Question: Do you consider RIvera top tier HC?

[Jmac]

At this juncture in his tenure, do you feel that he has developed into a upper tier coach? He still seems to stick with older vets longer then he should to a fault. Other wise, he has build a tough and resilient team. Over coming the loss of key players is tough to do for any coach. Taking his body of work so far, what do you think?

 

..

[PandaPancake]

Yes. I might be bias because of how much he borrows from the military

[janderson20vt]

I'd like to say so. He's built a good culture here. The players respect him because he knows how to relate to them and he definitely fields a tough and resilient team.

[Jackofalltrades]

No, clock management still baffles me at times, lack of in-game adjustments and loyalty to vets unless forced are my issues. 

He's done very well this season, especially considering the lack of talent at the skill positions on O. But I do think Cam is dragging him along with the rest of the team.

[Anybodyhome]

No.

1. Clock management is always an issue.

2. While the TV guys are talking about Cam's size and ability as a runner, on a 4th and 1 play in the first half they decide to try to loft one to Olsen. I'll never be convinced Mike Shula is anything better than a QB coach and for Rivera to give him full reign of the offense is ludicrous.

3. Some may want to hang all personnel issues on Gettlemen, but he's not doing it alone. If there's anyone here who believes Ron Rivera simply takes whatever players Gettleman gets him, you're sadly misinformed. And the Carolina Panthers could be an elite football team if they'd ever decide to develop rookies, grab the occasional marquee free agent or look beyond their own roster to fill the obvious gaps.

[KSpan]

No.

1. Clock management is always an issue.

2. While the TV guys are talking about Cam's size and ability as a runner, on a 4th and 1 play in the first half they decide to try to loft one to Olsen. I'll never be convinced Mike Shula is anything better than a QB coach and for Rivera to give him full reign of the offense is ludicrous.

3. Some may want to hang all personnel issues on Gettlemen, but he's not doing it alone. If there's anyone here who believes Ron Rivera simply takes whatever players Gettleman gets him, you're sadly misinformed. And the Carolina Panthers could be an elite football team if they'd ever decide to develop rookies, grab the occasional marquee free agent or look beyond their own roster to fill the obvious gaps.

Olsen was wide open on that play, largely because they expected Cam to run. A better throw nets the first and even a TD.

To the question, Rivera does some things exceptionally well (culture, defense) and in very average in other areas (clock management).  If top-tier means Top 10, he probably sneaks in, but I do think he's good enough to win an SB if the chips fall correctly.

[Jangler]

 

[shaka]

2. While the TV guys are talking about Cam's size and ability as a runner, on a 4th and 1 play in the first half they decide to try to loft one to Olsen. I'll never be convinced Mike Shula is anything better than a QB coach and for Rivera to give him full reign of the offense is ludicrous.

Look I love Cam, but that's on him.  The play call set Cam up for success.  You either run for the easy first down or hit Olsen for a chunk gain.  The play call was good, Cam's decision was good, the throw/execution wasn't.  

 

If Olsen scores or Cam gets the first we're not talking about the play call today.  

[Davidson Deac II]

Depends on your definition of top tier.

 

Top tier imo means Superbowl winners.  Rivera ain't there.  But if he can continue the current level of play, and get us in the playoffs for a third year in a row.  he might be in the tier of coaches just below top tier. 

[DaveThePanther2008]

 so star, kk, Benjamin, norman, bene, boston, turner, norwell, brown, funchess is not considered developing young talent? Correct me, but I thought Carolina has one of the youngest rosters in the NFL

Could not have said it Any better.  Don't Forget Shaq and though they are not with us anymore how about Melvin White. 

We stuck with the Vets a little too long in 2014, got it, but I don't feel that is the norm.

Because you have 30 seconds and two time outs doesn't necessarily mean push your luck.  We were down 10-7 in a tightly contested game.  We just got the ball back after screwing up a good opportunity to tie the game.  I could see where we might press to make things up and instead of getting into field goal range we throw a Pick 6 and the whole game changes.

While we may have wanted us to do that.  I respect and understand Rivera's decision.   It is so simple for us to bitch and moan about clock management but Rivera gets paid to make these decision.   He is 5-0.  Seems most of his decisions pay off.

[Snake]

Yes Rivera has gotten better every year.  Not even John Fox could accomplish that.  Beating Seattle in Seattle has only happened twice before we did it. 

[Zaximus]

It's hard to say yes when you see Roman Harper out there covering Graham and/or getting burnt often.

I think it could be close, but I still think he gets outcoached often, especially because of how we let teams come back quite often.  We never quite get a clean dominating win that often.  Until I see Rivera able to outcoach other coaches more, I'm so sure.  But he's definitely been much better this year.  

[Ricky Spanish]

We've already dispelled the idea that Rivera sticks with vets too long. You can stop bringing it up now because it's just not true. 

[cbarrier90]

As a motivator, you can't deny the job he has done considering the team has been going through a prolonged rebuilding phase.

But as a tactician, he has a very long way to go. The only redeeming factor here is that he recognizes his mistakes in game management and will adjust accordingly, but if the only adjustment is "going for it more on 4th and short" and not making the tough decisions like admitting Mike Shula may not be the right guy for the offense, then he's never going to be much better than just a master motivator, which at least counts for something.