Why are other teams so hot for our coordinators?

[PromisedLand]

Most first-time head coaches suck. The question is how the first gigs of BB's assistants will compare to the first gigs of non-BB coaches over a period of time. Its much to early to answer that question.

No, the question is whether BB's assistants are more likely to succeed than other coaching candidates - experienced or not. The question is why are other teams so hot for our coordinators, when they can hire anyone they want.

 

[indcolts18288]

I posted this in the thread about McDaniels being the next hot head coaching prospect, but it kind of got lost amongst other debates - and I think it is a legit question and deserves a thread of its own, so here goes:

It would seem to me that if NFL GM's have any brains (debatable in some cases), they wouldn't be in such a hurry to hire Patriots assistants as head coaches. I mean, BB's ex-lieutenants haven't exactly covered themselves with glory, have they?

Romeo might or might not save his job after two horrible seasons in Cleveland.

Mangini started out like gangbusters against a cupcake schedule but that is starting to look like a fluke as the Jets start his second year 1-4.

Charlie is taking heavy fire at Notre Dame as his Fighting Irish lose their first 5 games in this, his 3rd year. ND fans are wondering why Charlie got a long term deal when Ty Willingham had a better record at this point in his tenure. Granted, that isn't an NFL team but generally guys who have coached at both levels do better in college - think Pete Carroll, Steve Spurrier, Butch Davis, etc.

And what about Nick Saban, who was BB's DC in Cleveland? He didn't exactly save the day for the Dolphins, did he?

So I ask again, why are NFL GM's so eager to hire any warm body with "worked under BB" on his resume, when none of them have really panned out yet?

The natural assumption is that because the Patriots have been so successful in the BB era, that any assistant is going to be able to reproduce the magic somewhere else. The evidence indicates otherwise. Sooner or later the other GM's will figure that out.

My guess would be because of their innate ability to use a video camera.

 

[Hollywood_Brady]

I posted this in the thread about McDaniels being the next hot head coaching prospect, but it kind of got lost amongst other debates - and I think it is a legit question and deserves a thread of its own, so here goes:

It would seem to me that if NFL GM's have any brains (debatable in some cases), they wouldn't be in such a hurry to hire Patriots assistants as head coaches. I mean, BB's ex-lieutenants haven't exactly covered themselves with glory, have they?

Romeo might or might not save his job after two horrible seasons in Cleveland.

Mangini started out like gangbusters against a cupcake schedule but that is starting to look like a fluke as the Jets start his second year 1-4.

Charlie is taking heavy fire at Notre Dame as his Fighting Irish lose their first 5 games in this, his 3rd year. ND fans are wondering why Charlie got a long term deal when Ty Willingham had a better record at this point in his tenure. Granted, that isn't an NFL team but generally guys who have coached at both levels do better in college - think Pete Carroll, Steve Spurrier, Butch Davis, etc.

And what about Nick Saban, who was BB's DC in Cleveland? He didn't exactly save the day for the Dolphins, did he?

So I ask again, why are NFL GM's so eager to hire any warm body with "worked under BB" on his resume, when none of them have really panned out yet?

The natural assumption is that because the Patriots have been so successful in the BB era, that any assistant is going to be able to reproduce the magic somewhere else. The evidence indicates otherwise. Sooner or later the other GM's will figure that out.

being under BB is a good thing and other teams know that... coaches under the apprenticeship of bellichick become good coaches to really good coaches... its just that when they leave for another team, they are put in very ugly situations... our ex-coordinator are good coaches but not miracle workers, even BB's time in cleveland is hopeless.

 

[PatsSteve1]

My guess would be because of their innate ability to use a video camera.

Yeah. That's a real useful comment to this discusion

 

[PromisedLand]

Where did anything about the team's record? It doesn't take a seer to realize that the Browns are an improving team.

First of all, there is a difference between "improving" and "good". New HC's aren't generally given more than 3 years to get a team from bad to good. Secondly, you simply cannot say after 5 games that the Browns are improving so yes, it does take a "seer".

There are 4 classes (with some 5th year exceptions) on a college team. When Weis arrived, he had only Ty's players available. Those players move from freshman to senior and then graduate. A coach is stuck with the previous coach's players for 4 seasons, barring early exits. Ty's players are still on the Notre Dame team, and are the players who should be the team's best. The players are just bad, as the recruiting 'analysts' predicted they would be. Now, once Ty's players are gone, Weis will be reliant upon his own recruits and will stand or fall based upon their success. That time simply has not yet come. Weis proved quite capable of coaching talent when Quinn and company were around. The question is going to be whether or not he can recruit and develop talent as well.

http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/...st.Signing.Class.Nearly.Complete-847652.shtml
Notice the year for that first class.

I didn't read your link, but when Charlie arrived he had a higher percentage of guys inherited from the previous regimes. Now, he has 2 or 3 classes of his own recruits, with those guys replacing the incumbants. So if his team is getting worse (and it certainly is worse by record than it was in his first two years) it must be because his guys aren't as good as the guys he inherited. Recruiting is a huge part of the job of a college football head coach - and it does not appear that Charlie is very good at it.

As for Mangini, I was not defending him, just explaining his position. He was a success last year, and has not been one through 5 games this season. As young as he is, that doesn't make him a failure. He showed last season that he can coach at the NFL level. Now he has to show that he can learn from his mistakes and improve.

It doesn't make him a failure but it doesn't make him a success either. Let's remember what the original question of this thread was - Why are other teams so hot for our coordinators? If none of Saban, Weis, Romeo or Mangini have panned out (to date), why should there be any interest in 31 year old Josh McDaniels?

 

[patsfan209]

To me, you have to take that chance and hope the coordinator you chose happens to be the one that wins you that championship. Look at how many assistants Bill Walsh lost to head coaching jobs and I think only one (Mike Holmgren) lived up to expectations. And look how many assistants Holmgren lost and I believe one (Jon Gruden) won a Super Bowl as a HC.

As people have said already, teams want a piece of success. Picking off a coaching assistant is a natural way to do so.

Heck, if I own and ran a team today, both Pats coordinators would be high on my list of candidates to be my team's head coach. Especially if the Pats win the Super Bowl this year.

 

[PromisedLand]

To me, you have to take that chance and hope the coordinator you chose happens to be the one that wins you that championship. Look at how many assistants Bill Walsh lost to head coaching jobs and I think only one (Mike Holmgren) lived up to expectations. And look how many assistants Holmgren lost and I believe one (Jon Gruden) won a Super Bowl as a HC.

As people have said already, teams want a piece of success. Picking off a coaching assistant is a natural way to do so.

Heck, if I own and ran a team today, both Pats coordinators would be high on my list of candidates to be my team's head coach. Especially if the Pats win the Super Bowl this year.

Of course they want a piece of success and of course picking off a coaching assistant seems like a natural way to do so, but is their any factual evidence that it is in fact a natural way to do so? My contention is that at least in the case of BB's assistants there is none - they are 0 for 4 in terms of sustained head coaching success at any level.

Your mention of Holmgrern and the fact that only one of his assistants has been successful would seem to provide further evidence that a chip off the old block is not necessarily going to become as successful as the original block. How many of his other assistants have become NFL HC's? Off the top of my head I can think of Andy Reid, Mariucci, and Sherman. Some quick google research brings up the additional names **** Jauron, Marty Morningweg, and Ray Rhodes. Reid has had some success, as well as Mariucci when he was with the 49ers. Jauron had one 13-3 season with the Bears but eventually got fired. But I actually think Holmgren's assistants have had more success, percentagewise, than BB's.

edit: while doing the aforementioned google research I came across an interesting article. It's a bit outdated but traces the coaching roots of all 32 NFL head coaches as of the date it was written. It would be interesting to analyze this to try to answer questions such as:

1. Does the likelihood of an assistant's success as a HC depend on which tree he comes from?

2. Do former assistants as a group have a better success rate as a group than college coaches, when they become an NFL HC? How about guys with both kinds of experience? etc.

 

[SpiderFox53]

Originally Posted by Deus Irae
Where did anything about the team's record? It doesn't take a seer to realize that the Browns are an improving team.

First of all, there is a difference between "improving" and "good". New HC's aren't generally given more than 3 years to get a team from bad to good. Secondly, you simply cannot say after 5 games that the Browns are improving so yes, it does take a "seer".

So far this season, it appears as if the Browns are on an upswing, you don't have to be a seer to see that.

There are 4 classes (with some 5th year exceptions) on a college team. When Weis arrived, he had only Ty's players available. Those players move from freshman to senior and then graduate. A coach is stuck with the previous coach's players for 4 seasons, barring early exits. Ty's players are still on the Notre Dame team, and are the players who should be the team's best. The players are just bad, as the recruiting 'analysts' predicted they would be. Now, once Ty's players are gone, Weis will be reliant upon his own recruits and will stand or fall based upon their success. That time simply has not yet come. Weis proved quite capable of coaching talent when Quinn and company were around. The question is going to be whether or not he can recruit and develop talent as well.

http://media.www.ndsmcobserver.com/m...e-847652.shtml
Notice the year for that first class.

I didn't read your link, but when Charlie arrived he had a higher percentage of guys inherited from the previous regimes. Now, he has 2 or 3 classes of his own recruits, with those guys replacing the incumbants. So if his team is getting worse (and it certainly is worse by record than it was in his first two years) it must be because his guys aren't as good as the guys he inherited. Recruiting is a huge part of the job of a college football head coach - and it does not appear that Charlie is very good at it.

Charlie was hired after signing day, he has two official classes under his belt (the true freshmen this year and the redshirt freshmen and true sophmores this year) all other players on the team were recruited by Willingham. Which means the majority of the starters on the field today were Willinghams players not Charlies. His recruiting abilities remain to be seen.

As for Mangina, he's a rat fink and I don't care about him.

 

[jbb9s]

Maybe McDaniels gets lured away and Weis comes back after getting canned in South Bend.

 

[jays52]

Weis is in ND for another eight years. I think that if ND had gone .500 this year, Weis deserved coach of the century. De La Salle or Midland coulda beaten ND tallent wise.

With regards to RAC and Weis, it was apparent they were two of the best in the league on back to back championship teams, so they were offered jobs. It's a copycat league, and the way it has always worked.

In regards to our younger cordinators, IE Mangina, Daboll and McDaniels, it is a reflection upon BB. He has always been known for his eye for tallent. He is in a rare situation currently in that he has potential MBA minds wanting to coach for him. I mean, we have seen the likes of Herm Edwards and Mike Tice...there aren't many brilliant minds in football. Belichick is an exception in my opinion. His coaching is highly strategic and cerebral and that appeals to the best and brightest young minds in the game. When you take a high level intellectual tallent and combine it with the highest level of training you produce a potential for greatness. Whenever you combine a tested rubric for excellence and people who are bright enough to comprehend and expand upon it you have the potential for greatness. That is what the other teams see.