Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why do you need to give a coach three years to prove himself?


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 Cyberjag

Cyberjag

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:10 AM

I can understand players needing that much time to really mature, but your new head coach has generally been in the league for years already. And even if he's installing a new system, shouldn't pro's be expected to learn it with one off-season?

I've poked around, and there are some coaches out there who took three years to start winning, but the rule seems to be that coaches who establish winning programs do it in their first or second year. So why are people saying you need three?

#2 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,177 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:17 AM

Because you wouldn't have to work too hard to make the case that Rivera & Co have really only had about 1.5 years. They had a full camp and were able to put Chuds playbook in Cams hands so its not fair to completely ignore the locked out off season but they didn't get the full benefit of it either.

#3 X-Clown

X-Clown

    Positive Polly

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,354 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:17 AM

I don't subscribe to this theory, but my guess is that with a rookie QB, a pretty young team overall, a GM who appeared to build a team differently than the head coach wanted (who since has been fired), and the fact that we were a 2-14 team that actually looked worse than their record on the field in 2010, that people think the rebuilding process should be more drawn out.

#4 Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    OWN the Line of Scrimmage

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,852 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:23 AM

Need time to get your players, your systems implemented and with a rookie QB that's tough to do, regardless of where they come from. One of the NFLN analysts I respect said early in the season that for most QB's the light doesn't really come on until year 5. Matt Ryan was his example.

Also, there is much more to being HC than a coordinator, you now delegate more and coach less. It's a change. I like what we've seen from Rivera as a whole, there are certainly things to work on, but we've seen what we're capable of on both O and D now, it's just a matter of putting it all together.

If we change staff's now everyone has to learn a new O and D and I think it's too early to put that on the team and to give up on the things we know we can do.

#5 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,216 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:50 AM

Year three solidifies(for better or worse) more changes to the team that are coach approved.

Rivera would actually only have two real off-seasons if he is granted a THIRD season. It also seemed it took half a season to just shake the lame duck Lockout Fox smell out the locker room and off a lot of Fox's players in year 1.

There is no denying that this years version of the team is better than last seasons and WAYY better than the season prior.

One could argue that Rivera's biggest stat that is used to support firing him should be used to support to retain him.

To me the fact we have lost games on the last drives and have had the lead on even the best teams in the 4th quarter IS a positive culture change. It shows they execute a mostly successful game plan that the coaches prepare.

FINISHING in the second halves is the problem,as we all know, and is very correctable from a coaching staff that is learning and more importantly from players. Atlanta and SD was a great indicator that they have turned a major corner in learning what it takes to win and staying focused.

Even when Fox was the coach we had to eek out last second victories from behind, usually from John Kasay.

These other teams that are praised this season like the Colts are down most the game bc of poor/inconsistent QB play (Luck is second in Ints). Yes he has had comeback wins but they were against poor teams that the Panthers could very well beat..minus KC.

IMO, having the lead in games against the better teams in the league is the tougher thing a coach can implement. .and that SPECIFIC trait(finishing games) is showing up.

Norman is sitting(not allowing 99% completion rates in the 4th quarter) with aggressive, hungry corners.
Hardy and CJ still going full speed and less soft zone coverage. DJ in the secondary has been an improvement as well.

As long as there is no implosion games I think Rivera in year 3 is better than hitting the reset button on retreads and even more inexperienced coaches.

#6 raleigh-panther

raleigh-panther

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,381 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

I think much depends on the team make-up when that coach comes on board.

Is it ready made, a slight tweek, or a do-over.

I mean, let's face it, Tony Dungy goes to the Colts, he's got Peyton Manning.

Fox goes to Denver and Manning falls in his lap. Even without Manning, Fox inherited a great defense and running game and special teams.

Harbaugh had almost a ready made team for himself, great defense and running game, a fix need in the passing game and that's his sweet spot.

Now, comparing what Harbaugh, Dungy, and Fox have, compared to what Rivera got, a case could be made for 3 years with Rivera. He had nothing, zero, nada.

#7 Keith Moons Liver

Keith Moons Liver

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,616 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:36 PM

Some people are convinced that because some other successful coaches started poorly, Rivera will therefore become successful It's sort of like thinking Jimmy Clausen will turn into John Elway because they both started out bad.

#8 Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    OWN the Line of Scrimmage

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,852 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:54 PM

Some people are convinced that because some other successful coaches started poorly, Rivera will therefore become successful It's sort of like thinking Jimmy Clausen will turn into John Elway because they both started out bad.


I contend that Rivera "can" become a good chance given the opportunity and there's only one way to find out. I don't think there's really anything to gain by starting over after one training camp and two seasons.

#9 Keith Moons Liver

Keith Moons Liver

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,616 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:10 PM

I contend that Rivera "can" become a good chance given the opportunity and there's only one way to find out. I don't think there's really anything to gain by starting over after one training camp and two seasons.

I'm sure he "can" become a good coach but I think the probability is very low at this point. What we "gain" is not having to completely start over next year. What do we gain by delaying the inevitable? If he has another bad year we end up getting rid of him and we are basically right where we are at the moment, only with one year less of Cam ahead of us.

#10 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,295 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:11 PM

it depends on progress being made. that's been the issue with me all along.

you don't improve your record after the first year....you gone.

if you stay the same...you stay on a short leash.

if you improve, you earn yourself another year.

i have to see progress.

if he stays, next year he has to pull out a winning season or he's gone. after that he has to repeat and bring about two winning seasons in a row.

if you can't get this team to accomplish all of that, then you're doing something wrong.

#11 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,684 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:29 PM

I might feel differently about keeping Ron and Chud if they came out and admitted that they did a poor job with our offense to start the year, rather than just blaming it on the players' failure in execution.

Why is this admission important? Two reasons:

1) It tells us they've learned from their mistakes and aren't likely to repeat them
2) It sends a message to the team that they're all in this together (players and coaches) and that the coaches are as willing to learn and improve as the players.

Until we hear this kind of admission, there is no reason to believe they won't screw up again, and if that's the case, we might as well make the change now.

#12 PantherTrain84

PantherTrain84

    MEMBER

  • TROLLOLOL
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:35 PM

Cyber I saw this topic being discussed in the an inferior site comments about the HC candidates. If we are trending up and show vast improvement and the players havent quit on their coach, I say he should get a 3rd year, ONLY if we end at 7-9

#13 Cyberjag

Cyberjag

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,676 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 01:58 PM

Honestly? I think he's had his shot and blew it. We can be patient all day, but Capers and Fox were both in the playoffs in their second year, with starting points that were demonstrably worse than what Rivera has. You can point to a lack of training camps, you can point to GMs, you can point to players not executing, etc... You can ALWAYS find an excuse for why someone isn't successful.

I want the guy who doesn't need that excuse. And I don't want to wait another year to see if maybe we made a mistake and we have one already. Most of the guys who don't need that excuse win and win early, regardless of their circumstances.

#14 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,963 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:02 PM

The issue is not whether he needs three years to prove himself. The issue for me is he going to be a good coach next year given how we are doing now, how he has progressed the team and projections that we will be better or worse next year. Or can we find a better guy who can come in and do a better job than Rivera can next year. The first two years are only germaine to assess the future not as some marker to say that this is how long he should have taken.

BTW- any stats on coaching years versus success need to compare apples to apples so we need to look at the success rate of first time head coaches over their first 3 years. Belicheck, for example,took 4 years to take Cleveland to the playoffs his first time coaching.

#15 Awesomeness!!

Awesomeness!!

    BangBang

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,399 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:03 PM

Should have given Clausen 3 years as well by that same logic..


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com