We've launched the new forums! Read more here

NFL GM and Head Coach firings and hirings

If that is Harry's argument....It must have been really rough for a lot of years during the 90s and until the Vince Young era.
 
JB said:
If that is Harry's argument....It must have been really rough for a lot of years during the 90s and until the Vince Young era.
Click to expand...

It's just an easy way to sum up how I feel about the BCS "rankings" this year.

Think about it: If Oklahoma and Texas both win, and Florida drops to #3 or lower (I mean, they did lose to Ole Miss after all), then both the #1 and #2 teams will have one loss . . . and the #2 team beat the #1 team during the regular season by 10 points.

That's just stupid.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of why #3 Texas is playing #10 Ohio State instead of #4 Alabama. Trying to avoid a controversy? Because if Texas whips Alabama, they would almost certainly leapfrog Florida if Florida loses.
 
So Harry, while I agree with you in theory, it does have flaws. They did not win their conference title. That for one is a huge issue. They played a weaker schedule (not really, but because no conference title game). And everyone knows it is when you lose, not just who you lose to. Florida only lost because of a missed xtra point, and as much as I hate to admit it, are the most talented team out there.
 
Harry Longshanks said:
And I'm still waiting for an explanation of why #3 Texas is playing #10 Ohio State instead of #4 Alabama. Trying to avoid a controversy? Because if Texas whips Alabama, they would almost certainly leapfrog Florida if Florida loses.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that one, Texas should be playing Alabama. The BCS really screwed that one up. I would have loved to see that match up.



I think Texas would have crushed Bama
 
JB said:
So Harry, while I agree with you in theory, it does have flaws. They did not win their conference title. That for one is a huge issue. They played a weaker schedule (not really, but because no conference title game). And everyone knows it is when you lose, not just who you lose to. Florida only lost because of a missed xtra point, and as much as I hate to admit it, are the most talented team out there.
Click to expand...

Well, but Texas didn't win its conference because of the screwy BCS, not because they had a worse season. And Texas only lost (literally) in the last second, on the road, after playing the hardest 4 consecutive game schedule in the country. (Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, and Tech were all highly ranked when Texas played them and those teams were the ones who knocked each other out of the rankings.) Not to mention that 2 of Texas' key players were injured for the Tech game.

The bottom line is that when it was clear that Texas Tech was not the best team of the three, you have to look at the on the field performance of the two teams that have an honest claim to the title. Here, Texas won head to head by a healthy margin on a neutral field. (Whereas Tech and OU both won at home for their head to head wins.)

And the proof that the system is flawed is that we could have a National Champion that was beaten by the #2 team.
 
The BCS has no basis on whether or not Texas wins their conference. It was not the BCS's fault that they did not win their conference.
 
JB said:
The BCS has no basis on whether or not Texas wins their conference. It was not the BCS's fault that they did not win their conference.
Click to expand...

In the case of a 3-way tie, the Big 12 uses the highest BCS ranked team to choose the division champ. It was a joint f-up between the Big 12 and the BCS system/voters.

In contrast, the SEC takes the two highest ranked (BCS) teams and then looks at their head-to-head record.
 
You could make the case then, that Texas Tech should be in the championship.

You could make the case for anyone. That's why they vote. Once they vote, it's done. Now they're crying that USC should be number one ... if you wanted to be number one, maybe you should've done more winning.
 
Well Said Julie. You have to win your conference to be in the hunt. SORRY. That is a must. USC, Oklahoma, Florida are according to Vegas the best 3 teams in the country right now followed by Texas at number 4. (That was of this morning on ESPN Radio). They should just have Vegas handicap it. They know more than anyone and they are right 99% of the time.
 
My Browns are the only team to hire a coach BEFORE a GM. I like Mangini but you do need a GM.
 
Farmergolf said:
My Browns are the only team to hire a coach BEFORE a GM. I like Mangini but you do need a GM.
Click to expand...

Sorry for thread jacking but I just noticed your tagline, Farmergolf. That is a great one. Plus it made me laugh because up until 6 months ago I couldn't go near anything dairy. Now I know just how amazing it is.
 
You know what? Are there any notable women anywhere in NFL coaching?

Just thought of that and now I'm curious.
 
No,
Not really Julie. Most coaches in the NFL come from playing experience (Most not all) at some point and that would be hard with a female. Plus, there is a "macho image" that these players have and respect would be hard in the locker room.
 
JB said:
No,
Not really Julie. Most coaches in the NFL come from playing experience (Most not all) at some point and that would be hard with a female. Plus, there is a "macho image" that these players have and respect would be hard in the locker room.
Click to expand...

I've found even simple men can respect someone if they're good. :wink:

It might be an idea to have fresh blood with a different style. A lot of these coaches are cookie cutter images of each other...to be special you have to be either better than everyone else at everything, or different.
 
Farmergolf said:
My Browns are the only team to hire a coach BEFORE a GM. I like Mangini but you do need a GM.
Click to expand...

So I'm not the only one that had a miserable season this year. Our Browns do everything bass-ackwards. I think they are really interested in the guy with Baltimore. I guess him and Mangini are friends. So that is who will probably be the new GM.
 
Lets hope it works out for our Browns, don`t need another 4-12 season!!! Glad you are onto the good stuff now GolferGal!!!! Drink Milk
 
Farmergolf said:
Lets hope it works out for our Browns, don`t need another 4-12 season!!! Glad you are onto the good stuff now GolferGal!!!! Drink Milk
Click to expand...

What was his record in NY? That's what I would have a problem with, the guy absolutely failed, gets fired and the Browns snatched him up like he just coached the Super Bowl game. I don't understand how some of the coaches just circulate around and keep getting jobs.
 
Not a hiring or firing but Tony Dungy retired. It's nice to see a guy go out on top instead of hanging around until it all falls apart for them.
 
He lives very close by to us and it will be nice to see him around Tampa again.
 
MO_Hacker said:
What was his record in NY? That's what I would have a problem with, the guy absolutely failed, gets fired and the Browns snatched him up like he just coached the Super Bowl game. I don't understand how some of the coaches just circulate around and keep getting jobs.
Click to expand...

What's his record matter? Cleveland hasn't had a winning coach since before Belicheck in the late 1980's.
 
bogeyme said:
What's his record matter? Cleveland hasn't had a winning coach since before Belicheck in the late 1980's.
Click to expand...

Schottenheimer was the late '80s; Belichick started in '91 and had one winning record in 5 years. (Of course he goes to New England where he had one losing record in 9 years!)

(Which kinda proves the point about Cleveland!)


Side note: The day after Marty became the Chiefs Head Coach, there was a letter to the editor in our paper from a fan in Cleveland. It congratulated us on getting Marty, that we would kick butt in the regular season and have our hearts broken in the playoffs. (He was right).
 
Smallville said:
Schottenheimer was the late '80s; Belichick started in '91 and had one winning record in 5 years. (Of course he goes to New England where he had one losing record in 9 years!)

(Which kinda proves the point about Cleveland!)


Side note: The day after Marty became the Chiefs Head Coach, there was a letter to the editor in our paper from a fan in Cleveland. It congratulated us on getting Marty, that we would kick butt in the regular season and have our hearts broken in the playoffs. (He was right).
Click to expand...

That's what I'm talking about Smalls. Overall every coach that has come to Cleveland since Marty has been a loser. Thought Belichick had a decent record but after seeing his stats I was wrong. We are use to the heartache of being losers.
 
bogeyme said:
That's what I'm talking about Smalls. Overall every coach that has come to Cleveland since Marty has been a loser. Thought Belichick had a decent record but after seeing his stats I was wrong. We are use to the heartache of being losers.
Click to expand...

KC as well, in recent years!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top