Nick Sirianni’s role in offensive coordinator search, play-calling head coaches: Eagles mailbag
PHILADELPHIA — The questions about the Eagles’ offensive coordinator search have emerged anywhere you go in Philadelphia — from the barbershop to the coffee shop, from the Sixers game to youth basketball games. (My 8-year-old son is asking me why they haven’t hired anyone yet, so it’s presumably coming up in the schoolyards, too.) It’s been in group texts and Slack messages. That meant opening a mailbag here would bring a flood of questions.
We split this mailbag into two parts: Questions specific to the offensive coordinator search, and then other questions about the offseason. The latter will be published in the coming days.
There were many questions about the search, and we kept this mailbag more to big-picture process questions that will remain relevant even when the candidate list is pared. The specifics of the search were covered on Tuesday, Since then, Green Bay Packers quarterbacks coach Sean Mannion has gained momentum. We’ll continue with substantive updates while the Eagles zero in on their candidate, but as expressed on Tuesday, they’re not abiding by an arbitrary timeline for a resolution.
(Note: Questions were only lightly edited for grammar, but kept mostly as submitted.)
Much has been made of the fact that Jalen Hurts has had a different play caller every year since high school. Therefore, you’d think part of the Eagles’ criteria in OC hiring is perceived longevity. Maybe signing the top candidates and/or those also interested in head coaching positions are actually less desirable because of the concern they won’t be around for consecutive years. So how much of a factor do you think longevity (perhaps even stipulated as a contract condition) is in the Eagles OC search? — Susan W.
This topic has been raised often in recent weeks — and even back to last year when Kellen Moore was hired by New Orleans. The short answer is it’s not a major factor, nor should it be a major factor. Howie Roseman said as much after the season. Why? If the offensive coordinator is hired elsewhere as a head coach, it presumably means the Eagles demonstrated offensive improvement and had a successful season. That’s the entire objective of the search, right? The offense must improve. The Eagles are in win-now mode. The hire should be made to maximize 2026, and if they’re successful enough that the offensive coordinator is hired, they’ll take that over fielding an offense and finishing with a record that does not make him desirable. Of course, it’s not either/or. Vic Fangio is an elite coordinator unlikely to become a head coach again. If you can find one with staying power (Josh McDaniels in New England is probably the best example), there are obviously benefits. It’s different with offense, though. Look at Todd Monken in Cleveland. If you show you have a high-level offensive mind and you haven’t struggled in multiple head-coaching stops, you’re going to be a head coach candidate. In fact, it might be alarming for teams if their offensive coordinator is not of interest elsewhere.
This ownership and admin (led by Roseman) are quite smart. They have to know that the surest way to avoid this headache of a situation with the OC is to have the HC be the offensive mastermind. Why are we still putting Band-Aids on the situation and taking a yearly gamble on new OCs? Win big, replace the OC, stagnate on offense, replace the OC. It’s a tough situation and a coin flip gamble each time they do it. It’s time to do the obvious, no?
It’s time to say see ya later to Nick and go get the best offensive minds in the league, i.e., Davis Webb, Nate Scheelhaase, etc. With full control and with Howie as your partner, this job will be the most attractive job, or close to it, in the league! – Alexander B.
Your general point about having a head coach who does not call offensive plays, thus creating a situation in which you’re consistently changing coordinators, has some logic, but I disagree with the premise of your question. Let me give you three reasons why:
- The Eagles have been to the postseason all five seasons under Nick Sirianni, been to the Super Bowl twice, and won the Super Bowl once. Isn’t that the objective? You solve the problem of the offensive play-caller with your proposal, but you’re not assured any more success than Sirianni’s run. In fact, I’d argue you’re more likely to fall short of Sirianni’s success. The objective is to compete for Super Bowls. Sirianni has done that at a better rate than almost any coach in the NFL.
- The Super Bowl is next Sunday. The two teams that made it have head coaches who do not call offensive plays. Are you firing Mike Vrabel to get Nate Scheelhaase? Are you dismissing Mike Macdonald to hire Davis Webb? The “offensive mind” argument is simplistic. There are clear benefits, but it’s not always the solution that comes up in conversation.
- To follow up on that, the role of a head coach goes far beyond the notion of calling offensive plays. Look at Bill Belichick, who you might have heard should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Not an offensive play-caller. Look at the $20-million push by the Giants to hire John Harbaugh. Not an offensive play-caller. This job is about leadership, culture-setting, game management, personality dynamics, staff development, player development, logistics, etc. There’s so much that goes beyond what play to call on third-and-8.
If your argument is that Sirianni is deficient in these other areas, it’s a different conversation. I think he’s maximized the Eagles’ talent for the majority of his time in Philadelphia. They outperformed the oddsmakers’ over/under in three of his five seasons. I don’t believe Sirianni did a good enough job this year, but he’s established himself as a top head coach and he’s earned equity — and certainly enough equity to avoid the suggestion that he be replaced by Webb or Scheelhaase this cycle. (By the way, neither of them has called plays…)
If the Eagles underachieve in 2026, we can have a reasonable conversation about the trajectory of the team. But I think it’s premature at the moment based on Sirianni’s track record. The idea that the play-calling head coach is the answer does not have enough evidence to suggest it’s the solution (for a problem that might not even exist). If you disagree with me, you need to merely watch the Super Bowl next week — or watch the Super Bowl from last season, for that matter. (Or, if I can shamelessly suggest, read this book.)
With the OC search ongoing, has there been any discussion around Sirianni taking offensive responsibilities? By no means am I condoning that, but it feels like he may be going into a make-or-break type of season. If the offense continues to hold this team back, he’s going to be on the chopping block. It seems like him taking ownership of the offense may be in his best interest. — Joe S.
If you mean play-calling responsibilities, Sirianni gave up play-calling duties in 2021 and has since felt that his game-day responsibilities are so vast and important that he wants that to be his focus. I can understand why. Game management is a critical part of a coach’s responsibility. Causation does not suggest correlation, but this is not an area in which some high-level offensive play-callers such as Sean McVay thrive. (Then again, I could quibble with some of Sirianni’s decisions this season. But I know it’s an area in which he devotes considerable thought.) Sirianni ceded offensive oversight in 2024, and the Eagles won the Super Bowl. He got more involved toward the end of this season. My understanding is he’s been willing to grant autonomy of the offense to the next coordinator, but we’ll see who that is and how that looks. Sirianni takes pride in his offensive mind. There’s always a chance he could take control of the offense, but my understanding is they’re seeking a new voice for the offense.
To answer your question succinctly, Sirianni needs to win. It’s in his best interest to make a deep playoff run — not necessarily call the plays or be in charge of the offense while doing it. If the Eagles win 12-14 games and are playing deep into January, you’ll likely praise him for how he’s coached the team instead of scrutinizing his role in the offense. The Eagles need to maximize the roster and win big in 2026. If that’s best achieved with a fresh offensive voice, then that must be the direction Sirianni takes.
The Eagles did not seem to have a legitimate option to make an in-season change at offensive coordinator. (Eric Hartline / Imagn Images)
Jeff Lurie has always wanted to be ahead of the league when it comes to offense. Why is it that he and Roseman allowed Sirianni to promote an internal candidate (with little or no outside search) on a win-now team with no play-calling experience? And further, allow him to continue to call plays all season when it was pretty clear he didn’t have it? Feels like a wasted season and opportunity with a deep and talented roster on offense and a defense that was playing well. — Matt W.
This is a fair question about the search, or lack thereof, last season. During the week leading up to the Super Bowl, I wrote and said that Kevin Patullo was the favorite for the job. It was not much of a secret. I think the Eagles liked the idea of a succession plan at the position; there was a feeling that Patullo earned the job (he was a candidate in 2023), and it offered continuity for a Super Bowl offense. That made sense. It’s also difficult to conduct an exhaustive search after winning the Super Bowl. The Eagles are required to conduct an outside search, although they refused to divulge who was interviewed. (In that case, I think transparency would have beneficial for the organization to avoid the appearance of a sham search, but their unforthcoming approach was their prerogative.) Given the way the 2024 season went and Patullo’s role on the coaching staff for four seasons, a promotion was merited. His resume topped some they’re interviewing this cycle, and was in line with coaches hired as offensive coordinators.
It did not go well enough, which is why a change was made. You could reasonably argue there were other factors, but the reality was the talent and experience on the team should have produced better results than an offense that finished in the bottom half of the league in too many categories. I’d certainly categorize the season as a missed opportunity, and it’s fair for the organization and fan base to lament what occurred in 2025. That’s not entirely on Patullo. But that’s the gig of the offensive coordinator — you’re judged on the offense’s performance. That’s why there was a change.
As far as solutions in-season, I’m not sure what their options were unless you gave the role to Scot Loeffler or a coach without significant play-calling experience. Sirianni might have been well-served hiring a senior offensive assistant with play-calling experience, although that happened on defense in 2023 with Matt Patricia, and the presence loomed to the point that it might have been unproductive. So I can see why that did not happen, but the Eagles also did not have a clear place to turn, even if Sirianni wanted to strip Patullo of play-calling duties in 2025. We’ll see the composition of the 2026 staff in the coming weeks.
Much has been made about the Eagles’ OC position and why it may be less appealing than originally thought (e.g., the Patullo home vandalism, roster uncertainty). But what are the chances that prospective candidates see the current coaching regime as a group of dead men walking, with anyone not named Fangio likely to be fired if the Eagles don’t make a deep playoff run? — Chase W.
It’s true this job does not have the three-year runway of a team with a new head coach, although what’s job security anymore in the NFL? Sixteen head coaches have turned over during the past two years. That’s half the league. Among the 10 coaching changes this year, three coaches were fired in one or two seasons. And there have been 16 offensive coordinator changes on top of that. The “dead man walking” angle has been overstated — and perhaps unfair to a head coach who has a better winning percentage than any coach in the NFL. The evidence suggests he’ll win far more than he loses. But it’s true the Eagles are in win-now mode. There’s no three-year plan here. And the offensive coordinator role is one in which it makes sense to rent more than buy. The last two offensive coordinators removed came after 11-win seasons. The Giants haven’t won 11 games since 2016. The Jets haven’t won 11 games since 2010. Win 11 games with those franchises, and everyone gets a contract extension. So the win-now expectation — in this role and across the staff, to your point — could present more pressure than in Tennessee, where you’re not expected to make a deep playoff run next year. But if I were a coach, I’d take a job planning to win and not planning on losing.
Zach, thanks as always for your valuable content. You mentioned the stipulation that interview slates must include minority/female candidates. It’s been documented that the Eagles possess a higher-percentage female front office than many other NFL organizations, and they’re among the most innovative at problem-solving. Do you have any sense that they’ve tried to develop female talent for future positions on the sideline? This probably doesn’t solve the 2026 OC job opening, but curious what widening of the aperture Lurie/Roseman might kick the tires on. — Ben S.
Thank you for reading every word of Tuesday’s article, Ben! The women involved in the football-facing parts of the Eagles’ operation are mostly in the front office and the training/support staff — not the coaching staff. There are female coaches elsewhere, but not in Philadelphia. You’re correct that the Eagles have made strides in this area. In fact, I attended a panel at the NFL’s Women’s Forum at the combine last year focused on the women who helped the Eagles win the Super Bowl. The panel included Ameena Soliman from the scouting staff and Autumn Lockwood from the performance staff, in addition to Roseman and Sirianni. But at this point, it’s inapplicable to Sirianni’s coaching staff. It would be more applicable to Roseman’s scouting staff. Perhaps if we have a similar mailbag in five years or 10 years, the answer is different. There are talented women throughout the NFL and in the management/coaching pipeline.
