 |
| It took the 49ers a whole decade to get back to the playoffs after they fired Steve Mariucci. |
In my picks for Week 17, I said "To those who are calling for Andy Reid's head, I ask, what coaching candidate do you think would do a better job than Reid has done?" In response, my friend Nick commented that the question is irrelevant because many coaching hires that were once unknown coordinators or failures at a previous team have gone on to win a Super Bowl somewhere else. Therefore, who's to say that a new hire like Rob Chudzinski or Jeff Fisher can't succeed where Reid has failed?
(Note: I put Fisher's coaching career in perspective when the Titans fired him last January. Too many analysts blindly equate his longevity to greatness, and it disturbs me that he's become the hottest name on the coaching market this week. I pity the team that gives him a big contract.)
And believe it or not, I agree with Nick. The fact is, every great coach at one time or another was an unknown. Even Vince Lombardi and Bill Walsh had to work their way up as assistants and coordinators before someone gave them a chance to be a head coach.
However, my original question had less to do with the quality of replacement candidates for Reid, and more to do with the level of success that he has established in Philadelphia. In 13 seasons, Reid has taken the Eagles to the playoffs 9 times. That rate is among the best in NFL history. But many Eagle fans have pinpointed certain weaknesses in Reid's approach, many of which I agree with, and have concluded that he "can't win the big one." To those that want to jettison a successful head coach for not being successful enough, heed the following:
In 1992, the Bears fired Mike Ditka after seven playoff appearances in 11 years. Chicago made the playoffs twice in the next 11 years.
In 1998, the Chiefs fired Marty Schottenheimer after seven playoffs in 10
years. Kansas City has made the playoffs three times in the 13 years since.
In 2001, the Vikings fired Dennis Green after eight playoffs in 10 years. Minnesota made the playoffs three times in the 10 years since.
In 2002, the Jaguars fired Tom Coughlin after four playoffs in eight years. Jacksonville made the playoffs twice in the nine years since, and former owner Wayne Weaver admitted this week that he regrets firing Coughlin.
Finally, also in 2002, the 49ers, spoiled from 16 straight seasons of 10-plus wins, fired Steve Mariucci after he made the playoffs "only" four times in six years. Nine years and five coaches later, they've just made it back to the postseason.
Of course, you have examples where an organization moved on from a successful coach who'd grown stale, and came out better for it. In 2001, the Buccaneers fired Tony Dungy, who'd gone 2-4 in the playoffs in six seasons. The very next year, Jon Gruden hoisted the Lombardi Trophy for Tampa Bay. But even then, Dungy later proved with the Colts that he clearly was capable of winning the big one.
I don't bring up the above examples to argue that Reid should keep his job. I bring them up to show that often, when a team thinks it's making a move to get over the hump, it instead slides back to the bottom of the heap. Eagles fans can call for Reid's head, and his replacement may finally win them the championship they crave. But there's just as good of a chance that he sets the franchise back for years to come.
Nick is correct that my original question is irrelevant. There's little way of knowing how good Reid's replacement could be, so why bother asking? Instead, you just have to ask yourself one question..."Do I feel lucky?"
Nick is correct that my original question is irrelevant. There's little way of knowing how good Reid's replacement could be, so why bother asking? Instead, you just have to ask yourself one question..."Do I feel lucky?"
Want to talk football? Follow me on Twitter at @BostonGiant.
Have a suggestion for an article? Email me at eternalsunshinepete@gmail.com.
Image found here.
Nick again - I'm not upset (or angry) about people wanting to argue that Reid deserves another year. I think that's a valid argument and one that I used to make as late as October. What angers me is that people in the national media scoff at the thoughts of most Eagles fans (and local media) that Reid should be fired right now as if it's some completely invalid and ridiculous argument. The national media is making a "oh, it's silly, ridiculous, obnoxious Philadelphia fans that overreact," etc. At least, national media, acknowledge that we have a valid point. We're not completely off base and we're certainly not crazy.
ReplyDeleteHere's a name for you - Donovan F. McNabb. Many Philadelphia fans (ironically, not me) wanted McNabb out of town. Many thought he was a product of the system and was not an effective leader. The national media scoffed at us, made the "grass is greener" argument. Donny Football didn't do well in Washington or Minnesota and is not virtually universally criticized as being ineffective by the national football media. Vindication? Not for me (since I wanted McNabb to stay here), but certainly for others.
In sum, it's not necessarily the argument that Reid should stay that bothers me; it's the complete lack of respect for the argument that Reid should be fired.
Finally, you mention Schottenheimer, Ditka, Denny Green, Coughlin, and Mooch. I suspect that the personnel on the teams that fired those coaches were not stellar and that could also be part of the contributing problem. I've heard around town that Reid (and Vick) have 2012 to get it done (a term that has not been defined). If they don't get it done, Reid and Vick are both gone. At that point, does the new coach have the same excellent-on-paper Eagles team that Reid had?
Ike here- As a Giants fan, no coach has given me more pain and pleasure than Andy Reid. Pain in that he knows how to beat the Giants. Pleasure in that his teams always come up short the bigger the stage.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree with you about Jeff Fisher. Never have I seen someone be so rewarded handsomely for ALMOST winning the Superbowl. My only guess as to his longevity is that he oversaw the move from Houston to Tennessee and was still able to field a competitive team. Not an easy task.
I agree with Nick as well. When the media is in love with a successful coach or manager that has clearly run his course, the fan base is "spoiled" "ignorant" etc (see Torre, Joe).
Each great coach seems to have "their guys" in the locker room, a core group of vets that totally buys into the philosophy and whips people into shape. Problem with Andy is that "his guys" from his best years are few (if any). Not to mention, there are only so many times that Andy can make crazy decisions and not have them bite him in the ass (see Juan-big-ass Mistake).
I put absolutely no stock in "not being able ot win the big one" theory on coaches. Not having one the big one has no correlation on not being able to.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, playoffs are a crapshoot in nearly every sport and most so in a one-and-done type playoff formula. As long as you are positioning your team to make the playoffs and/or get a bye each year you are doing a good job as a coach.
Fact #2 is that Andy Reid is one of the best coaches out there for getting a team into the playoffs. Add that to the fact that he doesn't have that "elite player" that puts the team there every year (see Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Pittsburgh defense). He just consistently gets his teams to the playoffs through good team building, game planning etc.
Does he have his infuriating weaknesses and tendencies? Absolutely. But he also is adaptive. He switched his philsophy on linemen and defense this year just to name a few.
I think a lot of the local reaction is not reasoned but rather frustration led by a local media that dislikes Andy Reid for personal reasons. Andy does not treat them well, protects his players in interviews and frankly thinks their idiots. Which is pretty accurate most of the time.
The more I research about this, the more I'm of the opinion that Andy Reid should stay until he has multiple back-to-back losing seasons or clearly loses the confidence of this team.
Period.
I agree, Mike. There's a fine line between winning and losing a championship, while there is a chasm between the way winning and losing Super Bowl coaches (and players) are treated. It's the problem of taking a process with millions of gray factors (strategy, play call, personnel, injuries, weather, referees, etc.) and judging it by a black and white outcome (wins and losses).
ReplyDeleteFor example, Tom Coughlin's coaching has no control over whether or not Tony Romo can hit a wide-open Mile Austin with a 20 yard throw. But because Romo missed that throw in Week 14, the Giants made the playoffs and Coughlin keeps his job.
And it works the other way too. Peyton Manning is a choke artist, until he wins a Super Bowl in '06, at which point he's not (even if he chokes in the next four playoffs).
A quarterback can win a championship, even if he doesn't play well under pressure. A coach can never win a Super Bowl, even if he's better than 90% of the coaches in the league. Nothing is guaranteed in sports, and everything is a roll of the dice. The goal is to get the person who gives you the most rolls with the best odds. I think Reid does that for the Eagles.
Mike said: But he also is adaptive. He switched his philsophy on linemen and defense this year just to name a few.
ReplyDeleteNick says: He's adaptive? Really Mike? After 13 years he switched his philosophy on linemen and defense? Adaptive?
Mike said: Look at all these teams with elite players and look how the Eagles have done without them.
ReplyDeleteNick says: First, arguably the Eagles have had dynamic and elite players (McNabb, Owens, Westbrook, Vick, McCoy). If you think they aren't elite players, then the onus falls on the people evaluating players via free agency and the draft. Let's take the draft - please name the last impact first or second round draft pick the Eagles have taken on the defensive side of the ball. Who is at least partially responsible for the draft? Let's take free agency - the Eagles acquired the following impact players via free agency or trade this year: Nnamdi Asomugha, Cullen Jenkins, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Jason Babin. Of those four, Jenkins was the best this year. Babin had a great sack total, but is an extreme liability in run defense. Asomugha has been a huge disappointment because he was used incorrectly. Is that not a coaching decision? Yes, his coach was Juan Castillo, not Andy Reid, but who hired Juan Castillo.
Nick - as with most Philadlephia fans you offer criticism with no intelligent alternative. The "experienced" availble head coaches out there simply do not offer the Eagles a better shot at making the playoffs then maintaining the status quo.
ReplyDeleteThe only alternative that I see is to identify an up-and-comer which is a risky endevour.
Again, until Andy Reid misses the playoffs and has a losing record at least 2 years in a row, he deserves to remain the head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles.
I see no compelling counterargument or alternative.
Again, under your logic (and Mike Golic's) the alternative is this - "Look, Andy Reid has gotten us to the playoffs X years. We can't risk changing coaches because then we won't make the playoffs." That doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't we have a greater probability to make the playoffs under a different coach?
ReplyDeleteLet me provide an example - Would Jon Gruden have hired Juan Castillo as defensive coordinator? Would Jeff Fisher have been able to call timeouts in an effective manner? Would Tony Dungy have been able to run the ball effectively in game situations? Or, is the alternative that we don't know what those coaches would do, but we do know that Andy Reid ended up on the bad side of all of those things, and, most importantly, will continue to have Juan Castillo as defensive coordinator, has not been able to call timeouts effectively in 13 years, and has not been able to figure out how to run the ball effectively in 13 years?
Further, why does it matter if Andy Reid misses the playoffs or has a losing record at least 2 years in a row? How does that solve your problem of other coaches offering the Eagles a better opportunity to make the playoffs? Under your logic, we should keep Andy Reid indefinitely because no coach could do a better job at getting the Eagles to the playoffs. In other words, if the Eagles are not successful under Andy Reid, it's not because of Andy Reid, it's for some other reason.
Your logic boggles the mind.
Again, you're entitled to the opinion that Andy Reid should be given another year. That's a valid opinion. But your arguments heretofore do not invalidate other opinions on the subject merely because your arguments exist.
(1) To answer your first question: A team has a MUCH better probability of making the playoffs with a coach that has made the playoffs at such a fantastic rate as Andy Reid than with a new coach. Do I really need to explain that? Sure, a new coach could come in and win 3 superbowls in a row, but history and common sense tells us it's a much higher risk.
ReplyDelete(2) For your second paragraph I encourage you to read Pete's blog on hiring "name" coaches.
(3)To answer your third paragraph - I think it's just plain ridiculous to fire a coach with such a high success rate as Andy Reid unless he has a a couple of bad years in a row. Period. If next year he's 6-10 and misses the playoffs then I think it's clear he's done. But one 8-8 finish after coming off of a playoff year isn't cause for dismisal.
The logic is extremely sound and far more compelling than the knee-jerk reactions that the Philadlephia media is pushing.
The problem is that it's a patient, conservative, and unsexy solution. One that does not attract readers, listeners, or conversationalists.
(1) Look at this from two perspectives. First, let's say Andy Reid takes a team to the playoffs and then he's fired. If the team does not change in any meaningful way to the next year, there are three potential outcomes for a new coach: (a) The new coach does worse than Andy Reid, in which case the new coach is the problem; (b) The new coach does the same as Andy Reid, in which case the new coach is the same as Andy Reid in terms of quality; (c) The new coach does better than Andy Reid, in which case the new coach is better than Andy Reid. Pete's scenarios and your scenarios ignore that teams change from year to year for a variety of reasons that have little to do with the coach (e.g. player regression; players leaving; players getting hurt). Therefore, if Andy Reid goes 8-8 again next year, and a new coach is brought in who does nothing differently, and the new coach goes 8-8, you would say "Ah ha! Should have kept Andy Reid!" This is flawed logic.
ReplyDeleteFurther to #1, you've ignored the idea that getting to the playoffs may be a product of team talent more than a product of Andy Reid. I've watched every Eagles game since Andy Reid took over as coach of the team. There are some losses that can be blamed on poor play or execution. There are also some losses that can be blamed on poor coaching (these may be much easier to see than losses from poor play or execution). In the time I've watched the Eagles, including this year, I can point to specific instances where poor coaching led directly to losses. I can also point to where poor player quality has led directly to losses.
(2) I didn't name those coaches to offer names. I named those coaches to show three things that Reid has done this year, two of which he has done over the course of his career, that have been collossal mistakes that I don't think other coaches would have made. Do those coaches make their own mistakes? Most assuredly.
(3) How do you define bad years? Not making the playoffs? Going 6-10? Under your logic, a new coach wouldn't fix a 6-10 team if Andy Reid couldn't do a better job. Do you even understand the point? Under your logic, there are no coaches that could be as successful as Andy Reid with the Eagles. Thus, if Andy Reid goes 6-10, under your logic, no other coach would have a better record with the same team. Why? Because, under your logic, Andy Reid's the reason why the team won 6 games (and not 5 or 4). By your logic, the reason the Eagles made the playoffs so many years was because of Andy Reid and that another coach would not have taken the team to the playoffs.
Three final thoughts:
(1) "patient, conservative, and unsexy solution" - Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, Andy Reid has coached the Eagles for 13 years. They have not won a Super Bowl. They have lost 3 NFC title games. They have had losing records. In those 13 years, despite not winning a Super Bowl, Andy Reid has not changed his coaching philosophy and has generally not changed his player personnel philosophy. He needed to adapt, and has shown he cannot adapt. If he had adapted, even if he had the same exact record, I would be less inclined to believe he should be fired. But he has not.
(2) The Philadelphia media is not pushing knee-jerk reactions. Again, it has been 13 years. As I indicated before, it's perfectly reasonable for you to indicate that you want Andy Reid to have another year. It's also perfectly reasonable for me to indicate that he should have been fired after this year. I don't mind having the discussion. I mind the automatic assumption that I have a ridiculous argument. That's simply not true.
(3) Question - You're owner of the Eagles. Next year Andy Reid goes 6-10. Do you fire him? In the interest of full disclosure, if you say you would fire him, you're not following your logic anymore and I will explain that to you.