? I said he has been a poor OC. That does not mean he cannot do better, but its silly to sit here and say how do you know he couldnt coordinate an effective offense when he never has and call that analysis. Sure there is hope he could succeed, but no evidence to support it.
My opinion of McDaniel isn't even contained in this thread, so I don't know where you get that from.

So be it. By the same token, you're not going to convince me that either of these guys is anything more or less than human and that both have done some very good work and both have made some mistakes.

You could say the same about Tom Brady and Mark Sanchez. And the 'done some very good work' would be very hard to uncover with both of the second names in those groups.
Showing up and putting an offense in that stinks isn't doing good work.

I am not and never have been interested in ranking one over the other,

Then why would you join in to a discussion where I am disagreeing with someone saying Daboll is just as good as McD? Clearly you are interested in comparing them.

except for the obvious fact that McDaniels has had considerably more experience, especially with running a Pats offense featuring a lot of talent that includes a future HoF QB. Should Daboll ever get such an opportunity, what he does with that could become a basis for comparing/ranking the two. Until then, all such conclusions are pretty much personal bias.

See this is where you are wrong. There are facts. Both men have a career to date. One has run very successful offenses and the other never has. It is exactly personal bias to say the one who has never succeeded should be considered as good as the one who has by making excuses for his poor offenses. The facts are clear, the excuses create the bias.

 

[MaineMan]

He has been an OC 3 years. In 2 he had one of the few worst offenses in the NFL. In the 3rd he coached an offense that had the #6 D in points allowed and ended up 6-10.
Yes, blaming the players is an excuse.

I presume this doesn't apply to McDaniels, in his SIXTH year as an OC/HC, wrt where the Rams finished?

There are no successes

You have a very narrow definition of "success" in this circumstance that, disturbingly, doesn't appear to apply to Maroney (keeping in mind that I agreed with your take on Maroney).

They stunk and would have stunk with anyone is entirely opinion and a poor argument.

The fact is that they stunk WORSE in 2011 under the guidance of a far more experienced and highly-ranked offensive coach, so, y'know, not entirely opinion and just as reasonable an argument as anything YOU have offered.

His peers are OCs not rookies, esp since he is in his 3rd (and maybe last btw) year.

Right. And, by their third year, all QBs should be as successful as TFB is now? There are no mitigating circumstances for them, either?

In each of those seasons you can find half a dozen teams or more that had the same or worse talent.

A half-dozen out of 32 doesn't seem like "many" to me, especially when you factor in how many of those half-dozen had 1st/2nd/3rd year OCs. But, this might include the Rams, whose OC had FIVE years experience going in.

Where did I say any of that?
Where did I call Daboll 'talentless' or 'trash'? I said he has been a poor OC. That does not mean he cannot do better, but its silly to sit here and say how do you know he couldnt coordinate an effective offense when he never has and call that analysis. Sure there is hope he could succeed, but no evidence to support it.
My opinion of McDaniel isn't even contained in this thread, so I don't know where you get that from.

Okay, I'll admit I've exaggerated based on my interpretation of your statements. But it's not at all "silly" to say, "how do you know he couldn't coordinate a successful offense?" It's a valid question. And your point about "no evidence" cuts both ways. We've seen what both McDaniels and Daboll can (or cannot) accomplish with a less-than-talented offense, and we've seen what McDaniels can do with an uber-talented offense. We have NOT seen what Daboll can do with an uber-talented offense.

You could say the same about Tom Brady and Mark Sanchez. And the 'done some very good work' would be very hard to uncover with both of the second names in those groups.

Not sure what you're getting at here, except maybe to draw a parallel between Brady/McDaniels vs. Sanchez/Daboll. But that couldn't have been your intention.

Showing up and putting an offense in that stinks isn't doing good work.

Right. Because the success or failure of an offense is 100% on the back of the OC and has nothing whatsoever to do with the talent (or lack thereof) of the players who are available to execute it. The failure of the players to do so is merely an "excuse."

Then why would you join in to a discussion where I am disagreeing with someone saying Daboll is just as good as McD? Clearly you are interested in comparing them.

Egad! And here I thought I was disagreeing with YOUR comparison of them.

See this is where you are wrong. There are facts.

Which you're very selective about, as you are with standards for "success."

Both men have a career to date. One has run very successful offenses and the other never has.

One has just completed his 3rd season, the other his sixth. One has only coached teams with obviously shaky talent, especially at QB, the other's first three years were spent enjoying the benefits of a future HoF QB, including a couple with at least one, if not TWO future HoF WRs. Speaking of facts.

It is exactly personal bias to say the one who has never succeeded should be considered as good as the one who has by making excuses for his poor offenses. The facts are clear, the excuses create the bias.

I've never argued that Daboll should be considered to be "as good as" anyone (though other apparently have). I HAVE argued that there's insufficient evidence to claim for certain that Daboll is (or always will be) WORSE than others. IOW, there are no "facts" to base on which to base any such conclusion, just opinions.

And my opinion is that Brady is a far better QB than Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson, Jake Delhomme, Colt McCoy, Chad Henne, Matt Moore, Sam Bradford, AJ Feeley or Kellen Clemens and that Welker and Moss are/were far better receivers than Mo Massaquoi, Brian Robiskie, Brandon Marshall, Brian Hartline, Brandon Lloyd or Brandon Gibson. Presumably, you disagree with that opinion since you so vehemently claim that the talent/performance of the players can only be used as an excuse.

But, you're right - such "excuses" DO, indeed, create the bias.

 

[Ring 6]

I presume this doesn't apply to McDaniels, in his SIXTH year as an OC/HC, wrt where the Rams finished?

Of course it does when have I ever said otherwise?

You have a very narrow definition of "success" in this circumstance that, disturbingly, doesn't appear to apply to Maroney (keeping in mind that I agreed with your take on Maroney).

Why would you agreeing with me on Maroney have anything to do with this?
Are you really telling me you think Daboll has produced successful results on the field? If so, then lets agree to ban dodgeball and give everyone a participation medal for trying, and stop keeping score.
The fact that he has done poorly doesn't make him a bad person, or even incompetant, it just means he hasn't stacked up very well against the other coaches who have the job of OC

The fact is that they stunk WORSE in 2011 under the guidance of a far more experienced and highly-ranked offensive coach, so, y'know, not entirely opinion and just as reasonable an argument as anything YOU have offered.

Really the only difference in the Cleveland offense in 2010 and 2011 was Hillis deciding to show up or not. If you want to credit Daboll for that, then go ahead, and he can now claim credit for being one of the very worst offenses in the league but a hair better. We are miles away from successful too.
More experienced and highly rated? Shurmur? The guy who had 2 years coordinator experience doing poorly in St Louis? You do know he was hired because of his fathers connection to Holmgren right?


;quote]Right. And, by their third year, all QBs should be as successful as TFB is now? There are no mitigating circumstances for them, either?;/quote]
No there aren't. You aren't better if you are worse but lack experience.
There are no grading curves on a football field. I am not making a lifetime judgment statement on Brian Daboll. He could in fact be a genius who will grow into a good OC, but so far, he has been awful.

A half-dozen out of 32 doesn't seem like "many" to me, especially when you factor in how many of those half-dozen had 1st/2nd/3rd year OCs. But, this might include the Rams, whose OC had FIVE years experience going in.

Its not out of 32. Its out of the ones that you would try to say Daboll did a better job than. I can assume we eliminate the top half at least right?
That means that I estimate about half a dozen of the 15 other teams that had below average offenses had at least the same talent issues as Daboll. That is many in the landscape of the point.

Okay, I'll admit I've exaggerated based on my interpretation of your statements. But it's not at all "silly" to say, "how do you know he couldn't coordinate a successful offense?" It's a valid question.

But it isn't. Because you could use that argument with anyone. How do you know I couldn't coordinate a successful offense? If your statement is valid then I just proved you can't say any NFL OC is better than me. That is why its silly.

And your point about "no evidence" cuts both ways. We've seen what both McDaniels and Daboll can (or cannot) accomplish with a less-than-talented offense, and we've seen what McDaniels can do with an uber-talented offense. We have NOT seen what Daboll can do with an uber-talented offense.

There is plenty of evidence that McD can be a successful OC. There is none that Daboll can be. It certainly doesn't cut both ways. This is the heart of my point.
ONE HAS ACHIEVED. THE OTHER HAS NOT.
I will never, ever, accept excuses and could be based on circumstances in place of achievement. Anyone could, McD has.

Not sure what you're getting at here, except maybe to draw a parallel between Brady/McDaniels vs. Sanchez/Daboll. But that couldn't have been your intention.

I thought it was clear. Brady has achieved. Sanchez is a QB. He could someday achieve something.
McD has, Daboll hasn't.
You can no more compare one set than you can the other.

Right. Because the success or failure of an offense is 100% on the back of the OC and has nothing whatsoever to do with the talent (or lack thereof) of the players who are available to execute it. The failure of the players to do so is merely an "excuse."

100% of the job of the OC is the success of the offense.
Blaming the players for the failure when evaluating the coach is of course a failure. Almost every excellent coach in NFL history took over teams or units that were perceived as bad and made them good.

Egad! And here I thought I was disagreeing with YOUR comparison of them.

As I said if you have no interest in comparing them, why jump into such a discussion?

Which you're very selective about, as you are with standards for "success."

What is your definition of success? What have Dabolls offenses done that could be considered successful? Would you have to be say at least better than more than you are worse than to be 'successful"? Daboll has coordinated 3 offenses and they have all been bad. What do you see there to describe as success?

One has just completed his 3rd season, the other his sixth. One has only coached teams with obviously shaky talent, especially at QB, the other's first three years were spent enjoying the benefits of a future HoF QB, including a couple with at least one, if not TWO future HoF WRs. Speaking of facts.[.quote]
So what do you want to do? Pretend those years didn't exist? Do we give the Chiefs a trophy this year for winning the most games per talent?
You can only evaluate someone by what they have done. You seem to want to say anyone who did well doesnt count because they had good players and anyone who didnt doesnt count because they had bad players.
Is there a debate whether BB or **** Jauron are a better HC?

I've never argued that Daboll should be considered to be "as good as" anyone (though other apparently have). I HAVE argued that there's insufficient evidence to claim for certain that Daboll is (or always will be) WORSE than others. IOW, there are no "facts" to base on which to base any such conclusion, just opinions.

There are plenty of facts.
You can choose to say you can't draw an opinion from the facts that are there. But there are facts.
An opinion is what is called for at this time. And the answer is blatantly obvious.
There is every opportunity for him to change that in the future.
Look at it this way.
Where would you rank Tebow among NFL QBs?
If you are honest it would be at or near the bottom. That is truth.
It doesn't matter how long he has played, It doesn't matter who his coach is or who is on his team.
It also doesnt mean he cannot go on to become a HOFer.

If you really want to stick with the opinion that the 3 years Daboll has been an OC have absolutely nothing to do with how good of an OC he is, and you won't judge him unless he coaches all of the same players as someone else, then just say you can't comment.

And my opinion is that Brady is a far better QB than Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson, Jake Delhomme, Colt McCoy, Chad Henne, Matt Moore, Sam Bradford, AJ Feeley or Kellen Clemens and that Welker and Moss are/were far better receivers than Mo Massaquoi, Brian Robiskie, Brandon Marshall, Brian Hartline, Brandon Lloyd or Brandon Gibson. Presumably, you disagree with that opinion since you so vehemently claim that the talent/performance of the players can only be used as an excuse.

Right. I think Colt McCoy is as good as Brady, you win.
I am not 'vehement' about anything.
I am saying that the guy you are championing here has had zero success as an OC. That is a fact. Saying he would have had it with different players is simply an unsubstantiated guess.
I have no doubt his offenses would be better with more talent, everyones would. But I have a ton of doubt his offenses would be GOOD with average talent or great with good talent, which is what a successful OC would do. Anyone can do bad with bad talent and blame it on the talent. That does nothing to say he is any good.

But, you're right - such "excuses" DO, indeed, create the bias.

Facts are unbiased.
Winning or losing is black and white.
Losing and making it seem like success by giving reasons is introducing bias.
Bob did better than Joe is fact. But, Joe had to deal with.......introduces bias.

 

[convertedpatsfan]