obie_wan Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Ferentz would be on my short list of head coaches without head coaching experience. 548500[/snapback] he does have experience running an entire major college program- which is far more important than only being a coordinator at the NFL level (ala our last 2 learn on the job projects)
obie_wan Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 The best thing about Ferentz, and why he's one of the only college guys or non NFL head coach experienced guys I would consider, is that he had a lot of years in the NFL before he went to college. He knows the major differences of the NFL game. He'd be a good hire, I think. Part of Mularkey's major problem is that he is a no-nonsense guy with a lot of nonsense. Kirk seems to be a straight shooter. 548574[/snapback] he also recognizes the importance of the OL since it coached the positon under Belichek
SDS Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 The best thing about that is Buffalo is friggin' Paris, France compared to Iowa. 548535[/snapback] Is that a hairy armpit reference?
TKO Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 he does have experience running an entire major college program- which is far more important than only being a coordinator at the NFL level (ala our last 2 learn on the job projects) 548645[/snapback] More important according to who? Spurrier comes to my mind. He had experience running an entire major college program. What did that accomplish for the Redskins? Absolutely nothing. It only made the decision to go with him seem less risky. There's no error-proof way to approach a HC hiring. Nothing from the past will guarantee anything for the future.
Recommended Posts