02-01-2021, 11:19 PM
(01-30-2021, 08:02 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: First, the post I responded referenced he had little experience over coaches just hired or looking at and that is just false.. As for his resume.. I disagree, he has had success with teams as a coach and has keep jobs for extended period of times.. really weak coaches don;t last this long or move up the ladder as he did.. so objectively I disagree.
1. I really don't care how you slice it. The guy had zero experience as a coordinator despite being in coaching for 20+ years. If you think his resume was better than some other guys, then those other guys must be doo-doo.
2. Coaching for a long time is a (really) low bar for success. Zampese coached for a long time. That does not mean it was a solid move to hire him as OC...and frankly, Zampese was a guru at his position when you compare him to Lou.
A guy as experienced (as a position coach) as Lou should have some years you can point to where you say "wow, his secondary was dominant that year" or some long track record of producing star players...if you're looking to promote.
He didn't...and that's why no one had promoted him until the desperate Bengals came along. The guy wasn't good as a position coach. Being around a long time means nothing, as there are lots of mediocre coaches floating around for years on end.
We're seeing the results of an underwhelming hire, as his defense is setting records that Terryl Austin would be ashamed of. Is this really the hill you want to die on? That Lou is a good coach or a good hire? Really?
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
