|
Post by GEO on Nov 25, 2006 14:35:44 GMT -5
The standings have been updated. (If there is a mistake, let me know)
The focus has been renewed.
A new debate is here. Lets get this back on track.
Coaching loyalty is something that I believe in. Hire a coach, sign him to a long term deal, and see if he can get something done. Some teams practice it, but most don't.
Lets look at the Pittsburgh Steelers. Bill Cowler has been the coach there for YEARS. The owners run the Steelers like a family, and even after some tough yars, Bill managed to pull off a Super Bowl. The victory was even sweeter knowing that it was all because of Cowler. (And their running game)
But a lot of teams, believe that if a coach can't get it done right away, then he should be fired. Look at the Larry Coker firing. Miami has always been one of college football's best schools, so why fire Coker. A 6-6 season? So what! He got you a National Championship, you at least owe him the benefit of the doubt that he'll be able to turn it around.
What about Andy Reid? He hasn't been fired, but the media and a lot of fans in Philadelphia are already calling for a new direction.
Ken Hitchc0ck! (A lot of PA teams, eh?) Hitch is one of the best coaches in the NHL and thanks to a lousy start, he's fired in favor of some minor league coach.
Joe Torre. People were calling for his job last year too. For a lot of teams, the playoffs are good enough.
What are your opinions? Do you believe in keeping a coach for the long term to see if he can shape your team, or do you believe in immediate results?
DEBATE!
|
|
OOYL
Rookie
Posts: 51
|
Post by OOYL on Nov 26, 2006 10:17:08 GMT -5
I'll be the first to open up this bustling debate. I will be the first to say, as the owner of a team, that ALL coaches should be hired FOR THE SHORT TERM. By moving the coaches around, there is less power to the coaches (downplays the fact that the coaches "own" the team), and gives the players less power as well (some players love/hate a coach, therefore affecting the coach's tenure with the team). Basically, if there are no results, keep moving them. If a coach is kept to long, he makes too much of an impression on the team; he becomes the "owner of a team".
|
|
|
Post by FootballFreak03 on Nov 26, 2006 19:40:56 GMT -5
if a coach doesnt do anything in a 3-4 yr spam with a team (like moves or changes, new coaches, new playbook, etc.) he should be fired. A coach doesnt control effort by players, penalties, mental mistakes by the players. A coach just has to call the right plays, hire the right coaches, bring in some qualinty talent and players that are good or have high expectations. If the coach doesnt make the right desicsions (like starting lineup, play calling, etc) then he should be fired. If the players are not giving good effort week after week, and if a coach doesnt do anything about it, then he should fired.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Nov 28, 2006 15:36:10 GMT -5
Of course a coach controls efforts by players. If a coach can't inspire his team, they won't play for him.
And coaches don't bring in talent. GMs and Owners do.
So? A coach is supposed to make an impression on a team. That's the point. If he doesn't, he isn't doing his job.
So FF3, you're basically saying that Reid should be fired, correct?
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Dec 6, 2006 22:59:20 GMT -5
I'm late, but I'm here. (Play superhero music). *Shew* To start off, let me say.. good topic. We haven't had a good one in a while. Now, my viewpoint is somewhat a mixture of yay and nay. There is such a thing as coaching loyalty. For example, Gibbs and the Skins blow this year. Coaching loyalty comes into play (maybe not this year, but that's my guess) when the owner says "Joe, you can either step down or get kicked down." Allowing a coach to resign rather than quit, to me, is a big part of coaching loyalty. BUT, the other major part of coaching loyalty is the players. When a team with talent, for instance the current Super Bowl Champion Steelers, loses games as they have done this year (they're currently 5-7), the owners and GM's have to look past the play of the players and right to the coach. Whether it's the head coach, offensive coordinator or defense or even special teams coach, changes must be made. Now, the Steelers are just one example. But losing with healthy, talented players requires a coaching change.. I don't care who your coach is. That brings me to my next example: the Washington Redskins. Currently last in their division, the Skins have healthy players (aside from Portis, but they've still got a strong run game so that's beside the point) and yet they've lost 8 games. Their only dominant win was over the Houston Texans. So, even though Joe Gibbs is a great coach and a staple of the Redskins franchise, does Dan let him go? In my opinion, yes. He's had some time to work with the guys. They haven't been able to turn their talent into victories and you have to blame the coaches. Players make the plays from the position they're put in. You have to look at the job the coach has done, give him his fair share of chances, then cut the string. Let me address this also. I believe that Larry Coker was fired not because of his record, but because he lost control of his football team. Miami players are known to be wild and rash, but there has never been a brawl of that nature as the one that occured this year. Coker was fired because he lost control. I think he's one of the best coaches in Miami history, although he's always had a great talent pool. When push comes to shove (literally) there is nothing a GM can do but let the guy go. I'm sure Coker knew it was coming. Now, I'll address the Eagles situation. Donovan McNabb hasn't finished a season in two years. The star athlete, leader of the team and franchise icon has been breaking down and the Eagles train to the Super Bowl has taken a fall over a steep grade the past two years. Unless the still-fairly-good-even-though-I'm-almost-ninety-Jeff Garcia can make an astounding run with this team, Reid will be under the heat lamps for the next few years in Philly. Reid has led his Eagles to several playoff appearances and a superbowl. There've been years of great talent.. and there have been years of not quite as much talent. Even still, the Eagles have succeeded. Now, with McNabb being claimed by the injury bug 2 years running and the Eagles (most likely) failing to reach the playoffs two years in a row because of that fact, naturally, fingers will have to be pointed somewhere. Most will point at none other than Andy Reid. That's just fans being fans. You love them when they win and hate them when they lose. I think the guys upstairs know what a great coach they have in Reid and that firing him this year would be moronic. Lastly, a quick spit about Joe Torre. I love the man. He's been the coach of the Yanks since I started watching baseball and I've loved him for years. BUT, when an owner goes out and buys talent (yeah, I admitted it) and they still can't make it to the big show, something has to be wrong. Yes, baseball is an everchanging game and players aren't always unified as a team, in my opinion having good players SHOULD win games. In the bronx, it hasn't happened yet. I think pitching is a big part of that and Torre had to deal with decisions that were out of his hands. GMs didn't get pitchers, so Torre and the Yanks struggled in that aspect. Torre is a hall of fame coach. He's always been a winner. He's kept the Yankee's a threat for years. But, in my opinion, if things don't change by next year (not saying they have to win the WS, but at least get close), then they should look into a change. When players don't play well it's one thing. When GM's don't make the right decisions that's another. But when well-equipped coaches don't win ball games, change is required. I don't care if you're Bill Cowher, Andy Reid, Joe Gibbs or Joe Torre. (Sorry, that was long. I doubt anyone besides GEO will read the whole thing, but.. it's ok. It's worth it )
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Dec 8, 2006 17:27:46 GMT -5
A franchise is said to have 10 years of winning seasons, and then they're supposed to falter, and then have another 10 years.
The Jeter era started in '96, so those 10 years came sooner rather than later. But the Yankees need to ask themselves. Was it really the managing?
John Hall missing a field goal. Brunnell throwing 3 interceptions. These things that cost the Skins isn't the coach's fault. You saw what his system allowed Portis to do. Campbell isn't playing that badly right now, so why not give Gibbs one more year with him? He's given so much to your franchise. Why not give him one last shot?
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Dec 8, 2006 18:42:45 GMT -5
I'm not hating on Joe. I love the guy. But the Redskins need an aggressive coach. They've got the playmakers to be that way. I know, he's done a lot for us.. but I just don't think he fits in the NFL anymore. I know the players not playing well is part of it, but it's time for a change. Having him stay next year wouldn't be all bad, but it would affect our draft. Joe Gibbs drafts nice guys. Jason Campbell? He's got a white man's mustache. He drafted a white DB and signed another one (Archuleta and.. some rookie). White DB's? Come on now. I don't want him wasting another draft pick on someone crappy. Plus, I hate Saunders but I don't think Gibbs does. If he went back to calling plays, I'd want him there. If Saunders keeps the play calling responsibilities, I say they both leave.
When you look at the yankees roster for the past few years, every year they've been projected to dominate their division and take the WS title. It's always "This is the Yankees year. Their lineup is unstoppable.. yada yada yada" With all the talent they've had, there must be something wrong that's deeper than their players. How can Albert Pujols and a team of decent players win the WS and the Yanks have the some of the best bats in the league and can't even get there? Am I saying Torre's a bad manager? No. I think he's great. But.. there are times for change. I don't think this is the year. But without a ring soon, the big boys with all the cash will start making moves.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Dec 14, 2006 16:56:07 GMT -5
78 views and 6 replies? Come on guys. Trash talk is a big draw to this site.. or it used to be. That's what got me here. Why is there so little participation. Too afraid of me? mwhaha
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Dec 14, 2006 20:15:39 GMT -5
1. There were/are so many kickers better than Hall out there. I'd still take Vanderjackoff over any of our guys - Gibbs' fault, yes. Snyder's fault for letting Gibbs be the GM. 2. Brunell threw four picks this whole season, fail to see how his performance lacked. It was Gibbs' fault for being so old school on the QB situation. 3. If he knew his Al Saunders' system sucked for Portis but pwns hard for Betts, what was he doing? "Oh, lets let the guys with more guts play." It always guts and toughness and good smarts rather than the guys with talent --all that referring to Carlos Rogers, not Portis. 4. Campbell just lost us a game against the Eagles - after your post yes. All that being said: 1. Fire Saunders 2. Trade Portis for stud defensive guy and draft pick (lord knows that kind of ripoff won't happen AGAIN) 3. Stock up on draft rather than trading 4th round picks for overrated crybaby receivers who learn from TO (Brandon Lloyd) when (and I said it!) we needed a big guy. Rather than trade 2nd round picks for rookies who don't play (Rocky McIntosh - yeah right you've heard of him? What the deal with thinking players are good just because they played for Miami?), keep the picks and try to find the next Chris Cooley and Cedric Golston rather than go for overrated people. 4. Get a GM. Me. I'll do it. For free. No more best safety contracts ever for special teams players (Adam Archuleta). No more big contracts for guys out of position (Andre Carter - had his best seasons as a linebacker). 5. No more signing outrageously long contracts to bad people. Lloyd for 6. Randle El for 5. Betts for 5. Archuleta for 5. Spend 6 years with Brandon Lloyd? No wonder this organization doesn't get no respect. www.thehogs.net/html/Team/salary.php5 million to Brunell. Oh, we signed him at 33 to a 7 year contract. Smart move. John Hall at 2 million? Since when do injuried kickers get paid more than the leage minimum? David Patten 2 (see my rant on good players being moved down on the depth chart because the org thinks they can do better). www.thewarpath.net/WarpathRedskinsCap.htmLets go through this shall we? (these are contracts at time of signing, not years left) 8 years: Clinton Portis 7 years: Adam Archuleta, Andre Carter, Antwaan Randle El, Brandon Lloyd, Carlos Rogers, Chris Samuels, Cornelius Griffin, Mark Brunell, Randy Thomas, Santana Moss, Sean Taylor 6 years: Casey Rabach, Jon Jansen, Marcus Washington, Renaldo Wynn, Shawn Springs 5 years: David Patten, Jason Campbell, John Hall, Ladell Betts, Phillip Daniels Who in their prime deserves that long of a contract? Portis, Samuels, Brunell, Moss, Taylor, Jansen, Washington, Springs. Right? I'm not saying I would want the other guys gone and I don't like them, but its outrageous that a kicker (prone to losing it quickly) gets a long term deal. How about old guys? Brunell and Springs? Backup running backs that will be 32/33 when the deal is up?
I realize I went off topic and went on a little rant, but I hate the way they do things.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Dec 18, 2006 15:06:24 GMT -5
Gibbs the GM is bad, but we're talking about coaching. And this isn't specific to the Redskins.
BWW:
The Skins needed a QB, and Campbell was the best available. I would have drafted him too. He's not playing that badly this year. Just needs to kill the interceptions.
Also, about Torre, baseball MANAGERS don't coach, they MANAGE. You can't coach A-Rod out of a hitting slump. That's just something he needs to do. You can't coach Jeter to be great. It's just something he is.
|
|