Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bill Davis (browns asst) is the new DC
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
BirdsWinBaby
Multiple sources confirm

Apparently he is a 3-4 guy
navyeagles
who the F*** is he??? ahhahaha
HobbEs
This move puzzles me. His defenses historically have not been good and there are better 3-4 guys out there.
BirdsWinBaby
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Feb 7 2013, 11:41 AM) *
This move puzzles me. His defenses historically have not been good and there are better 3-4 guys out there.



They interviewed Davis a couple weeks ago. No doubt that there were better canidates out there but my guess is somebody said no(or as the eagles will spin it, they didnt like those other candidates) so Davis is your man

Just like chip Kelly, I will reserve judgment and hope for the best
chuckp
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Feb 7 2013, 11:41 AM) *
This move puzzles me. His defenses historically have not been good and there are better 3-4 guys out there.



This is our Eagles, we made our offense line coach our DC lol......doesn't matter that we had a coaching change there are still people in there that worked with the last one.
mcnabbulous
I'm reading a lot of positive things about the way he uses his players. Sounds like we'll be running a 4-3 Under, which should allow Trent to continue exclusively rushing the QB, Demeco to thrive in the middle, and Kendricks to run around and make plays.

http://kan.scout.com/2/866494.html

The defense itself is similar to what Seattle was running under Gus. Hopefully we can see some similar success, especially when we improve our secondary, which has to be one of the #1 priorities.
D Rock
Gary Cobb's site is reporting that "a number of coaches turned down the job" prior to it being offered to Davis.

Bocadelphia Eagles John
I'm going to assume Chip had a big say in this, so I'm going to trust him to know how to direct the DC to provide what we need to do to defend, and to know how to decide that by using the guys we have and putting them in the right position to succeed.

Oh boy ... I'm laying down an awful lot of trust and faith in the unknown, that's for sure !!!!

But .. there it is, we have a body as DC, I hope he turns out to be a SOMEbody and not a NObody. Fingers crossed.

Go Eagles.

p.s. at least it feels good to have something to talk about during the down time phase of off season ...
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Feb 7 2013, 11:41 AM) *
This move puzzles me. His defenses historically have not been good and there are better 3-4 guys out there.

JJ wasn't very successful prior to his stint here. It sounds like we won't be running a true 3-4, rather a 4-3 Under, which looks an awful lot like a 3-4 to the naked eye.
VICKtory
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Feb 7 2013, 12:29 PM) *
I'm reading a lot of positive things about the way he uses his players. Sounds like we'll be running a 4-3 Under, which should allow Trent to continue exclusively rushing the QB, Demeco to thrive in the middle, and Kendricks to run around and make plays.

http://kan.scout.com/2/866494.html

The defense itself is similar to what Seattle was running under Gus. Hopefully we can see some similar success, especially when we improve our secondary, which has to be one of the #1 priorities.


After reading this, I now want Jarvis Jones to be our pick
HobbEs
QUOTE
JJ wasn't very successful prior to his stint here. It sounds like we won't be running a true 3-4, rather a 4-3 Under, which looks an awful lot like a 3-4 to the naked eye.


JJ was a position coach...I don't ever recall him being a DC before coming here?

I'm not looking up the stats but in his years at SF and AZ I don't think Davis ever had a defense that ranked in the top half of the league. That doesn't mean he's a horrible coach...he may not have had much to work with. The 4-3 Under sounds interesting. Like Boca said, he gets a pass for now.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Feb 7 2013, 01:08 PM) *
JJ was a position coach...I don't ever recall him being a DC before coming here?

He was a DC in Indy in the mid-90's. From my recollection, that is where Andy first noticed him and ultimately why he targeted him.

His defenses weren't very successful and the 97 team went 3-13. A quick look shows that one of their three wins came against a very good Packers team, although they did give up 38 in that game.
mcnabbulous
Interesting note as pointed out by Tommy Lawlor on Twitter...

The 2010 Cardinals had the best red zone scoring defense in football.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/oppon...date=2011-02-07
BirdsWinBaby
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Feb 7 2013, 01:16 PM) *
Interesting note as pointed out by Tommy Lawlor on Twitter...

The 2010 Cardinals had the best red zone scoring defense in football.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/oppon...date=2011-02-07


That stat isn't as attractive as it sounds...

They were 4th worst in yards allowed per game and 3rd worst in points allowed per game. That tells me that they were so good in the red zone because teams were scoring from everywhere else on the field long before they ever got down there
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (BirdsWinBaby @ Feb 7 2013, 03:34 PM) *
That stat isn't as attractive as it sounds...

They were 4th worst in yards allowed per game and 3rd worst in points allowed per game. That tells me that they were so good in the red zone because teams were scoring from everywhere else on the field long before they ever got down there

Yes, they weren't a good defense. But their red zone stats are percentage based, so they may have also given up big plays, but once teams got in the red zone, they were the best in football. If they can avoid giving up big plays, they'll be okay.

When I look at that list, I tend to see successful defenses at the top. Notice where we fell that season.
TGryn
If you want to take a look at the 2010 AZ defense to see what his "under 4-3" looks like in action, see:
http://www.nfl.com/teams/arizonacardinals/...;seasonType=REG
(individual game highlights are under the "Final" link)
The bad news is the Cards defense was awful that year, so it isn't pretty to watch.

Another item: DRC played for Davis in Arizona, which may be a factor in him coming back (or not).
nephillymike
Bad Hire IMO.

I think the rumors are accurate in that others turned it down.

Here's his DC record:

Yr...Team.......PtsRnk......YdsRnk
'05....SF...........30th.........32nd
'06....SF...........32nd.........26th
'09....ARI..........14th.........20th
'10....ARI..........30th.........29th

I'd rather have a successful college guy or a position guy on a good team moving up who may prove he can do it or prove he can't do it.

To me, Davis' results prove he CANT do it. A good coach, gets a bad team to play at a higher level than these four years. No thanks! And it is on Defense, Kelly's weakness.

BAd, Bad Hire.

FWIW, Jim Johnson was the Indy DC for 1997. Infante was the HC of the 3-13 season and Infante got fired after one dismall 3-13 year.

JJ's line, 22nd in points, 8th in yds. Even in only one year, he had a brighter future than Davis.

We'll see. But gotta admit, my enthusiasm baloon has a slow leak!
BirdsWinBaby
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 7 2013, 09:06 PM) *
I think the rumors are accurate in that others turned it down.



if you are a guy hoping to make a name as a DC....you might not want to hitch your wagon to a guy who's offense will put you constantly on the field (with subpar def players) cuz its not working. Chip's ideas/innovations may be unstoppable but everyone is waiting to see. if your stock as a future DC is rising it might be a bad fit.

the idea that the Eagles job will be taken by any coach wanting to be a DC seems to be way overstated
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 7 2013, 09:06 PM) *
We'll see. But gotta admit, my enthusiasm baloon has a slow leak!


I agree, but after reading this from Lawlor I feel a little better:
QUOTE
When you look at the overall group of candidates, you can see there weren't a bunch of guys that made you say "Oh, go hire him right now!". It just wasn't that kind of year.
Truthfully, from Kelly on down my feelings are not too different after I brush away all the dirt and glitter. This is pure "wait and see" time in Eagleland and it's probably going to be a slow process.

QUOTE
the idea that the Eagles job will be taken by any coach wanting to be a DC seems to be way overstated
This, I also agree with. But it could also be that most coaches look at Kelly's offense as the Run and Gun, Part Deux, aka GIMICK and suspect their defense could stay on the field without any points from the offense.

All of this boils down to Chip Kelly. Not his coaches and not the offense he had in Oregon. Will he be a good NFL coach? Adaptable and creative. Will he be a good administrator and a good communicator? Will he be cabable of leading this organization and team from where Reid left them, make them a SB contender again and overcome whatever obstacles present themselves?

Say what we will about Andrew, he did all of that before the bad overtook the good. We knew it was changing for the better after the first year and definitely in the second year.

Patience ... where are you?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (BirdsWinBaby @ Feb 7 2013, 10:53 PM) *
if you are a guy hoping to make a name as a DC....you might not want to hitch your wagon to a guy who's offense will put you constantly on the field (with subpar def players) cuz its not working. Chip's ideas/innovations may be unstoppable but everyone is waiting to see. if your stock as a future DC is rising it might be a bad fit.

the idea that the Eagles job will be taken by any coach wanting to be a DC seems to be way overstated

I agree with this. It's my biggest concern with Kelly. People glamorize how fast scoring his offenses were, but I don't see how that's such a great thing. Part of winning in the NFL is ball control.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Feb 8 2013, 04:43 PM) *
I agree with this. It's my biggest concern with Kelly. People glamorize how fast scoring his offenses were, but I don't see how that's such a great thing. Part of winning in the NFL is ball control.

Ball control wont mean diddley if the O is putting up points each possession. (which obviously remains to be seen)

Our "big play / quick strike" mentality didn't work the past few years because the big plays and quick strikes never came. It was 3 and out city or drive, drive, drive, turnovers. You need to "control the ball" if you're struggling to put up points and protecting a slim lead. It's less an issue if you're scoring at will and sitting on a multi TD lead.
TGryn
The whole staff doesn't offer a lot to be optimistic about. Davis has failed twice (go here to read a blistering assessment of him when he was 49ers DC), and there doesn't seem to be anyone on board that Kelly can go to for assistance in making the transition from college to the NFL. As far as I can tell, he appears to think there is no transition that'll be needed, which is the same thing Spurrier and Holtz thought in their time...with poor results.

One way to look at it: we tried a bunch of "elite" assistants with Washburn/Mudd/April, and the results were horrible. Maybe Lurie and Howie are adopting the philosophy as far as coaches that "You tried a hero, now you're ready for a zero." rolleyes.gif
Zero
QUOTE (TGryn @ Feb 8 2013, 06:40 PM) *
"You tried a hero, now you're ready for a zero." rolleyes.gif

What's that supposed to mean???
chuckp
I like the DC hire.....in Chip I trust.....go Birds!
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Feb 8 2013, 06:16 AM) *
I agree, but after reading this from Lawlor I feel a little better:
Truthfully, from Kelly on down my feelings are not too different after I brush away all the dirt and glitter. This is pure "wait and see" time in Eagleland and it's probably going to be a slow process.

This, I also agree with. But it could also be that most coaches look at Kelly's offense as the Run and Gun, Part Deux, aka GIMICK and suspect their defense could stay on the field without any points from the offense.

All of this boils down to Chip Kelly. Not his coaches and not the offense he had in Oregon. Will he be a good NFL coach? Adaptable and creative. Will he be a good administrator and a good communicator? Will he be cabable of leading this organization and team from where Reid left them, make them a SB contender again and overcome whatever obstacles present themselves?

Say what we will about Andrew, he did all of that before the bad overtook the good. We knew it was changing for the better after the first year and definitely in the second year.

Patience ... where are you?



I disagree Z.

What if Andy Reid selected a poor DC instead of JJ? We would have gotten more of the Reid of the last few years and never seen the Reid flourish as he did in the early years.

Reid and Kelly are not defensive guys. They need someone to completely handle that side of the ball. Reid hit a home run with JJ. I think Davis' record shows that Chip struck out. Even if he knows he made a mistake, he will give him at least two years to prove himself so IMO, wasting time.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 9 2013, 07:48 AM) *
I disagree Z.

What if Andy Reid selected a poor DC instead of JJ? We would have gotten more of the Reid of the last few years and never seen the Reid flourish as he did in the early years.

Reid and Kelly are not defensive guys. They need someone to completely handle that side of the ball. Reid hit a home run with JJ. I think Davis' record shows that Chip struck out. Even if he knows he made a mistake, he will give him at least two years to prove himself so IMO, wasting time.

Were you enamored with JJ when he was first hired? A LB coach from Seattle was all I knew. I agree the Davis hire doesn't look good, but that's the "wait and see" part because we didn't know anything about Reid either.

I'd like nothing more than to see immediate improvement on the team, especially on the defense. Kelly may have more input defensively than we think. Yet, if the team struggles mightily in the first year or two and IF Kelly/Roseman are capable of good personnel evaluation it may be a long range blessing because they seem to need a lot of players.
TGryn
QUOTE (Zero @ Feb 8 2013, 04:16 PM) *
What's that supposed to mean???
That Lurie paid top-dollar for the supposed best assistants in the game in Washburn et al., and that didn't work. Now we're going in the opposite direction by filling the staff with guys who have zero NFL coaching experience.
Zero
QUOTE (TGryn @ Feb 9 2013, 08:19 AM) *
That Lurie paid top-dollar for the supposed best assistants in the game in Washburn et al., and that didn't work. Now we're going in the opposite direction by filling the staff with guys who have zero NFL coaching experience.

Just a play on "zero" words. biggrin.gif
Zero
More to fuel the "wait and see" ...
QUOTE
It's interesting though, the comparisons that can be drawn between Davis and Johnson. Davis is also a former quarterback (University of Cincinnati), a defensive convert who has come to the Eagles as a linebacker coach (Cleveland) by way of defensive coordinator (Arizona and San Francisco) with an unimpressive resume. As defensive coordinator in San Francisco, Davis' units ranked no better than 26th in yards allowed. In Arizona, they ranked no better than 15th in points allowed. But as Cleveland's linebacker coach in 2011, he helped develop a top ten unit (5th in points allowed, 10th in yards allowed). It's fair to say, however, that Davis' teams have not always been the most talented, or that results have been circumstantial at best, belittled by politics or riddled by injury. What needs to be clear is that Kelly did not settle for Davis any more than Reid settled for Johnson. It's easy to imagine Chip Kelly hiring a well-known, more glamorous A-lister: a Lovie Smith, a Monte Kiffin, or a Bud Carson back from the dead. But too often in the NFL does success on one team not translate to another. And too often does a lack of success on one team reap future success on another. Each decision is a calculated gamble based on the hand dealt. What's important is ensuring the decision is the right one. Billy Davis is not yet Jim Johnson, but Davis has been an NFL grinder, a football lifer, a hard-working, well-respected coach with experience teaching both 3-4 and 4-3 defenses. In Davis, Kelly has hired someone to facilitate his vision, just as Reid's hire of Johnson did the same.
Zero
And ...
QUOTE
Kelly has won football games everywhere heís been. You canít argue with 46-7 at Oregon. What heís doing right now might not make a ton of sense to us on the outside, but the last guy around here to fill a new staff with a bunch of unknowns went 113-60 over an 11-year period, got to a Super Bowl and sent six of those unknown guys off to become NFL head coaches. One of them was hoisting the Lombardi Trophy last weekend and was mixing it up with David Letterman on Thursday.

Itís a lot easier to complain than wait a decade to see how it all turns out. But Kellyís got a tremendous track record. He wins. You donít win without recognizing talented coaches.
canadianeagle
QUOTE (D Rock @ Feb 8 2013, 02:55 PM) *
Ball control wont mean diddley if the O is putting up points each possession. (which obviously remains to be seen)

Our "big play / quick strike" mentality didn't work the past few years because the big plays and quick strikes never came. It was 3 and out city or drive, drive, drive, turnovers. You need to "control the ball" if you're struggling to put up points and protecting a slim lead. It's less an issue if you're scoring at will and sitting on a multi TD lead.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly but my understanding of the Chip Kelly offense is not a "big play" team necessarily. His offense helps control the game by running dozens of plays in a game. I saw a youtube video of Kelly explaining his offense while at Oregon. He seems content to get 6 or 7 yards out of any given play.

A quick check of average TOP for Oregon is 29 minutes. Not a great number but if his team puts up even 60% of his 55 point average it wont matter.

While I am cautiously hopeful, I have to admit I am really excited to see this offense in action.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Feb 9 2013, 08:14 AM) *
Were you enamored with JJ when he was first hired? A LB coach from Seattle was all I knew. I agree the Davis hire doesn't look good, but that's the "wait and see" part because we didn't know anything about Reid either.

I'd like nothing more than to see immediate improvement on the team, especially on the defense. Kelly may have more input defensively than we think. Yet, if the team struggles mightily in the first year or two and IF Kelly/Roseman are capable of good personnel evaluation it may be a long range blessing because they seem to need a lot of players.



Here's the difference.

JJ had only one year of DC experience. His unit was 22nd in pts and 8th in yds. Not great, but he was top ten in yds. That team was horrible and gave the ball up in their zone. We could look at him and say, OK let's see. And if I remember correctly, I thought his D did real well against us before is hire which gave him cred. with the fan base here. Still unknown, but for htose who dug a little, hope.

Davis has PROVED he can't do it. His numbers are horrendous.

Give me an unknown with hope as opposed to someone who has proved he can't do it.

One other thing. Look at his resume. He has moved from place to place to place to place. I know coaches are hired and fired, but if you are good, two things happen. #1, you do a average or better than average job, even with bad talent and #2 New coaches retain you from past staffs as they can look at film and see the job you did. Andy kept Harbaugh and Castillo (right wasn't he a Ray guy who camped out to ask Andy to hang around?)

This is a bad move on the side of the ball we least can afford it.

I don't blame them for not getting Lovie. The guy gets $5M to do nothing. tough to turn down.

Bu they had to get somebody better than this guy.

We all said all along that the DC hire was the most important for kelly. They blew it.

My entusiasm went from an 8 to a 4 in one hire. The OC? Who cares we have Kelly. On D, we have nobody.

I'm hopeful, but just a glimmer compared to before this hire.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 9 2013, 12:43 PM) *
My entusiasm went from an 8 to a 4 in one hire. The OC? Who cares we have Kelly. On D, we have nobody.

I'm hopeful, but just a glimmer compared to before this hire.


I can't believe we just got both of our coordinators from the Browns.

Supposedly Davis was a good LB coach, and obviously we'll need a good LB corps if the 3-4 will ever work out. I don't like this hire, but if we have a good draft and load up on some defensive talent I'll feel a bit better. The fact is on both offense and defense, if these transitions don't work out.....we're absolutely fucked for years. As in, 76ers fucked.

Also, stop comparing the hiring of Andy to the hiring of Chip. Reid had a very solid core group of young talent, and was able to draft McNabb. Kelly has a good draft pick, but it won't be a franchise QB, and we really don't have much talent on defense save for 3-4 starters.
Zero
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Feb 9 2013, 12:50 PM) *
Also, stop comparing the hiring of Andy to the hiring of Chip. Reid had a very solid core group of young talent, and was able to draft McNabb. Kelly has a good draft pick, but it won't be a franchise QB, and we really don't have much talent on defense save for 3-4 starters.


Which almost begs for a 2013 throw away year. Unless Foles has franchise QB potential it would serve the team better to rebuild the defense now, lose while the young guns are getting their experience and draft one of the QBs next year ... isn't 2014 supposed to be a good year for QBs?

Learn about Foles and maybe even build his trade value, give rookie defenders a year to learn and bond then put your chips on offense next year. In the mean while, Kelly also gets to know Davis and what he can do.

Just thinking out loud.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 9 2013, 12:43 PM) *
Here's the difference.

JJ had only one year of DC experience.

I thought he was the DC in '96 when they finished 18th and 22nd in points and yards respectively.


mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Feb 8 2013, 02:55 PM) *
It's less an issue if you're scoring at will and sitting on a multi TD lead.


I'm an eternal optimist, but I'll believe this when I see it.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Zero @ Feb 9 2013, 01:14 PM) *
Which almost begs for a 2013 throw away year. Unless Foles has franchise QB potential it would serve the team better to rebuild the defense now, lose while the young guns are getting their experience and draft one of the QBs next year ... isn't 2014 supposed to be a good year for QBs?

Learn about Foles and maybe even build his trade value, give rookie defenders a year to learn and bond then put your chips on offense next year. In the mean while, Kelly also gets to know Davis and what he can do.

Just thinking out loud.


100% agreed.

It's universally known that Kelly has one 'freebie,' meaning that as long as we show signs of improvement, the fans won't call for his scalp as this year is a throwaway. An entirely new defensive scheme, presumably many new players, Foles getting his shot, etc. If he sucks draft a QB the following year, this draft is ripe with defensive talent, as well as OL talent. Fill in the gaps, and 2014 is the year we better perform.
nephillymike
Throw away year?

Nope.

In a league where 37.5% make the playoffs in any given year AND 27% of the teams that finished 4-12 the year before make the playoffs the next, I'm not handing out any free passes.

Just Win Baby!!

And about that 2014 QB pick.

We have the 4th pick this year.

Even if we go 8-8, 7-9, 9-7, that will put us middle of the pack for the draft.

How many good QB's will be there at #15?

Can't assume we'll get one next year. We need to pick well this year. Tomorrow never knows...............
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 9 2013, 02:30 PM) *
Even if we go 8-8, 7-9, 9-7, that will put us middle of the pack for the draft.

How many good QB's will be there at #15?


I think winning 7-8-9 games would imply that Foles has done reasonably well. After all, we're basically blowing up our whole offensive and defensive scheme.
Eyrie
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 9 2013, 07:30 PM) *
Throw away year?

Nope.

In a league where 37.5% make the playoffs in any given year AND 27% of the teams that finished 4-12 the year before make the playoffs the next, I'm not handing out any free passes.

Just Win Baby!!

And about that 2014 QB pick.

We have the 4th pick this year.

Even if we go 8-8, 7-9, 9-7, that will put us middle of the pack for the draft.

How many good QB's will be there at #15?

Can't assume we'll get one next year. We need to pick well this year. Tomorrow never knows...............

Nobody is saying that we should throw this year, just that we have to temper our expectations given how poor we've been for two seasons now.
Zero
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Feb 10 2013, 05:53 AM) *
Nobody is saying that we should throw this year, just that we have to temper our expectations given how poor we've been for two seasons now.

Actually, my point was to concentrate a year on building the team. It's not "throwing" games but making it a priority to build a solid foundation. They'll have new systems on both sides, new players and players to lose. He needs to see how the players he's inherited act and react not only on the field but in the locker room. He's got to build the new culture.

That transition is 2013.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 9 2013, 12:43 PM) *
Davis has PROVED he can't do it. His numbers are horrendous.

Still thinking about this ... put yourself in Chip's place. Kelly's a smart guy and a good coach - still to be proven on this level. I don't get the sense that Kelly is another Reid: smarter than everyone else.

Try to validate this hire from his perspective.

I get your trepidation but that's from an informed fan's point of view. What would make a smart coach hire a DC with a terrible record at that job?

I'm not arguing it's a good hire here, just trying to look deeper. I don't think it's because nobody wanted the job because he probably could have hired a hungry assistant or a good college coach.

I'm sure Davis wasn't "Plan A" or maybe even "Plan B." Too many rumors about Donatello and the DC from Georgia.

Why would a smart man hire a loser for such an important job?
nephillymike
Try This:

#1. Unless they get a superstar from the college ranks, I think everyone would agree that this team needed NFL experience. If you agree with this, go a little deeper.

#2. They interviewed Lovie and based on his record on D, they probably had interest in him as a DC. However, Lovie stated that he was interested in HC and elected to collect a check than be a DC. OK he's out. Go to #3.

#3. If they had interest in any big time college DC,.its obvious they had plenty of time to make an offer. Either they had no interest in college guys, or they had interest and were turned down. Go to #4

#4. They obviously had interest in somebody that was still coaching in the SB. Otherwise there was no reason to wait. If you agree with this, go to #5.

#5 We here that Donetell was blocked and could not speak with the Eagles. No word on the Ravens DC. We can assume since they asked, they were interested in Donetell.

So where are we:
1. Lovie had no interest.
2. Good college DC either had no interest in us, or we had no interest in them.
3. They had interest in Donetell, but he was blocked.

At this point, what do you do if you are the Eagles? They needed someone who had NFL DC experience and would be hungry enough to accept a bunch of assistants who were already selected for him. You would probably find someone with that criteria as a position coach on D, someone who didn't have much success as a DC otherwise he would not be as hungry nor as willing to accept all those assts. What organization do you know best? The CLE org. You have their head coach on your staff and a bunch of ex Eagles personnel people who were just jettisoned from there. He's there, he's available., he's familiar to people you trust and you settle.

We settled for a vagabond coach with four years of DC experience that was lower tier in performance.

Out of all the current DC, or former DC's now as position coach or currently unemployed, or very good position coaches with upward mobility to be a DC, and MAYBE all of the top NCAA DC's or HC"s with defensive background, do you mean to tell me that a guy with four years experience as a DC with a proven poor track record, who has moved around practically every two years, that HE was the best we could do?

Like I said, bad hire! Will set us back two years until we figure out that he needs to be replaced.

Sorry. I can't blow smoke on this one.
Zero
I can't argue anything you say. You may end up being right too, but because we don't have any say, I'd rather look at the potential and enjoy the evolution rather than go into the season(s) expecting failure.

My guess is that he wanted Donatello. Outside of that his choice was a matter of scheme to fit his vision and his talent. He did research on Davis and found extenuating circumstances that he thinks he can correct. Maybe Davis is a good game day coach but needs work on the game plan or practice. The assistants seem strong and the team of defensive coaches may work.

A guess.
nephillymike
That's why they pay me the big bucks to be the Token Axis Member!!


FWIW, I really want to see Kelly and his staff succeed. Kelly seems very likeable and he has an interesting offensive inventiveness that should be interesting. But in Philly, what do we like best? A dominating, nasty, snot bubble inducing defense. Here's hoping we get it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.