DC fires the OC. LOL

[Donn Beach]

That's the Point! He doesn't want to have to micromanage the Offense, he wants a guy that has the same approach to Offense as he has so he can leave alone him to run it

[Michael K.]

The stereotype of Defensive minded HCs is that they hire boring OCs. Defense first guys want to slow the game down, limit possessions, etc. MM broke that stereotype when he hired Grubb....and jumped right back into it when he fired him. I imagine a few years of very frustrating PC like offenses from the Seahawks. I hope I'm wrong. Grubb might not have been the right guy, but you don't hire a passing game guy that likes up tempo, and then fire him after one season if your intention is to try and go faster. Grubb slowed things down for Seattle, and I have to believe that wasn't what he wanted to do.

I hope I am wrong, but I think we are back to spending all of our time complaining about slow paced offenses that look at three and outs that result in a punt as a success because it wasn't a turnover. People keep talking about the offenses he played with in Baltimore. There are only so many Lamar Jackson's and Derick Henry's. Lamar and the Ravens don't exactly operate inside of an incredibly dynamic passing offense. If we had Lamar? I bet Grubb would still be around. If we had Derick Henry? Grubb might still be around. Grubb, IMO, did a pretty good job for a guy saddled with what he had. A coach that wanted to slow it down and control the clock and a roster grossly under suited to do that.

[Michael K.]

That's the Point! He doesn't want to have to micromanage the Offense, he wants a guy that has the same approach to Offense as he has so he can leave alone him to run it

Yep, milk the clock and pound the rock. You look at this roster and say "yeah, that will work".

[Donn Beach]

Everybody seemed on board with the MM hire. Yeah, the Grubb hire was a tease, that you could combine the two. For whatever reason they tried it and it didn't work. MM says their visions didn't jive. I'm going to take a wild guess that MMs vision is about ball control and explosive plays. What should we do make him run an offense that doesn't fit because it would be more entertaining for the fans?

Far as complaining, I'm not going to have any if it wins

[trharder]

That's the Point! He doesn't want to have to micromanage the Offense, he wants a guy that has the same approach to Offense as he has so he can leave alone him to run it

Yep, milk the clock and pound the rock. You look at this roster and say "yeah, that will work".

It's about balance. Pretty much all HCs want to win the time of possession. Of course MM wants his defense fresh so they can fly around
and kill people. Every team wants that. Does MM want to run the ball more than Grubb did? Hell yeah, but he sure as hell doesn't want
3-and-outs as that is the opposite of winning the time of possession. Grubb is gone. right or wrong, he's gone. This happens a lot in the NFL.

[Michael K.]

Far as complaining, I'm not going to have any if it wins

We won ten games this season. When I broke them down, and believed that the Defense cost us more games than the Offense did...did you disagree with me? That's not me saying I don't like what we saw out of the Defense....I just have a sneaky feeling we aren't going to like what we see out of the offense moving forward. This has a very PC like feel to me. Yeah, we won, but MM didn't like the way we won, and he wants his defense on the sidelines more, so we are going to spend another off season learning an entirely new offense because? The Defense was 14th over all, the Rush Defense was 17th, but tied for 23rd in yards per carry. Seems to me there is plenty wrong with MM's side of the ball too! Why no House Cleaning? Because they were mediocre to bad, but they did it his way. The offense was pretty good, but didn't do it his way. Sure, it's his decision, and he made it. But I am not sure we are going to like the alternative to Grubb.

Yes, we were on board with MM, most as I recall anyway. That said, during all the debates leading up to the hiring, I did say that what scares me about hiring a Defensive minded HC is that a lot of the young Offensive Minds don't seem to mesh with Defensive coaches. It seemed to not be the case with DeMeco Ryans last year, but Houston sucks on offense this year. Obviously I'd say Detroit is an outlier.

But I thought MacDonald made an effort to break from that mold when he hired Grubb. Shit canning a pass first OC that had us within two yards per game of a Top 5 passing offense this year after one season? Seems to not support that he is going to go out and get someone young and innovative. I mean, Grubb helped lead the most successful offense in College Football the year before he got hired, because he was pass first, did the same thing here, and got fired for it. Why would someone similar want to just jump at the chance for that?

[Michael K.]

"Hey Ryan, I know we hired you based on what you did with the passing game at the U of W. And we know that we saddled you here with a mediocre O Line, and you were missing your starting RB for several games. But we just didn't run the ball well enough, so hit the road."

Yeah, I can imagine most young innovative modern Offensive Play Callers just lining up for the chance to repeat that.

Bad look in my opinion. And if they don't make severe roster changes? Our new offense is going to struggle mightily next year running what MM wants run.

[D-train]

"Hey Ryan, I know we hired you based on what you did with the passing game at the U of W. And we know that we saddled you here with a mediocre O Line, and you were missing your starting RB for several games. But we just didn't run the ball well enough, so hit the road."

Yeah, I can imagine most young innovative modern Offensive Play Callers just lining up for the chance to repeat that.

Bad look in my opinion. And if they don't make severe roster changes? Our new offense is going to struggle mightily next year running what MM wants run.

I think it had to be a case where MM asked Grubb to make adjustments and he just didn't do it for whatever reason. If he did he would still have a job. They had hundreds of meetings throughout the season I am sure. If MM told Grubb to run the ball 50% of the time and he did but it didn't work because of the O line then how could MM fire him and not lose his credibility.

[Michael K.]

I think it had to be a case where MM asked Grubb to make adjustments and he just didn't do it for whatever reason. If he did he would still have a job. They had hundreds of meetings throughout the season I am sure. If MM told Grubb to run the ball 50% of the time and he did but it didn't work because of the O line then how could MM fire him and not lose his credibility.

Yeah, like I said. It could very well have been a case were that happened, or MM said this is what we are doing moving forward and it wasn't a fit. Doesn't change my fear for who the next guy is gonna be. And, if your scenario is true. Why hire a guy like Grubb in the first place? It would be like hiring Albert Pujols to teach bunting. I'm sure he can do it, but why?

He hired a guy that runs an offense a certain way, and fired him for running it that way. It was at least a stupid hire.

[Donn Beach]

Here's Smith take on it, he takes it through pretty much game by game, the souring of the relationship, it's convincing, nice piece, he must have been working on this.

https://www.si.com/nfl/seahawks/seahawk ... ryan-grubb