The myth of the new coach success.

[Happy Panther]

do it for all of them.

I've already shown that first year coaches often dramatically improve their team. All from the past couple of years.

The myth that coaches need a year to gel has been busted. It is no excuse for losses.

[beastson]

6 out of 17 teams lol

Some teams like Ravens, Colts and Steelers was already established and been set for years

[rayzor]

I've already shown that first year coaches often dramatically improve their team. All from the past couple of years.

The myth that coaches need a year to gel has been busted. It is no excuse for losses.

so you see no point in backing up your claims with facts conext or anything like that.

you don't see any point in also in showing where those coaches were at this point in the season.

keep on "contributing"....

[Mr. Scot]

What?

Anyways, I looked it up and Todd Haley inherited a 2-14 and they ended up 4-12 in 2008. 4-14 is not realistic, however, a 7-9 team is with the talent Cam brings to the field.

Not old enough to remember Morris Day and The Time I take it? :lol:

[teeray]

IMHO it all boils down to the quality of the team you inherit.

And the quality of teams that end up on your schedule.

There are just too many factors that go into this that I just can't say that list proves much of anything.

[teeray]

PF4L hacked Happy Panther's account because he ran out of Alt accounts :lol:

[monstercat]

Somebody needs to list all of the rookie QB/coach combos that have failed to produce a winning record in the last 20 years or so. I guarantee you it will be a lot longer than the OP's list, which is flawed anyway since some of those coaches are struggling just as much or in some cases even more than we are right now.

Then you need to break down how many of them went 2-14 before they got there and have to play the toughest schedule in the league in their first season. Usually it's the other way around.

[rayzor]

PF4L hacked Happy Panther's account because he ran out of Alt accounts :lol:

meh...this has always been happy panther's shtick.

[Kettle]

[The_Mango55]

Probably been said sometime in the previous 6 pages, but now do one with new coaches with the #1 draft pick. I bet your results will be different.

[teeray]

meh...this has always been happy panther's shtick.

Just doesn't seem very happy for a Happy Panther

[Happy Panther]

so you see no point in backing up your claims with facts conext or anything like that.

you don't see any point in also in showing where those coaches were at this point in the season.

keep on "contributing"....

If you want to add to the analysis instead of attacking mine, go ahead.

[Metal_Sparty]

I've already shown that first year coaches often dramatically improve their team. All from the past couple of years.

The myth that coaches need a year to gel has been busted. It is no excuse for losses.

Just a quick observation, but outside of a few teams, it seems like a lot of teams that got a new coach and had a poor record (Lions, Bucs) are the ones that are now looking good. Where as the new coaches that had a good record (Colts, Cowboys, kind of Steelers) look to be on the downside.

Schwartz had nothing, like us, and is building it into a solid team that's undefeated right now. Rivera is starting with little, and getting us very competitive.

Coaches that got lucky, seem to have inherited an older team and are now fading away a bit.

This is all in week 4 though, so we'll see how things keep going.

Your response to this?

[rayzor]

If you want to add to the analysis instead of attacking mine, go ahead.

i'm not the one starting a bunch of pooty threads and taking bits and pieces of information/"stats" and cherry picking only the things that support my pooty pessimistic position.

oh...and don't give me that "being realistic" crap. it won't fly. you are putting whatever negative spin you can on things just like you have always done since you've been here.