Curious as to What Underhill and Triplett Are Saying about Organizational Change

St. Widge said
I just don't see Rizzi as the guy to bring true change. Yes he is energetic and aggressive which is good, but I don't think he's going to bring the level of knowlege and creativity necessary in regard to offensive and defensive scheme. And, it's going to be really hard for him to go out and hire two really good coordinators that will bring modern and inventive schemes. Not sure how many up and comers are going to want to be put in this situation without control over roster moves.

As far as Hodges, as much as I like him as a LB coach and he looks like a guy that could get a shot as a DC soon, he is schooled in the scheme that I want to move away from. I'm not sure if he has a better scheme that he could implement. And, in the end, I just think we need all new voices on the coaching staff.

Also, I feel like the issues that Rizzi had in the GB game with clock management and not knowing the rules make him a bad choice. I just wonder what other rules he doesn't know and an NFL HC just has to be an expert in the rules.

I think there are 5 or 6 guys I would like over Rizzi (Johnson, Coen, Brady, Kingsbury, Glenn, and Flores) so if they all turn the job down I guess Rizzi is an good of an option as most, but I would not have high expectations of him turning things around. But, I would love for him to prove me wrong.

But, if Loomis stays, and I expect his will, I think Aaron Glenn is the most likely guy to get the job. And, in the end, he could be very good. I would just prefer a young OC to get the job.

If Glenn does get the job, you stay w/ the defense we've come to hate, but Glenn has had success w/ it. I think it just boils down to philosophy whether it's defense or offense and who you want to be and this is a team, a city, that thrives on balls to the wall aggressiveness. It's no coincidence we got our 09 title, with a blitz heavy defense and a big play offense. Both take advantage of the domefield advantage and both get the people going.

I mentioned multiple times that DA could have unlocked a better side of himself had he just had a Ron Rivera moment and started to gamble more and be aggressive. He was passsive, right on down to the way he practiced for fear of injury. And it's interesting, the thing you fear or try to avoid the most, is exactly what usually happens.

rsmith2783 said
I'll give the benefit of the doubt since I'm not a member of his site. He may have said it, but I didn't hear about it. My thing is don't wait until it's too late or too obvious to say something that should have been said.

It seems to be the same script each and every year. Depending on who's hired for the next HC job, I can tell you exactly what the narrative will be. Most of these reporters have stories that build false hope. I've always wondered if that was a motive or incentive from the team. There's an old saying that you can't sprinkle sugar on sheet and expect it to be sweet.

By all accounts DA held a tougher TC than he'd done previously, and the guys seemed to respond to it, but then once the season kicked off, they went back to the light practices etc. Some of me feels like this is a byproduct of how DA likes to build teams. Looking at his Raiders history he preferred veteran teams over youth. However, w/ veteran teams, due to age and injury susceptibility, you tend to scale practice back. They know what it takes to get themselves ready, etc you just need to make sure you coach them up on film during the week, and expect them to come out ready to rock and roll. You could tell DA absolutley detested that we had such a young and inexperienced O-line on the edges and he always talked up the veterans on the team.

His philosophy was his undoing. He was inherently passive..all the way down to his reluctance to blitz and preference for dropping 8 in coverage.