19841985 - Southern California (Graduate Assistant)
1986 - Miami (Florida)(Graduate Assistant)
19871988 - Boise State(Linebackers)
1989 - East Carolina(Defensive Backs)
1990-1991 - UNLV(1990) (Defensive Backs)
(1991) (Defensive Coordinator)
19921994 - East Carolina(Defensive Backs/ Linebackers)
19952000 - Miami (Florida)- (Defensive Backs/ STU)
20012004 - Cleveland Browns - (Secondary)
20052006 - Oakland Raiders (Defensive Backs)
2007 - North Carolina (Defensive Coordinator)
20082011 - Baltimore Ravens(2008-2010) (Secondary)
(2011) (Defensive Coordinator)
I'm just saying you can't judge a guy just by his resume alone, and he absolutely didn't get the OC job based on knowing Luck alone. He was interviewing for the Oregon HC job which right now is the hottest opening in the NCAA with close to the most $ in the NCAA to throw at a coach with Nike and Knight being behind them....he is a widely regarded offensive mind and we weren't the only team to recognize that. I applaud Grigson for going after a fresh face with a new take on the offense that also will utilize our players correctly rather than going after guys that will force our players into what they want to do no matter what.
Bill Walsh only had 10 years of coaching experience before getting his first OC job in the NFL and 13 years of experience before he started coaching the 49ers....and that turned out terrible didn't it?
Last edited by matthollabak; 01-21-2013 at 11:46 AM.
1966 -AFL Oakland Raiders(Running back coach)
1967- Continental Football League San Jose Apaches
1968-1969 - AFL Cincinnati Bengals(Assistant coach)
1970-1975 - NFL Cincinnati Bengals(Assistant coach)
1976 - NFL San Diego Chargers(Offensive coordinator)
1977-1978 - NCAA Stanford(Head coach)
Big difference as Walsh was recognized as being the coach behind the innovative Bengals offense, but was denied the head coach job by Paul Brown.
As I stated in an earlier post, I'm not saying Hamilton was a bad hire or he will turn out to be a bad coach. All I've said is that it appears that he won the job because of his prior relationship with Luck. How much "weight" that prior relationship had in the decision is questionable when you look at his resume, which is definitely not as long as others. I do not recall his name mentioned at all a few weeks back when all of the 8 head coaches were fired. Did he even interview with anyone other than the Colts? It's hard to argue that he was a hot commodity when he didn't interview for a staff position with the first 3 or 4 new head coaches that that were hired. It was only when Arians was interviewing in Arizona did his name seem to come up as a possible candidate for the Colts job and a few others, and he was hired by the Colts within a few days thereafter.
Again I point to Pagano...how many times did you hear his name before we brought him in? How many other teams were looking at him? From all the accounts I've heard he was shocked we wanted to talk to him. The reason you didn't hear about Hamilton is because just like with our HC search everyone was eyeing the big names like we were with guys like Fisher before hiring Pagano. Just like with hiring Pagano they went with what they had seen the past 5-10 years and could care less with what they were doing in 1992....Just in the real world who do you want to hire? The guy that has bounced around every place in his field or the fresh faced guy who is just starting to tap into his potential? We couldn't search until Arians had accepted a job so everything before then was speculation by fans like us.
The fact that Hamilton was at Stanford was a bonus but didn't get him the job....the fact that he is an up and coming coach and runs an offense our personnel fits has more to do with it.
Look at Polian and Grigsons resumes....Now tell me who would you hire right now?
Last edited by matthollabak; 01-21-2013 at 06:22 PM.
Sig made by me
"In my eyes, life is likened to christian ideology... its molded into three parts best described by the divine comedy; inferno, purgatorio and paradiso. You can live it in self loathing and pity, obscurity and ambiguity, or with beauty and elegance. Does that make the ideology truth? no, it makes it an irrelevent metaphor." ;p