For the Fire Rivera Group

[Toomers]

3 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

I said you can't spin the question, remember? You don't get to pretend that Kelly is still their coach.

So lemme rephrase it again: Comparing where they were with Reid to where they are right now under Doug Pederson, should the Eagles have hung on to Reid instead?

  Just phrase it however you want to get the answer you need. Sure they are happier. Now. How was the time before it? Reid may have done it as well. You can speculate. But that’s all. 

 So the “best case” scenario you can find is an example where you hire the wrong guy in hopes of finding the ONE, 4 years later? This is what you are basing your stance on? Ok....

  And while you’re bringing up Gettleman, maybe you can answer that for us as well. Why would you want to keep Gman if you want to fire Rivera? That works both ways. 

[raz]

you're on a fanatic message board for goodness sake. 

[iamhubby1]

4 minutes ago, stankowalski said:

Has Norv been an upgrade so far?  The results seem about the same to me offensively.  Granted it's a small sample size but I hope the offense gets better than it has been this far.

 

    See, that's the rub. Statistically, Cam is having a pretty good year. Yet the Offense, as a whole, has looked...less than sharp. You almost have to think we just haven't got our groove on yet.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, iamhubby1 said:

   So what happens to those who don't agree with the Gman firing? Or those who do agree with it? Can they not dislike Rivera? Are they not allowed to like Rivera. Saying one thing is "Credible" or not, in an opinion based thead? Really?

    And there are more reasons to like Rivera than that tired ol "He's winning games" trope. You make it sound like that is the ONLY defense for Rivera.

    Once again, you changed the subject to make your own opinions known. 

Wrong. I'm not necessarily saying that you have to like both of them or dislike both of them. What I'm pointing out is the arguments that you use to justify each position.

People who favored firing Gettleman usually say something along the lines of "sure we were winning, but we were headed in the wrong direction" or some such. This argument implies that winning alone isn't sufficient justification for keeping him.

Now, if those same people then turn around and say that the fact that Rivera is winning games makes him immune from criticism or questions about, say, his ability to take us to a championship in the future, that's inconsistent. And it calls into question the credibility of the person taking both those positions simultaneously.

You can definitely favor one and not the other, but if you're not consistent in your arguments, it hurts your position.

[iamhubby1]

3 minutes ago, Toomers said:

  Just phrase it however you want to get the answer you need. Sure they are happier. Now. How was the time before it? Reid may have done it as well. You can speculate. But that’s all. 

 So the “best case” scenario you can find is an example where you hire the wrong guy in hopes of finding the ONE, 4 years later? This is what you are basing your stance on? Ok....

  And while you’re bringing up Gettleman, maybe you can answer that for us as well. Why would you want to keep Gman if you want to fire Rivera? That works both ways. 

 

    Sometimes you have to wonder? Some of the tangents he goes off on are quite...huh?

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, Toomers said:

  Just phrase it however you want to get the answer you need. Sure they are happier. Now. How was the time before it? Reid may have done it as well. You can speculate. But that’s all. I'm not the one trying to twist things here's how

 So the “best case” scenario you can find is an example where you hire the wrong guy in hopes of finding the ONE, 4 years later? This is what you are basing your stance on? Ok....

  And while you’re bringing up Gettleman, maybe you can answer that for us as well. Why would you want to keep Gman if you want to fire Rivera? That works both ways. 

I'm not the one trying to twist things here, dude. You can't act like Chip Kelly somehow invalidates Doug Pederson. That's just a false argument.

As far as Gettleman, my answer would be that the Rivera/Gettleman combo was working and I'd have favored keeping it in place. Unfortunately, the team was owned by a lecherous numbskull at the time.

[Toomers]

Just now, iamhubby1 said:

 

    Sometimes you have to wonder? Some of the tangents he goes off on are quite...huh?

  I’m having a football discussion with one of the few posters I respect on here in Mr. Scot. We can disagree without it being an issue. Please don’t come in here starting crap and then go all “Dr. Phil” on your moral high ground. Don’t include me in your mess.

[Toomers]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm not the one trying to twist things here, dude. You can't act like Chip Kelly somehow invalidates Doug Pederson. That's just a false argument.

As far as Gettleman, my answer would be that the Rivera/Gettleman combo was working and I'd have favored keeping it in place. Unfortunately, the team was owned by a lecherous numbskull at the time.

  But, for our situation it does. Pederson was hired to replace a.cosch that had a proven record of success. Kelly did. So it’s not the same. How many years do you get to replace the fired coaching h? Successfully?3-10 years?

 And yes, he was an idiot.

[Mr. Scot]

14 minutes ago, Toomers said:

  But, for our situation it does. Pederson was hired to replace a.cosch that had a proven record of success. Kelly did. So it’s not the same. How many years do you get to replace the fired coach? Successfully?3-10 years?

Well, if we went by the standard some have set, Rivera would have been gone after two years as well. You could argue that Kelly was fired too soon, though I don't really think his system was going to work in the NFL. worth noting though that his firing probably had as much to do with internal politics as it did his record.

Heck, remember Jon Gruden's quarterback carousel in Tampa? That's a big example of what I call the lottery ticket approach. Buy a lottery ticket, and if it's not an instant winner throw it away. If the next one is in an instant winter, throw that one away too and buy more.

That's a stupid approach to building a winning football team.

Whether we're talking about a quarterback, a coordinator or head coach, you have to be smarter than that. If you're not willing to allow for transition time, don't make the move. Of course, the status quo might not be the best thing in the world either.

It's all a matter of judgment.

I've said it before. If you commit to firing a coach, you'd better firmly believe that he's not the guy. you don't necessarily have to have a predetermined replacement in mind when you do that (in fact, I'd be against it) but you do have to be absolutely convinced that you can do better and willing to commit the process of finding someone better.

I don't believe the Eagles did that when they hired Kelly. They fell for the hype, and it cost 'em. that's absolutely something I wouldn't want to see us do.

The good news on that front if it does come to that: Tepper would be following the Steeler method. The Steelers believe they're hiring a coach for the next 20 years, so they're very careful making sure they got the right guy.

That's probably one reason why the prospect of hiring a new coach doesn't scare me as much as it does others.

[iamhubby1]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm not the one trying to twist things here, dude. You can't act like Chip Kelly somehow invalidates Doug Pederson. That's just a false argument.

 

 

    You posed the scenario that Philly fired Reed, then hired Kelly, to finally get to Peterson. Nobody wants to go through two coaches to find our savior. It is silly, and you got called out. Sure, technically it worked for Philly. But I bet even they would have prefered to get it right the first time.

[iamhubby1]

24 minutes ago, Toomers said:

  I’m having a football discussion with one of the few posters I respect on here in Mr. Scot. We can disagree without it being an issue. Please don’t come in here starting crap and then go all “Dr. Phil” on your moral high ground. Don’t include me in your mess.

 

    Not going to lie. I don't really care. I will post what I want, when I want. Mkay Sarge.

[Mr. Scot]

5 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

  You posed the scenario that Philly fired Reed, then hired Kelly, to finally get to Peterson. Nobody wants to go through two coaches to find our savior. It is silly, and you got called out. Sure, technically it worked for Philly. But I bet even they would have prefered to get it right the first time.

It didn't "technically" work. It just plain worked. The Eagles have a Super Bowl trophy. Andy Reid still doesn't, and might not ever. 

I'll take what Philly did over waiting another ten years on a current coach only to have him never win it all.

[Mr. Scot]

Let's be clear on one other thing too. A whole lot of this depends on whether you know what you're doing.

The Browns did the revolving door approach for a while. Now they're being patient...with a coach who has probably the worst winning percentage in history. Maybe it'll work out this time, but the Browns being the Browns, it's just as likely that whichever approach they take, it'll be the wrong one.

Whether we decide to move on or be patient, I hope we put a lot of thought into the decision.

[stankowalski]

47 minutes ago, iamhubby1 said:

 

    See, that's the rub. Statistically, Cam is having a pretty good year. Yet the Offense, as a whole, has looked...less than sharp. You almost have to think we just haven't got our groove on yet.

I honestly think once Samuel and Moore get up to speed and implemented more in the offense we're going to score a lot of points.  At least that's what I'm hoping for because we can't expect the defense to bail us out this year.