Update Saints will interview Mike McCarthy in person during this week, Jan. 20-Jan. 25 [Underhill: McCarthy would have to be the current favorite] (55 Viewers)

[Domeination]

You'd think this decision comes down to McCarthy, Glenn, or Joe Brady. Does Glenn or Brady knock loomis' socks off?

I would like to see the Saints give Brady a good, hard look, but will they be that patient if the Bills get to the Super Bowl?

 

[Swampy Saint]

Assuming Glenn takes the Jets job, I would say:

1. Joe Brady
2. Brian Flores
3. Bobby Slowik
4. Anthony Weaver

As you can see I am “HogsNSaints” and I think hiring McCarthy is basically identical to the Razorbacks hiring John Calipari away from Kentucky.

You can get blinded by a great resume when you don’t consider all factors. Did he win a championship? YES. 1, when he has had the best roster in the sport like 6-8X. And this is not a better situation (which I have to sadly admit is true Arkansas v Kentucky). If you hire an underachiever because he’s been successful enough, you find the result explodes in your face.

I like your list.

I don’t judge McCarthy as harshly as you do.
Every situation is different.
Watching the Commanders turn things around so quickly (also the Saints when CSP took over), gives me the hope that it can be done again with the right coaches.

 

[Domeination]

I could not think of a less exciting pick than McCarthy. I'm surprised people here are so gung ho for him. Seems to be a high floor low ceiling coach. The derek carr of coaches if you will.

That was my initial sense too. I can’t say I’m in love with any of the 3 apparent front runners—McCarthy, Glenn, and Brady. I don’t think Glenn’s defenses in Detroit have been that great, McCarthy w/o prime Aaron Rogers is just a good (not great) coach, and Brady outside of his X’s and O’s is an unknown. I am starting to sour on Glenn a bit, but the Jets may be about to hire him anyway, so he may not end up being a real option for the Saints.

 

[3ParStillDriver]

I like your list.

I don’t judge McCarthy as harshly as you do.
Every situation is different.
Watching the Commanders turn things around so quickly (also the Saints when CSP took over), gives me the hope that it can be done again with the right coaches.

McCarthy feels like a false hope to me considering he couldn't turn things around in Dallas and spent 4 years constantly losing to playoff caliber coaches, even during the season.

I would expect us to be a barely above average team that either misses the wildcard in the last two games of the season, or is out first round of playoffs at best.

After spending 3 years watching a Dennis Allen team, I'm really, really wanting the Saints to get a new head coach that can grow and become a super bowl contender. Risking that is better then settling for mediocrity (and it is risky) imo. Cheering for an unknown is a lot more investing then cheering for a known that has displayed their hand time and time again over the last 7 years to show they'll never be one of the last 4 teams standing (and very likely not even the last 8). I wish I could say there was some level of hope for McCarthy, but ever sense around 2012 its been very slowly, but steadily getting worse for McCarthy. Around 2010 they were a year in and year out superbowl contender and ever since around 2014 its been steadily downhill to the point were not one of his teams, no matter what resources he has had, was his teams even a conference threat.

Simply a wild card round threat. Which as we are seeing, is plenty good for many fans.

 

[Nolan]

That was my initial sense too. I can’t say I’m in love with any of the 3 apparent front runners—McCarthy, Glenn, and Brady. I don’t think Glenn’s defenses in Detroit have been that great, McCarthy w/o prime Aaron Rogers is just a good (not great) coach, and Brady outside of his X’s and O’s is an unknown. I am starting to sour on Glenn a bit, but the Jets may be about to hire him anyway, so he may not end up being a real option for the Saints.

I'm super cold on Brady, and as much as I like Glenn, I don't want him as our HC. I like the stability that McCarthy brings, even if it wouldn't be the most exciting hire.

The guy who intrigues me the most is unfortunately still in the playoffs in Kingsbury. I just get the feeling that he's going to crush it at whoever gives him his next opportunity, but it's not looking like it'll be this offseason sadly.

 

[St. Geezy]

I believe all of them retired though. Parcells and Vermeil retired then came back later, but then retired again in their 60s despite having winning records. THAT says a lot to me. The coaches who have done it just lost interest in seeing it through. That says volumes!

So your argument here is that because a coach won a SB elsewhere, boredom and apathy sets in and that’s why they don’t win it again, much less even if they achieve getting there again?

You sure it’s that and not simply the fact that it is extremely rare and hard to win Super Bowls, period???

Again, we are talking about something only 58 teams and 35 people have done (when considering the repeat winners).

 

[HogsNSaints]

I like your list.

I don’t judge McCarthy as harshly as you do.
Every situation is different.
Watching the Commanders turn things around so quickly (also the Saints when CSP took over), gives me the hope that it can be done again with the right coaches.

I agree. But I also think Atlanta was too trigger-happy with Dan Quinn. He’s always looked like a quality NFL HC. Then they had Lamar 2.0 fall in their lap, which unfortunately doesn’t seem feasible for NO. I think a ton of quality HCs get let go prematurely, but I would not put McCarthy on that list.

I think Flores is a lot closer to Quinn than McCarthy, if we want a “one more chance” guy.

 

[Swampy Saint]

I'm super cold on Brady, and as much as I like Glenn, I don't want him as our HC. I like the stability that McCarthy brings, even if it wouldn't be the most exciting hire.

The guy who intrigues me the most is unfortunately still in the playoffs in Kingsbury. I just get the feeling that he's going to crush it at whoever gives him his next opportunity, but it's not looking like it'll be this offseason sadly.

Kingsbury would be my first choice as well.

 

[livefromDC]

So your argument here is that because a coach won a SB elsewhere, boredom and apathy sets in and that’s why they don’t win it again, much less even if they achieve getting there again?

You sure it’s that and not simply the fact that it is extremely rare and hard to win Super Bowls, period???

Again, we are talking about something only 58 teams and 35 people have done (when considering the repeat winners).

No. I'm saying that something that's hard to do is made even harder when the person is now into their 60s, starting anew with a rebuilding team, and has already reached the pinnacle of the sport. We have evidence of what happens. I don't want to ignore that.

We're talking about something only 35 people have done. What the Saints have only done once. So it's better to ignore what has proved successful before, what proved successful for the Saints to give what has never happened a shot?

 

[St. Geezy]

No. I'm saying that something that's hard to do is made even harder when the person is now into their 60s, starting anew with a rebuilding team, and has already reached the pinnacle of the sport. We have evidence of what happens. I don't want to ignore that.

We're talking about something only 35 people have done. What the Saints have only done once. So it's better to ignore what has proved successful before, what proved successful for the Saints to give what has never happened a shot?

There is no “proven successful before.” It’s hard to do for EVERYONE.

By that same token, the same argument could be made for “proven unsuccessful before” with all types of candidates.

We are talking about 35 people out of what, 500+ that have reached the top of the mountain?

The odds are slim for ANY subset of coaches. This argument is based on a skewed data point rather than some sort of pattern.

 

[St. Geezy]

No. I'm saying that something that's hard to do is made even harder when the person is now into their 60s, starting anew with a rebuilding team, and has already reached the pinnacle of the sport. We have evidence of what happens. I don't want to ignore that.

We're talking about something only 35 people have done. What the Saints have only done once. So it's better to ignore what has proved successful before, what proved successful for the Saints to give what has never happened a shot?

Only three head coaches under the age of 40 have won Super Bowls, and only two have done it on the first team they have ever coached.

Does that mean we’re wasting our time on these 30 somethings, because their odds are extremely low?

 

[livefromDC]

There is no “proven successful before.” It’s hard to do for EVERYONE.

By that same token, the same argument could be made for “proven unsuccessful before” with all types of candidates.

We are talking about 35 people out of what, 500+ that have reached the top of the mountain?

The odds are slim for ANY subset of coaches. This argument is based on a skewed data point rather than some sort of pattern.

No, it's not skewed. It's just a small data set. The results are not randomized in any way. You can still draw meaningful results from a small sample. We're not using a small sample to predict the coaching success of all coaches across any sport. We're specifically talking about the results of NFL head coaches which is a very small sample size. Because there's only been about 500 coaches doesn't mean you can't draw meaningful results about that pool ever. You certainly can. That repeat winners have done so with the same teams only is statistically significant. That Super Bowl winning coaches who start coaching new teams in their 60s have all retired rather than continuing with their new team is also significant.

But I mean, it's snowing in South Louisiana. Anything can happen.

 

[livefromDC]

Only three head coaches under the age of 40 have won Super Bowls, and only two have done it on the first team they have ever coached.

Does that mean we’re wasting our time on these 30 somethings, because their odds are extremely low?

Strawman argument, because I never said the coach has to be in their 30s but sure. That's 3 more than have won Super Bowls with new teams.

 

[sfidc3]

I mean, to each his own, but I'll take a coach with a SB win amd 12-5 records 3 of the last 4 seasons every day of the week amd twice on Sunday. If you want to call that safe, then so be it.

Pretty much how I feel, I think age is a legit concern and he would probably be here less than 5 years but if he gets us back in the playoffs and trending upward I'm cool with that....the issue I have is that if we pass on a potentially great younger HC (like my 1st choice Brady) it's just possible we could have had a decade of success or more.....don't think we are getting that with McCarthy....

Andy Reid is 66 and about to win a third straight. Belichick was old as well. Both men on their second teams.

Would you not take Sean Payton as your coach either because he’s 61?

Young coaches fail a lot too. They all do. It’s hard no matter what age you are; there is no perfect formula.

It’s okay to say you prefer a different, younger coach without diminishing the competition with inaccurate statements.

Heck, outside of the one Sean McVay won, almost all of the recent Super Bowl winning head coaches have been older, experienced men.

All good points, it's a risk going with a young 1st time HC for sure...

 

[St. Geezy]

Strawman argument, because I never said the coach has to be in their 30s but sure. That's 3 more than have won Super Bowls with new teams.

Not a strawman…showing you an example of the data you are extrapolating being limited and based on something that is low odds to begin with.