“Am I watching the same team as y’all” Part 2 (message for the homers edition)

[Mr. Scot]

7 minutes ago, ras977 said:

Scot brings much more to this forum than anyone

Saying that, he has an illogical , almost irrational. view on Rivera--Scot wants him gone.

We're 3-1--lets see how this plays out. 

If you look back at what I've said in this thread and others, I don't "want him gone". Just the opposite. I want him to succeed.

I also want Matt Kalil to succeed. I just don't have a lot of faith that it's going to happen.

Rivera took a significant step when he fired Mike Shula. That said, I still haven't seen anything that tells me he's a championship-level coach. In his one shot at winning one, he bombed... badly.

Until he gets another shot (which is far from guaranteed to happen) that embarrassment is what defines his coaching at the championship level.

[Mage]

8 minutes ago, *FreeFua* said:

@Mage

I think Harbaugh is 21-42 not good.

Payton's is basically the same as Rivera's when you consider %s (Payton at 70 and Rivera at 62 going by your numbers) and consider the sample size means .  I mean, if Rivera wins one of those games, it goes to being 16/23 (69%) so the difference is negligible and doesn't prove anything.

Look, I'm not saying Rivera is a great coach.  I've never been his biggest fan.  But this thread is just full of a lot of overthinking and exaggerations.  Rivera with the right circumstances is fully capable of being the head coach for a Super Bowl winning team.  Its just that winning a Super Bowl is really freakin' hard and we've had bad luck.  I mean look at the team last year.  Saints were just a terrible match-up for us, but I like our odds against the Foles-led Eagles and Vikings who we didn't have much trouble with earlier.  It just so happens we ended up having to play the Saints.

Stuff like that plays a role for a lot of teams.  We've proven we can get there with Rivera.  There is no reason to think he's somehow just immune to winning the big one.  I mean, if Foles can do it as a QB, I'm sure Rivera is capable as a HC.  It's simply a matter of luck and talent.  You can only win one season.  If the Steelers beat the Packers in 2010, suddenly ya'll are saying McCarthy isn't a championship-caliber coach considering he hasn't made it back since (and they've only played in what, 1 NFC Championship game since?).  It's just a fluky kind of thing.

[Mr. Scot]

7 minutes ago, Mage said:

Oh my goodness.  Are you being serious right now?

Okay, I'll shoot.  So what makes it where Rivera can take a team to the Super Bowl but in that one game, somehow there is a force that stops him from winning?  Please tell me what allows him to win an NFC Championship game (in dominant fashion) but literally incapable of winning a Super Bowl?

Or are you saying Gary Kubiak and Jon Gruden are more of a championship caliber coach than Andy Reid, Jim Harbaugh, Marty Schottenheimer, etc.?  Is that what you are saying?  Because they won a Super Bowl and those guys didn't, that they are championship caliber?  If so, I won't bother responding any further.

I don't think Gary Kubiak is that great a coach, but he does have a ring. And Gruden?  Oy.

With that said, the one thing that can be said for Gary Kubiak is that he outcoached Ron Rivera (though Wade Phillips probably deserves more of the credit).

The problem with elevating Rivera to the same level as coaches who have proven they are capable of winning the big one is that there's literally nothing to support it. In the one shot he did good at winning, he performed poorly.

That puts him on the same level as the other guys I mentioned, not above them.

 

[Pantherxtreme]

21 minutes ago, *FreeFua* said:

Is that supposed to be some sort of accomplishment?

No just befuddled that some people want to depart with the best coach in franchise history, who's off to a good start this season, and outside of the Rams and Saints the Panthers look to be one of the most complete teams in the NFC 2018. 

I don't always agree with Rivera's coaching style, but results matter and the Panthers have been playoff contender under his tenure and a Super bowl runner-up in '15.  It's hard to win in the NFL even more harder to win consistently, as far as his record against playoff teams, well right now our actual playoff record is 3-4 not great but far from a indication that we have a coach that chokes in big games.  

 

[ras977]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

If you look back at what I've said in this thread and others, I don't "want him gone". Just the opposite. I want him to succeed.

I also want Matt Kalil to succeed. I just don't have a lot of faith that it's going to happen.

Rivera took a significant step when he fired Mike Shula. That said, I still haven't seen anything that tells me he's a championship-level coach. In his one shot at winning one, he bombed... badly.

Until he gets another shot (which is far from guaranteed to happen) that embarrassment is what defines his coaching at the championship level.

OK-want either Gruden ? How about Hue Jackson ? Dan Quinn?  etc.

Point is, he lost, so did Cam, and Luke--does not mean that they , including RR,  can't win the big one.

 

[Eazy-E]

2 hours ago, *FreeFua* said:

The Giants are an awful football team

I am a huge Rivera critic but you just blew your entire argument with this statement.

The Giants are not an awful football team. They have a ton of talent and have been terrible the past few years mainly because of coaching. Mcadoo sucked and now so does Shurmur. I mean for fugs sake they hired Mike Shula to help coach in some capacity.

So no, Rivera's don't grow on trees. If they did I am sure the Giants would have loved to hire one and not be in a 1-4 mess right now.

And don't try and pull the Oh Cam vs Eli bullshit and how bad their O line has been. That poo once again falls on coaching. Talent wise their line should be much better than ours. Chris Clark is our starting left tackle and managing to keep Cam up right so I don't want to hear that poo.

 

 

[MasterAwesome]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

If you look back at what I've said in this thread and others, I don't "want him gone". Just the opposite. I want him to succeed.

I also want Matt Kalil to succeed. I just don't have a lot of faith that it's going to happen.

Rivera took a significant step when he fired Mike Shula. That said, I still haven't seen anything that tells me he's a championship-level coach. In his one shot at winning one, he bombed... badly.

Until he gets another shot (which is far from guaranteed to happen) that embarrassment is what defines his coaching at the championship level.

Do you then extend your logic to every player and coach involved in our Super Bowl loss? Or just Rivera? Are Cam, Luke, TD, Greg Olsen, etc. then, by your logic, not Super Bowl caliber players and are incapable of winning a Super Bowl?

[Mage]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I don't think Gary Kubiak is that great a coach, but he does have a ring. And Gruden?  Oy.

With that said, the one thing that can be said for Gary Kubiak is that he outcoached Ron Rivera (though Wade Phillips probably deserves more of the credit).

The problem with elevating Rivera to the same level as coaches who have proven they are capable of winning the big one is that there's literally nothing to support it. In the one shot he did good at winning, he performed poorly.

That puts him on the same level as the other guys I mentioned, not above them.

 

So Gary Kubiak and Jon Gruden are better head coaches than Marty Schottenheimer and Andy Reid?  Its a yes or a no.

Nobody is elevating Rivera.  It's just common sense.  If a head coach is somehow capable enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl, he's certainly capable of winning one.  Your logic boils down to "since he hasn't, he can't", but nobody has won anything before they've done it.  You were probably one of the ones saying Bill Cowher can't win a Super Bowl and it isn't like he found some magic potion that suddenly made him a championship caliber coach.  

I'll ask again.  Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl.  And in the one Super Bowl he played, he was poor (which is what you suggest Rivera was in our SB).  So was Marino not a Super Bowl caliber QB?  Was he less capable of winning one than Foles?

[Mage]

5 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Do you then extend your logic to every player and coach involved in our Super Bowl loss? Or just Rivera? Are Cam, Luke, TD, Greg Olsen, etc. then, by your logic, not Super Bowl caliber players and are incapable of winning a Super Bowl?

Exactly.

Michael Jordan isn't capable of winning an NBA Championship... until he won one.

Its just terrible logic.  That is all I'm saying.  It's no disrespected intended at anyone, it just is what it is.  It makes no sense how someone can believe a head coach, who coached in a Super Bowl, is somehow incapable of winning said game.  I mean I guess Kevin Durant was incapable of winning an NBA Championship too according to this thread.

I mean why stop at Rivera?  Cam didn't play well in that Super Bowl.  Is he not capable of winning a Super Bowl?  Why don't we get rid of him?

 

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, ras977 said:

OK-want either Gruden ? How about Hue Jackson ? Dan Quinn?  etc.

Point is, he lost, so did Cam, and Luke--does not mean that they , including RR,  can't win the big one.

No, but it also doesn't give us any evidence that they can. The most accurate statement that you can make is that they haven't.

the problem with Rivera though isn't just that he didn't win it; it's that he made an enormously poor decision that contributed to us losing.

John Fox got us a lot closer to a championship than Rivera has so far, and that was with Jake Delhomme. You can point to Dan Morgan being as good as Luke Kuechly, but I seriously doubt you can make a talent equivalence argument between Delhomme and Newton.

Rivera still has a chance to prove it, but like I said, till then, the only real evidence in the argument argues against him.

[Mr. Scot]

10 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Do you then extend your logic to every player and coach involved in our Super Bowl loss? Or just Rivera? Are Cam, Luke, TD, Greg Olsen, etc. then, by your logic, not Super Bowl caliber players and are incapable of winning a Super Bowl?

Did it make a difference that John Fox chose to go for two more than once in Super Bowl 38 rather than opt for a simple extra point? 

The player argument doesn't make any sense. Teams win. Teams lose. Greg Olsen being on a team with Tim Couch is not the same as Greg Olsen being in a team with Tom Brady.

Players are in charge of playing their role. Head coaches are in charge of everything. Poor decisions on their part can do a lot toward losing a big game like that.

[ras977]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

No, but it also doesn't give us any evidence that they can. The most accurate statement that you can make is that they haven't.

the problem with Rivera though isn't just that he didn't win it; it's that he made an enormously poor decision that contributed to us losing.

John Fox got us a lot closer to a championship than Rivera has so far, and that was with Jake Delhomme. You can point to Dan Morgan being as good as Luke Kuechly, but I seriously doubt you can make a talent equivalence argument between Delhomme and Newton.

Rivera still has a chance to prove it, but like I said, till then, the only real evidence in the argument argues against him.

OK-  RR has faults, but he's gotten us there--I have to "keep the faith".

PS-I I believe it was Henning ,not Foxy, who changed SB 38 or whatever  ?

[Mage]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

No, but it also doesn't give us any evidence that they can. 

What?

Who in the world is capable of doing anything before they've done it if we're going by this logic?  How can you not see how flawed this is?

The evidence is literally in the fact they made it to the Super Bowl.  Unless you think our odds of winning that game were 0%, then how can you possibly believe he's incapable of winning a game he made it to?  We were only down 6 midway through the 4th.  We absolutely had a chance to win.  

I mean what evidence was there MJ could win an NBA Championship before he did it?  Curry?  Belichick?  Brady?  Walsh?

Like come on.

[Mage]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Did it make a difference that John Fox chose to go for two more than once in Super Bowl 38 rather than opt for a simple extra point? 

The player argument doesn't make any sense. Teams win. Teams lose. Greg Olsen being on a team with Tim Couch is not the same as Greg Olsen being in a team with Tom Brady.

Players are in charge of playing their role. Head coaches are in charge of everything. Poor decisions on their part can do a lot toward losing a big game like that.

So do you think Rivera was in charge of Tolbert fumbling?

I mean we were only down by 6 midway through the 4th.  Do you think Rivera was responsible for Tolbert fumbling on the Broncos side of the field, thus costing us a potential score?