David Blough and the Offensive Staffing Thread

How do you feel about the Blough hire?

  • Excited we are going with a young future star

    Votes: 30 26.5%

  • Disappointed we did not find a proven experienced OC

    Votes: 14 12.4%

  • I'm in full 'wait and see' mode. No idea if this is a good hire.

    Votes: 69 61.1%
  • Total voters
    113
KDawg said:
The conversation we’re having shows we’re both on the same page here as far as understanding what is happening.

It’s what did or didn’t that is the issue - which is fine. People disagree on that.

But you and I have a fundamental understanding of each other’s position.

Many that are joining this debate think it all boils down to “lol Blough bad cuz young”.

That is a false narrative that has been spun.

It’s the totality of the situation that has some worried. If people think the process is right, that’s fine. But the process is in question, not Blough himself.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. It’s not coming out of thin air though. Plenty of posters on here were criticizing the age and inexperience. We all understand the discussion is about more than just that, but it’s definitely one of the points being used by SOME (maybe not you) of the people criticizing the process. For me, I think all the criticisms are legitimate, just overblown. We all have our opinions, and none of us really knows all the facts and the inner workings. If in the end though, if we are OK with the hires, then how critical should we really be about the process?
 
HTTR said:
Fair enough. It’s not coming out of thin air though. Plenty of posters on here were criticizing the age and inexperience. We all understand the discussion is about more than just that, but it’s definitely one of the points being used by SOME (maybe not you) of the people criticizing the process. For me, I think all the criticisms are legitimate, just overblown. We all have our opinions, and none of us really knows all the facts and the inner workings. If in the end though, if we are OK with the hires, then how critical should we really be about the process?
Click to expand...
We’re not okay with the hires because we’re not okay with the process.

Separate the people from the process.

We may have landed on the right hires - or maybe we didn’t. But the process was flawed from the outset.

Firing both coordinators in year 2 is a process error. In my opinion, keeping a HC who couldn’t keep either coordinator for over two seasons is a process error.

Hiring a guy that is inexperienced and young because someone else wanted him is a process error. And yes, those ARE valid concerns because if this doesn’t work we’re resetting next year and losing a year of Jayden’s rookie window. I don’t understand how that isn’t concerning. Calling plays is hard - I’ve done it at the HS level and been a part of staffs at the collegiate level. It’s not an overnight thing.

We didn’t do an extensive search. We hired the first convenient option.

And Quinn, a defensive guy, wants to help the offensive inexperienced guy according to some reports - this is a process error.

None of that has anything to do with Blough himself or his abilities.

Blough could be the next Joe Gibbs for all I know.

It’s about the process.

Same thing with Jones - he was the very last candidate we interviewed. We fell into him.

We had about 9 months to come up with a plan on defense and a week on offense and the DC hire dragged to the last interview, in a second round of interviews, where the OC was hired in a week.

It’s all process flaws.

Now, if they are good enough as evaluators then these flaws CAN be overcome. But it doesn’t change that to many of us (clearly not all of us) the process wasn’t how we’d like it.

If you do, that’s great.

But our concerns go beyond the coordinators.

We’ve struggled significantly with personnel with this regime… Players and coaches…

There’s the concern.
 
KDawg said:
Hiring a guy that is inexperienced and young because someone else wanted him is a process error. And yes, those ARE valid concerns because if this doesn’t work we’re resetting next year and losing a year of Jayden’s rookie window. I don’t understand how that isn’t concerning. Calling plays is hard - I’ve done it at the HS level and been a part of staffs at the collegiate level. It’s not an overnight thing.



There’s the concern.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but there's a part of me that thinks that Quinn was willing to let Kingsbury walk because Blough was in the building. Supposedly, we almost lost him last year but we blocked a team from talking to him. It seems to me that the process wasn't rushed. Blough may have always been the plan.
 
Kdawg, I agree with you last post, except for the idea that firing Joe Whitt was a process error because it had only been 2 years. Kingsbury was bad process, because the offense was great last year, and this year, even with the injuries, wasn’t as bad as it might have been.

I grant that Whitt didn’t have solid personnel, but at no time in a 2 year period did he instill confidence.

I wonder if we fired Kingsbury partially because he was going to get Daniels killed. Our RB’s just did not get carries
 
I don’t think firing Kliff was necessarily bad process. But the catch is that if it wasn’t, then hiring him was bad process instead. Because we got exactly what he was advertised as, and Quinn didn’t like it.

So either way, bad process!
 
Anselmheifer said:
Kdawg, I agree with you last post, except for the idea that firing Joe Whitt was a process error because it had only been 2 years. Kingsbury was bad process, because the offense was great last year, and this year, even with the injuries, wasn’t as bad as it might have been.

I grant that Whitt didn’t have solid personnel, but at no time in a 2 year period did he instill confidence.

I wonder if we fired Kingsbury partially because he was going to get Daniels killed. Our RB’s just did not get carries
Click to expand...

I didn't say firing Whitt was a process error. I said having to fire them after two years is a process error. Which means that Whitt was a bad hire. A personnel issue. The process error was not being prepared to hire a new DC and falling into Jones by accident.

RE: Offense - Daniels usage rate as a runner is the lowest it's been his entire career thus far in the NFL. Yes, he ran too much. But that is kind of part of his game.
 
I have yet to see reported anywhere that Kingsbury did or did not leave on his own volition.
 
Chris said:
I have yet to see reported anywhere that Kingsbury did or did not leave on his own volition.
Click to expand...

The reporting suggests that it was mutual, which I read as:

DQ: Hey Adam and I want to make these philsophical tweaks to our O.

KK: I hear you, but that's not what I do.

DQ: I respect that, but then this might not be the right fit here in Washington

KK: Seems that way. No hard feelings

How one assigns responsibility or culpability in that scenario is sort of a Rohrschach test.
 
CapsCommies said:
The reporting suggests that it was mutual, which I read as:

DQ: Hey Adam and I want to make these philsophical tweaks to our O.

KK: I hear you, but that's not what I do.

DQ: I respect that, but then this might not be the right fit here in Washington

KK: Seems that way. No hard feelings

How one assigns responsibility or culpability in that scenario is sort of a Rohrschach test.
Click to expand...

That’s how I viewed it, as well.
 
KDawg said:
I didn't say firing Whitt was a process error. I said having to fire them after two years is a process error. Which means that Whitt was a bad hire. A personnel issue. The process error was not being prepared to hire a new DC and falling into Jones by accident.

RE: Offense - Daniels usage rate as a runner is the lowest it's been his entire career thus far in the NFL. Yes, he ran too much. But that is kind of part of his game.
Click to expand...

Ahhh. Hiring someone so ineffective that you fire them in 2 years was the error.

I know they need to run Daniels sometimes, especially if they are trying to maximize the running game for the running backs. In general, I think he is most effective as a scrambler, and less so on designed runs. But I don’t have the stats to back that up.

This is part of why I think Love would be so good. He would demand a lot of those carries and he and Jayden could play off of each other. We’ve seen this before extremely effective with the Eagles and Ravens.
 
The designed runs over time wear guys down. You can see it in Lamar Jackson and Jalen Hurts now that they are near 30.

And they are built like tanks compared to the much thinner Daniels.

So, the smart move for the OC and HC is to have Daniels run on scrambles and when things break down to keep drives alive, but eliminate the first down runs between the tackles, etc.

You can't protect guys out there 100% of the time, but at least you don't have to have the 210 pound Daniels putting down his shoulder in close against 310 pound defensive tackles either.

To me it only seems like common sense.

The FIRST thing I would have done in the 2025 offseason after Daniels put up almost 900 yards rushing would have been to sign a veteran back who could shoulder the load and provide the consistent chain moving runs that Daniele ended up having to make up for as the other backs were not that talented.

And since each year there are RBs in free agency and available via within round trades at the draft I don't understand why simple common sense preservation didn't win the day here, but for some reason we had to save $20M and not spend it.
 
hefter reported that the Kubiack deal is done and Arizona is finalizing a deal Lafleur.


 
I was really hoping to read about some assistant signings this weekend since we let a few go.
 
Maybe Kliff Kingsbury can convince a new head coach to make a trade for Kyler Murray, the guy he took #1 overall in the draft :cool:
 
Bevell would be a very nice get to help Blough

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top