which one you like more,for my part i like both if then actually i was happy mcadoo is not our oc,now this both Studs(Yeah i call them Studs) are avail Shanahan did wonders with Griffin in the first year!!
They would both utilize tannehill better and our screen game would improve dramatically. Clay and the other TEs would become bigger factors and Wallace would become less of one I think.
Kubiak's health cast doubt on him being able to give 100% to the job IMO. Shanahan wouldn't have been bad actually.
IMO Lazor was a better fit than either of those. I liked that he was a WCO, zone blocking guy that fits with Philbin, but also was coming from Philly who used all that misdirection and read-option you saw in Oregon. Philly was a team that ran the ball a ton which is important. IMO NFL offense largely depends on passing efficiency and that is helped greatly by running attempts. We'll obviously need to continue to revamp the OL to more zone blocking players, but the mis-direction concepts will help. I didn't feel that Kubiak or Shanahan would have brought as much of that to the run game. Shanahan some b/c of the read option, but I didn't feel he was as detail oriented in the pass game.
You are right about Kubiaks health being a potential issue. I dont know much about Lazor so I don't really know if he was the best choice or not.