Quote
AlbaNY_Ram
What if they were really good at the job for which they were hired but not particularly suited to the job above them? I have no problem with hiring people like that that, not sure why anyone would.
The jobs require different skill sets and just because someone is great at their job that in itself doesn't mean they're capable of doing their boss' job. For example, a person could be a great chef but then be lousy at supervising chefs. Personally, I would still want that person as a chef. You wanna ding me for hiring great chefs just because I can't promote them? Be my guest!!
Now you're just splitting hairs. And to what end? Is your goal to prove that McVay is infallible?
He has had his share of coaching issues because his hiring was not 100%. That includes not promoting from within, that includes unhiring people who he himself originally hired. Not every coach has worked out.
I don't care to split hairs on that because I don't see the point in it. It just ends up feeling like the same old homer battles--someone who is a realist offers a rounded view that includes some criticism, and all this energy is then spent trying to make it seem like no criticism could ever be valid.
McVay is not infallible. His record is very good but he's not infallible. And inside all of that, not promoting from within on defense is an issue. Now we have to have veteran insiders who already know the Staley defense teaching an outsider (Morris) that defense (and there was a simpler way to do that--promote the DC from within). Meanwhile two defensive coaches who according to you were not promotable left
BECAUSE they were promoted by other teams (Barry and Pleasant--both hired by people that know the Rams as insiders, ie. Holmes and LaFleur).
It's a minor issue and no one is condemning the whole regime for it. Either way splitting hairs over it doesn't feel constructive to me.
...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2021 05:16AM by zn.
