Head Coach if there is no GM change

44slayer said
I 100% agree that Loomis is a relic of a bygone era. And 100% agree with everything else but Brady. The logic about an old man who has created a dumpster fire making the job less attractive is legit. But we are all assuming Loomis has a supreme court justice type of lifetime appointment, so we have to work with the Loomis handcuffs on. Being handcuffed by the old man, Brady isn’t a bad hire considering the restraints.

Honestly you could’ve posted this in 05 and just replaced Brady with Payton. Read the thread and.replace Brady with Payton and tell me it’s not pretty dang accurate.

I’m not sure why Brady is the example though. He is a guy who has won a national championship with his offense, has been top 10 the last 2 years in total points, rushing offense, passing offense, passing TDs, rushing TDs, etc.

In another thread someone said Brady might not be HC material because he doesn’t like talking to fans in restaurants. Its bizarre where people go with Brady.

If we end up with Brady, we should at the very least be ok with it. It’s at least throwing some hope out there. Brady would be a Sean Payton type hire. Payton was demoted under Parcells, wasn’t seen as an “alpha” at the time and wasn’t the sexy hire people wanted. But he brought at least hope in the unknown. Hell I’d say Brady is far more accomplished than Payton was in 06.

We could do much , much worse. Like Rizzi. Rizzi is Dennis2. And a 3 year setback.

While CSP had a track record for resurrecting QB careers and finding UDFA gems and polishing them into starters, people forget that he had his playcalling duties revoked; but I thought that was under Jim Fassel and the Giants? Is that the demotion you refer to, or was it something else under Parcells? I honestly can't remember. But I do remember Parcells noted that CSP tended to "get the virus", referring to pass-happy tendencies and getting away from the run game.

I think the bigger takeway is that neither CSP nor Brady had "pristine" resumes. Both have/had impressive track records with much offensive success and MORE IMPORTANTLY, have stubbed their toes with setbacks, and grew from the failures to achieve again. I think THAT is an important distinction. I'm not interested in a guy who has never taken a hard punch. You don't know if he's got a glass jaw, or if he stays on the canvas. I want a guy who has been gut-punched HARD, and dropped to the canvas; only to rise again, take his count and shake it off, then throw his own retaliatory haymaker punch. I'd MUCH prefer the 2nd guy, with his blemishes, over the 1st guy with the perfect profile "on paper". JMO...