Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Ron "learning from his mistakes" in Carolina

ladypanther

By ladypanther,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Calling 3 of 9 Ron our "best coach ever" says more about the failure of the Panthers as an organization than is does Rivera.

It also shows how hard it is to develop a consistent winner. Seems we are finally finding the processes to put in place to hopefully be one of those teams.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Calling 3 of 9 Ron our "best coach ever" says more about the failure of the Panthers as an organization than is does Rivera.

it is what it is

I think if we had a great GM like some orgs? Ron would still be the coach.   His teams were very flawed overall in terms of talent.  How weak certain spots got.    More so than Fox's IMO. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Calling 3 of 9 Ron our "best coach ever" says more about the failure of the Panthers as an organization than is does Rivera.

By objective measures, Rivera is our most successful coach.

Now with that said, Fox came waaaay closer to winning his Super Bowl opportunity whereas Rivera is arguably one of the big reasons they lost.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

By objective measures, Rivera is our most successful coach.

Now with that said, Fox came waaaay closer to winning his Super Bowl opportunity whereas Rivera is arguably one of the big reasons they lost.

that was a weird SuperBowl.   Some really questionable stuff by refs in that one.   Different set of refs and it could of gone the other way.  You rarely are going to win when the refs start calling it for the other team.    When both teams are good. 

The Remmers stuff is pretty indefensible though.   But doing what we did got us to 17-1....so I could see why the obivous adjustment might be harder for them than us.  Especially, when we were getting the looks and some big plays were setting up for us down.   We just couldn't get it off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NAS Grand Master

NAS

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

By objective measures, Rivera is our most successful coach.

Now with that said, Fox came waaaay closer to winning his Super Bowl opportunity whereas Rivera is arguably one of the big reasons they lost.

He also came close to going to another SB in 2005, losing against Seattle. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

Although it was 9 years long, this was his first job as coach. And I doubt he was given free rein here like in Washington.

i could understand him being on a leash for the first 2-3 years....but after that, it was all him. Unless he just couldn't be trusted to run the team after that then you have to wonder, why keep him at all?

Sorry, I just don't buy the whole 'first time coach' argument/excuse for him. You can either do the job or you can't.

There's no reason we should stick with any coach longer than 5 years if we haven't achieved success (meaning a ring) by then.

Most HCs who win a Superbowl are able to win it with in their first gig as a HC and within 5 (typically within 3) years of their first year as HC with a team. Only exception in the last 25+years to it taking longer than 5 years as HC with their team being Bill Cowher.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
Just now, rayzor said:

i could understand him being on a leash for the first 2-3 years....but after that, it was all him. Unless he just couldn't be trusted to run the team after that then you have to wonder, why keep him at all?

Sorry, I just don't buy the whole 'first time coach' argument/excuse for him. You can either do the job or you can't.

There's no reason we should stick with any coach longer than 5 years if we haven't achieved success (meaning a ring) by then.

Most HCs who win a Superbowl are able to win it with in their first gig as a HC and within 5 (typically within 3) years of their first year as HC with a team. Only exception in the last 25+years to it taking longer than 5 years as HC with their team being Bill Cowher.

Hell, Richardson wanted to fire him before Hurney fell on the sword to save him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, rayzor said:

i could understand him being on a leash for the first 2-3 years....but after that, it was all him. Unless he just couldn't be trusted to run the team after that then you have to wonder, why keep him at all?

Sorry, I just don't buy the whole 'first time coach' argument/excuse for him. You can either do the job or you can't.

There's no reason we should stick with any coach longer than 5 years if we haven't achieved success (meaning a ring) by then.

Most HCs who win a Superbowl are able to win it with in their first gig as a HC and within 5 (typically within 3) years of their first year as HC with a team. Only exception in the last 25+years to it taking longer than 5 years as HC with their team being Bill Cowher.

And Belichick did it with his second team. Tom  Coughlin was Jaquars coach for 7 years and then went to the Giants. He won it his fourth year there. So there are certainly examples of coaches winning Super Bowls with their second team after failing to win it with their first. That is off the top of my head. There might be others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Schultz Grand Master

Sgt Schultz

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

And Belichick did it with his second team. Tom  Coughlin was Jaquars coach for 7 years and then went to the Giants. He won it his fourth year there. So there are certainly examples of coaches winning Super Bowls with their second team after failing to win it with their first. That is off the top of my head. There might be others. 

Pete Carroll did it with team #3, and 4 years into that (his 8th in the NFL).  It really just depends on the situations they walk into. 

But, at some point the message does get stale.  Rivera said that when he took the Panthers job, he thought the limit of that timeline was about 10 years.  Almost on cue, he hit his limit.  Among his faults, one of them was NOT a lack of understanding that guys like Landry, Shula, Knoll, and Belichick are very much exceptions, and even their style/message seemed to get stale at points in their tenures.  Although they also adapted to one degree or another along the way.

 

Edited by Sgt Schultz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rayzor Grand Master

rayzor

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

And Belichick did it with his second team. Tom  Coughlin was Jaquars coach for 7 years and then went to the Giants. He won it his fourth year there. So there are certainly examples of coaches winning Super Bowls with their second team after failing to win it with their first. That is off the top of my head. There might be others. 

There are a good bit more than i thought who did it with their 2nd or third team as HC, but still the standard is within 5 years with the team they won the SB with. 

I don't care how much i like or the team likes rhule, if we don't have it done within 5 years, we need to move on and we should have moved on from both fox and rivera after 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, rayzor said:

There are a good bit more than i thought who did it with their 2nd or third team as HC, but still the standard is within 5 years with the team they won the SB with. 

I don't care how much i like or the team likes rhule, if we don't have it done within 5 years, we need to move on and we should have moved on from both fox and rivera after 5.

Marv Levy was another one but most people don't remember him being with the Chiefs.

Bill Cowher took 15 years to win a Super Bowl. He'd been to one prior to that, but he didn't win.

Granted, most teams aren't as patient as the Steelers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

And Belichick did it with his second team. Tom  Coughlin was Jaquars coach for 7 years and then went to the Giants. He won it his fourth year there. So there are certainly examples of coaches winning Super Bowls with their second team after failing to win it with their first. That is off the top of my head. There might be others. 

part of Ron's coaching tree.  Andy Reid. 

Tony Dungy.

*edited out wrong coach lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...