![]() |
Which head coaching vacancy would you want to fill?
Looks like there are six vacancies to fill. Which one would you want to fill? What's your reasoning?
|
San Diego. Only drawback is where in California you will be playing.
Denver would be #2 due to Elway. Jax #3. |
Quote:
|
Denver has the best situation.
Pros: -relatively loaded roster -two potential QBotf already on roster -strong defense -best home field advantage in the NFL (thin air) -great city -plenty of cap space Cons: -high expectations -going to have to hit on several draft picks/FA signings to truly reload All in all, probably wouldn't be a bad gig. |
The donkey job is the top open position; best franchise, best ownership, best leadership of the available openings.
|
Denver easily. Better ownership, better GM. They lost their coach due to retirement and the team is pretty decent already. The others have vacancies because the team sucks and for the most part are in perpetual rebuilds.
|
Jags.
Young talent. Decent state to live in. |
Quote:
Also add that the Chiefs and Raiders are better teams right now and it would suck playing against them 4X every year. I'm going Jags. Bad division, lots of talent, beach by your house and an owner who doesn't meddle. |
All of those are carcinogenic in some way. There's a reason that they're vacant.
Buffalo Bills - It's a legitimate franchise, if not a desirable one. Their challenge is that free agents will always mark Buffalo down a notch compared to other teams, so you'll always have a bit less talent to work with. Jacksonville Jaguars - At some point it's likely that the team will move, and the fan base is lackluster. Maybe you can do here what Green Bay did in the late 50s, but probably not. Still, you've got a shot. San Diego Chargers - This one is kind of intriguing because there won't be a media spotlight on you. No one in Los Angeles cares about football, and you'll be the B team compared to the Rams. It's like being the Jets in New York. The main downside here will be the commute to work. Los Angeles Rams - See above. The Rams will get a little more attention than the Chargers, but in the end there's not a fan base that cares. The Rams have worse ownership, too. Denver Broncos - Okay, first off, I don't want to affiliate with cheaters and we know they cheat constantly. But setting that aside, this is a complete no-win for a coach. Broncos fans have been brainwashed to think that John Elway is infallible, and he's actually quite mediocre. So when that mediocrity stays around, who's going to get blamed? Ask John Fox if he knows the answer to that one. This one is a no-win. If you're successful, Elway will take the credit and no one will believe you, and if you're unsuccessful you'll get both your blame and Elway's (considerable) share. No, thanks. But it's a nice city. San Francisco 49ers - Based on what we're reading, you shouldn't even go near this place. |
San Diago has a bad stadium deal, not bad ownership.
I'd take that gig in a heartbeat. I've got legit stars at DE and RB. Veteran QB. With the right HC and staff, someone could easily turn that team around. |
From a players on the roster perspective, I'd have to go with Buffalo.
From an ownership staying out of your business standpoint I'd go with Jax. From a better state to live in perspective still gotta go with Jax. Wouldn't wanna deal with Elway and his overinflated ego. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/floridatrend...tterman%5D.jpg |
I would take the Denver job then do my best to drive the franchise into ruins.
**** Denver. |
Quote:
A lot of pressure with LA, plus you are more or less locked in with Goff and the fan support is a question mark (fair weather fans etc). 49ers are a mess, 'nuff said. The Chargers stadium thing would scare me off, if they are moving etc. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.