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!
I interviewed a black kid today that was born in France and grew up there. There is no such thing as an African-French, why are there still African-Americans? I am a caucasion born in America, why are all blacks born in America referred to as African-Americans. Its unnecessary.
While Shell was terrible, Edwards did an excellent job taking a team that missed the playoffs the previous year and lost its star QB, and took them to the playoffs in one of the toughest conferences in recent memory.Jauron also did a very good job. No one expected much out of Buffalo.
Dont disagree with anything you said. However, I do think Edwards is another of those overly conservative coaches that cannot get their team over the hump in the playoffs.FYI. Simple definition of retread for this example is a coach with previous NFL head coaching experience.
good grief, start a thread in the free for all if you must.
Dude, I'm not the one that started a misinformed thread claiming that the NFL is stuck in a cycle of hiring retread coaches. Very pertinent information you are sharing here. Keep up the good work.
It's not misinformed at all. The purpose of this thread is to discuss why coaches that consistently fail continue to get first looks as a new head coach for teams, not to discuss the political correctness of what we call black Americans, "dude".
I have no idea what "4 coach history" means since the Steelers have several coaches and are coming up on their 75th season. The last Steeler retread was Mike Nixon.
Pre-NFL?The Steelers joined the NFL in 1933, and were never "in" anything but the NFL.
If you want to believe the NFL started in 1966, that's cool. For a fan of a team that's been around as long as the Steelers (even if they were horrible before 1970), that's just surprising. But Nixon was the coach in 1965, so that's hardly a different era than 1966.
So... the guy who thinks the Steelers only had four coaches in their history isn't looking stupid?
Edwards and Shell weren't retreads per the JohnnyU definition. That means 2 of the 18 coaches listed were retreads or 11%. I think you just oVVned JohnnyU in this debate.Based on the recent Super Bowl winners, maybe a better thread would be why isn't the NFL hiring head coaches with head coaching experience.
I really don't mind being "Owned" in a debate, I'm just trying to determine why coaching failures get 3rd and 4th looks (consideration for HC jobs) as a HC in the NFL after they have already failed two or more times. What I think we have determined is that coaches don't get a long enough look in some cases, and some get too many looks. I also don't think minority coaches are really considered most of the time. Yes, they bring them in for interviews to satisfy the masses, but I don't think most are seriously considered. That's just wrong.1) Owners need to allow new head coaches more time to build their team, maybe a 4 or 5 year plan, not 2 or 3.
fixed
By my count, there have only been 17* coaches from the middle of the 20th century to 2005 that coached three or four teams (none coached five). So that really starts to cut into the retread list.Of those, only six had nonwinning career records following their second coaching stint. Wade Phillips should probably be thrown out, since his first coaching stint in New Orleans was for only four games, and his career record following his third team was well over .500. Mike McCormack should be thrown out, since his third coaching job was when he was a mid-season replacement for the Seahawks, and thus wasn't hired to be a HC. Walt Kiesling and Joe Kuharich were from before the Super Bowl Era. This leaves:Marion Campbell (1987, Atl)Jack Pardee (1990, Hou)*Lou Saban had a winning record before he was hired by his third team, so he didn't qualify before. But since he had such a bad record in Denver, he had a losing career record before being hired by his fourth team. However he had won two AFL title games, so I think that pretty clearly omits him from being a retread.
To bring this around to the original post, if by "go after" you mean interview with the realistic possibility of hiring someone, then I think it is only reasonable to consider coaches from all sorts of different backgrounds (race, experience, whatever). To instantly dismiss a coach because he didn't match the expected level of success with some other club(s) several years ago doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the owner or GM.
And I showed your that your premise for this thread was WAY off being that approx. 75% of the coaches hired in the last 2 years are first time NFL Head Coaches. I thought that discussion was over.
Based on this definition in 2006 the only retread coach in the NFL was **** Jauron and that's based solely on the fact that he coached the Detroit Lions for 5 games the year before. Apparently your definition of retread and the original posters definition are different.
Yes, Jauron (if you want to count the five games) would become only the third coach to meet that profile in the SB era.
Turner is the classic retread. Great coordinator, terrible Head Coach. This is illustrated by the fact that The Sports Guy Bill Simmons played blackjack with Norv in Vegas and good old Norv couldnt make a decision to save his life.
Four years in a row now with an offense ranked #20 or worse. Only one offense ranked in the top 10 in the past 15 years. Norv Turner is the definition of a retread.
It seems your issue is really with lack of black head coaches being considered then "retreads". I think you'll be much more successful arguing that point.Regarding 1), too many of the coaches you are asking to be given a chance are doing well so quickly that the public won't wait 5 years. Last to first seems to be a common theme in the NFL.JohnnyU said:
Not if you bring Norv Turner into the conversation. There have been others as well, but no need to list them all. I mean, it seems as if some of these guys always get the first look, even if they don't get the job. I guess I don't understand it. Maybe it's mostly just me. Also, there are several previous black head coaches that classify as retreads. Regardless of what's been said, I consider Art Shell as one of them, mostly because the game has passed him by. Dennis Green may be another one that is approaching that classification. Yes, he had success in Minnesota, but after his recent failure, if he fails again, it may be time to classify him as a retread.
If I were interviewing, I'd bring in the most experienced guy around, the hottest young prospect, and a few in between. That would give me something to compare and contrast against. If nothing else, it might give me some insight into my team for free.
Good point about the free insight
This is exactly what I was thinking when I started to read this post. WHERE are all the retread coaches? If anything the NFL has been getting away from the practice of hiring retread Head Coaches. The Falcons haven't learned anything from the failed Spurrier and Saban experiments though.It's more about 'the coaching trees' are from and 'the systems' that these newer coaches run.
What exactly was to be learned? That sometimes college coaches don't pan out? I think the same can be said about any coaching hire.
I would go so far as to say that most of the time college coaches don't pan out. I see Rick Neuheisel is tearing up the NFL.
Who is the last College Coach to succeed?The list of failures is quite long:SpurrierSabanHoltzRich BrooksButch DavisDennis EricksonDick McPhersonRay PerkinsHoward SchnellenbergerGene StallingsThe couple of successes I can think of are Jimmy Johnson and Bobby Ross (I dont count Barry Switzer).
Well it's ridiculous to not count Switzer.Also, Bill Walsh and Dennis Green. There's a complete list somewhere out there in the SP.
Why is it ridiculous not to count Switzer. He walked into a SB team. That never happens. He went 40-24 over 4 years with a SB team. I'm not sure I call Switzer successful in that scenario.I forgot about Walsh and Green. There were some guys where I wasnt sure if they had started in college. Like I excluded Tom Coughlin because he was a long time NFL assistant before he went to BC.
Switzer won a SB. That's pretty darn successful. The best team often doesn't win in the NFL, and the most talented team or the best team is still more likely to not win the Super Bowl than win the Super Bowl. The '95 team had a great year, and I don't know what more you could have asked of him than that.By your logic, Jimmy Johnson wasn't a great coach but just a great GM. Do you have any specific reasons for disliking Switzer? (Any coaching moves he made that you thought were stupid, etc.)
Going for it on 4th and 1 from his own 20 against the Eagles when they had just failed on 3rd and 1. I believe that game was headed to OT before he made that brilliant decision.Although I think it is somewhat exaggerated, I have heard multiple Cowboy players talk of basically running the team themselves during the Switzer era (Aikman was one of them. That is damning evidence in my book.)
That 4th and 1 talk is the only thing I've ever heard in regards to him being a bad coach. Gary Kubiak did something similar this year too, and that's without the greatest running game of all time behind him. Honestly, if the biggest complaint people can cite about Switzer is that he thought Emmitt Smith could get a 4th and 1, I don't think he's too bad of a coach.(And obviously it's not like one decision is a big deal. Every coach has made some incredibly stupid ones before, but I'm not even sure if I'd call Switzer's decision incredibly stupid.)
You have obviously never coached before. Going for it on 4th and 1 at your own 20 in a tie game with under a minute left is an idiotic move. If you cant see that, then you are an idiot.
I don't think that's at all clear. In fact, I would bet that the Romer analysis would show that it's a positive win expectation move. You're wagering that the odds of getting the first down are better than the odds of stopping the other team from scoring with a minute left after receiving a punt. If you get the first down, the game's over; if you punt, you gain about 35 yards of field position (average net), which puts the ball at the opponent's 45. They need 25 yards to get into field goal range. I think it's a fine choice to go for the first down and the immediate win opposite that possibility.
Please keep that line of arugments out of the SP. Thanks.
