Quote Originally Posted by pbmax View Post
I am with you. Which is why I am hopeful the DC change can elevate them.

My concern is that if McCarthy really has inserted himself into the GM process, the DC pick might get secondary consideration (no pun intended).

Though they need more pass rush even if Perry is healthy.
Part of me worries the timing for the GM switch was unfortunate. I know a lot of people wanted TT gone for whatever reason. Let's put those aside and just think about timing alone.

Scenario 1: DC was fired as DC. If TT had one more year, M3 would hire a DC without issue or anything hanging over the hiring decision. The DC comes in, they both get a year together. At the end of next year, Murphy retires TT. The new GM comes in and can assess the staff as a whole and decide whether to keep them all or move them in a different direction.

Scenario 2: DC was not fired as DC. TT was retired this year. The new GM comes in and can asses M3 and DC and make a call on them together.

Instead we have Scenario 3: DC was fired and TT was retired. In almost makes the GM's job more difficult because he is not getting a fair chance to assess an embedded staff. There are going to be a lot of growing pains this year.

I like M3 as a coach, but I'm starting to come around to the idea that if the DC (basically the second head coach when the HC is an offensive specialist) and the GM were fired/retired the same year, they might as well clean house completely. There is going to be a lot of moving parts, and the hiring of the DC/GM are going to affect each other. I think the complexity adds risk in that the decisions are less likely to pan out versus if they happened in successive years.

I may be way off, but this almost seems like the riskiest timing for prolonged organizational success versus either successive year changes or cleaning house completely. (For the record, I think cleaning house completely holds its own significant risk as well.)