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!

     

There are 15 winning head coaches with jobs in this league (tenured)


frash.exe

Recommended Posts

Shanahan "failed" in Oakland because Al Davis is psychotic and was firing assistants without his consent

and there's something to be said about past success that buys you a little bit more patience

You said 2 years was enough to show if a guy had head coaching ability. Should I continue my list of guys who took longer to win but ultimately won big in the league?? Or lets go down the list of successful proven head coaches who went somewhere new and didn't have a winning record in their first 2 years.

We can use Shanahan in Washington, Schottenheimer in San Diego off the top of my head.

Might have more to do with where they went instead of how good they were........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, Rivera wins when it doesn't matter anymore... Which is how John Fox racked up an overall winning record prior to 2010 IIRC.

Had it not been for all of the meaningless wins Foxy racked up once the season was already lost, his record would've been much worse.

That's been our problem year in and year out here... Coaches that don't prepare or get their team ready for the big games every season... Even the worst coaches can eek out wins when other teams have lost most, if not all, of their motivation as the season winds down.

Rivera has proven to be no different. He loses when it counts and wins when it doesn't. DO NOT WANT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said 2 years was enough to show if a guy had head coaching ability. Should I continue my list of guys who took longer to win but ultimately won big in the league?? Or lets go down the list of successful proven head coaches who went somewhere new and didn't have a winning record in their first 2 years.

We can use Shanahan in Washington, Schottenheimer in San Diego off the top of my head.

Might have more to do with where they went instead of how good they were........

I mean if you want to keep bringing up guys from the 80s to justify giving Ron another year in the 2010s NFL we might as well start discussing whether or not stickum would improve completion percentage to our wide receivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always said every coach deserves at least 3 seasons to get a team on track.

i've said that as well, but really after a couple years you can see plenty to decide what their future's gonna look like and if it's worth further exploration.

i just haven't seen it with rivera. i mean he could be a gary kubiak type but what are the chances of that? and why would we want to wait that long to see it happen? i think this year is as good as they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the Rivera defenders make a legitimate case for keeping him in regards to how he has handled this team, record aside for a sec?

As in, besides having a bad record in his first two years as a head coach, in what way is his head coaching style similar to Belicheat and Jimmy Johnson?

Jimmy followed the most winningest coach in Cowboy history, Tom Landry, while Fox was the Panthers most successful coach. They both drafted a college quarterback with the number 1 pick in the draft, Troy Aikman and Cam Newton. They both struggled early and had defensive backgrounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean if you want to keep bringing up guys from the 80s to justify giving Ron another year in the 2010s NFL we might as well start discussing whether or not stickum would improve completion percentage to our wide receivers.

I was wondering how long it would take for you to take the conversation completely out of context with an off the wall example as if it was relevant. Typical Ragin Bull tactic. Didn't work then, didn't work now.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've said that as well, but really after a couple years you can see plenty to decide what their future's gonna look like and if it's worth further exploration.

i just haven't seen it with rivera. i mean he could be a gary kubiak type but what are the chances of that? and why would we want to wait that long to see it happen? i think this year is as good as they get.

Did Kubiak win in year 3 which is all people are giving Rivera?? So how is that relevant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UDFA = invented to replace the void left after eventually chopping 5 rounds off the ugly end of the draft according to p55

Wrong as usual. About me and the draft. How many rounds were there in 1960? 20 rounds..... Number of guys chosen in the draft 240. So there were 12 teams. It went to 17 rounds in 1967 because the addition of more teams even the fewer rounds resulted in 445 picks.

In 1975 the draft contracted to 12 rounds and the number of players constricted to 335. In 1993 it went to 8 rounds and the players taken constricted to 224. In 1994 it went to 7 rounds and has stayed there since.

As for why they went to 7 rounds, think salary cap which began with the 1993 Collective Bargaining agreement. UDFAs were added to fill rosters and were part of the concessions for free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Dang, we might not be able to create the same magic from last year!
    • If we were a solid winning organization most of us would have no problems with this selection. We would have had a capable starter in place to allow him to be eased into the rotation. If were told prior to the draft that he had been completely cleared health wise, we "probably" wouldn't have a ton of reservations about this selection. If we had picked this young man on Day 3 of the draft most of us would have no problems with this selection because we wouldn't have had to use draft capital to move up and get him. Unfortunately, none of the above were true 1)  We were a terrible team in 2023 and needed an immediate impact player. 2)  He was hurt near the the end of the 2023 NCAA season. We traded up to get him even though we knew he wasn't medically cleared to play in 2024. 3) When training camp started we were hearing stories that the knee wasn't ready. That alone should have raised some red flags. I personally would have red-shirted him in 2024 in order to have him ready for 2025. We had Chubba as our lead back and other guys to fill the #2 and #3 spots on the depth chart. There was no need to rush Brooks unto the field in 2024. Here's our draft history in the 2nd round between 2021 and 2024 2021 TMJ 2022 No draft choice. We picked Matt Corall in round 3 (#94) as our only Day 2 pick. 2023 Jonathan Mingo 2024 Jonathon Brooks. We have taken 4 skill players on Day 2 of the draft for the past 4 years who have contributed absolutely nothing to the offensive side of the football. 3 are no longer on the team. Two of them are no longer in the NFL. One  could possibly never start a game due to a knee injury. This type of poor drafting is why this team has been so bad for the entire decade. 
    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
×
×
  • Create New...