I haven't had the time to research him but it seems to be with the speed at which Trestman has begun to hire that he had guys in mind already and I'd think those guys were discussed in his interviews and were at least part of the reason Emery has confidence in him.
I'm just not ready to borrow trouble yet because I have no idea whether there was a better candidate out there or not and all that really matters is that Trestman apparently didn't or he would have hired him and not Cavanaugh.
It's easy to say it should have been this guy or that one but who's to say which ones were truly available and would accept the position. Marinelli was asked to stay and he wouldn't. How many on the list for these offensive positions were sounded out even before Trestman was hired and how many said yes they'd be interested an how many declined?
Like I was saying it's mental masturbation. We don't know.
So someone who has one a national title as a Player in the NCAA, two Super Bowl rings as a Player and one ring as a Coach is not good enough for us for a QB Coach. Not to mention he was a QB. Would you have rather kept bates just because he was Jays Buddy.
I sort of feel like this is a silly argument... how many SB rings the guy has... because over the years, the game changes... he was the OC in 01 when the Ravens won the Superbowl. That is impressive... I can't take that away from the dude... but I'm not trying to be a total dick when I ask "over the last 10-15 years... which Superbowl championship teams stand out as winning almost solely due to defense?" The two teams that jump out at me are Ravens and Bucs.
Then as a player... Joe Montana's backup... and honestly, I can't even find him on the 1990 Giants Superbowl roster... but he obviously was behind Simms and Hostetler... but he does show up on the Giants roster in 1991.
But arguing about his rings is as useless as saying we shouldn't question the hire based on how many Superbowl rings he has accumulated over the last 30 years.
All I'm saying is I thought it was a weird hire. Honestly, I am not sure how much more I want to discuss it anymore. lol... I guess I like this hire more than the Skip Peete hire.
You know what. You hit it on the head. I'm really not all that lathered up either, but when you continue to respond I think it comes off like you are really passionate about it.
This really started off as an observation on two hires that I did not think were up to the same standards as the other hires I have seen (discounting the CFL coaches because I really don't have a feel for their accomplishments either way and so I'm just trusting Trestman) and then it kind of morphed into trying to defend being able to say that it's ok to question something without being painted as being down on the new HC (I'm definitely not - quite the opposite in fact). So I think you said it best. One who protests too much much, cares too much. Since I really don't, I'm pretty well done with it also. Hope both these guys work out to be great hires. I really do. ok, what else can we argue about? :smile:
This is in contrast to a lost Lovie Smith who had to have offensive coaches (he hoped) actually could coach the offense right. He had no clue, personally how to coach offense. He didn't know his butt from a hole in the ground - on offense.
But with Trestman, we have a guy who dead-bang KNOWS how to coach the offense. Every single aspect of it. So when you think this thing through, you realize he is probably looking for "coachable coaches" that he can show what HE wants coached - and they in turn can teach Trestman's offense to the players.
I am sooooooooooooooooooooo comfortable with that.