59 replies to this topic

[Bj-Monster23]

agreed. we barely got away with wins that we essentially just got lucky with and we lost games that we had in the bag. again, players made mistakes but the coaching staff made bad calls that helped give those games away.

and performance of the players always falls back on the coaching staff. it's their job to put them in a position to win, and part of that is not giving games away or giving control to the other team. it's also putting together a plan that the players can win with or even excel in. it's also getting the right people in the right positions at the right time and ensuring that they can carry out the plan/directions you've given them.

team management. game management. it all falls on rivera. he improved in some areas, but my main concern is 1) his ability to continue growth and 2) having a low ceiling. it's quite possible that this team will never get much better than average with rivera calling the shots.

but hey...as long as the players are content with their coach and we don't have to rock the boat again, it's all worth it, right?

meh.....if rivera stays, it should be with a very short leash that he will be released from if he doesn't perform as expected...and those expectations are winning season next year or he's gone. not 8-8....winning. playoffs the year after that. that's the bare minimum.

i would also make sure that there's a coach on staff that has HC experience and if rivera's team goes through a losing spell, as in 3 in a row...he's gone and the assistant will take over. if the team is losing by the bye week....he's gone. losing can no longer be tolerated.

if the players think it's harsh or putting too much pressure on him...too bad. play better and know that it's not just your job on the line, it's the coaches.

If you have to put him on a short leash then he doesn't need to coach the Panthers. The reason is that he should be able to go into the season with full confidence. Putting him on a short leash with rock the boat with him and the team which could lead to being a disaster. If the new GM keeps him he really needs to keep him no matter what. But if he have his doubts and don't feel Rivera is the guy then he needs to let him go.

[Argus Plexus]

Look at the W/L column this season and last season. Tell me that is okay.

[Happy Panther]

"...but I also think the Panthers will be one of the most sought after jobs by coaches should it come open."
Not so sure about that. Jerry Richardson has proven himself to be pretty frugal and won't pay a top coach's salary. Witness John Fox in his last season in Charlotte only making about $3M as one of the longest tenured coaches in the league after all his years with the Panthers.

The coach thing is wrong as others have pointed out. But so is the frugality besides the lockout year. After the CBA he paid and overpaid several veterans and didn't have to.

JR is many things but he isn't cheap

[Happy Panther]

Look at the W/L column this season and last season. Tell me that is okay.

seems like almost every other season for this franchise.

[rayzor]

If you have to put him on a short leash then he doesn't need to coach the Panthers. The reason is that he should be able to go into the season with full confidence. Putting him on a short leash with rock the boat with him and the team which could lead to being a disaster. If the new GM keeps him he really needs to keep him no matter what. But if he have his doubts and don't feel Rivera is the guy then he needs to let him go.

agreed. but that is the only way he should be kept, imo.

the confidence isn't there. his job is to win games with who he has. he hasn't done that enough for there to be any confidence in his ability to do that consistently.

if there are no viable options available, then you keep him under those understandings.

tbh, i would feel that way with any coach. you win or else. we want a guy that can produce multiple winning seasons in a row. if he can't produce a winning season in his first two years, you have to doubt his ability to pull it off consistently or at all. getting your team in position to win isn't enough. you have to get the win.

i don't want a coaching change, i think it's best for the team for them to move on. you're even moving forward or you're falling behind and following a losing season with another losing season isn't moving forward. you have to have standards other than "there's worse teams" or "we were better than last year".

[rayzor]

seems like almost every other season for this franchise.

when we didn't have a losing season multiple years in a row, you could say that. now we are perennial losers. we have a tradition of losing that too many people are content with.

going to the superbowl was a fluke.

i'm beginning to think that every winning season we've had was a fluke. we've had 4 out of 18 years. and we haven't had one in 4 years.

that's not a winning team. that's a losing team, and it's time the organization did something about it.

if they don't do anything, i can't blame anyone for bailing on a team that has been nothing but pathetic in their efforts to bring their fans a winning team.

[Ken]

IMO the case for firing him is usurps the reasons for him to stay.

[cranky]

The reason why I say they are wasted is because, for whatever reason, we are not getting to the line of scrimmage fast enough.  I don't know if the issue is with Cam in the huddle or Chud in the booth, but when you don't get to the line of scrimmage until there is 8 seconds left on the play clock you don't have enough time to get everyone on the same page.  Thus we end up using a timeout to avoid a delay of game, and those timeouts become precious at the end of each half.  It is mismanagement somewhere and it never got fixed.

Every team has times where they have to call a timeout unexpectedly, It's just part of the game. Too say they wasted the one timeout they took against the Saints is a bit nitpicking.

And I was wrong about the game I was referring to.  it was the San Diego game I was thinking of.  We had 30 seconds left at the end of the half when we completed a pass to Olsen at the 5 yard line.  Instead of getting down there and spiking the ball we used our last timeout.  If we keep that timeout we can run a QB draw or a running play instead of having to complete a pass in the endzone with the entire defense floating around in there.  Or if you get sacked you can stop the clock .

The next play there is a penalty pushing us back to the 15 yard line.  Now if you still have that timeout you can run a play short of the goal line and try to run it in after the catch or get to a better position for a TD.  Instead, again we have to throw the ball in the endzone with the entire defense camping out in there.  At the end we settled for a field goal after three straight incompletions trying to force it in the endzone from 15 yards out.  Again, IMO, that is game mismanagement.

It was 1st down with 29 seconds left. If you spike the ball, you only have two opportunities to score a TD so you do not run to spike it but instead you try to get a play off. Maybe there was some mis-communications about the play called or someone lined-up incorrectly so they were forced to call the TO. Again, you have a 2nd year 23 year old QB with a make-shift OL. As it was, they still had 3 tries to score a TD instead of just the two.

I think not calling for a spike was the right call but then I am no expert.

[Anybodyhome]

The coach thing is wrong as others have pointed out. But so is the frugality besides the lockout year. After the CBA he paid and overpaid several veterans and didn't have to.

JR is many things but he isn't cheap

The "coach thing" isn't wrong. The OP says Fox was paid about $6M in 2010 and his coaching staff was somewhere in the $11M range. The figures I posted for 2011 don't even have Fox breaking the $5M mark... so we're to conclude he took that much of a pay cut in Denver?

He didn't set the salary budget. The salary cap is what sets the budget, it's not like JR tells the GM, "This is your budget..."

Huge misconception there. Each team's salary cap and its current situation sets the limit for the checkbook, not the owner telling the GM, "I know we have a $120M salary cap, but I will only let you spend $100M."

And JR had nothing to do with it, Marty Hurney engineered the salary cap situation.

[Bj-Monster23]

agreed. but that is the only way he should be kept, imo.

the confidence isn't there. his job is to win games with who he has. he hasn't done that enough for there to be any confidence in his ability to do that consistently.

if there are no viable options available, then you keep him under those understandings.

tbh, i would feel that way with any coach. you win or else. we want a guy that can produce multiple winning seasons in a row. if he can't produce a winning season in his first two years, you have to doubt his ability to pull it off consistently or at all. getting your team in position to win isn't enough. you have to get the win.

i don't want a coaching change, i think it's best for the team for them to move on. you're even moving forward or you're falling behind and following a losing season with another losing season isn't moving forward. you have to have standards other than "there's worse teams" or "we were better than last year".

I don't believe he can be a consistent winner. He hasn't shown anything in the past two years that says he can be a consistent winner in the future. All I seen from him is being inconsistent and when we face elite teams like the Broncos and Giants we have no shot in the game at all. Our team got wins off times minus the Saints and Falcons with a record of 22-44 of the past couple seasons. It will be a huge mistake to bring Rivera back next year if I'm the new GM. I just can't trust he will do better then what he has done before. So if I was going to be the new GM, I would get my own guy. It's just too much of a gamble to bet with Rivera.

Unfortunately i'm not making the decision.

[cranky]

agreed. we barely got away with wins that we essentially just got lucky with.

I think your letting your emotions get the better of you.

and performance of the players always falls back on the coaching staff. it's their job to put them in a position to win, and part of that is not giving games away or giving control to the other team. it's also putting together a plan that the players can win with or even excel in. it's also getting the right people in the right positions at the right time and ensuring that they can carry out the
plan/directions you've given them.

And that is what they have done since Hurney's firing. Look at the OL. Look at the defense. How many rookies, backups and PS players were put into starting roles and look at how they played. Sorry but I have seem other coaches with better players do far worse,

team management. game management. it all falls on rivera. he improved in some areas, but my main concern is 1) his ability to continue growth and 2) having a low ceiling. it's quite possible that this team will never get much better than average with rivera calling the shots.

He has shown me growth and I have seen nothing that would indicate he can't continue to grow. As far as ceiling, the guy has been a winner at everything he has done and I would say his past performance ( as a player and DC) would indicate he has a very high ceiling.

but hey...as long as the players are content with their coach and we don't have to rock the boat again, it's all worth it, right?

I'm afraid I trust the players opinion on this matter far more than the opinions of guys posting here.

meh.....if rivera stays, it should be with a very short leash that he will be released from if he doesn't perform as expected...and those expectations are winning season next year or he's gone. not 8-8....winning. playoffs the year after that. that's the bare minimum.

i would also make sure that there's a coach on staff that has HC experience and if Rivera's team goes through a losing spell, as in 3 in a row...he's gone and the assistant will take over. if the team is losing by the bye week....he's gone. losing can no longer be tolerated.

I can agree with the winning part, 9 or more, but I couldn't disagree more with having someone watch over his shoulders. That would be about as bad a situation as Fox's last year was. It would create a terrible environment to coach in and certainly wouldn't set anyone up for success.

[beastson]

Somebody explain how changes coaches will hurt Cam. He's 23, with a young mind. Cam main focus is improving his mechanics. That's ALL

[Marguide]

And that is what they have done since Hurney's firing. Look at the OL. Look at the defense. How many rookies, backups and PS players were put into starting roles and look at how they played. Sorry but I have seem other coaches with better players do far worse,

So let me get this straight. You are saying that because RR finally got things turned around after Hurney got fired and he was put on the hot seat is a good reason to keep him?

What about the games we played before that when we had the starters (i.e. better players) and they were unprepared, undercoached, and couldn't execute to save their lives.

So all we need to do next year is put Ron on notice in training camp, give him scrub backups for the o-line, and we should be good to go, right?

[MHS831]

Teeray, I am also on the fence, but the wind is blowing me toward the "fire Rivera" side. Still, I am not convinced that such a move would solve anything, because we are playing better. However, we are still underperforming. Here are my reasons, ranked in order of significance:

Fire RR:
1. Discipline. When my QB ignores my QB coach on the sideline while donning a towel over his head that features the logo of a company the QB endorses, I have a problem with the coaching staff that would allow it. Not to mention that the QB had just kicked an opponent and bumped a ref--REGARDLESS OF THE REASON he did it. Now, this works both ways--the fact that Rivera did not pull Cam to help his attitudinal development is significant, but also significant is the fact that a player who knows the coach has his back is less likely to take matters into his own hands. Cam should have been benched for a. losing his composure, b. ignoring his coach c. pouting and not resuming his place as a team leader.

2. Game management. People forget, however, that RR was aware of the shortcomings he had on the field. You mention plays in which Norman and Nakamura were attacked by the opposition. I blame Hurney for the fact that RR had a special teamer and a 5th round rookie from a small school in the game. Norman is not physical and was outsized during the Chicago drive. Jamming the huge WR or taking away the slant was not realistic and would have led to a big play. Rivera did not have the cards to win the hand. HOWEVER, he had the player on the bench who could take that away from Chicago--the other Josh. Why was he not playing?

3. That leads to personnel decisions. I am not sure RR is playing the best people. Kuechly was better in the middle than Beason from day 1. Beason's injuries and his height made him a bit of a liability compared to Luke. Luke on the outside reduced his effectiveness as well. How often at the end of the season did you ask, "Why was Thomas not playing all season?" Our defense did not improve until Beason went to IR. Kearse was cut and then brought back to start over Fua. Looked pretty decent. What did Gettis do? After Atlanta, what made Nakamura better than Martin? I think he needs to evaluate talent every day, every week, etc. and start playing the best players.

[teeray]

Every team has times where they have to call a timeout unexpectedly, It's just part of the game. Too say they wasted the one timeout they took against the Saints is a bit nitpicking.

It will happen sometimes but it shouldn't happen multiple times in a game.

It was 1st down with 29 seconds left. If you spike the ball, you only have two opportunities to score a TD so you do not run to spike it but instead you try to get a play off. Maybe there was some mis-communications about the play called or someone lined-up incorrectly so they were forced to call the TO. Again, you have a 2nd year 23 year old QB with a make-shift OL. As it was, they still had 3 tries to score a TD instead of just the two.

I think not calling for a spike was the right call but then I am no expert.

If you have 2 timeouts calling a timeout is the right play. If you only have one I don't believe that it is.

I would not mind running down and running a play, but trying to get set and run a play on a short field is challenging. Spiking the ball there does a couple of things that I think makes it the better play even though you lose a down.

1) clock management- In football the most important thing at the end of each half is properly managing the clock. Keeping the timeout allows you the ability to better insure that you get the last play of the half.

2) Larger playbook- keeping that timeout allows you to broaden the playbook. With the ability to stop the clock you can run the ball, or run the read option, or throw the ball on a hitch or crossing route short of the goal line hoping you can get in after the catch. If you don't get a TD you have the ability to stop the clock quickly

3) Assures points- this is probably the most important reason. The SD game goes unnoticed because even though we didn't get a TD we got a field goal and of course we won the game. HOWEVER, if Cam were to have gotten sacked on either of the last two plays it is unlikely that everyone would have been able to get back to the line of scrimmage in time to spike the ball before the clock expired. If that were to happen then we would have not got any points at all. That is a disaster. It didn't happen in this case, but three points was the difference in the Dall, CHI, Tampa, ATL, and SEA games. Getting points in those situation is critical. And we put ourselves in a position to not get any points at the end of the half despite being on the 5 yard line with 30 seconds to play. In those situations in the NFL you have to insure you get points and by using our last timeout it put that insurance in serious jeopardy.

Timeouts are precious in the NFL IMO, and we waste too many of them. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but it is also a big reason why we have been so dysfunctional at the end of halves and games.