2nd Eagles HC Poll and Discussion Thread

[mjkvol]

2 minutes ago, NOTW said:

They needed to be planning ahead.  They knew the season was lost.  The week they benched Wentz they needed to start talking to Doug about his plans to fix the issues.  They needed to decide then if they were going forward with Doug or not.  Lurie had one meeting after the season with Doug and didn't like it, told him to come up with better answers and they had a 2nd meeting and parted ways.  This was after other teams were already into their interviews.

Due diligence is fine with the draft when you have a year to prepare, but then on draft weekend things move fast and you have to be ready to make the decision quick.

After the season when you fire a coach, you also have to move fast and know what you want, your strategy moving forward and who's your short list to interview.  They're grasping it seems, even interviewing the Cowboys special teams coach.  It looks desperate.

This is like a carbon copy of the Pederson hire - take forever as all the solid candidates are hired, sell it as an "exhaustive" search, and then hire the guy were were intending to all along.

[CaliEagle]

8 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

No one should take heat for it. Hire the best person for the job no matter what color their skin is. Plain and Simple, anything else is just racist even hiring a minority coach to make the NFL and/or anyone else happy. 

I think the problem is that many people would say that Bienemy, Frazier and Bowles  might be more qualified than McDaniels at this point due to McDaniels failing before and reneging out of a contract.  It has nothing to do with your opinion or my opinion though. The reality is that if the Eagles hire McDaniels over up and coming deserving candidates, it will be hard to justify.  Lurie would only be able to justify it years later if McDaniels ends up proving him right. But, until then, most people won't feel the hiring was deserving.  

[Mr_Philly]

10 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Oh I agree with you. If they go with a retread over a minority race coach then there is going to be uproar. Especially after Lurie spoke in his press conference last week about how he's always at the front of giving minority races an opportunity. And so... It'll be Duce. 

Lurie already hired a minority coach in Ray Rhodes and the NFL shouldn't influence any owner who they hire period. If Lurie feels Duce is the best candidate after all these interviews so be it but I don't think the NFL pressure will have anything to do with his decision.

[CaliEagle]

14 minutes ago, mjkvol said:

And that is another reason why Lurie, being the "progressive" that he is politically, will end up hiring Duce.          But I don't buy any of this "deserving" stuff - is one man more "deserving" than another because of his skin color?              

It should be about the best person for the job, but the truth of the matter is that there aren't hardly any black head coaches.  So, there is an issue whether people want to admit it or not because there are many black assistant coaches and they don't get advanced.  It would be naive to suggest that all black candidates don't interview well.  It's a complicated issue. Some owners aren't racist and would hire a black HC, but might hire someone else who they feel is more qualified. And, there are probably some owners who are racist who would hire a lesser qualified candidate vs. hiring a black HC.

[jblah]

44 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

If they keep adding to the list because, as was suggested, they couldn't get their top target(s) then that's a concern?

I think its all speculation. perhaps these people were already on the list. they are just getting the lay of the land in the NFL but brining in successful coordinators to get a feel for the direction the NFL is going before they make a decision on a coach. I guess we'll see who gets it and then we'll know. if its the last person to interview then i would agree with you. if its someone who they interviewed already and still continued to interview, then i would believe they are being thorough. 

[mjkvol]

7 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

It should be about the best person for the job, but the truth of the matter is that there aren't hardly any black head coaches.  So, there is an issue whether people want to admit it or not because there are many black assistant coaches and they don't get advanced.  It would be naive to suggest that all black candidates don't interview well.  It's a complicated issue. Some owners aren't racist and would hire a black HC, but might hire someone else who they feel is more qualified. And, there are probably some owners who are racist who would hire a lesser qualified candidate vs. hiring a black HC.

My problem, and we're getting away from the thread subject, is the social engineering aspect of it - an owner of a franchise the value of an NFL team should decide who he wants to hire to run the football team, period.         To be honest, it blows my mind that blacks aren't insulted by the idea that owners are forced to interview them.         I believe that owners want someone who will make their franchise successful, and they don't care if the skin color is black, white, green, or red.         Just another example of politics being injected where it doesn't belong, but that seems to be the way of the country now, so be it.

[mjkvol]

26 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

I think the problem is that many people would say that Bienemy, Frazier and Bowles  might be more qualified than McDaniels at this point due to McDaniels failing before and reneging out of a contract.  It has nothing to do with your opinion or my opinion though. The reality is that if the Eagles hire McDaniels over up and coming deserving candidates, it will be hard to justify.  Lurie would only be able to justify it years later if McDaniels ends up proving him right. But, until then, most people won't feel the hiring was deserving.  

Justify it to who, that's the question?            I couldn't care less what color someone's skin is if they're the best candidate for the job.           Why are Bienemy, Frazier and Bowles "more deserving", and by the way, aren't Bowles and Frazier "retreads" as well?

[NOTW]

 

 

[Guest]

 

[Usain23]

1 minute ago, NOTW said:

 

 

32 years old is so young. Gotta imagine if Dak comes back healthy and that offense continues to do what it did the first few games this year, he will be a hot candidate next year though. Might be a situation where you get a guy a year too early or not at all. 
 

An added plus is it would hurt the Cowboys offense for next year. 

[jblah]

Just now, Usain23 said:

32 years old is so young. Gotta imagine if Dak comes back healthy and that offense continues to do what it did the first few games this year, he will be a hot candidate next year though. Might be a situation where you get a guy a year too early or not at all. 
 

An added plus is it would hurt the Cowboys offense for next year. 

Could end up being like McDaniel's first stint. 

[Usain23]

2 minutes ago, jblah said:

Could end up being like McDaniel's first stint. 

That’s the worry. He’s only been coaching 3 years. It would certainly be a risky hire. 

[CaliEagle]

10 minutes ago, downundermike said:

 

I think that is his polite way of saying "no thanks" without saying it.

[CaliEagle]

20 minutes ago, mjkvol said:

Justify it to who, that's the question?            I couldn't care less what color someone's skin is if they're the best candidate for the job.           Why are Bienemy, Frazier and Bowles "more deserving", and by the way, aren't Bowles and Frazier "retreads" as well?

The court of public opinion, especially people and organizations who want racial equality. The NFL does care about public perception.  So, even though an owner has a right to hire who he or she wants, there still will be questions and scrutiny.  You are right that Bowles and Frazier have been HCs before, not Bienemy.

[Thing3]

12 minutes ago, NOTW said:

They needed to be planning ahead.  They knew the season was lost.  The week they benched Wentz they needed to start talking to Doug about his plans to fix the issues.  They needed to decide then if they were going forward with Doug or not.  Lurie had one meeting after the season with Doug and didn't like it, told him to come up with better answers and they had a 2nd meeting and parted ways.  This was after other teams were already into their interviews.

Due diligence is fine with the draft when you have a year to prepare, but then on draft weekend things move fast and you have to be ready to make the decision quick.

After the season when you fire a coach, you also have to move fast and know what you want, your strategy moving forward and who's your short list to interview.  They're grasping it seems, even interviewing the Cowboys special teams coach.  It looks desperate.

I won't disagree that this seemed to be an off the cuff firing and subsequently a hurried process to replace Doug. I think it's a stretch to say they had no plan. My suspicion is that "the plan" (in quotes if you prefer) was put in place after the first post season interview with Doug. They obviously felt they had better options available to pursue before firing Doug. I believe they have the luxury of being thorough because Duce is the failsafe. There is no fear of losing out on him to another team. So why not bring in anyone you would like to talk to while that option exists.

[mjkvol]

5 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

The court of public opinion, especially people and organizations who want racial equality. The NFL does care about public perception.  So, even though an owner has a right to hire who he or she wants, there still will be questions and scrutiny.  You are right that Bowles and Frazier have been HCs before, not Bienemy.

The court of public opinion?          Funny how that is always slanted one way.          Racial equality that is manufactured is designed to make people feel good about themselves, but doesn't actually 'equate' anything.

My opinion is that it disgusts me as a human being that blacks, or any race, are thought so poorly of by certain people that they feel they have to give them an extra advantage to succeed in life.          If I was black the whole idea would embarrass me.         But carry on, as it is imperative to please that group of "enlightened" people, of which I'm sure Jeffrey Lurie is a member.

[Talonblood]

I'm getting a case of head coach search burn out. I find myself checking the Eagles sports news web sites too often lately. 🤣

[time2rock]

1 hour ago, NOTW said:

They needed to be planning ahead.  They knew the season was lost.  The week they benched Wentz they needed to start talking to Doug about his plans to fix the issues.  They needed to decide then if they were going forward with Doug or not.  Lurie had one meeting after the season with Doug and didn't like it, told him to come up with better answers and they had a 2nd meeting and parted ways.  This was after other teams were already into their interviews.

Due diligence is fine with the draft when you have a year to prepare, but then on draft weekend things move fast and you have to be ready to make the decision quick.

After the season when you fire a coach, you also have to move fast and know what you want, your strategy moving forward and who's your short list to interview.  They're grasping it seems, even interviewing the Cowboys special teams coach.  It looks desperate.

They’ve been completely flying by the seats of their pants.  Doubt they intended to fire Doug until they caught wind of his plans to fill out his staff.  Like last year when they heard Doug giving a huge vote of confidence to both Groh and Walch and we’re like, "What?!?!”  I’ll bet that caught them off guard.  Lurie and Howie are bigger stooges than Doug was (and that says a LOT) ... Lurie being the biggest stooge of them all.  

[Uscg-green]

54 minutes ago, Usain23 said:

An added plus is it would hurt the Cowboys offense for next year. 

Cowboys fans hate Moore. They don't think he's any good. 

[Usain23]

3 minutes ago, Uscg-green said:

Cowboys fans hate Moore. They don't think he's any good. 

This isn’t true at all. The vast majority of Cowboys fans worship him. 

[NOTW]

14 minutes ago, time2rock said:

They’ve been completely flying by the seats of their pants.  Doubt they intended to fire Doug until they caught wind of his plans to fill out his staff.  Like last year when they heard Doug giving a huge vote of confidence to both Groh and Walch and we’re like, "What?!?!”  I’ll bet that caught them off guard.  Lurie and Howie are bigger stooges than Doug was (and that says a LOT) ... Lurie being the biggest stooge of them all.  

They keep talking about constant communication and collaboration, and that they meet every week (Doug and Lurie).  How did they not know Doug's coaching plans until after the season was over?  Like I said, Lurie should have been having that conversation with Doug in the season.  What are your plans now (bench Wentz for Hurts for example) and what are you thinking we need to do in the offseason?  

[NOTW]

41 minutes ago, Thing3 said:

I won't disagree that this seemed to be an off the cuff firing and subsequently a hurried process to replace Doug. I think it's a stretch to say they had no plan. My suspicion is that "the plan" (in quotes if you prefer) was put in place after the first post season interview with Doug. They obviously felt they had better options available to pursue before firing Doug. I believe they have the luxury of being thorough because Duce is the failsafe. There is no fear of losing out on him to another team. So why not bring in anyone you would like to talk to while that option exists.

A team with 3 wins shouldn't be waiting until a week after the season to sort out if they're keeping their head coach or not.  

[Outlaw]

3 hours ago, NOTW said:

Lurie: "top of my mind" to interview minority candidates

Also Lurie: interviews 2 minority candidates and 68 white candidates

47 black players and 6 white dudes. What’s your point? You choose who you think is best, not someone you don’t consider best because they have the right amount of melanin in their skin. 

1 hour ago, CaliEagle said:

It should be about the best person for the job, but the truth of the matter is that there aren't hardly any black head coaches.  So, there is an issue whether people want to admit it or not because there are many black assistant coaches and they don't get advanced.  It would be naive to suggest that all black candidates don't interview well.  It's a complicated issue. Some owners aren't racist and would hire a black HC, but might hire someone else who they feel is more qualified. And, there are probably some owners who are racist who would hire a lesser qualified candidate vs. hiring a black HC.

There aren’t hardly any white players. 

[NOTW]

19 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

47 black players and 6 white dudes. What’s your point? You choose who you think is best, not someone you don’t consider best because they have the right amount of melanin in their skin. 

I'm just making fun of Lurie for pandering but not actually interviewing a lot of minority candidates.

[Outlaw]

3 minutes ago, NOTW said:

I'm just making fun of Lurie for pandering but not actually interviewing a lot of minority candidates.

Gotcha. I just think the whole Rooney rule thing is such an insult to minority candidates.