- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 29,941
It's a big difference.
Which is why the answer is none.
The youngest or inexperienced guys in history are 3-4 years older than McVay. So he drops well below the spectrum of the extreme
But I get it, this is where it's an age arguement for you.
I'm not going to repeat my stance so I'm done here.
This HC is extremely important and the wrong hire can set the team back a decade. Again.
I find the risk way to high here
It's not a big difference. You're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. Go ahead and explain the benefits of being 34 years old instead of 31 years old. Now, explain why three years as a low-level college coach makes such a huge difference.
Because what McVay "lacks" is the three years of being a low-level college coach.
This is an age argument because I think it's silly to draw arbitrary lines and write guys off based on nothing. If McVay is already being considered for jobs, that must make him pretty damn special. It's not me or @TheDYVKX recommending McVay for the job. It's the Rams and other teams choosing to interview McVay.
Yes, the wrong hire can set this team back. But our last three coaches were 49 years old (Spagnuolo), 53 years old (Fisher), and 45 years old (Linehan) when hired. Hiring older coaches hasn't done us any favors.
Simply put, hiring a coach is always a risk. You're not protecting yourself by hiring a 50-year old coach instead of a 31-year old coach. Hire the best guy for the job, regardless of age.
I'm not attached to McVay. I'm not even advocating for him. I am advocating against crossing him off the list because of his age. There's a reason he's on the list in the first place.