Quote:So under your rationale, in the 50s and 60's, the Packers could have done better than Lombardi because he was just a coordinator and not an established coach, and Dallas could have done better than Landry and Pittsburgh could have done better than Noll?

 

Continuing this line of thought, the Skins could have done better than Gibbs in 1980-81, the Giants could have done better than Parcells, the Bears better than Ditka?

 

The Packers could have done better than Holmgren-even though by hiring the same guy, Seattle made a better hire in him?

 

For that matter, Reid was not the best hire by Philly?

 

I don't think that its always a bad spot to a take a chance on a guy with no head coaching experience. Its not an "all or nothing" proposition as you are seemingly trying to make it. 

 

Obviously there are plenty of examples where it has worked. 

 

However, in the Jaguars specific situation, the wiser choice seemed to be a guy like Reid, Kelly or even Arians. The Jaguars needed stability and at least some proven experience as a head coach. Plus, as mentioned all 3 of those guys were pretty good in track record with the QB position and getting production from it, which has been issue #1 for this team over the last what? - decade??

 

Just as an aside though.....lol.....I'd bet in almost ALL of the examples you provided, that teh Coordinators those coaches hired were better than the 2 weak ones Gus chose. The quality of assistant coaching is important - even MORE SO for a guy coming in with zero head coaching experience.  

---