Per NFLPA, 4 of top 5 DCs in 2023 had previous head coaching experience

[_sturt_]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...-why-the-cowboys-came-out-as-the-big-winners/

​

(I'd comment, but I'm not really sure I have to.)

 

[blueblood70]

I don't care how anybody reads anything here in social media or from the pool of fans Dan Quinn and his defense was one of the primary reasons we exited early out of the playoffs because the defense couldn't hold anybody so they think he's a top five defensive coordinator I'll give you the slow sarcastic clap because in big games he folded like a cheap tent.... This defense was terrible and all our losses they were terrible against Seattle and that was a win they've been shaky and inconsistent..

Dan Quinn's defense is they're opportunistic it's boom or bust it's high risk if they don't get turnovers they cannot stop a team running a traditional defense you know trying to get him off the field by batting down a pass or you know getting that timely tackle they just go for it all and when it doesn't work out they don't care Dan Quinn just keeps rolling out the nickel rolling out the small players too much movement up front leaving huge gaps...

Dan Quinn deserves some respect and he was better than Mike Nolan but that's not saying much because these last two years on defense looked more like rod marinelli's defenses then don't break but when it breaks too much wear an early exit and where you're gone...

 

[_sturt_]

Not going to find the perfect DC. He's not out there. He's really not. Have to "settle" for whatever imperfect human being out there is less imperfect than most... and expect/hope his players make plays.

That's all.

 

[CowboysLakerBamaFan]

This is a reverse stat.

DCs (or OCs) aren't good because they had previous HC experience. They were just really good football coaches, usually at the coordinator level, hence they got a shot at being a HC. They were already good OC or DC before the HC stint.

Plus...experience helps, and if you've gone from a DC to HC to DC again, by default it means you've had a lot of experience coaching.

But the HC experience isn't the cause of being a good Def coordinator....the HC opportunity was the effect of already being a good DC.

If anything...his time as a head coach may have stinted Quinn's skill as a DC, because he had to spend his time on so many other things than just focusing on defense. He very well may have been a better DC had he never been a HC....asbhe could have spent 100% of his time honing his DC skills. He's still a very good DC though...despite the bias in here now to bash him.

 

[CWR]

I don't care how anybody reads anything here in social media or from the pool of fans Dan Quinn and his defense was one of the primary reasons we exited early out of the playoffs because the defense couldn't hold anybody so they think he's a top five defensive coordinator I'll give you the slow sarcastic clap because in big games he folded like a cheap tent.... This defense was terrible and all our losses they were terrible against Seattle and that was a win they've been shaky and inconsistent..

Dan Quinn's defense is they're opportunistic it's boom or bust it's high risk if they don't get turnovers they cannot stop a team running a traditional defense you know trying to get him off the field by batting down a pass or you know getting that timely tackle they just go for it all and when it doesn't work out they don't care Dan Quinn just keeps rolling out the nickel rolling out the small players too much movement up front leaving huge gaps...

Dan Quinn deserves some respect and he was better than Mike Nolan but that's not saying much because these last two years on defense looked more like rod marinelli's defenses then don't break but when it breaks too much wear an early exit and where you're gone...

100% agree. Yes he was good a lot of the time, but the bad was too bad to win. He couldn't be counted on to make adjustments when his game plan was failing.

More worrisome now is the culture of opportunistic players he created. It's a good thing, that can back fire. How many times did we see him have to correct guys not staying with their assignments in the run game? It became a free for all of glory ball and the next coach will have a difficult time getting buy in with any other philosophy. Quinns scheme gets guys paid, point blank.

Our next DC needs to be a real ball buster imo.

 

[big dog cowboy]

In the for what it's worth department - this article was written on January 4th.

That was after the Lions and before the Commanders games to finish the season.

 

[_sturt_]

Yes. The players' vote obviously was taken sometime before season's end.

 

[_sturt_]

the HC opportunity was the effect of already being a good DC.

Right.

So, this seems to be going a different direction than anticipated. I'm less interested, me, in how that reflects on the guy who just left, and more, how it reflects on the decisions being made about his replacement... and more precisely, why all the "retread" insults toward some of the presumed candidates are misguided, at best.

 

[_sturt_]

Our next DC needs to be a real ball buster imo.

I'm beyond the pendulum swing thing... you have a so-called players coach, you want a disciplinarian next time... you have a disciplinarian, you want a players coach next time.

I don't care.

There is no perfect way to do the job. Both approaches have worked... and both approaches have failed.

It's less about how they do their job, it's, bottom line, do they seem to have any record of success that would indicate they might have success in big D.

 

[Reality]

I don't care how anybody reads anything here in social media or from the pool of fans Dan Quinn and his defense was one of the primary reasons we exited early out of the playoffs because the defense couldn't hold anybody so they think he's a top five defensive coordinator I'll give you the slow sarcastic clap because in big games he folded like a cheap tent.... This defense was terrible and all our losses they were terrible against Seattle and that was a win they've been shaky and inconsistent..

Dan Quinn's defense is they're opportunistic it's boom or bust it's high risk if they don't get turnovers they cannot stop a team running a traditional defense you know trying to get him off the field by batting down a pass or you know getting that timely tackle they just go for it all and when it doesn't work out they don't care Dan Quinn just keeps rolling out the nickel rolling out the small players too much movement up front leaving huge gaps...

Dan Quinn deserves some respect and he was better than Mike Nolan but that's not saying much because these last two years on defense looked more like rod marinelli's defenses then don't break but when it breaks too much wear an early exit and where you're gone...

Quinn's defense relied on two things .. 1) turnovers, and 2) getting a lead early

When they got both, they looked great. If only one of those things happened, it was a quite often a coin toss and if neither happened, it was usually a loss.

A lot of fans forget that it was Quinn's defense that allowed the Cowboys, who were down 20-0 and later 29-7 to the Falcons, to come back and beat the Falcons when he was the head coach of the Falcons.

Quinn's Falcons had the Patriots down 28-3 in the third quarter in the Super Bowl and Quinn's defense allowed the Patriots to storm back and win the game, and that was with Kyle Shanahan as the OC.

I think many fans and even the media get caught up on the turnovers (and they are great) and the aggressiveness of Quinn's defense, but everyone seems to forget an NFL defense only has one priority .. stopping the other team's offense. Turnovers are just one method of achieving that.

A good defense that can consistently limit opposing teams to 1-2 touchdowns and force them to punt 5+ times per game every week is much better than an opportunistic one that only benefits the team in random games.

 

[blueblood70]

Quinn's defense relied on two things .. 1) turnovers, and 2) getting a lead early

When they got both, they looked great. If only one of those things happened, it was a quite often a coin toss and if neither happened, it was usually a loss.

A lot of fans forget that it was Quinn's defense that allowed the Cowboys, who were down 20-0 and later 29-7 to the Falcons, to come back and beat the Falcons when he was the head coach of the Falcons.

Quinn's Falcons had the Patriots down 28-3 in the third quarter in the Super Bowl and Quinn's defense allowed the Patriots to storm back and win the game, and that was with Kyle Shanahan as the OC.

I think many fans and even the media get caught up on the turnovers (and they are great) and the aggressiveness of Quinn's defense, but everyone seems to forget an NFL defense only has one priority .. stopping the other team's offense. Turnovers are just one method of achieving that.

A good defense that can consistently limit opposing teams to 1-2 touchdowns and force them to punt 5+ times per game every week is much better than an opportunistic one that only benefits the team in random games.

Agreed but many wont , they like to blame the offense, qbs and HC etc they are yet to wake up to blaming the defense.


It's crazy to me that the Ravens can lose the game 17 to 10 where their defense shut out the mahomes offense and team in the second-half and lost that game and you don't hear even half the grumbling that somehow it was Lamar Jackson's fault... Many blamed his targets his receivers and drop passes and other things but they don't blame Lamar Jackson just like Prescott's numbers clearly should be considered better than Lamar Jackson's the fact that he had a better defense all season and in the playoffs I mean the game before that they only gave up three points on defense it's somehow it's always our offense and Prescott or Romo everyone's problems look they didn't play well in some of these games I get it but they also didn't get that kind of support from their team especially on the other side of the ball or coaching or special teams I mean literally made the adjustments in the second-half they just literally shut out Patrick mahomes and they still won the game by the way some of the turnovers were on the offense and the quarterback or bad decisions like not running and yet you don't hear that same energy against their quarterback... Same thing with Josh Allen and mini games it just gets old like I get it this is a team game but the target on the back of our quarterbacks is insane... Yes Prescott did not play well I get it but I don't expect him to play well when he never really has a strong offensive line running game or defense show up at the same time troys had that Rogers had that they literally had the teams be strong up the middle better coaches better game plans...

 

[CWR]

I'm beyond the pendulum swing thing... you have a so-called players coach, you want a disciplinarian next time... you have a disciplinarian, you want a players coach next time.

I don't care.

There is no perfect way to do the job. Both approaches have worked... and both approaches have failed.

It's less about how they do their job, it's, bottom line, do they seem to have any record of success that would indicate they might have success in big D.

I agree, but when you have players who routinely blow assignments and commit stupid penalties, as well as players who are posting victory parties on social media, the day before the actual game, it's time to rein them back in.

 

[Creeper]

The problems with the defense are obvious to anybody. The DC should be a guy who recognizes those problems and has a plan to address them. He should have s history of being solid in those areas, as well as all around the defense.

During the interviews, just ask him his philosophy on LBs. If he says he like little guys who never played the position before who run around not knowing where they are going then don't hire that guy.

If he passes that question then ask him about playing CBs 10 yard off the LOS on 3rd and 6. If he approves, don't hire him either.

 

[Aven8]

Quinn's defense relied on two things .. 1) turnovers, and 2) getting a lead early

When they got both, they looked great. If only one of those things happened, it was a quite often a coin toss and if neither happened, it was usually a loss.

A lot of fans forget that it was Quinn's defense that allowed the Cowboys, who were down 20-0 and later 29-7 to the Falcons, to come back and beat the Falcons when he was the head coach of the Falcons.

Quinn's Falcons had the Patriots down 28-3 in the third quarter in the Super Bowl and Quinn's defense allowed the Patriots to storm back and win the game, and that was with Kyle Shanahan as the OC.

I think many fans and even the media get caught up on the turnovers (and they are great) and the aggressiveness of Quinn's defense, but everyone seems to forget an NFL defense only has one priority .. stopping the other team's offense. Turnovers are just one method of achieving that.

A good defense that can consistently limit opposing teams to 1-2 touchdowns and force them to punt 5+ times per game every week is much better than an opportunistic one that only benefits the team in random games.

I just think Diggs and Bland are natural ball hawks by nature. I think in any scheme they will do the same. Just like Terrance Newman and Byron were not ball hawks and went to other teams basically played the same.

 

[_sturt_]

I agree, but when you have players who routinely blow assignments and commit stupid penalties, as well as players who are posting victory parties on social media, the day before the actual game, it's time to rein them back in.

Do you, though ("agree")?

The rest of your reply seems to say different.

How do you reconcile the two different ideas?

I mean, anyone can agree you don't want blown assignments and stupid penalities etc... Dan Quinn, too, if not especially... but is the automatic solution to be more disciplinarian? Or to be more players' coach? Or something more in the middle?

I'd propose there is no automatic solution.

Don't hire on the basis of any of that.

Hire, rather, on the basis that the guy seems to know what he's doing on the basis of previous results, and that he seems to have a reasoned plan in his interview for how to make the defense better.

 

[CWR]

Do you, though ("agree")?

The rest of your reply seems to say different.

How do you reconcile the two different ideas?

I mean, anyone can agree you don't want blown assignments and stupid penalities etc... Dan Quinn, too, if not especially... but is the automatic solution to be more disciplinarian? Or to be more players' coach? Or something more in the middle?

I'd propose there is no automatic solution.

Don't hire on the basis of any of that.

Hire, rather, on the basis that the guy seems to know what he's doing on the basis of previous results, and that he seems to have a reasoned plan in his interview for how to make the defense better.

I do agree that being a disciplinarian alone doesn't make for a good coach. The idea of hiring someone based on that one quality is pretty moronic and I wouldn't suggest it. Clearly we need more.

However, there are good coaches available who have that quality. I believe it's needed with our culture as well. These guys got smacked in the mouth and never countered. That's as much a mentality as it is talent imo. We've become a finesse team and that needs to change.

It's not competing ideas. You can be hard nosed and know how to coach the game.

 

[1942willys]

OCs and DCs if they are good enough get HC gigs. Some of them do well and some do not
The ones that do not end up back as Coordinators and usually stay there for the rest of their careers
Not exactly rocket scientist stuff here