This line of thinking is beyond me. I can't see how anyone who keeps up at all with the NFL, and thereby knows the precipitous decline the Falcons offense exhibited under his tutelage, would then think he's a desirable OC. This is not like head coaches who failed at the pro level but then excelled in college; the HC position requires a myriad of other skills apart from playcalling, and is profoundly different at the pro level than the college one. Being a coordinator, conversely, is, unless I'm missing something, largely the same at both levels: you're either good at getting results with the players you're given, or you're not.
I don't know of a single instance where a coordinator failed in the pros and then went to college and killed it. I'm happy to admit my mistake if anyone can cite such?
And, even the coaches such as Saban who bombed in the pros and then were great in college, had previously had marked success at the college level at some point. Sarkissian was ostensibly one of the playcallers for USC very briefly when they were good; he's never excelled anywhere else, and his last HC gig was a spectacular failure.
Freeze never did anything but light it up on the field, and yet people on here were saying we shouldn't hire him because of things that may or may not have taken place twenty years ago. Sarkissian was fired for being openly drunk at practice less than three years ago, and now he's a home-run hire?
He must have the same publicity team as Kiffin.
