Irony at its finest...

[packers11]

Mike Nolan and Mike McCarthy skipped over Aaron Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith in the 2005 draft...

Look who is the starting QB of the team their coaching for now... (Even though Nolan will be coaching defense)

Ironic though... isn't it... :lol:

[mission]

in before "brett favre" ...

[denverYooper]

Mike Nolan and Mike McCarthy skipped over Aaron Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith in the 2005 draft...

Look who is the starting QB of the team their coaching for now... (Even though Nolan will be coaching defense)

Ironic though... isn't it... :lol:

I've been thinking about that also... if Nolan comes in, they take another shot with a better QB.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Funny how life works sometimes.

[sheepshead]

I doubt MM had much input on draft day back then.

[swede]

Mike Nolan and Mike McCarthy skipped over Aaron Rodgers in favor of Alex Smith in the 2005 draft...

Look who is the starting QB of the team their coaching for now... (Even though Nolan will be coaching defense)

Ironic though... isn't it... :lol:

That is a great point of irony, and reinforces my reluctance to accept the hiring of Mike Nolan as a good idea.

I think MM is too close to this guy.

I've never seen a front office that is more concerned about "who likes who" and "who do I like to work with" and less concerned about "who is the best DC prospect available right now."

Grow up, TT and MM, do your due diligence, and interview some people with...oh, I don't know...maybe some criteria for selecting a quality candidate.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm not sure that's the case. Let's not pretend that Nolan doesn't have 11 mostly good years as a DC. He failed as a HC, but some guys are better coordinators than HCs. He's shown adaptability. He's played 4-3, 3-4, 4-2-5. He seems to be the anti-Bob Sanders--who appeared to be married to his scheme. Nolan's players seem to respect him. Other than that, I don't know what to think about any of the candidates.

[swede]

I'm not sure that's the case. Let's not pretend that Nolan doesn't have 11 mostly good years as a DC. He failed as a HC, but some guys are better coordinators than HCs. He's shown adaptability. He's played 4-3, 3-4, 4-2-5. He seems to be the anti-Bob Sanders--who appeared to be married to his scheme. Nolan's players seem to respect him. Other than that, I don't know what to think about any of the candidates.

Fair enough, but most of the time would there not be a series of interviews with candidates for a position such as DC?

My concern is that MM is picking a buddy, and I'll concede he's a buddy with a legitimate resume as a DC, but I don't like the fact that familiarity seems to trump a dispassionate process for finding coaches up there at Lambeau.

[HarveyWallbangers]

My concern is that MM is picking a buddy, and I'll concede he's a buddy with a legitimate resume as a DC, but I don't like the fact that familiarity seems to trump a dispassionate process for finding coaches up there at Lambeau.

There's concern. Is he really a buddy though? He worked one year under him. Did they work together previously? Or is he somebody that he came to respect in the one year they worked together. There are interviews for coaches, but most staffs are made up of a lot guys who have worked together at some point previously.

[Patler]

I'm not sure that's the case. Let's not pretend that Nolan doesn't have 11 mostly good years as a DC. He failed as a HC, but some guys are better coordinators than HCs. He's shown adaptability. He's played 4-3, 3-4, 4-2-5. He seems to be the anti-Bob Sanders--who appeared to be married to his scheme. Nolan's players seem to respect him. Other than that, I don't know what to think about any of the candidates.

Fair enough, but most of the time would there not be a series of interviews with candidates for a position such as DC?

My concern is that MM is picking a buddy, and I'll concede he's a buddy with a legitimate resume as a DC, but I don't like the fact that familiarity seems to trump a dispassionate process for finding coaches up there at Lambeau.

Well so far he has hired no one, and I doubt he is sitting in his office every day doing nothing with regard to assembling his coaching staff for defense. In today's world you can do a lot of "interviewing" without being in the same room.

[Gunakor]

I'm not sure that's the case. Let's not pretend that Nolan doesn't have 11 mostly good years as a DC. He failed as a HC, but some guys are better coordinators than HCs. He's shown adaptability. He's played 4-3, 3-4, 4-2-5. He seems to be the anti-Bob Sanders--who appeared to be married to his scheme. Nolan's players seem to respect him. Other than that, I don't know what to think about any of the candidates.

Fair enough, but most of the time would there not be a series of interviews with candidates for a position such as DC?

My concern is that MM is picking a buddy, and I'll concede he's a buddy with a legitimate resume as a DC, but I don't like the fact that familiarity seems to trump a dispassionate process for finding coaches up there at Lambeau.

Well so far he has hired no one, and I doubt he is sitting in his office every day doing nothing with regard to assembling his coaching staff for defense. In today's world you can do a lot of "interviewing" without being in the same room.

A good point was made about teams like Philadelphia and New York still being active in the 2008 postseason, which means we can't even talk to any of their assistants just yet. Nolan might be the frontrunner right now simply because he's not part of a playoff team. I expect things will start heating up in a week or two.