EmeraldBullet wrote:Not a surprise. Successful coordinators and such always seem to leave for new teams. Everyone wants to be a HC, or make more money.
EmeraldBullet wrote:That's why I said coordinators and such, TC would fall under and such category.
Hawktawk wrote:Richard isn't to blame for losing Earl which changed that defense and I like his more aggressive nature.He would only improve.
The jury's out on Cable. If the line looks like last saturday for 3 more games give him a raise.
HumanCockroach wrote:
I know it's crazy, and I'm most definitely not claiming I would prefer Terrell to Thomas, but the point differential with or without ET is .06 while the improvement in getting off the field on third down is drastically better ( yeah that doesn't sound right to me either) 51.2 conversion with ET 32.9 without. The passer rating had remained almost identical, and believe it or not, big plays have dropped TD to INT have not improved, but that isn't something you can necessarily pin on Terrell.
I don't understand it, nor do I feel like they are as good without him, but somehow as a whole they've at least remained "as good" and someone ( not me lol) could make the case for them actually being better.
Hawk Sista wrote:Of the two, Cable has the better shot...though I don't think either will be hired. Cable coached the Raiders as HC for 2.5 seasons. While the team improved finishing 8-8 in his last year, he had a losing record and the busted face deal. I actually like him a lot and think he'd be good. But SF is the last place I'd want to go...though he was born o few hours away. What a mess that franchise is.
Kris needs more time, IMHO. Ya'll are spoiled though if you think our D has fallen off that much (& it's rishard's fault). We were 3rd in points allowed, 5th in yards and this was with injuries to KEY players (Bennett, Kam, Earl) & an offense that couldn't stay on the field.
Our defense was 5th ranked before losing Earl, that became 30th ranked for the games without him (before our last game). There may be specific statistical components that did not decline or even that may have improved but we are not nearly as good a defense without Earl as with him.
"Cable has some major DV issues in his past, and with the heightened sensitivity to such events, I doubt that any NFL team would take the PR risk of hiring a head coach with that kind of baggage"
Hawk Sista wrote:I didn't know that. Thanks, RD
http://old.seattletimes.com/html/seahaw ... _off-.html
I'm not sure if I had chemo brain or what??? seems like there is extensive history. That certainly changes my thinking
Zorn76 wrote:I will be surprised if either gets hired for HC, particularly Cable, though I think Richard needs more time as a DC before he'd be ready to make that measurable leap.
Hawk Sista wrote:I am not sure if I was on hiatus from the PI at that time or if it is one of the many things that I just don't remember thanks to 20 weeks of chemo. I do remember not liking him in Oakland and more specifically - I recall not liking the hire...but I have warmed up to him over the years. He gives a good thoughtful interview. I honestly don't know that I would have softened to him had I remembered all of that. And I doubt the Hawks could have hired an assistant HC/O-line coach with that kind of track record and me not flipping out about it. Consider it an unsolved mystery.
I suppose you are right, though RD. Too much baggage - Mr. Cable is likely gonna need to stay on a short horse in a tall posse for the remainder of his career. I hope the things Pete said in the linked 2011 article are true and that Cable got his issues resolved and is a better human being. Sheesh
Uppercut wrote:I have a feeling that PC will coach another 3 seasons and it is already arranged the job will be Cables. I think there has been a wink and a nod unless Tom can find something really great.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests