What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is Norv Turner the worst coach ever? (1 Viewer)

Who is the worst coach in the modern era?

  • Norv Turner

    Votes: 45 46.4%
  • Ray Handley

    Votes: 4 4.1%
  • Rich Kotite

    Votes: 16 16.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 32 33.0%

  • Total voters
    97
Romeo Crennel

Updating a previous item, Kansas City Chiefs head coach Romeo Crennel said following Week 8 he did not know why RB Jamaal Charles saw just five carries in the game; however, Crennel said Charles is healthy as far as he knows.

These are questions a Head Coach Should know. There is no passing the buck, if the head coach does not know why the star player did not get carries but is healthy as far as he knows, the I am not sure why he is head coach.

 
'TwinTurbo said:
'SSOG said:
Andy Reid is giving Norv a run for his money this year.
Norv is 110-116. Andy Reid is 129-84-1. Norv has made the playoffs 4 times in 14 years. Reid has made the playoffs 9 times in 13 years. Norv has 5 losing seasons in his career. Reid has two. Reid has made the conference championship 5 times and the SB once. Turner has made the conference championship once and the SB zero times. Reid took over a bad team and turned it into a perennial powerhouse. Turner took over a powerhouse and underperformed until it slid into irrelevance. I don't get the Andy Reid hate. He's not Belichick, but I'd say he's pretty solidly one of the top 5 coaches in the league since 2000, and a 3-4 start to this season hardly erases all that. Turner, on the other hand, deserves every single bit of disdain directed his way. 35 coaches in history have recorded 100 wins, and Turner is the only one of them with a sub-.500 record. And this is despite being the only guy in history to take over a 14-2 team after they fired their current coach.
This is a good post.
One of the greatest posts in the history of good posts.
 
'gradin123 said:
Better Coordinator than head coach.
I've always wondered why so many coordinators get thrust into head coaching jobs. Sure, it's considered natural progression for the profession, but just because a guy can devise a solid offensive or defensive scheme doesn't necessarily make him head coach material. Leadership and decision making, including finding quality coordinators to do your dirty work, seem much more important than the playbook that you carry around. We've been stung by it over the last few years here with Mike "I Want Winners" Singletary and Hue "Irish Coffee" Jackson
 
Turner is not the worst coach, the worst ones lost their jobs pretty quick. He may be the worst coach of all the coaches who actually kept their jobs for more than 2 years.

dont know if that says much but that's my thought.

 
Romeo CrennelUpdating a previous item, Kansas City Chiefs head coach Romeo Crennel said following Week 8 he did not know why RB Jamaal Charles saw just five carries in the game; however, Crennel said Charles is healthy as far as he knows.These are questions a Head Coach Should know. There is no passing the buck, if the head coach does not know why the star player did not get carries but is healthy as far as he knows, the I am not sure why he is head coach.
This sealed it for me. At least Norv knows his rb's names and jersey numbers.
 
'SSOG said:
Andy Reid is giving Norv a run for his money this year.
Norv is 110-116. Andy Reid is 129-84-1. Norv has made the playoffs 4 times in 14 years. Reid has made the playoffs 9 times in 13 years. Norv has 5 losing seasons in his career. Reid has two. Reid has made the conference championship 5 times and the SB once. Turner has made the conference championship once and the SB zero times. Reid took over a bad team and turned it into a perennial powerhouse. Turner took over a powerhouse and underperformed until it slid into irrelevance.
In Awesome's defense, he did specifically say "this year." Reid has had a great career, but "this year" is different.
The question is who is the worst coach, not who is having the worst season. And even if the question were who was having the worst season, the guy coaching the 3-4 Eagles doesn't even merit mentioning. Not when you have Crennel, Rivera, and Gailey to choose from. No, there's no defense- it's just a cheap shot at a coach who at his absolute worst is still mediocre. As I said in the second half of my post, I just can't understand the Andy Reid hate. Maybe it's because he's so terrible at in-game management. In-game management is probably 5% of a coach's job, but it's 95% of what the casual fan sees of a coach's job, so the casual fan always has way too much hate for the coaches who excel in every facet except for in-game management. Turner's sort of the Anti-Reid in that respect- he doesn't make glaring clock management errors, call dumb challenges, waste his timeouts, or forget he has a running game. Instead, he just leaves his teams so unprepared that they continually cough up even properly managed games to inferior opponents.
This thread is obviously hyperbolic. Unless you actually believe Norv Turner is literally the worst coach ever. Which is silly, because there have been - and will continue to be - coaches much worse than he. Yes, he's not great. He's not even good. But worst coach ever? That's absurd. Just going from recent memory, Josh McDaniels, Rod Marinelli, that Dolphins coach who quit halfway through, Art Shell, Steve Spurrier, Lane Kiffin. Herm Edwards was lousy. Joe Gibbs version 2.0 was awful. Singletary and Nolan terrify SF fans. Romeo Crennel somehow has a job. Kevin Gilbride. Dave Campo, Joe Bugel. Cam Cameron was a wreck in Miami. To even mention a guy who has lasted in the NFL long enough to coach over 200 games and be 6 games under .500 as "the worst coach ever" is taking a cheap shot who at his worst is slightly below average. I don't care how bad you think he is. He's nowhere near being the worst coach ever.

Heck, browse through the Eagles thread. Numerous posters in there have given numerous reasons why Reid isn't so great and needs to be fired. I realize Philly fans can be a fickle bunch but to completely ignore their opinion? I mean, they only follow the team day in and day out. We should dismiss their opinion...because why?

Lastly, I did state this year. Perhaps you missed that part. Which is my fault. Perhaps I was not clear enough when I said "Andy Reid is giving Norv a run for his money this year." But I shouldn't mention just this year. Even though the "worst coach ever" Norv Turner has a record of 3-4. Last year Norv Turner ran his team into the ground and finished with an 8-8 record. Andy Reid coached his ### off and managed to lead the Eagles to...an 8-8 record.

Since the start of 2005 he's averaged less 8.8 wins a season. He's won 2 playoff games. Is that horrible? Hardly. Lots of teams would welcome that. Is it elite? Not in the slightest. Not given the teams he's had.

Andy Reid a top 5 coach? No way. He's not even top 10 at the moment. There are at least 10 other coaches who could do a better job with that team than Reid has. Yes, Reid would be an improvement for the Chiefs, or a few other bottom dwellers. So would Norv. Norv Turner sits Ryan Matthews in favor of Ronnie Brown running and Rivers throwing and he's an idiot. Reid abandons the effective run game in favor of Vick and he's...what, a genius? Both coaches have a lot of issues. Both coaches are making lousy decisions. Puzzling in game management. Terrible preparation. Awful play calling. Both coaches are doing a terrible job with their team. Both coaches need to be fired.

 
Keeping Norv this many years after continuous failure, this team deserves to be awful. Top 3 dumbest organizations in football.

 
The Chargers are the Cowboys of the AFC: just talented and good enough to sometimes contend and make their fans think that maybe "this year is the year," but it never is.

 
A lot of coaches have had terrible records, or made poor decisions, or just plain weren't great.

But I'd think Bobby Petrino's tenure with the Falcons, from his 3-10 record to his chickensh*t resignation notice taped to players' lockers, has got to be the most embarrassing.

 
The Chargers are the Cowboys of the AFC: just talented and good enough to sometimes contend and make their fans think that maybe "this year is the year," but it never is.
I know very few Charger fans that have thought "this year is the year" since probably 2009. I have heard many idiotic fans of other teams and lazy sportswriters baa that the Chargers are "underachieving" every year despite the fact they've had several holes that haven't been filled(most notably offensive MVP candidate Tomlinson and defensive MVP candidate Merriman). If anyone honestly thinks you don't miss impact players like that, or that it's easy to replace impact players like that, well that says more than I need to know about the "analysis" of the situation. I was very critical of drafting Ryan Mathews because they had so many holes to fill on the OL and defensive backfield that packaging picks for a single player was a luxury they couldn't afford. Mathews has been around for quite awhile. You can continue to have fun with the straw man however.PS - Just curious, do you honestly believe that maybe "this is the year" for the broncos?
 
Andy Reid is giving Norv a run for his money this year.
Norv is 110-116. Andy Reid is 129-84-1. Norv has made the playoffs 4 times in 14 years. Reid has made the playoffs 9 times in 13 years. Norv has 5 losing seasons in his career. Reid has two. Reid has made the conference championship 5 times and the SB once. Turner has made the conference championship once and the SB zero times. Reid took over a bad team and turned it into a perennial powerhouse. Turner took over a powerhouse and underperformed until it slid into irrelevance. I don't get the Andy Reid hate. He's not Belichick, but I'd say he's pretty solidly one of the top 5 coaches in the league since 2000, and a 3-4 start to this season hardly erases all that. Turner, on the other hand, deserves every single bit of disdain directed his way. 35 coaches in history have recorded 100 wins, and Turner is the only one of them with a sub-.500 record. And this is despite being the only guy in history to take over a 14-2 team after they fired their current coach.
This is a good post.
One of the greatest posts in the history of good posts.
Not really. It's real easy to look at numbers and declare someone as great. I hope he lands with one of your teams next year, and by week 8 you'll understand where we get our opinions from. Although San Diego would probably be a great fit for Andy, they're definitely not as intense or care as much about football as we do on the east coast it seems.And do outsiders really think of the Eagles as a "perennial powerhouse" as SSOG said??
 
Not really. It's real easy to look at numbers and declare someone as great. I hope he lands with one of your teams next year, and by week 8 you'll understand where we get our opinions from. Although San Diego would probably be a great fit for Andy, they're definitely not as intense or care as much about football as we do on the east coast it seems.And do outsiders really think of the Eagles as a "perennial powerhouse" as SSOG said??
The Eagles aren't a perennial powerhouse right now, but they made 4 straight NFCCGs and 5 overall. He won an eye-popping 113 games in the 2000s decade. I would very much call that a "perennial powerhouse". As I said, Reid is very bad at the most noticeable parts of a coach's job (specifically: in-game management). The fact that this causes people to overlook the fact that he has six 11-win seasons and 5 championship game appearances vs. just two losing seasons baffles me. Obviously he's been doing something right. Just because it's not visible to the casual fan does not mean it doesn't exist.
 
#1: Marion Campbell

RESUME: Nine seasons, 34-80-1, no playoff appearances, zero winning seasons

Marion Campbell and John Mckay were the NFL's only head coaches to accumulate records that exceeded 40 games below .500.

The biggest difference between Campbell (34-80-1) and McKay (44-88-1) is that McKay was plagued by an expansion franchise which started his coaching career 0-14, 2-12, and 5-11. Once some foundation was set, McKay led the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to playoff appearances in three of four seasons with one victory. He was terminated in 1984 after a second consecutive losing season.

Campbell had two coaching stints with the Atlanta Falcons (1974-1976, 1987-1989) and one with the Philadelphia Eagles (1983-1985), a team just a few seasons removed from Super Bowl contention under **** Vermeil.

Campbell never won more than six games and never finished better than third in his division in any season as a head coach. Just remind a Philadelphian sports enthusiast about Campbell or Bell whenever they get overly passionate over a certain sports figure (or Santa Claus).

(DIS)HONORABLE MENTIONS: Joe Bugel, David Shula, Bruce Coslet, Walt Kiesling

 
Not really. It's real easy to look at numbers and declare someone as great. I hope he lands with one of your teams next year, and by week 8 you'll understand where we get our opinions from. Although San Diego would probably be a great fit for Andy, they're definitely not as intense or care as much about football as we do on the east coast it seems.And do outsiders really think of the Eagles as a "perennial powerhouse" as SSOG said??
The Eagles aren't a perennial powerhouse right now, but they made 4 straight NFCCGs and 5 overall. He won an eye-popping 113 games in the 2000s decade. I would very much call that a "perennial powerhouse". As I said, Reid is very bad at the most noticeable parts of a coach's job (specifically: in-game management). The fact that this causes people to overlook the fact that he has six 11-win seasons and 5 championship game appearances vs. just two losing seasons baffles me. Obviously he's been doing something right. Just because it's not visible to the casual fan does not mean it doesn't exist.
:confused: It baffles you?! WTF? Well isn't that one of the main jobs of a head coach?!?!? The fact that you repeatedly admit his in game management sucks but then just blow it off as no big deal is amazing. As a fan what else is more important? This deficiency, albeit a major one, is the main reason he is 1-4 in those championship games and 0-1 in the Super Bowl. In 14 years he's still making the same mistakes as he was in year one.eta: And I'm not here to say that he's a terrible coach, by no means. Just that he's not as great as everyone on the outside thinks he is. And after 14 years of seeing the same thing week in and week out it's frustrating and we're tired of seeing it And we are ready for a change.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really. It's real easy to look at numbers and declare someone as great. I hope he lands with one of your teams next year, and by week 8 you'll understand where we get our opinions from. Although San Diego would probably be a great fit for Andy, they're definitely not as intense or care as much about football as we do on the east coast it seems.And do outsiders really think of the Eagles as a "perennial powerhouse" as SSOG said??
The Eagles aren't a perennial powerhouse right now, but they made 4 straight NFCCGs and 5 overall. He won an eye-popping 113 games in the 2000s decade. I would very much call that a "perennial powerhouse". As I said, Reid is very bad at the most noticeable parts of a coach's job (specifically: in-game management). The fact that this causes people to overlook the fact that he has six 11-win seasons and 5 championship game appearances vs. just two losing seasons baffles me. Obviously he's been doing something right. Just because it's not visible to the casual fan does not mean it doesn't exist.
:confused: It baffles you?! WTF? Well isn't that one of the main jobs of a head coach?!?!? The fact that you repeatedly admit his in game management sucks but then just blow it off as no big deal is amazing. As a fan what else is more important? This deficiency, albeit a major one, is the main reason he is 1-4 in those championship games and 0-1 in the Super Bowl. In 14 years he's still making the same mistakes as he was in year one.eta: And I'm not here to say that he's a terrible coach, by no means. Just that he's not as great as everyone on the outside thinks he is. And after 14 years of seeing the same thing week in and week out it's frustrating and we're tired of seeing it And we are ready for a change.
Imagine two theoretical coaches. We'll call the first one "Marty", and the second one "Norv". Marty is substantially better than Norv at motivating his players. He is very flexible with his schemes. He's a popular guy that players want to play for and coaches want to coach for, which means he can attract top talents in both fields. He is a master at emphasizing the fundamentals, meaning his teams play disciplined and never get beaten by their own stupidity. He is one of the best guys in history at getting his teams to overachieve, and as a result he's topped 8 wins in a whopping 90% of his seasons, even when handed some teams that were expected to be terrible. His one weakness is his in-game management- when to call timeouts, when to challenge, when to put his foot on the gas, when to grind out the clock. Norv is not a flexible coach. He fits square pegs into round holes, schematically, and he is bad at hiring talented coordinators or delegating responsibility. His team is generally undisciplined and unmotivated, frequently losing to inferior teams after a raft of mistakes. His big strength, however, is in-game management. He's good at knowing when to call timeouts, when to throw challenges, when to step on the gas, and when to grind the clock. As you can see, there's a lot more to a coach's job than simple in-game management. In fact, I'd say that's the least important part. A disciplined, fundamentally sound, motivated team will still win a lot of games if poorly managed in-game, but a reckless, unsound, unmotivated team will cough up game after game to inferior opponents no matter how impeccable and timely the timeout calls are. The problem is that in-game management, as the most visible aspect of coaching, is disproportionately weighted in comparison to the other coaching skills. It's better to judge a coach, not by his in-game skills, but by whether he could "take his'n and beat your'n, then take your'n and beat his'n". Marty Schottenheimer was one of those coaches. So is Andy Reid. Norv Turner is a coach who could take his'n and lose to your'n, then take your'n and lose to his'n. but at least he'd call challenges in the appropriate places while doing so.Edit: of course, the question of whether Reid has overstayed his welcome in Philly is another question entirely. A guy can be a great coach and it can still be time for a change.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Norv has really made some baffling challenges over the years

The players have all said he is a terrific motivator, and none of ua are at practices or in the locker room to know otherwise

Marty's team would have won the super bowl if mot for the lack of discipline in the pats game

So i respectfully disagree with most of what you said

 
Norv has really made some baffling challenges over the yearsThe players have all said he is a terrific motivator, and none of ua are at practices or in the locker room to know otherwiseMarty's team would have won the super bowl if mot for the lack of discipline in the pats gameSo i respectfully disagree with most of what you said
I was mostly using Marty and Norv because they were germane to the thread, not because they were the Platonic ideals of "good at everything but management" and "good at nothing but management". I agree that Marty's teams were playing faster, looser, and less disciplined in his final seasons (although I think it was a conscious decision to give a freer rein to what was easily the most talented team he'd ever coached, and it did result in a 14-2 season). I also don't think free agents were particularly motivated to sign with SD just because of Marty. And while in-game management is probably Norv's biggest strength, that doesn't mean he's the best at it in the league. As I said, I was just listing every part of a coach's job I could think of, attributing them to two hypothetical coaches, and using that to illustrate the point that game management is probably the least important skill for a hea coach.
 
The Chargers are the Cowboys of the AFC: just talented and good enough to sometimes contend and make their fans think that maybe "this year is the year," but it never is.
I know very few Charger fans that have thought "this year is the year" since probably 2009. I have heard many idiotic fans of other teams and lazy sportswriters baa that the Chargers are "underachieving" every year despite the fact they've had several holes that haven't been filled(most notably offensive MVP candidate Tomlinson and defensive MVP candidate Merriman). If anyone honestly thinks you don't miss impact players like that, or that it's easy to replace impact players like that, well that says more than I need to know about the "analysis" of the situation. I was very critical of drafting Ryan Mathews because they had so many holes to fill on the OL and defensive backfield that packaging picks for a single player was a luxury they couldn't afford. Mathews has been around for quite awhile. You can continue to have fun with the straw man however.PS - Just curious, do you honestly believe that maybe "this is the year" for the broncos?
Maybe. I think Denver can be the 3rd best AFC team when it is all said and done this season, but not sure they can get out of the AFC into the Super Bowl if they have to win at both Houston and New England. NE is not a good matchup for the Broncos defense, for one. Honestly, I think the Broncos schedule being so tough early on, when the offense was still gelling, could end up being the reason why they are a 3 or 4 seed, instead of a 1 or 2.
 
Norv Turner isn't the worst coach ever. But he has to hold or be nearing the logevity record for bad coaches.

 
I was mostly using Marty and Norv because they were germane to the thread, not because they were the Platonic ideals of "good at everything but management" and "good at nothing but management".
I agree with you that coaching during the game (clock management, challenges, time outs, etc.) is a very small part of coaching. The much more important parts are devising and installing the game plan, managing the rest of the coaching staff, etc."Marty" and "Norv" were odd names to choose as examples to make the point, though. Marty Schottenheimer's Charger teams were not disciplined. I don't see a big difference between Marty and Norv when it comes to discipline, popularity among players, or in-game management. If we're dividing coaching into "what the fans see" and "behind the scenes stuff," I'd say that Marty's strengths (motivation, organization, press conferences) were probably more in the former category, comparatively, while Norv's strengths (offensive Xs and Os) are probably more in the latter category.
 
Norv Turner isn't the worst coach ever. But he has to hold or be nearing the logevity record for bad coaches.
It's amazing that he's managed to last this long in the league. Has there ever been a head coach with this bad of a record that has been recycled this many times? He's the anti Bill Parcells.
 
Norv Turner isn't the worst coach ever. But he has to hold or be nearing the logevity record for bad coaches.
It's amazing that he's managed to last this long in the league. Has there ever been a head coach with this bad of a record that has been recycled this many times? He's the anti Bill Parcells.
There is definitely no one who has had more longevity than Turner who has as weak a record. Turner has lost 119 games and has a .483 career winning percentage; everyone with more than 118 losses has a winning percentage over .500. Even Weeb Ewbank managed 130-129-7. The closest to Norv is Sam Wyche who was 84-107 (.440). You could also make an argument for Norm Van Brocklin at 66-100 (.398). Coincidentally, the next inactive coach ahead of Norv on the career-losses list is Marty Schottenheimer (200-126-1, .613).
 
Not really. It's real easy to look at numbers and declare someone as great. I hope he lands with one of your teams next year, and by week 8 you'll understand where we get our opinions from. Although San Diego would probably be a great fit for Andy, they're definitely not as intense or care as much about football as we do on the east coast it seems.

And do outsiders really think of the Eagles as a "perennial powerhouse" as SSOG said??
The Eagles aren't a perennial powerhouse right now, but they made 4 straight NFCCGs and 5 overall. He won an eye-popping 113 games in the 2000s decade. I would very much call that a "perennial powerhouse". As I said, Reid is very bad at the most noticeable parts of a coach's job (specifically: in-game management). The fact that this causes people to overlook the fact that he has six 11-win seasons and 5 championship game appearances vs. just two losing seasons baffles me. Obviously he's been doing something right. Just because it's not visible to the casual fan does not mean it doesn't exist.
And in steady decline since '08, with a current streak of 11 wins in their last 27 games. Look it up.
 
And in steady decline since '08, with a current streak of 11 wins in their last 27 games. Look it up.
I'm not saying it isn't time to part ways with Reid. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks a coach with Reid's resume is suddenly a bad coach because he's 11-16 over his last 27 games (hey, that's not an arbitrary cutoff or anything!) is certifiable. Reid is a great coach. Maybe it's time for him to move on from his current situation, but he's still a great coach.
 
And in steady decline since '08, with a current streak of 11 wins in their last 27 games. Look it up.
I'm not saying it isn't time to part ways with Reid. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks a coach with Reid's resume is suddenly a bad coach because he's 11-16 over his last 27 games (hey, that's not an arbitrary cutoff or anything!) is certifiable. Reid is a great coach. Maybe it's time for him to move on from his current situation, but he's still a great coach.
No, not a bad coach. But he's not among the NFL coaching elite. An average of 8.8 (or less) wins per season since '05. And certainly time for him to move on.People are quick to bash Turner and praise Reid, yet over the last 6 years Turner's been the more successful coach with more regular season & post-season wins.
 
I'd really love the Chargers to land Chip Kelly.

I'd almost rather keep Norv than end up with Andy Reid (unless Reid can find a way to bring Jim Johnson with him).

 
Chargers allow a 30-yard gain on a dump-off pass to Ray Rice on a 4th & 29.

A stop would have won the game. Instead, they lose.

That should just about do it for Norval Eugene Turner era.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top