Search results

final choices need to be analyzed in the context of all choices that were available. retaining baker, in my opinion, was the least likely choice. i believe manny would have ditched baker et al IF HE COULD HAVE. you dont think so, but you dont explain why it took a month to get the same place...

disagree. Manny wasnt going to dismiss baker and patke unless he had his guy(s) signed up already. a restructured D maintaining baker and patke was his fall back, second or even third position. i think manny had a hard commitment from one or more coaches, verifiable by T Rob, and T Rob took...

i agree entirely. the hit and miss is logically unconnected to T Rob's hiring.

you are right. it is a theory, but a very plausible one. why do you it took manny a month to announce that he would fix the D by essentially demoting baker and taking back play calling? he could have done that a week or two after the season, especially coming off a bad loss in the bowl game...

the Reynolds tweets and the passage of time both indicate that he was aiming higher. he didnt need 3-4 weeks to land simpson, maybe T Rod, but that's it. give it some time, it will come out.

this is false. money had nothing to do with it. absolutely nothing

if we believe that Manny swung and missed on a DC, and I think the answer is clearly yes, then we have to ask ourselves why? What happened in light of the many candidates that were out there (see the list complied by LCE)? Was it a control issue? DC autonomy? Were the candidates insisting on a...

Something happened. Someone agreed to join the D (or similar) and backed out at the last minute or something else happened. It wasn't suppose to end with Baker and Patke staying on board with a simply re-assignment of Baker's duties and Manny calling plays. If so, they would have done so...