(09-04-2019, 11:28 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Poo poo them all you want, but it's not like the cupboard is as bare as you want to pretend it is. Put all five of those guys on the field at the same time and they've already shown that they can average more than 30 points a game behind that bad offensive line. Injuries may very well de-rail that before it's all said and done, but that's the NFL for ya. 

Completely ignored the meat of the post in order to keep up your little false narrative about his brief time at UC meaning something, too. Bravo!

Well, his time was brief at U of Cincy because he had the 123rd ranked offense out of 128. That got the HC and himself...fired.

Do you even know what a false narrative is? Stating someone had the 123rd ranked offense...is a FACT.

(09-04-2019, 11:31 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Pistons wants a veteran coach with ample experience and a highly impressive history as a coordinator. I guess out of all the candidates out there he would have hired... Hue Jackson.

He also never would've hired Sam Wyche as head coach either - too inexperienced! Only 3 years as an assistant in the NFL? And did you *see* how bad his Indiana Hoosiers were? Total bum, pass.

I don't necessarily want a veteran coach. I want a coach with a good track record.

Not some guy that is living off of Sean McVay's success.

Taylor had 2 cracks at making a name for himself. When he took over as the Dolphins OC and when he was OC at U of Cincy...and FAILED miserably BOTH times.

Maybe he comes here and succeeds? Who really knows. But his track record isn't promising. And also the management he works for is arguably the worst in the league. Those 2 variables don't add up to a trend of success.

Now, he did copy the Rams offense, so that's a decent building point.

(09-05-2019, 08:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But it is a little more rare to hire a HC who has never even been hired as an NFL Coordinator.

And I don't think I have ever heard of a team that hired an entire new staff (HC, coordinators, assistants) with not a single one of them ever at least being hired as an NFL Coordinator before.

Correct. And that was my point.

The lack of experience on the staff here is really staggering. Also, he hired a bunch of his friends like Jim Turner who was basically radioactive in NFL circles.

(09-05-2019, 09:24 AM)NKURyan Wrote: The team averaged more than 30 points a game last year when Green, Boyd, Eifert, Mixon, and Dalton were on the field together, and that was behind a bad offensive line.

Defense is a different matter since the original topic was ZT's ability to call an offense, but even then they have a lot of talent on that side of the ball. Last year is an outlier compared to previous years, so I'm thinking they bounce back to at least being average.

You say I repeat things, but you guys repeat about the 1st 5 games of last year...constantly too.

But, you also ignore that those 5 games were under Lewis/Lazor.

Then, Eifert is injured and we lost his 15 receptions for 179 yards and it was all downhill...

So why change the offense then if it was just injuries?

(09-05-2019, 10:47 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I don't necessarily want a veteran coach. I want a coach with a good track record.

Not some guy that is living off of Sean McVay's success.

Taylor had 2 cracks at making a name for himself. When he took over as the Dolphins OC and when he was OC at U of Cincy...and FAILED miserably BOTH times.

Maybe he comes here and succeeds? Who really knows. But his track record isn't promising. And also the management he works for is arguably the worst in the league. Those 2 variables don't add up to a trend of success.

Now, he did copy the Rams offense, so that's a decent building point.

McVay has had success right ? Have you ever stopped to consider that part of that success is knowing how and who to pick as subordinates ?

Consider Austin last season and a half dozen others here.

(09-05-2019, 10:56 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: McVay has had success right ? Have you ever stopped to consider that part of that success is knowing how and who to pick as subordinates ?

Consider Austin last season and a half dozen others here.

Yeah...under McVay, ZT was Assistant WR Coach Year 1. Then QB Coach Year 2...the year AFTER Goff broke out.

It's not like McVay made him offensive coordinator. He gave him a really small role in Year 1. Then a position coach role in Year 2.

Austin is a great example! Remember how a lot of the board was excited with all of the coaching changes last year, and particularly Austin? And how bad it worked out. Change doesn't always improve a team.

I hear how we were 4-1 with a potent offense before injuries last year. Then, I also hear how bad our coaching was and how improved it is this year. Well the coaches last year led us to 4-1 before injuries. Those 2 narratives contradict.

(09-05-2019, 10:28 AM)NKURyan Wrote: The people who criticize ZT's lack of experience,hate the hire, and bash the talent level of the team are the same ones saying we should be expecting 9-10 wins because hey, Marv was decent his first year and had them at 4-1 last year. They're bad, but they'd better be good or else. Crystal clear.

Isn't it funny how the people who don't like the hire have no answer whatsoever as to who the hire should have been?  

(09-05-2019, 11:08 AM)McC Wrote: Isn't it funny how the people who don't like the hire have no answer whatsoever as to who the hire should have been?  

It's pretty hard to answer a question that hasn't been asked.

I think Lincoln Riley could be a star HC in the NFL. He reminds me of McVay. No clue if he'd come here or to the NFL.
I like Matt LaFleur A LOT.
Eric Bieniemy seems like a pretty logical choice being a former player here and having OC experience with the Chiefs. But he did lack experience other than that 1 year of OC. He'd be the riskiest of the 3.

I would have been cool with adding ZT to the staff. A jump to OC under a HC who could mentor him might have been a decent move, but also a risky move still given his track record.

(09-05-2019, 11:18 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: It's pretty hard to answer a question that hasn't been asked.

I think Lincoln Riley could be a star HC in the NFL. He reminds me of McVay. No clue if he'd come here or to the NFL.
I like Matt LaFleur A LOT.
Eric Bieniemy seems like a pretty logical choice being a former player here and having OC experience with the Chiefs. But he did lack experience other than that 1 year of OC. He'd be the riskiest of the 3.

I would have been cool with adding ZT to the staff. A jump to OC under a HC who could mentor him might have been a decent move, but also a risky move still given his track record.

So, your choices were a guy who was hired by somebody else, a guy who had no interest in leaving his current job and another guy who had never been a HC anywhere.

The job Lafleur left to take the GB job was OC for that offensive juggernaut, the Titans.

What is the track record for college coaches jumping to the NFL?

And EB was OC for Andy Reid, who designed the offense and called plays on game day. See how it works when you choose not to like somebody?

(09-05-2019, 11:51 AM)McC Wrote: So, your choices were a guy who was hired by somebody else, a guy who had no interest in leaving his current job and another guy who had never been a HC anywhere.

The job Lafleur left to take the GB job was OC for that offensive juggernaut, the Titans.  

What is the track record for college coaches jumping to the NFL?

And EB was OC for Andy Reid, who designed the offense and called plays on game day.  See how it works when you choose not to like somebody?

And LaFleur was the OC for the Rams the year before.

re: College to NFL - Pete Carroll has done pretty well. In general, new HC's have a higher track record of failure as they are taking over poor teams.

But, Bienemy was an OC.

Your criticisms do nothing to dissuade me from my choices and they are all more experienced and have better track records than ZT.

Nothing you posted is near as bad as having the 123rd out of 128 offenses at U of Cincy. And taking over Bill Lazor's offense in Miami and making it WORSE.

(09-05-2019, 10:44 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Well, his time was brief at U of Cincy because he had the 123rd ranked offense out of 128. That got the HC and himself...fired.

Do you even know what a false narrative is? Stating someone had the 123rd ranked offense...is a FACT.

If you honestly think that is the reason Tuberville got fired, you're clueless and clearly don't follow UC football at all.

Of course I know what a false narrative is, you present one pretty much every day. You've chosen to ignore the complete lack of talent UC had on offense that year (despite insisting otherwise), you've chosen to ignore that the offense was also terrible the year after he left (it's almost like the players weren't any good), and you're choosing to believe that he was fired for any other reason than because Tuberville's worthless butt got kicked to the curve.

...and then of course there's the whole "we can't hire an inexperienced coaching candidate with no real playcalling experience unless it's the guy *I* wanted" hypocrisy with Bienemy, but coming from you that's pretty much expected.

(09-05-2019, 12:20 PM)NKURyan Wrote: If you honestly think that is the reason Tuberville got fired, you're clueless and clearly don't follow UC football at all.

Of course I know what a false narrative is, you present one pretty much every day. You've chosen to ignore the complete lack of talent UC had on offense that year (despite insisting otherwise), you've chosen to ignore that the offense was also terrible the year after he left (it's almost like the players weren't any good), and you're choosing to believe that he was fired for any other reason than because Tuberville's worthless butt got kicked to the curve.

...and then of course there's the whole "we can't hire an inexperienced coaching candidate with no real playcalling experience unless it's the guy *I* wanted" hypocrisy with Bienemy, but coming from you that's pretty much expected.

So IF U of Cincy had say a Top 20 offense and was scoring 42 points per game, you think they would have still fired the HC?

And you think there is no correlation with having the 123rd ranked offense and a coach being fired? And also an OC being fired? (Plus, they could have fired Tuberville and kept Taylor if he was so great.)

College is the ultimate proving grounds for creative coaches to come in and install an offensive scheme that is innovative no matter what personnel they have. 123rd best offense is the result.

An lol at your strawman. I saw offensive coordinator experience. I say nothing about playcalling. But, OC's do, you know coordinate the offense and develop plays. An assistant WR coach and QB coach does none of that.

(09-05-2019, 11:18 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: It's pretty hard to answer a question that hasn't been asked.

I think Lincoln Riley could be a star HC in the NFL. He reminds me of McVay. No clue if he'd come here or to the NFL.
I like Matt LaFleur A LOT.
Eric Bieniemy seems like a pretty logical choice being a former player here and having OC experience with the Chiefs. But he did lack experience other than that 1 year of OC. He'd be the riskiest of the 3.

I would have been cool with adding ZT to the staff. A jump to OC under a HC who could mentor him might have been a decent move, but also a risky move still given his track record.

I was personally on record in wanting a proven winner in the NFL to come here.  I would have loved for them to get Kubiak here given he also has FO experience.  I would have jumped on Pete Carroll or John Harbaugh if they had been let go.  I would have also been good with McCarthy.

Bienemy, I was personally not high on because he got passed over multiple times for the Chiefs OC job. He basically became an OC by attrition and Reid still calls the shots.

Taylor is a wild card.  There have been tons of great coordinators that were bad HC's and there are mediocre/bad coordinators that became good/great HC's.  If Zac is better than Marvin, we should improve over last year.  Whether he is or not is anyone's guess.  We could be 2-14 or 14-2.  There's fair reasoning for both optimism and pessimism 

(09-05-2019, 12:33 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So IF U of Cincy had say a Top 20 offense and was scoring 42 points per game, you think they would have still fired the HC?

And you think there is no correlation with having the 123rd ranked offense and a coach being fired? And also an OC being fired? (Plus, they could have fired Tuberville and kept Taylor if he was so great.)

College is the ultimate proving grounds for creative coaches to come in and install an offensive scheme that is innovative no matter what personnel they have. 123rd best offense is the result.

An lol at your strawman. I saw offensive coordinator experience. I say nothing about playcalling. But, OC's do, you know coordinate the offense and develop plays. An assistant WR coach and QB coach does none of that.

Yeah, I know they would've fired Tommy Tuberville whether the offense was bad or good because I actually followed and watched the team. Tuberville took the UC job as a vacation he got paid for. The team had completely regressed every year he was here, he'd worn out his welcome with the fanbase, was contentious with the media, refused to spend any real effort in recruiting, lost every bowl game he qualified for, and almost single handedly set the program back 2 decades. There's a pretty good reason that everyone talks about his time here with contempt.

If Zac's offensive playbook at Cincinnati was so bad surely they improved leaps and bounds after he left, right? They didn't.

(09-05-2019, 11:51 AM)McC Wrote: See how it works when you choose not to like somebody?

No but i see how it works when someone claims no one had any other suggestion for who should have ben our head coach.

Any fool could see whst a stupid statement that was. There were multiple suggestions for guys with more experience at higher levels than Zac.

(09-05-2019, 12:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No but i see how it works when someone claims no one had any other suggestion for who should have ben our head coach.

Any fool could see whst a stupid statement that was. There were multiple suggestions for guys with more experience at higher levels than Zac.

Any fool could see? Should we take that as personally as you did in the other thread? Or should we act like grownups instead?

(09-05-2019, 11:59 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: And LaFleur was the OC for the Rams the year before.

re: College to NFL - Pete Carroll has done pretty well. In general, new HC's have a higher track record of failure as they are taking over poor teams.

But, Bienemy was an OC.

Your criticisms do nothing to dissuade me from my choices and they are all more experienced and have better track records than ZT.

Nothing you posted is near as bad as having the 123rd out of 128 offenses at U of Cincy. And taking over Bill Lazor's offense in Miami and making it WORSE.

So, a grand total of ONE.   One.  And Riley wasn't going to leave anyway, so you might as well have said Bill Walsh.  So that was just a non- choice.

EB had a title.  Woo Hoo.  Andy Reid did the job.  So he really has no track record at all either.  Zac had at least as much to do with the Rams offense as EB had to do with the Chiefs'.  But you conveniently ignore that, since it doesn't fit your narrative.

And your other choice was hired for another job.  So, basically, you had zero choices.  Your choice was actually this---anyone but the guy who got the job.

Just imagine if PB had felt that Sam Wyche was completely defined by is 3-8 record at IU.   Or if NE had decided that Bill Belichick was nothing more than a guy who got fired by the Browns.   And Pete Carroll went to USC because he had already failed in the NFL.  So Seattle did some creative thinking just to hire him despite his previous failure.

(09-05-2019, 12:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No but i see how it works when someone claims no one had any other suggestion for who should have ben our head coach.

Any fool could see whst a stupid statement that was. There were multiple suggestions for guys with more experience at higher levels than Zac.

You see it.  You just refuse to acknowledge.

And what great choices they were--a college coach with no intentions of leaving, a guy hired by someone else and a guy with no more track record than the guy who got the job.  My bad.  Let me right here and now applaud the brilliance of those choices.

(09-05-2019, 10:52 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: You say I repeat things, but you guys repeat about the 1st 5 games of last year...constantly too.

But, you also ignore that those 5 games were under Lewis/Lazor.

Then, Eifert is injured and we lost his 15 receptions for 179 yards and it was all downhill...

So why change the offense then if it was just injuries?

How is it that the single person you are talking to has become "You guys?"

(09-05-2019, 12:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No but i see how it works when someone claims no one had any other suggestion for who should have ben our head coach.

Any fool could see whst a stupid statement that was. There were multiple suggestions for guys with more experience at higher levels than Zac.

No there weren't.  There actually weren't any.