I've actually posted before on this.
The tendency is for people--from fans to FOs--to instinctively reach for a coordinator with a reputation thought to correct a team weakness. In our case, obviously, offense.
But a HC does NOT have to provide the scheme to correct a team's weakness. The HC's job is to build a winning culture based on competitive discipline that gets the best out of the team's talents and assets. That includes players, coaches, AND schemes.
The HC might or might not be the one to provide the scheme answers on one or the other side of the ball. Some great HCs have done this; some haven't. Plenty of great coaches have relied on superb OCs or DCs.
I may well be in the minority on this, but my complaint about Fisher has never been about schemes or about the so-called "fisher-ball" philosophy. I think he ran a lax, loose, undisciplined operation which let all of our units muck about several levels below their ceiling. It was more obvious on offense, given our lack of personnel talent at OL and WR. But our defense never achieved its potential either, IMO.
I want a tough, disciplined HC who knows how to build and sustain competitive discipline. Unfortunately, I doubt the odds of getting that are very high.
BTW, I dread McDaniels getting the gig. He was utterly tone-deaf the last time and had no idea how to raise the performance of his players.
