Why defensive coordinators are rooting for Mike Macdonald to win with Seahawks

Despite what you hear, NFL teams still hire defensive coordinators as head coaches. But is there pressure on Mike Macdonald anyway? Seaside Joe 1941

There’s a rumor going around, you’ll probably hear about it any time you have a conversation about hiring Mike Macdonald (especially with someone who isn’t a Seahawks fan), that NFL teams only want to hire offensive-minded coaches nowadays. It’s not an illogical premise, right? The narrative exists because there are context clues that would seem to point to teams having more success when they super-charge their offense than when they make apparent upgrades to the defense.

Like the Kansas City Chiefs winning three of the last five Super Bowls with Hall of Famers at QB, HC, and TE, in addition to 2019-2020s back-to-back Super Bowl appearances with Tyreek Hill.

The Los Angeles Rams won the Super Bowl after making a trade to appease Sean McVay when he wanted to upgrade from Jared Goff to Matthew Stafford.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers won a Super Bowl with offensive-minded Bruce Arians after he was gifted Tom Brady by Bill Belichick and Robert Kraft. And Brady had won three of five Super Bowls not long before going to Tampa Bay.

And the teams that lost those Super Bowls (like the 49ers, Eagles, Bengals, Rams, Chiefs, and Patriots) are at least offensively proficient, if not explosive and successful; four of those six teams have won a Super Bowl since 2017. In that same period of time, the only ‘defensive-minded’ head coach in the lot is Belichick. In the years prior to then, you had Dan Quinn in 2016 (lost to Belichick); Ron Rivera in 2015 (lost to Gary Kubiak); Pete Carroll in 2013 and 2014; John Fox in 2013 (lost to Carroll).

This methodology of recalling recent Super Bowls is easy…if all you want to do is prove that offensive-based head coaches have been to and won more Super Bowls since 2015 than defensive-based ones.

What rundowns like the one above fail to do is prove whether or not hiring a defensive coordinator in 2024 is a bad move or even if it is a worse move than hiring an offensive coordinator. What you see above is NOT evidence of anything that will happen in the future, it is only an incomplete record of what has happened in the past.

INCOMPLETE.

Super Fallacy

It would make sense to look at the Chiefs and to try and emulate what has made them successful because they’ve sustained it for many years (but also kind of a silly exercise because we know what makes them successful, it’s not hard to diagnose really), but Nick Sirianni’s Eagles? Doug Pederson’s Eagles? Gary Kubiak’s Broncos?

These are not necessarily the best data points of those seasons to copy!

And even if they were, it’s not as though what helped Philadelphia go 14-3 and make the Super Bowl two years ago would start and end with hiring a coach like Sirianni. You could argue that the Eagles would have made the Super Bowl that year if they had Vic Fangio as the head coach instead. Fangio was working as a consultant for Philadelphia that year, and some would have rather had him as the head coach. Sirianni lost his best offensive weapon last year when coordinator Shane Steichen went to the Colts, which makes him just as vulnerable to lose offensive coaching talent as Fangio would have been.

Yet I use Sirianni as an “important data point” for explaining why offensive-minded head coaches are better to hire than defensive-minded ones?

Sounds like I was being manipulative instead of informative!

However, this is where the data of recent Super Bowls actually should be relevant:

a) Owners hire head coaches or they at least hire people who hire head coaches

b) Owners are fans, they’re almost never football people

c) Fans use data like what you see above to help inform their decisions

d) Therefore, owners might be more likely to insist on an “offensive-minded head coach” because they keep hearing the narrative that offensive-minded head coaches are better…

THAT actually does make sense to me. It is logical. Teams probably are more motivated to hire offensive coaches for two reasons: Recent history (context or no context) and because hiring the offensive play caller as your head coach means you won’t lose a good play caller to a head coaching promotion.

Fair.

And yet, the recent data doesn’t really support the narrative that “Teams only hire offensive-minded play callers now”…

Recent Hires, 2021-2024

In the past four head coaching cycles, 13 of 30 hires have been from the defensive side of the ball.

2021 - 2 of 7 defense

2022 - 4 of 10 defense

2023 - 2 of 5 defense

2024 - 5 of 8 defense

Here is an image of every head coaching hire between 2006-2021 which was posted at the Captain Comeback blog a few years ago. I would post the image, but am afraid it would be too small to read on this page.

Even if 17 of 30 hires would be offensive or offensive-leaning, this is clearly not the “never hire defense” paradigm that you’d think given the way that people like about Macdonald as if he’s a total outlier. In fact, most of the new hires in 2024 come from the defensive side of the football despite how I often I still hear that “teams don’t hire defensive coaches anymore”.

Very few narratives I can think of have ever been so patently false and most narratives are probably incorrect or incomplete.

Not only were most of the head coaching hires this year from the defensive side of the ball, nine other current head coaches were either defensive coordinators or defensive position coaches prior to their current roles. That’s 14 of 32 jobs. That’s not “it never happens anymore”. It’s almost half of the NFL…

And among “offensive coaches” are guys like Dan Campbell and Jim Harbaugh, two highly-regarded head coaches who may have played offense during their NFL careers BUT have basically reformed themselves as coaches into a ball-control and defensive-minded strategy for their teams. They are as much of “offensive play callers” as you or I would be described at our current jobs.

“Hey George, can you fill out these invoices?”

“Sorry boss, I don’t really call those plays.”

So I can’t really say that the fate of all defensive coordinators and defensive position coaches hoping to become coordinators and head coaches rests on Macdonald’s success as the head coach of the Seattle Seahawks. It would have been just as accurate to say that DCs were hopeful that Brandon Staley would win a Super Bowl with the L.A. Chargers so that more doors would open for them…

And yet Staley’s stint with the Chargers was disastrous by the end of his run, only to be followed a couple of months later with FIVE defensive-minded head coaching hires.

“Defensive Sean McVay”

Still, if the Seahawks defense goes from bottom-5 to top-5 within a couple of seasons, more owners will wonder if they should look for the next Mike Macdonald instead of the next Sean McVay. Even more so if the Ravens defense goes in the other direction without Macdonald.

Because as valuable as McVay is to the Rams, it is also fair to wonder if that offensive success is still achievable elsewhere as there are three teams who have hired his former offensive assistants and seen positive results with those coaches: Green Bay’s Matt LaFleur, Cincinnati’s Zac Taylor, and Minnesota’s Kevin O’Connell.

Can Zach Orr orchestrate the Ravens defense as well as predecessor Macdonald? What about Dolphins defensive coordinator Anthony Weaver, Baltimore’s defensive line coach under Macdonald? Are they able to control and dictate the flow of the game and the amount of pressure on opposing offenses as well as Macdonald proved during his games of chess in the past two seasons? And if either of them can, is that because they’re also very good defensive coordinators in their own right or is it because of the scheme, coaching styles, and philosophies being emulated from the original source?

On the other hand, if Seattle’s defense shows little to no improvement in the next two years, how much harder does that make it for any potential rising star on the defensive side of coaching to get a head coaching position over offensive counterparts in the coming years? Maybe harder. Maybe there’s no difference at all!

But if I were a defensive coordinator like Brian Flores or Steve Spagnuolo or Jim Schwartz or Ejiro Evero or Lou Anarumo, I would certainly be rooting for Macdonald—because he’s definitely the most-watched and analyzed defensive hire of the moment—to have success whenever it didn’t adversely impact my own chances of success in a game or season.

If the Seahawks win a Super Bowl with Macdonald in the next three or four years, it could have—if nothing else—a monumental impact on how people PERCEIVE defensive-minded head coaches. Because as of now, most people (including those in the media) don’t even seem to be aware of what’s actually happening, since they’ve basically proven that they will ignore new information if it conflicts with their previously-held belief system.

“Other than most of the new hires, teams NEVER hire defensive-minded head coaches.”

They don’t? As transcribed from that previously linked image on head coaching hires since 2006…

Every DEFENSIVE-BASED hire in the past 19 years:

*retread hire, “success story”

2006

Rod Marinelli, Lions; Eric Mangini, Jets; Dick Jauron, Bills*

2007

Mike Tomlin, Steelers; Wade Phillips, Cowboys*

2008

Mike Smith, Falcons; John Harbaugh, Ravens^

(Harbaugh was special teams coordinator, but had experience as a DB coach)

2009

Jim Schwartz, Lions; Rex Ryan, Jets; Steve Spagnuolo, Rams; Mike Singletary, 49ers; Raheem Morris, Bucs; Jim Mora, Jr., Seahawks

(Singletary was never a DC, only a former player, asst. HC and LB coach; Morris was only a DB coach and never a DC)

2010

Pete Carroll, Seahawks*

2011

Leslie Frazier, Vikings; Ron Rivera, Panthers; John Fox, Broncos*

2012

Chuck Pagano, Colts; Dennis Allen, Raiders; Greg Schiano, Bucs; Jeff Fisher, Rams*; Romeo Crennel, Chiefs*

(Schiano was from the defensive side of the ball, but had little experience as a DC and that was many years prior to being hired by Tampa)

2013

Gus Bradley, Jaguars

2014

Mike Pettine, Browns; Mike Zimmer, Vikings; Lovie Smith, Bucs*

2015

Dan Quinn, Falcons; Jim Tomsula, 49ers; Todd Bowles, Jets; Jack Del Rio, Raiders*; John Fox, Bears*; Rex Ryan, Bills*

2016

NONE

2017

Sean McDermott, Bills; Vance Joseph, Broncos

2018

Steve Wilks, Cardinals; Matt Patricia, Lions; Mike Vrabel, Titans

2019

Vic Fangio, Broncos; Brian Flores, Dolphins

(Flores was not a DC prior to Miami)

2020

Ron Rivera, Moons*

2021

Robert Saleh, Jets; Brandon Staley, Chargers

2022

Todd Bowles, Bucs*; Matt Eberflus, Bears; Dennis Allen, Saints*; Lovie Smith, Texans*

2023

Jonathan Gannon, Cardinals; DeMeco Ryans, Texans

2024

Mike Macdonald, Seahawks; Raheem Morris, Falcons*; Jerod Mayo, Patriots; Dan Quinn, Moons*; Antonio Pierce, Raiders

(Pierce was not the Raiders defensive coordinator and was promoted from Interim after the season)

Now let’s get to some notes…

Be wary of small/incomplete sample sizes

I didn’t want to add any commentary to the names listed above, just a few clarifications in parentheses, because I feel like you’re all well-informed and smart enough to draw your own conclusions from the list. It’s enough for me to write “Ron Rivera” or “Vic Fangio” or “Matt Patricia” and let you fill in the rest.

What I will say is that browsing an incomplete list of head coaching hires in a 20-year period is not a good opportunity to draw conclusions because IT IS INCOMPLETE. If you just browsed this list and told yourself, “Damn, this is almost all BAD coaches”, then you might inaccurately come back here to think that “it proves teams should not hire defensive-minded head coaches”.

It does not prove that because again, it’s only a partial list of hires.

If I had made a list of only the offensive coaches in the past 20 years, you might be a little more optimistic because of names like Andy Reid, Kyle Shanahan, and Sean McVay. And you would ALSO see a long list of disasters and bad hires and mid hires that would have not elevated those teams, just as you did for the defensive coaches.

There’s a study shown in the book “Thinking, fast and slow”, in which people are asked “Why do you think the lowest rates of kidney cancer in the country can be found in small, rural, Republican towns of the midwest and south?”

Respondents come up with reasons having to do with simple country living, clean air, and I don’t know, farm-raised food, etc. They want to connect stories to statistics, they don’t want to think about whether or not the statistics are flawed or incomplete or misleading. Or if there are other statistics that might explain the kidney cancer rates better than the fact you read above, like this one:

The highest rates of kidney cancer in the country are found…in small, rural, Republican towns in the midwest and the south.

Yes, the HIGHEST rates. And the lowest rates. Why? Because small towns mean small sample sizes, and small sample sizes mean extreme results. That’s the ONLY reason for the first fact about low cancer rates and the ONLY reason for high cancer rates. Small sample sizes can yield extreme results.

People might argue that because Shanahan, McVay, and Reid have won Super Bowls recently that offensive-minded head coaches are vital components to winning Super Bowls. But how does that explain defensive legend Bill Belichick going to nine Super Bowls and winning six of them?

Since 2000, not including the Patriots, you also have the Ravens (2000, 2012), Bucs (2002), Steelers (2005, 2008), and Seahawks (2013) winning the Super Bowl with defensive-minded head coaches. Plus you can add the 2006 Colts with Tony Dungy, even if Peyton Manning stole the show. And then you can say that the 2007, 2011 Giants leaned heavier on defense than offense, even if Tom Coughlin was a former offensive coordinator. As well as the fact that the 2015 Broncos, another Manning team, were a defensive football team.

Would the Chiefs be going for the NFL’s first threepeat this year if not for defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo?

In the current century, more Super Bowls have been won by DEFENSIVE football teams than by quarterbacks and OFFENSIVE coaches. The greatest quarterbacks and the greatest offensive play callers of our time can attest to the fact that they had more success when their teams could play defense. Therefore, hiring Macdonald instead of an offensive option like Ben Johnson, Frank Smith, Mike Kafka, or Bobby Slowik this time around might lend itself to an intention to win a Super Bowl: “If we can get the DEFENSIVE piece situated now while we have a chance to do it, then we can still keep our eyes peeled for a QUARTERBACK/OFFENSE in the future because that’s not something we can do at this time.”

You have to have BOTH the defense and the quarterback/offense. If the Seahawks couldn’t get the quarterback now, then at least they could get the ball rolling on defense with Macdonald.

If it fails, then it fails. But “offensive” coaches fail at just consistently of a rate and all the names you didn’t see today (Ben McAdoo, Freddie Kitchens, Kliff Kingsbury, Urban Meyer, Pat Shurmur, MAtt Nagy, Adam Gase, David Culley, Josh McDaniels, and so on…) are a testament to that. The names we don’t see, we don’t talk about, and we don’t judge as harshly as we do the defensive coaching hires when they fail…because we thought we heard a thing from a guy who told a girl a thing about a change in the way that NFL teams do business.

Mike Macdonald is not a unicorn just because he was hired to be a head coach in the year 2024. Being a defensive coordinator-turned-head coach is not what makes him unique. But if Macdonald can change the narrative with regards to how fans and people in the media talk about defense and defensive coordinators-for-hire come next January or in the years after, now that would be something to talk about.

SEA-MORE Comments…

Speaking of things to talk about, don’t forget to check the Seaside Joe comments section after every new article. I’ll post a “More” comment everyday with information and recommendations and news that didn’t make the article itself. Leave a comment yourself, join the community, or just read them!

Those of you who have been Seaside Joe subscribers for more than a couple of years probably remember that I used to spend a lot more page space talking about subscribers and sharing and growth and the daily streak….I have not inundated you with those messages with near the same frequency anymore…let’s keep it that way by subscribing to Regular Joes and sharing the page with other Seahawks fans!

Subscribe to Seaside Joe for only $5 per month or the DISCOUNTED RATE of $55 for an entire year, or upgrade to Super Joes at $10 per month—the next Q and A email will go out soon. Even $10 per month, I’d say that’s a huge bargain for a Seahawks newsletter that comes out every single day and sometimes twice. This is the 1,941st day in a row of at least one Seahawks newsletter by Seaside Joe.