Freeman: Would you?

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

Yes, Joshua's concern was very reasonable. I think it was right too, even though Wade has obviously worked out very well. But he definitely considered the Wade hire just like the Bush hire in how it happened. Kubiak stumbled into a stupid hire and a great one, luck of the draw I guess. Either way both hires are on him/Smith.

And you have been constant (and constantly correct) in declaring we would not win with Kubiak. I still think a strong personality at QB could make up for the nice guy issues with Kubiak (like Cushing does for Wade, the defense without him is not close to the same, he may be as valuable as JJ). I have no problem replacing Kubiak at the same time as Schaub and would do it that way if I was in charge. For continuity's sake (because we are close), I would be ok with dumping Schaub and giving Kubiak a year with a new QB. That is the other reason Freeman appeals to me more than a rookie. Rookie QBs for veteran coaches are usually about prolonging their own time since they can call for patience with the rookie. I don't want a rookie so we need 3 more years to evaluate what we already know about Kubs. Honestly if we could get a proven winner who wanted to come here and was the missing piece at QB that would be ideal. Of course when will that ever happen (Peyton Manning who we stupidly turned away).

At the time, I was more concerned with the lack of due diligence by the team as a whole. Not sure it even occurred to me at the time to try and divide up responsibility for this between McNair and Kubiak. I honestly don't recall but I think I simply lumped them together because I wasn't really thinking of it in those terms at that time.

Regardless, I still think a reasonable person could conclude that Kubiak was primarily responsible for Bush's hire and McNair was primarily responsible for Wade's, which was the initial argument.

Now quit digging up old posts of mine and trying to make me look bad!

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

At the time, I was more concerned with the lack of due diligence by the team as a whole. Not sure it even occurred to me at the time to try and divide up responsibility for this between McNair and Kubiak. I honestly don't recall but I think I simply lumped them together because I wasn't really thinking of it in those terms at that time.

Regardless, I still think a reasonable person could conclude that Kubiak was primarily responsible for Bush's hire and McNair was primarily responsible for Wade's, which was the initial argument.

Now quit digging up old posts of mine and trying to make me look bad!

I think it's far more likely that Kubiak was forced into firing his DC than McNair was picking the replacement. I don't think McNair is hands on in those ways. I think the most likely scenario is Kubiak is forced into a move, Phillips is his kind of guy (they run in the same same good old boy, nice guy circle, plus a resume that easily justifies the hire and makes Kubiak think its a good one), and a hire ensues with no other candidates. Kubiak uses the same process (hiring guys he knows), and this time is fortunate to have a guy who takes care of that side of the ball and is unlikely to ever leave for a HC gig.