Wade Phillips to Interview with the Redskins

Good point , can you post both resume's ,so we can compare ?

If you can't find their track records on the internet yourself - since Wade's is discussed ad nauseam by Keim, the WP, etc. etc. - then you don't have any business discussing informatively here.

This is Redskins Discussion for the Knowledgeable Fan.

I just don't get the unbelievable stupidity in this thread.

You guys need to keep your day jobs, because if you're not hiring based on the most impressive resume, then you're not a good fit for any manager position anywhere, let alone one in football.

This stuff about Wade Phillips being old boy network and old and an inadequate motivator as compared with a Ken Norton - who's resume looks exactly like that of any average LB coach in the NFL - is utter gibberish. Stop flapping your gums.

You're completely missing the point. Sometimes in business, and in football, it's about taking a risk on someone...and not about who's got the longest resume. Chip Kelly never coached in the NFL but brought new ideas to the NFL. Phillips would be a fine hire. I wouldn't complain. No one is beating his door down but that's besides the point. My point with Norton was he might bring new ideas to the table, like maybe teaching our undisciplined defense the rugby tackling techniques that Seattle uses. But Wade's got the resume so that means he's automatically the best guy for the job!

And sometimes there's nothing wrong with going with the most well qualified candidate. Winning isn't all about taking chances.

You're completely missing the point. Sometimes in business, and in football, it's about taking a risk on someone...and not about who's got the longest resume. Chip Kelly never coached in the NFL but brought new ideas to the NFL. Phillips would be a fine hire. I wouldn't complain. No one is beating his door down but that's besides the point. My point with Norton was he might bring new ideas to the table, like maybe teaching our undisciplined defense the rugby tackling techniques that Seattle uses. But Wade's got the resume so that means he's automatically the best guy for the job!

Well given that his resume says he's made drastic improvements in yards and points allowed IN HIS FIRST YEAR ON THE JOB in several places, how can you argue with the resume??

I can't even believe I'm entertaining this conversation.

I am sorry. Since last Monday was not Black enough, it is obvious to me that we are on a slow-motion train wreck.

Obviously this makes me an unpleasant, if reluctant, Debbie Downer.

I'll have to figure out a new approach to the Warpath. Until then, I apologize.

It's not you, you are actually one of my favorite posters on here.

Well given that his resume says he's made drastic improvements in yards and points allowed IN HIS FIRST YEAR ON THE JOB in several places, how can you argue with the resume??

I can't even believe I'm entertaining this conversation.

I would just prefer that we find the next Wade Phillips. Dude is 67 years old. But as I said, it's a solid, safe hire.

It's not you, you are actually one of my favorite posters on here.

Well thanks, Quake, I like you, too.

But I really am in Debbie Downer-land and will be so until the cancer Bruce Allen no longer calls Redskins Park home. I need to watch what I say here.

I would just prefer that we find the next Wade Phillips. Dude is 67 years old. But as I said, it's a solid, safe hire.

This is one of the things i was concerned about, and wanted to mention, without sounding discriminatory. I was just thinking along the lines of how long could he stay here when he is already close to 70? My feelings are that we need a guy who is here for the long haul.

Wade is a solid, safe hire, that could easily coach into his 70's. Just figured that maybe the skins were thinking they could get younger, vs again trying to hire an already big name, established veteran coach.

If you can't find their track records on the internet yourself - since Wade's is discussed ad nauseam by Keim, the WP, etc. etc. - then you don't have any business discussing informatively here.

This is Redskins Discussion for the Knowledgeable Fan.

Go to post #1, hit the links .

One thing about the established name vs young up and comer. Which is more likely of a scenario assuming both guys actually turn the defense around?

a) the established name leaving after 3 years

or

b) the up and comer leaving after 3 years?

Again, Let's pretend that both guys turn the defense around, so that our defense doesn't cost us games. Our special teams is average, so it doesn't really win or lose games. So our offense, which was up and down would bear the brunt of win/losses.

Scenario 1) team struggles as a whole, and no real positives happen: we still flounder with 6-8 wins for the next 2 years, then we are throwing out the whole scheme, either the up and comer or the established guy might get interim, but likely we go a whole new direction with a whole new staff.

Scenario 2) team improves and makes serious playoff noise: Maybe the up and comer lights it up, but Gruden does enough so he sticks around, and the up and comer gets offers from other teams. He leaves. How many other teams are looking for a HC who hasn't succeeded in the past?

I guess what I am pointing out that if the DC that is hired succeeds, than WP has as much if not more of a chance of sticking around for a while than any young up and comer who would basically be licking his chops at a HC job, and isn't it even possible that he would be eyeing Gruden's position which opens a whole different can of worms.

All I want is the hire to be someone who can effectively run a defense, but things like age, or up and comer status, really should not even be in the discussion, because 3 years in the NFL is an eternity for coaching staffs.