Defensive Coordinator Potential Candidates

[Yoop]

Wink is exactly who Lafleur should attempt to hire, if Lafleur cant see that bringing better pass rush has helped this young secondary then he needs to study some film, it's so obvious, Barry said he's going to use zone, yet our best defensive games are when we play man.

I actually think Lafleur has forced these changes on Barry, and when I see Barry sitting in that both it appears others are now on the head set, could it be that Barry has become a spectator now and just a ass in a chair till this season ends? I tend to think so.

after reading about the break down and divorce between Daboll and Martindale in NY, I now have my doubts, I think he is to demanding a personality for Lafleur, I have my doubts that Matt or Gute would want that strong a personality, and Wink would probably demand total control of the defense, things many of us want, but I doubt that Matt would.

[Madcity_matt]

I prefer a defense that brings man pressure on enough of the snaps that the QB expects it every play. Then when you do drop into a zone as a change of pace the chances of it being well defended or ideally a defender gets lost in the shuffle and can snag a ball.

Running primarily zone lets the QB get comfortable, I don't like opposing QB's to feel comfortable.

[NCF]

I prefer a defense that brings man pressure on enough of the snaps that the QB expects it every play. Then when you do drop into a zone as a change of pace the chances of it being well defended or ideally a defender gets lost in the shuffle and can snag a ball.

Running primarily zone lets the QB get comfortable, I don't like opposing QB's to feel comfortable.

I want a DC versed in all (most) defensive philosophies. This old notion of dictating to the offense doesn't work anymore. Offenses are too good. Instead, let the offense dictate. What are they best at? What are their weaknesses? Play defense that way. If 100% zone is the best plan one week, so be it. If non-stop pressure is the best plan against the next opponent, why wouldn't that be the plan? I think there is a misconception about passive and attacking schemes. Only dumb defenses (like ours) would claim to be one or the other.

[YoHoChecko]

Wasn’t it you making the observation that since MLF committed to being more involved in the defense, it has gotten more aggressive and pressure oriented? Am I mistaken?

Regardless, it’s a valid observation. Perhaps MLFs philosophy is evolving. Perhaps he’s witnessed first hand the shortcomings of allowing an offense to dictate their success rather than forcing the issue with his defense.

Whatever the case, something has changed with this defense. If that change is a preference for a more aggressive scheme, then that fits with what Wink has done and had a lot of success with.

It was not me but I heard it and felt warm fuzzies about it whoever said it.

Personally, I want a more aggressive defense. Not necessarily lots of blitzing or anything, but I want to see a team that aims to contest every throw. But what I want most of all is for the scheme to match the personnel. Before we traded Rasul, I was adamant that with such a strong CB group, we were wasting/mis-using the personnel by playing our CBs off so often. We were playing an instinctive/intelligent defense in the secondary with athletic and less intuitive players.

Now, we're Jaire and youth. And we're going to add to the group in the draft this offseason, almost definitely. So whatever scheme we pick, we have the opportunity to fill the room with guys who fit.

But that's what I want personally. I can hope for that. But I like to mold my expectations to what I think/know the team prefers. And so I'm trying to find defenses that do really well at limiting big plays AND who play more aggressively. I think MLF's idea of limiting possessions, being efficient and scoring frequently on offense, and not allowing the opposition to score quickly to keep the score down is a good overall model. I can get with it.

But if you want to do that, you also have to have methods beyond turnover luck and opposition mistakes to stop them from going right down the field with short passes and YAC and long scoring drives. And Barry just plain doesn't contest the flats or any late leaking targets. Like not at all.

So do we switch up the scheme and keep drafting athletes first? Or do we start drafting instinctive click-and-close high-level tackles? Or a little of both.

I am rooting for a little of both; tweak the scheme. Tweak the drafting. Get me some instinctive tacklers in the secondary to mix in with the athletic prowess of Jaire, Valentine, and Stokes. Gimme different skillsets back there.

[Labrev]

'Sounds like Wink Martindale butted heads with Brian Daboll a lot, and maybe even a few of the players. I like his style on D, but if true, that's pretty disqualifying.

[BF004]

'Sounds like Wink Martindale butted heads with Brian Daboll a lot, and maybe even a few of the players. I like his style on D, but if true, that's pretty disqualifying.

Was gunna say. Something similar, maybe.

Could be viewed as not a good sign if he is disrespectful to an HC and publicly is butting heads and had a messy divorce.

Or you can say you like the passion and he really cares about doing well and winning…..


So who knows. But his history speaks for itself. I’d be very damned excited if we land him.

[RingoCStarrQB]

I want a DC that the defensive players respect. Then take it from there.

[Drj820]

NICK SABAN TO GB AS DC

[YoHoChecko]

NICK SABAN TO GB AS DC

now THERE'S your consultant to advise the new coaching staff and focus on what's missing in our defensive personnel and play calling

[lake shark]

NICK SABAN TO GB AS DC

now THERE'S your consultant to advise the new coaching staff and focus on what's missing in our defensive personnel and play calling

Somehow I don't trust a coach who gets a team full of all the best recruits in the country yearly.

[YoHoChecko]

Somehow I don't trust a coach who gets a team full of all the best recruits in the country yearly.

bruh, he's literally the most successful college football coach of the past 50 years. I'm a Georgia fan/alum; I hate Alabama. But discounting Saban's coaching ability is rough

[lake shark]

Somehow I don't trust a coach who gets a team full of all the best recruits in the country yearly.

bruh, he's literally the most successful college football coach of the past 50 years. I'm a Georgia fan/alum; I hate Alabama. But discounting Saban's coaching ability is rough

No doubt one of the best college coaches but professional football is different. You can’t recruit. He basically said he couldn’t win in Miami because he was given Culpepper instead of Brees. Like OK that sucks in hindsight but you were hired to coach not GM.

[BF004]

NICK SABAN TO GB AS DC

now THERE'S your consultant to advise the new coaching staff and focus on what's missing in our defensive personnel and play calling

Somehow I don't trust a coach who gets a team full of all the best recruits in the country yearly.

Wouldn’t that be what he gets here? All the first round draft picks?

[YoHoChecko]

No doubt one of the best college coaches but professional football is different. You can’t recruit. He basically said he couldn’t win in Miami because he was given Culpepper instead of Brees. Like OK that sucks in hindsight but you were hired to coach not GM.

I was listening to some rando on sports radio give his reaction to Saban's retirement and he said a lot of dumb things, but one thing he pointed out that I had taken for granted or overlooked over the years was how intensely he adjusted over the years.

Saban was running game and big, physical bullies in the trenches. His QBs weren't highly regarded draft prospects. His WRs were more one-at-a-time. His demeanor was discipline and hard-@$$ery

And then college football changed. Not just on the field with spread formations and high-flying passing games, but off the field with transfer rules and then NIL. And Saban changed his game to accommodate it. He changed his recruiting and his coaching. He endured COUNTLESS coordinator departures as people tried to get a taste of the Saban effect on their teams. He brought in familiarity at times, he brought in new ideas and emerging coaches at others. He lasted because he adjusted.

So when I hear someone point to his Dolphins stint in 2008 and discredit whether his football/coaching acumen can be relevant to NFL teams, I just chuckle. If Saban weren't a brilliant football mind, he couldn't have made it work that well for that long throughout those changes.

So when I sorta jokingly (because I think Saban will stay mostly retired and just do spot duties and side jobs, nothing full time) say that he would be an ideal "senior consultant" to oversee some operations and add input on the defensive side of the ball, it has nothing to do with whether he got the benefit of top recruits in college. It's because he has proven his ability to understand changing circumstances, see trends as they emerge, and adapt to them. He has proven his ability to coach different players in different styles through different cultures. To say you don't "trust" him for a consulting job? That his decades of football experience and track record of high-level outcomes aren't valuable enough to make a positive impact?

It's just not a great look. It's like anti-expertise culture. Couch dwellers just saying they don't trust the greats to have worthwhile expertise because of small imperfections intheir resumes. Just silly, really, when you think of it


Anyway, he won't be our next DC or anyone's. But I could definitely see him doing short-stint visits with franchises or college programs to provide some insights or inputs and I would not be mad if the Packers had him in for a spell during OTAs or something to give some of those assessments.

[Pckfn23]

No doubt one of the best college coaches but professional football is different. You can’t recruit. He basically said he couldn’t win in Miami because he was given Culpepper instead of Brees. Like OK that sucks in hindsight but you were hired to coach not GM.

I was listening to some rando on sports radio give his reaction to Saban's retirement and he said a lot of dumb things, but one thing he pointed out that I had taken for granted or overlooked over the years was how intensely he adjusted over the years.

Saban was running game and big, physical bullies in the trenches. His QBs weren't highly regarded draft prospects. His WRs were more one-at-a-time. His demeanor was discipline and hard-@$$ery

And then college football changed. Not just on the field with spread formations and high-flying passing games, but off the field with transfer rules and then NIL. And Saban changed his game to accommodate it. He changed his recruiting and his coaching. He endured COUNTLESS coordinator departures as people tried to get a taste of the Saban effect on their teams. He brought in familiarity at times, he brought in new ideas and emerging coaches at others. He lasted because he adjusted.

So when I hear someone point to his Dolphins stint in 2008 and discredit whether his football/coaching acumen can be relevant to NFL teams, I just chuckle. If Saban weren't a brilliant football mind, he couldn't have made it work that well for that long throughout those changes.

So when I sorta jokingly (because I think Saban will stay mostly retired and just do spot duties and side jobs, nothing full time) say that he would be an ideal "senior consultant" to oversee some operations and add input on the defensive side of the ball, it has nothing to do with whether he got the benefit of top recruits in college. It's because he has proven his ability to understand changing circumstances, see trends as they emerge, and adapt to them. He has proven his ability to coach different players in different styles through different cultures. To say you don't "trust" him for a consulting job? That his decades of football experience and track record of high-level outcomes aren't valuable enough to make a positive impact?

It's just not a great look. It's like anti-expertise culture. Couch dwellers just saying they don't trust the greats to have worthwhile expertise because of small imperfections intheir resumes. Just silly, really, when you think of it


Anyway, he won't be our next DC or anyone's. But I could definitely see him doing short-stint visits with franchises or college programs to provide some insights or inputs and I would not be mad if the Packers had him in for a spell during OTAs or something to give some of those assessments.

Not to the extent of "don't trust," but there is some valid misgivings to such a hire as a DC. It isn't wrong to say Alabama's 2nd string was better than the starters on 90% of NCAA rosters. It isn't a bad look to wonder what he would do given a roster that isn't stacked and has to be gameplanned around to limit liabilities. 100% give the man a consulting job, but I don't think lake shark was referring to that, could be wrong though.

[Yoop]

Somehow I don't trust a coach who gets a team full of all the best recruits in the country yearly.

bruh, he's literally the most successful college football coach of the past 50 years. I'm a Georgia fan/alum; I hate Alabama. But discounting Saban's coaching ability is rough

No doubt one of the best college coaches but professional football is different. You can’t recruit. He basically said he couldn’t win in Miami because he was given Culpepper instead of Brees. Like OK that sucks in hindsight but you were hired to coach not GM.

College HC's are basically GM's, they do most of the recruitment, HS prospects go to colleges of coaches they like

[YoHoChecko]

Not to the extent of "don't trust," but there is some valid misgivings to such a hire as a DC. It isn't wrong to say Alabama's 2nd string was better than the starters on 90% of NCAA rosters. It isn't a bad look to wonder what he would do given a roster that isn't stacked and has to be gameplanned around to limit liabilities. 100% give the man a consulting job, but I don't think lake shark was referring to that, could be wrong though.

I guess since my comment about the consulting was quoted in the reply, I presumed that’s what he’s talking about.

But I do suppose it technically quoted both the consulting and the DC comments, it could be the DC thing. But if that’s the case, why quote reply both of your only replying to the first one?

As a DC option—which just isn’t a thing that’s on the table for anyone—yes, I agree there’s more to consider.

[Yoop]

'Sounds like Wink Martindale butted heads with Brian Daboll a lot, and maybe even a few of the players. I like his style on D, but if true, that's pretty disqualifying.

Was gunna say. Something similar, maybe.

Could be viewed as not a good sign if he is disrespectful to an HC and publicly is butting heads and had a messy divorce.

Or you can say you like the passion and he really cares about doing well and winning…..


So who knows. But his history speaks for itself. I’d be very damned excited if we land him.

more on the Daboll/ Martindale parting, sounds like more assistant coaches have a dislike for Daboll, a raving mad man during games would bug any assistant coach.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-gia ... 09843.html

[APB]

'Sounds like Wink Martindale butted heads with Brian Daboll a lot, and maybe even a few of the players. I like his style on D, but if true, that's pretty disqualifying.

Was gunna say. Something similar, maybe.

Could be viewed as not a good sign if he is disrespectful to an HC and publicly is butting heads and had a messy divorce.

Or you can say you like the passion and he really cares about doing well and winning…..


So who knows. But his history speaks for itself. I’d be very damned excited if we land him.

more on the Daboll/ Martindale parting, sounds like more assistant coaches have a dislike for Daboll, a raving mad man during games would bug any assistant coach.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-gia ... 09843.html

I also read the Giants top soon-to-be FA CB (forget his name) made it known he would not re-sign with the G-Men if Martindale stayed on.

Seems there's a lot of media manipulation going on right now in Gotham. I wouldn't put much stock in any of it until we hear from the sources of the dispute.

[Yoop]

Was gunna say. Something similar, maybe.

Could be viewed as not a good sign if he is disrespectful to an HC and publicly is butting heads and had a messy divorce.

Or you can say you like the passion and he really cares about doing well and winning…..


So who knows. But his history speaks for itself. I’d be very damned excited if we land him.

more on the Daboll/ Martindale parting, sounds like more assistant coaches have a dislike for Daboll, a raving mad man during games would bug any assistant coach.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-gia ... 09843.html

I also read the Giants top soon-to-be FA CB (forget his name) made it known he would not re-sign with the G-Men if Martindale stayed on.

Seems there's a lot of media manipulation going on right now in Gotham. I wouldn't put much stock in any of it until we hear from the sources of the dispute.

true, everyone has a opinion, Barkley just said the Martindale leaving shocked him, course he's also not happy that the Giants didn't fill his coffers.

either way, I doubt that Lafleur would be interested in the very big presence Wink would demand, for one he'll want to bring aboard his brothers, and that may have been the straw that broke this union in NY