Offensive or defensive minded coach? (Poll)

[Jerhawk]

I've seen this discussed back and forth on the board since the news of Carroll's departure/stepping down/stepping aside, and thought it would be interesting to guage where you guys stand on this topic:

Do you want the Seahawks to hire an offensive or a defensive minded head coach?

Some people (like me) aren't hip with the idea of Quinn potentially coming back, in favor of the new flavor of the month: a young, up and coming offensive mind to really spice things up and put some points on the board.

However, renowned poster BASF stated in another thread (hope you don't mind me putting this out here bud) that these recent playoffs are showing how the offensive minded coaches aren't faring too well this year, and the pendulum may be swinging back toward defensive coaches ruling the league.

What say you?

 

[Wsumatt1982]

I’m all for offensive. I thought this before John said it in his presser yesterday but that will bring continuity at the QB spot plus a young drafted QB.

 

[Jerhawk]

I’m all for offensive. I thought this before John said it in his presser yesterday but that will bring continuity at the QB spot plus a young drafted QB.

True, he did say that.

And not to call John a liar, but sometimes what he says isn't exactly what they end up doing. Maybe some gamesmanship on his part.

And also, I was looking to see what the community wants going forward for (hopefully) the next few seasons minimum.

 

[Wsumatt1982]

True, he did say that.

And not to call John a liar, but sometimes what he says isn't exactly what they end up doing. Maybe some gamesmanship on his part.

And also, I was looking to see what the community wants going forward for (hopefully) the next few seasons minimum.

I think it’s a great question. Obviously it’s up to John and we all understand “coach speak” I think offensive would also give hope for a much needed different direction. We do need great work on defense but I’m hoping for more of a fresh start

 

[chris98251]

Defense and no question that it wins, it's a system that yes with great players can make it even better, but it's the system that works and the players understanding their roles. A coach that can implement one will be able to control a game.

Offense hmmmm, take out a RB, A QB and it can shut it down, doesn't matter the system more often than not, have a bad o line and you are likely to go no where, no good WR's and your one dimensional. But you can have that if your defense can keep you close and create turnovers and allow a handicapped offense to take risks and have short fields. We have done that here, Baltimore did it with Dilfer, it can be argued the Jets did it in 1969, Dolphins with the no name defense, and well Steelers were just sick on both sides of the ball and with their depth but did it mostly with defense. Dallas won with the Flex defense and 49ers had Montana but their defense was unheralded but carried more than their share of the load. Rice and Montana get a lot of press but that defense was something else as well.

So defense for me.

 

[hawks85]

Why offensive? I don't get it. You guys don't want a powerhouse of a defense. An offensive juggernaut isn't gonna beat San Fran, a power defense will.

 

[knownone]

It depends on the coach. Going offense for the sake of going offense doesn't make much sense. For example, let's say hypothetically that Ben Johnson is the 13th-best offensive coach in the league and Mike Mccdonald is the 3rd-best defensive coach. Hiring Mccdonald would take advantage of an inefficient market over-prioritizing offensive coaches. His relative value toward wins/losses would likely be higher than Johnson's.

It sounds overly simplistic. But the best solution is picking the right head coach, not worrying about what side of the ball he coaches.

 

[hgwellz12]

It depends on the coach. Going offense for the sake of going offense doesn't make much sense. For example, let's say hypothetically that Ben Johnson is the 13th-best offensive coach in the league and Mike Mccdonald is the 3rd-best defensive coach. Hiring Mccdonald would take advantage of an inefficient market over-prioritizing offensive coaches. His relative value toward wins/losses would likely be higher than Johnson's.

It sounds overly simplistic. But the best solution is picking the right head coach, not worrying about what side of the ball he coaches.

In my heart I say "Defensive coach who isn't overly conservative due to being a" defensive minded"coach. "

I still believe that alot of what we saw on offense, regardless of which OC we had, was due to Pete's overly conservative nature. I believe he had that overly conservative disposition based on being a defensive back.

 

[hgwellz12]

I voted other, tho.

 

[SeaWolv]

It depends on who we're talking about but if the choice were between Ben Johnson or Mike Macdonald I would be good with either option but if I had to pick I would choose Johnson. Having a consistent and stable relationship with the quarterback is crucial.

 

[Maelstrom787]

In a perfect world, I'd want a defensive head coach that's also coached positionally on the offensive side of the ball. That, or an OL coach who developed into a great HC.

More physical. More frustrating for opponents. Smother them, pound them, or both.

For the current candidates though, offense, easy

 

[BASF]

I've seen this discussed back and forth on the board since the news of Carroll's departure/stepping down/stepping aside, and thought it would be interesting to guage where you guys stand on this topic:

Do you want the Seahawks to hire an offensive or a defensive minded head coach?

Some people (like me) aren't hip with the idea of Quinn potentially coming back, in favor of the new flavor of the month: a young, up and coming offensive mind to really spice things up and put some points on the board.

However, renowned poster BNSF stated in another thread (hope you don't mind me putting this out here bud) that these recent playoffs are showing how the offensive minded coaches aren't faring too well this year, and the pendulum may be swinging back toward defensive coaches ruling the league.

What say you?

No worries Jerhawk. I wonder though what the N would stand for in that acronym.

Put me down for defense. They are the problem and have been for years. We are in desperate need for a guy that can clean up the communication issues and the tackling.

 

[RiverDog]

All things being equal, I want an offensive guy. But I don't want that to be our central overriding focus. If there's a great motivator out there, a guy like Dan Campbell, I don't care which side of the LOS he grew up on, I want him.

 

[Rat]

I'm not a Quinn fan, but his offenses in Atlanta ranked in the top half of the league in points 5 of his 6 seasons, and the only season they weren't top 8 in yards was the one where he was fired after five games. That's not to say that he might secretly be an offensive genius, but signing a guy with a defensive background doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to becoming the pro equivalent of the Iowa Hawkeyes.

 

[Jerhawk]

No worries Jerhawk. I wonder though what the N would stand for in that acronym.

Put me down for defense. They are the problem and have been for years. We are in desperate need for a guy that can clean up the communication issues and the tackling.

Oh shoot sorry man. I was thinking of the BNSF railway company for some reason...goodness

BASF*

 

[Scout]

If you are drafting a QB in the first round you need an offensive minded coach IMO long term. D. Ryans is an exception to the rule though but we will see if the Texans offense will continue to thrive if Slowik is hired away.

If you need to keep building a team until you are ready to add a QB through the draft or a vet then a defensive minded coach is the way to go.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

I voted defensive. This defense needs an overhaul more than the offense.

 

[Ozzy]

I think the way the league is going the easiest path is elite offensive coach with a good defense so it’s offense for me. It’s also because of our division. I’m tired of being out schemed by McVay and Shanahan and want someone who can go toe with those guys schematically and I think if you can find those guys they’re rarer than a good defensive coach.

But the point isn’t lost that you can’t just grab one for the sake of it. If the meat coach is a defensive guy then you go that route. But if I think I can hit a home run? I’m going for it.

 

[seabowl]

First things first, you need a leader. The league is littered with great offensive and defensive minds, but real leaders are lacking. Pete was truly a great leader, so I truly hope the next coach will be someone that the players respect and want to win for.

 

[GemCity]

I think the way the league is going the easiest path is elite offensive coach with a good defense so it’s offense for me. It’s also because of our division. I’m tired of being out schemed by McVay and Shanahan and want someone who can go toe with those guys schematically and I think if you can find those guys they’re rarer than a good defensive coach.

But the point isn’t lost that you can’t just grab one for the sake of it. If the meat coach is a defensive guy then you go that route. But if I think I can hit a home run? I’m going for it.

This right here.

From a personal perspective, I think we have more weapons on offense than on defense. Debatable….but that’s just my opinion.

I’d like to see their abilities maximized…IF that hasn’t happened already. Dynamic schemes, full utilization…..

Perhaps this is wishful thinking but we have a guy with the potential to rush for 1200 yards. We have a couple of guys that could get 1200+ yards at receiver. Noah Fant is a beast….could he not get more looks?

There’s a strong argument though for a defensive minded coach. Our D has been downright awful. The talent is there…we lost a few to injury but that tragic nosedive after the 6th, 7th game of the season…what does that point to other than coaching/scheme?

You don’t go from a top 5..top 10…defense and suddenly become as bad as they were without a fundamental shift at the coaching level.