NFL teams are too eager to fire their head coach

[Big_D2]

I never understood this. Replacing the head coach isn't always the answer.

Take the Eagles for example:

Andy Reid was in charge for 14 seasons and let go last offseason.

He had a winning record and a playoff appearance nine times in that duration, including six division titles, five NFC Championship game appearance, and a SB appearance.

He was 8-8 twice in his tenure.

That mean he had just three losing seasons in 14 years.

One of those was the start of his tenure when the team was in shambles with a rookie QB and not feasible for any coach make into winners so quick. Another was a year with such a huge amount of injuries to key players such as the QB, RB, WR, OT, C, CB, and even the Kicker and punter. It really isnt logical that any coach could have had a winning season considering all the injuries. That just leaves one more loss.

He had a winning percentage of .585 in the regular season and .526 in the playoffs.

Beyond winning a super bowl, he really couldn't do anything else to warrant keeping his job. I understand if someone wants him gone specifically for that reason but what makes you think the next guy will do any better?

The eagles certainly aren't alone. Cleveland is now on their sixth coach since rejoining the league since 1999. I really think that many coaching changes is counterproductive. When a team is ran a certain way under one coach, it really has to start all over under another. A team that runs in a zone defense could now change to a man to man.

Also, look at Ken Whisenhunt. He had a super bowl appearance in his short duration in AZ but when his super bowl QB retired his team reflected the loss. Perhaps, one could argue that it was his fault for not obtaining another solid QB but there is only so many of those that go around.

Meanwhile, the Steelers have had just had three head coaches since the 60's and I think this leads to part of their success. In the late 90's or early 2000s the steelers were rumored to think about replacing Cowher but they proved everyone wrong when they rewarded him with a contract extension instead. Cowher repaid the favor when he won them a super bowl. Changing the coach isn't always the answer.

 

[Paulie]

I never understood this. Replacing the head coach isn't always the answer.

Take the Eagles for example:

Andy Reid was in charge for 14 seasons and let go last offseason.

He had a winning record and a playoff appearance nine times in that duration, including six division titles, five NFC Championship game appearance, and a SB appearance.

He was 8-8 twice in his tenure.

That mean he had just three losing seasons in 14 years.

One of those was the start of his tenure when the team was in shambles with a rookie QB and not feasible for any coach make into winners so quick. Another was a year with such a huge amount of injuries to key players such as the QB, RB, WR, OT, C, CB, and even the Kicker and punter. It really isnt logical that any coach could have had a winning season considering all the injuries. That just leaves one more loss.

He had a winning percentage of .585 in the regular season and .526 in the playoffs.

Beyond winning a super bowl, he really couldn't do anything else to warrant keeping his job. I understand if someone wants him gone specifically for that reason but what makes you think the next guy will do any better?

The eagles certainly aren't alone. Cleveland is now on their sixth coach since rejoining the league since 1999. I really think that many coaching changes is counterproductive. When a team is ran a certain way under one coach, it really has to start all over under another. A team that runs in a zone defense could now change to a man to man.

Also, look at Ken Whisenhunt. He had a super bowl appearance in his short duration in AZ but when his super bowl QB retired his team reflected the loss. Perhaps, one could argue that it was his fault for not obtaining another solid QB but there is only so many of those that go around.

Meanwhile, the Steelers have had just had three head coaches since the 60's and I think this leads to part of their success. In the late 90's or early 2000s the steelers were rumored to think about replacing Cowher but they proved everyone wrong when they rewarded him with a contract extension instead. Cowher repaid the favor when he won them a super bowl. Changing the coach isn't always the answer.

Andy Reid had like 10 playoff berths and turned not a single one of them into a SB. He lost 4 NFC championships, and the SB itself.

And his players quit on him this season, possible even dating back to last season. He made some of the most ridiculous play calls I've ever seen in my life. And he just lost his son to a drug overdose this past year, and probably had no business even being on the sideline because it was crystal clear his head wasn't in the game this season...this was by far his worst one.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I think when you let go of one coach and hire another the reasoning is for more than just changing who is in charge. It's about implementing all new systems and getting players and coaches who fit well into those systems.

Andy Reid's system was beginning to show its age and so they went another direction. Now I look forward to the Redskins demolishing Chip Kelly's pee wee league system for the next 2-3 years before he's pushed out

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Andy Reid: overrated from day one. Never understood the concept of a "two-minute offense", and lost many games because of it. Too many personal problems that distracted him from his job.

Ken Whisenhunt: exposed as a crappy coach after Kurt Warner retired.

Cleveland Browns: the "new" Browns have been a MESS since they re-joined the league in 1999. Maybe someday they'll hire a REAL football coach and quit experimenting with college coaches and lower-tier assistant coaches.

 

[B. Kidd]

What Paulie said re: Andy Reid!!
The worst head coach example the OP'er could've used to make his point.

Reid is now the K.C. Chiefs' problem. He's long in the tooth, short in imagination and one of the worst coaches to ever coach in the NFL when it comes to 'time management' or using the clock effectively.

 

[Big_D2]

Why is he so bad if he has such a high winning percentage and made 9 playoff appearances in 14 years.

 

[B. Kidd]

Why is he so bad if he has such a high winning percentage and made 9 playoff appearances in 14 years.

His comet has flamed out. Last two seasons sucked mole asses and recent past performance is a very good indicator of immediate future performance and not to be redundant, if he was a SuperBowl caliber coach, we would've had at least one or maybe two in the last 14 years.
Get it? Thank God Eagles owner Jeff Lurie finally did.........

 

[Paulie]

Why is he so bad if he has such a high winning percentage and made 9 playoff appearances in 14 years.

He shit the bed everytime in the playoffs. Unbelievably poor play calling, time management, and leadership.

You need more than just playoff appearances to be a good coach.

And also, you'll note, that ever since Jim Johnson died and their defense wasn't the same anymore, the team wasn't either.

 

[HUGGY]

I never understood this. Replacing the head coach isn't always the answer.

Take the Eagles for example:

Andy Reid was in charge for 14 seasons and let go last offseason.

He had a winning record and a playoff appearance nine times in that duration, including six division titles, five NFC Championship game appearance, and a SB appearance.

He was 8-8 twice in his tenure.

That mean he had just three losing seasons in 14 years.

One of those was the start of his tenure when the team was in shambles with a rookie QB and not feasible for any coach make into winners so quick. Another was a year with such a huge amount of injuries to key players such as the QB, RB, WR, OT, C, CB, and even the Kicker and punter. It really isnt logical that any coach could have had a winning season considering all the injuries. That just leaves one more loss.

He had a winning percentage of .585 in the regular season and .526 in the playoffs.

Beyond winning a super bowl, he really couldn't do anything else to warrant keeping his job. I understand if someone wants him gone specifically for that reason but what makes you think the next guy will do any better?

The eagles certainly aren't alone. Cleveland is now on their sixth coach since rejoining the league since 1999. I really think that many coaching changes is counterproductive. When a team is ran a certain way under one coach, it really has to start all over under another. A team that runs in a zone defense could now change to a man to man.

Also, look at Ken Whisenhunt. He had a super bowl appearance in his short duration in AZ but when his super bowl QB retired his team reflected the loss. Perhaps, one could argue that it was his fault for not obtaining another solid QB but there is only so many of those that go around.

Meanwhile, the Steelers have had just had three head coaches since the 60's and I think this leads to part of their success. In the late 90's or early 2000s the steelers were rumored to think about replacing Cowher but they proved everyone wrong when they rewarded him with a contract extension instead. Cowher repaid the favor when he won them a super bowl. Changing the coach isn't always the answer.

Having a rookie QB is no excuse for losing...Note these examples..

Robbie3G ...Lucky Luck...and Russell Wilson.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I never understood this. Replacing the head coach isn't always the answer.

Take the Eagles for example:

Andy Reid was in charge for 14 seasons and let go last offseason.

He had a winning record and a playoff appearance nine times in that duration, including six division titles, five NFC Championship game appearance, and a SB appearance.

He was 8-8 twice in his tenure.

That mean he had just three losing seasons in 14 years.

One of those was the start of his tenure when the team was in shambles with a rookie QB and not feasible for any coach make into winners so quick. Another was a year with such a huge amount of injuries to key players such as the QB, RB, WR, OT, C, CB, and even the Kicker and punter. It really isnt logical that any coach could have had a winning season considering all the injuries. That just leaves one more loss.

He had a winning percentage of .585 in the regular season and .526 in the playoffs.

Beyond winning a super bowl, he really couldn't do anything else to warrant keeping his job. I understand if someone wants him gone specifically for that reason but what makes you think the next guy will do any better?

The eagles certainly aren't alone. Cleveland is now on their sixth coach since rejoining the league since 1999. I really think that many coaching changes is counterproductive. When a team is ran a certain way under one coach, it really has to start all over under another. A team that runs in a zone defense could now change to a man to man.

Also, look at Ken Whisenhunt. He had a super bowl appearance in his short duration in AZ but when his super bowl QB retired his team reflected the loss. Perhaps, one could argue that it was his fault for not obtaining another solid QB but there is only so many of those that go around.

Meanwhile, the Steelers have had just had three head coaches since the 60's and I think this leads to part of their success. In the late 90's or early 2000s the steelers were rumored to think about replacing Cowher but they proved everyone wrong when they rewarded him with a contract extension instead. Cowher repaid the favor when he won them a super bowl. Changing the coach isn't always the answer.

Having a rookie QB is no excuse for losing...Note these examples..

Robbie3G ...Lucky Luck...and Russell Wilson.

I see what you did there

 

[HUGGY]

I never understood this. Replacing the head coach isn't always the answer.

Take the Eagles for example:

Andy Reid was in charge for 14 seasons and let go last offseason.

He had a winning record and a playoff appearance nine times in that duration, including six division titles, five NFC Championship game appearance, and a SB appearance.

He was 8-8 twice in his tenure.

That mean he had just three losing seasons in 14 years.

One of those was the start of his tenure when the team was in shambles with a rookie QB and not feasible for any coach make into winners so quick. Another was a year with such a huge amount of injuries to key players such as the QB, RB, WR, OT, C, CB, and even the Kicker and punter. It really isnt logical that any coach could have had a winning season considering all the injuries. That just leaves one more loss.

He had a winning percentage of .585 in the regular season and .526 in the playoffs.

Beyond winning a super bowl, he really couldn't do anything else to warrant keeping his job. I understand if someone wants him gone specifically for that reason but what makes you think the next guy will do any better?

The eagles certainly aren't alone. Cleveland is now on their sixth coach since rejoining the league since 1999. I really think that many coaching changes is counterproductive. When a team is ran a certain way under one coach, it really has to start all over under another. A team that runs in a zone defense could now change to a man to man.

Also, look at Ken Whisenhunt. He had a super bowl appearance in his short duration in AZ but when his super bowl QB retired his team reflected the loss. Perhaps, one could argue that it was his fault for not obtaining another solid QB but there is only so many of those that go around.

Meanwhile, the Steelers have had just had three head coaches since the 60's and I think this leads to part of their success. In the late 90's or early 2000s the steelers were rumored to think about replacing Cowher but they proved everyone wrong when they rewarded him with a contract extension instead. Cowher repaid the favor when he won them a super bowl. Changing the coach isn't always the answer.

Having a rookie QB is no excuse for losing...Note these examples..

Robbie3G ...Lucky Luck...and Russell Wilson.

I see what you did there

I speak of gods that were sent here to save the NFL. It is blasphamy to ridicule the gods.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I never understood this. Replacing the head coach isn't always the answer.

Take the Eagles for example:

Andy Reid was in charge for 14 seasons and let go last offseason.

He had a winning record and a playoff appearance nine times in that duration, including six division titles, five NFC Championship game appearance, and a SB appearance.

He was 8-8 twice in his tenure.

That mean he had just three losing seasons in 14 years.

One of those was the start of his tenure when the team was in shambles with a rookie QB and not feasible for any coach make into winners so quick. Another was a year with such a huge amount of injuries to key players such as the QB, RB, WR, OT, C, CB, and even the Kicker and punter. It really isnt logical that any coach could have had a winning season considering all the injuries. That just leaves one more loss.

He had a winning percentage of .585 in the regular season and .526 in the playoffs.

Beyond winning a super bowl, he really couldn't do anything else to warrant keeping his job. I understand if someone wants him gone specifically for that reason but what makes you think the next guy will do any better?

The eagles certainly aren't alone. Cleveland is now on their sixth coach since rejoining the league since 1999. I really think that many coaching changes is counterproductive. When a team is ran a certain way under one coach, it really has to start all over under another. A team that runs in a zone defense could now change to a man to man.

Also, look at Ken Whisenhunt. He had a super bowl appearance in his short duration in AZ but when his super bowl QB retired his team reflected the loss. Perhaps, one could argue that it was his fault for not obtaining another solid QB but there is only so many of those that go around.

Meanwhile, the Steelers have had just had three head coaches since the 60's and I think this leads to part of their success. In the late 90's or early 2000s the steelers were rumored to think about replacing Cowher but they proved everyone wrong when they rewarded him with a contract extension instead. Cowher repaid the favor when he won them a super bowl. Changing the coach isn't always the answer.

Good points.Firing Reid isnt the answer.Reid is not the problem.The problem for the Eagles is they dont have a quarterback.MIchael Vick has never been the same since he was in prison.fire Vick and see what happens next year with Foles is what I would have done.

and yeah that was completely idiotic for the cardinals to fire Whisenhunt.all he ever did for them was take them to their first superbowl ever and thats his reward? He was a maor part of the reason they went there.Its not his fault that the cardinals can only give him nothing but pathetic quarterbacks who cant do jack crap for them. Firing Whisenhunt will only make things worse for them.same thing,quarterback is the problem,not the coach.You could have Vince Lombardi or Bill Parcells as the coach of that team and they would do no better with the quarterbacks on that team he was forced to play with.