Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

megadeth078

Why is it all Rivera's fault?

115 posts in this topic

Carroll and Shanahan both started winning as soon as they got good quarterbacks. Rivera started out with one, but hasn't won yet.

Kubiak also hit .500 his second season, for what that's worth.

I think that, based on other coaches performance in similar circumstances, the odds are clearly against Rivera being successful in Carolina. It could happen, but the odds say it won't. Granted, you can claim the circumstances aren't similar because of the lockout, or because Cam was a rookie, or because Bank of America stadium has the wrong kind of grass, or because whatever it takes to narrow things down until Rivera's situation is utterly unique (they ALL are, after a point).

And you can make excuse after excuse after excuse to explain away why he isn't getting it done. You can do that for all the failed coaches out there. The nice thing about winning is, you don't need excuses, which is why you never hear someone who went 12-4 explain why they should have been 14-2. No one cares.

So I like Rivera's press conferences, and I like his defensive scheme, and I like the players he's got (thanks for the parting gifts, Hurney). But I like winning more, and I tend to play the odds. That's the sole reason I hope he goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carroll and Shanahan both started winning as soon as they got good quarterbacks. Rivera started out with one, but hasn't won yet.

Kubiak also hit .500 his second season, for what that's worth.

I think that, based on other coaches performance in similar circumstances, the odds are clearly against Rivera being successful in Carolina. It could happen, but the odds say it won't. Granted, you can claim the circumstances aren't similar because of the lockout, or because Cam was a rookie, or because Bank of America stadium has the wrong kind of grass, or because whatever it takes to narrow things down until Rivera's situation is utterly unique (they ALL are, after a point).

And you can make excuse after excuse after excuse to explain away why he isn't getting it done. You can do that for all the failed coaches out there. The nice thing about winning is, you don't need excuses, which is why you never hear someone who went 12-4 explain why they should have been 14-2. No one cares.

So I like Rivera's press conferences, and I like his defensive scheme, and I like the players he's got (thanks for the parting gifts, Hurney). But I like winning more, and I tend to play the odds. That's the sole reason I hope he goes.

Washington and Seattle also had good defenses. The quarterback or offense was what they needed to get over the top. We did get Newton but the team was so depleted of talent and more importantly leadership on the field that it was uphill sledding.

And I don't agree that Rivera's chances for success are clearly against him. Comparing different franchises from sometimes different eras and stating that since this coach was unsuccessful, then Rivera will be unsuccessful is flawed logic at best. Similar to those that said Davis won't make it this year because he would be the first to come back from 3 ACL surgeries. How did that work out?? Why did he make it? New surgeon using a different procedure which has better results. So were all the other comparisons germaine? Actually not. Same with Rivera.

Like most people here, the odds you think you are playing are not the ones that actually apply. If you want winning as your only criteria, then you would keep Rivera. How about comparing the number of head coaches who have one winning record by the end of their third year versus those who immediately had a winning record in their very first year. And before you regurgitate the old if he didn't win in the first 2 years he can't win, remember that you said in an earlier post that given the lockout and lack of off-season we ought to consider this Rivera's first full year and the next year would be his second. Are you flip flopping for convenience??

I would grant you that if Rivera gets the chance and doesn't win next year, then we can move on. Not because that means he can't win simply that I am tired of waiting. For those of you wanting a change, exactly who is that next best thing that will turn us into a winner immediately?? Reid? Whisenhunt? A college coach?? No the odds are that any new person won't turn us around in year 1. But I am going on the record saying that unless this new GM blows up the roster and guts the team again, we will have a winning record no matter who comes in. I have played enough betting games to know that odds are not infallible and they don't predict who will win or lose. What were the odds that we would lose the first 10 or 11 coin tosses this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I said that regarding the 2011 season. I think I said I understood your perspective on that. But I'm not flopping to make a point, he still played in the same set of circumstances as 31 other coaches, including some rookie coaches who outperformed him.

And I also disagree with your assessment on the lessons history teaches us where NFL coaches are concerned. I'm looking at NFL franchises after 92 only, which is why I keep repeating "modern era" football, because that's where you get the best comparison. And I'm not saying that "this coach is unsuccessful, so Rivera will be too". Rather, I'm saying, "ALL these coaches who fit the same profile as Rivera were unsuccessful, so Rivera is likely to be as well". With all respect, you're the one who is focusing on single success stories to support your point, not me. You could boil it down to my position being one where it isn't likely, and yours being one where history says that it could happen. And those are not incompatible statements at all.

You raise a fair point with Davis; there are no hard and fast rules that apply here. That's why we look at the odds, and can't make predictions with absolute certainty. The odds in this case are clearly against Rivera, and they absolutely apply. For what it's worth, I did compare the coaches who took three years to win with those who won in their first and second year, and found that they were still less likely to succeed than their counterparts who won early. Granted, I only looked at 60 head coaches (the current list and their immediate predecessors), but it was pretty convincing. 28 won in their first season, 14 in their second, and the remainder either hadn't gotten to a third, didn't win at all, or won in their third year.

If Rivera gets the chance to come back, I'll be pulling for his success every bit as much as you will be. And if he manages to finally have some sort of winning record, even if it's 2-1, I'll be pretty stoked at his chances of having a winning record (and I share your conviction that we'll get there next year, I'm thinking of 2014 and beyond as well).

I still think, right now, that our best chance to win consistently going forward lies with another coach, so I hope you can understand why I am not keen on the idea of waiting another couple of years to find out if Rivera can build a long term winner.

Because no matter how much you say they don't apply and everything here is different, in the NFL winning coaches have an absurdly strong tendency to win very early, and although he has the talent and can get close, Rivera just hasn't done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I said that regarding the 2011 season. I think I said I understood your perspective on that. But I'm not flopping to make a point, he still played in the same set of circumstances as 31 other coaches, including some rookie coaches who outperformed him.

And I also disagree with your assessment on the lessons history teaches us where NFL coaches are concerned. I'm looking at NFL franchises after 92 only, which is why I keep repeating "modern era" football, because that's where you get the best comparison. And I'm not saying that "this coach is unsuccessful, so Rivera will be too". Rather, I'm saying, "ALL these coaches who fit the same profile as Rivera were unsuccessful, so Rivera is likely to be as well". With all respect, you're the one who is focusing on single success stories to support your point, not me. You could boil it down to my position being one where it isn't likely, and yours being one where history says that it could happen. And those are not incompatible statements at all.

You raise a fair point with Davis; there are no hard and fast rules that apply here. That's why we look at the odds, and can't make predictions with absolute certainty. The odds in this case are clearly against Rivera, and they absolutely apply. For what it's worth, I did compare the coaches who took three years to win with those who won in their first and second year, and found that they were still less likely to succeed than their counterparts who won early. Granted, I only looked at 60 head coaches (the current list and their immediate predecessors), but it was pretty convincing. 28 won in their first season, 14 in their second, and the remainder either hadn't gotten to a third, didn't win at all, or won in their third year.

If Rivera gets the chance to come back, I'll be pulling for his success every bit as much as you will be. And if he manages to finally have some sort of winning record, even if it's 2-1, I'll be pretty stoked at his chances of having a winning record (and I share your conviction that we'll get there next year, I'm thinking of 2014 and beyond as well).

I still think, right now, that our best chance to win consistently going forward lies with another coach, so I hope you can understand why I am not keen on the idea of waiting another couple of years to find out if Rivera can build a long term winner.

Because no matter how much you say they don't apply and everything here is different, in the NFL winning coaches have an absurdly strong tendency to win very early, and although he has the talent and can get close, Rivera just hasn't done that.

As you said coaches who don't win in their first 2 years rarely get too many more chances. So it is usually win early or leave and that might be the case here as well.

Again how can you say that our best chances lie in going forward with another coach unless you give the caveat that he be a winning coach from a successful program who has a proven track record. And even then I showed you 2 current coaches who were successful at their last stop who have taken a third year to have a winning record, Shanahan and Carroll. And if he is a retread or college coach, again what are the chances they come in and are successful at all let alone in year 1.

Everyone loves the Harbaugh story but that is a rarity. How about the long list of college coaches who struggled at the pro level.

By saying that if Rivera can't win by year 2 he won't be successful therefore our best chance is to start over again ignores the failure rate of NFL coaches in general. What if we hire a new guy and he doesn't win for 2 years, do we can him and do this all over again? And would that still be a better option than giving Rivera those 2 years to build this team? What you and others ignore is that not all 7-9 records tell you the same thing other than you had a losing record. Sure we are our record and only as good as the record says we are. But starting all over is no guarantee of success at all. But I can see where you are going and respect your opinion. I just think we are going to do very well barring any major blowups of the roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think you're starting to come around. :)

If roughly half of all coaches win in their first season, and of the remainder almost half win in their second season, then your chances to win with a new coach are over 50%. If you don't start winning until year three, your chances of winning are less than 50%. The data set is really low on this next one, rendering it anecdotal at best, but GMs who stay with coaches that haven't won yet always end up replacing them in the next two seasons.

And I know you are poised with all kinds of "but this time it's different!" arguments, to which I can only respond, "they're all different." In essence based on history we're more likely to be successful if we go in a new direction. Sure, there's a chance Rivera is successful, and he leads us to a decade of dominance. But it's probably just as likely as a player coming back successfully from three ACL surgeries on the same knee. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think you're starting to come around. :)

If roughly half of all coaches win in their first season, and of the remainder almost half win in their second season, then your chances to win with a new coach are over 50%. If you don't start winning until year three, your chances of winning are less than 50%. The data set is really low on this next one, rendering it anecdotal at best, but GMs who stay with coaches that haven't won yet always end up replacing them in the next two seasons.

And I know you are poised with all kinds of "but this time it's different!" arguments, to which I can only respond, "they're all different." In essence based on history we're more likely to be successful if we go in a new direction. Sure, there's a chance Rivera is successful, and he leads us to a decade of dominance. But it's probably just as likely as a player coming back successfully from three ACL surgeries on the same knee. :)

No I am just looking at the stats from a different perspective. You say half of the coaches since 1992 were successful in their first year. I just looked at current coaches for all 32 teams ( I included the just fired coaches since they haven't been replaced) and what I found is that 8 of the 32 coaches had a winning record in year 1. That means 75% of the coaches didn't win in the first year. Lets assume that without looking it up 50% of the coaches had a winning record in the second year. What that still doesn't address is that many of these coaches didn't necessarily build a successful program after that. Plus it doesn't include guys like Hue Jackson for the Raiders who was given only 1 year to succeed. So if we are looking for a guy who will win in the first 2 years irregardless of how they do down the road then lets can Rivera and go elsewhere. And we can do that over and over just like the Raiders until we find someone.

But what about the guys who won in year 1 or 2 and then struggled down the road?? For example Rex Ryan started off great guns at 9-7 and 11-5 his first 2 years. Since then 8-8 and 6-10. Given your criteria he is a proven guy who built a successful program. The reality is he is like Fox when he was here, he had some good years and some bad years. How bout Whisenhunt- he went 8-8 in year 1 and 9-7 in year 2 and 10-6 in year 3 and a Superbowl appearance. Successful guy right?? How about the last 3 years- 5-11, 8-8, 5-11. Yeah successful program.

I could go on and on.

The reality is your criteria is hardly a reason to fire Rivera based on selective stats. The vast majority of current coaches and just fired coaches were not successful in year 1 and even though more were successful in year 2, that didn't necessarily guaranteed future success.

So the notion that if you don't win early you won't win needs a sidebar which states that even if they have been successful in year 1 or 2 doesn't mean they will be successful in future years. Some will and some won't. Look at the current coaches.

As for going back and forth don't expect me to take your position. If I thought your argument had merit I would have agreed to begin with. And since I am at work won't have time to do a bunch of research. I had a no show this hour hence the postings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am just looking at the stats from a different perspective. You say half of the coaches since 1992 were successful in their first year. I just looked at current coaches for all 32 teams ( I included the just fired coaches since they haven't been replaced) and what I found is that 8 of the 32 coaches had a winning record in year 1. That means 75% of the coaches didn't win in the first year. Lets assume that without looking it up 50% of the coaches had a winning record in the second year. What that still doesn't address is that many of these coaches didn't necessarily build a successful program after that. Plus it doesn't include guys like Hue Jackson for the Raiders who was given only 1 year to succeed. So if we are looking for a guy who will win in the first 2 years irregardless of how they do down the road then lets can Rivera and go elsewhere. And we can do that over and over just like the Raiders until we find someone.

But what about the guys who won in year 1 or 2 and then struggled down the road?? For example Rex Ryan started off great guns at 9-7 and 11-5 his first 2 years. Since then 8-8 and 6-10. Given your criteria he is a proven guy who built a successful program. The reality is he is like Fox when he was here, he had some good years and some bad years. How bout Whisenhunt- he went 8-8 in year 1 and 9-7 in year 2 and 10-6 in year 3 and a Superbowl appearance. Successful guy right?? How about the last 3 years- 5-11, 8-8, 5-11. Yeah successful program.

I could go on and on.

The reality is your criteria is hardly a reason to fire Rivera based on selective stats. The vast majority of current coaches and just fired coaches were not successful in year 1 and even though more were successful in year 2, that didn't necessarily guaranteed future success. You were the one saying you were looking toward 2014 and beyond.

So the notion that if you don't win early you won't win needs a sidebar which states that even if they have been successful in year 1 or 2 doesn't mean they will be successful in future years. Some will and some won't. The only reason there is a positive correlation between coaches having success early or being canned is that they get fired with all the pressure to win not because they can't win. What you are doing is looking at selective stats and predicting success for the future. The problem with that is these stats are skewed by coaches getting fired after one or two years before they have a chance to be successful in the league. Or they have one or two good years sandwiched between a bunch of mediocre or up and down records, not consistent winners.

As for going back and forth don't expect me to take your position. If I thought your argument had merit I would have agreed to begin with. And since I am at work won't have time to do a bunch of research. I had a no show this hour hence the postings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you're at work and can't do any research, here is a list of all coaches who were active at the end of the season and their predecessors. These are all the ones who managed to string together back-to-back winning seasons. I list their first non-losing season, and then the first winning season of what would become back-to-back winning seasons (which is why you don't see John Fox).

Ken Wisenhunt, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 2

Mike Smith, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

John Harbaugh, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Lovie Smith, first non-losing season: 2, first winning season: 2

Marv Lewis, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 9

Mike McCarthey, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 4

Dennis Green (Minn), first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Brian Billick, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 2

Wade Phillips (Buffalo), first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Wade Phillips (Dallas), first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Mike Sherman, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Gary Kubiak, first non-losing season: 2, first winning season: 6

Jim Caldwell, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Jack Del Rio, first non-losing season: 2, first winning season: 2

Brad Childress, first non-losing season: 2, first winning season: 3

Pete Carroll (NE), first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Bill Belichick, first non-losing season: 2, first winning season: 2

Sean Payton, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 4

Tom Coughlin (Jax), first non-losing season: 2, first winning season: 2

Tom Coughlin (NYG), first non-losing season: 2, first winning season: 4

Rex Ryan, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Andy Reid, first non-losing season: 2, first winning season: 2

Mike Tomlin, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Norv Turner (Was), first non-losing season: 3, first winning season: 3

Norv Turner (SD), first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 3

Jim Harbaugh, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Jeff Fisher (TN), first non-losing season: 3, first winning season: 3

Mike Shanahan (Den), first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 2

Ray Rhodes (Phil), first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Bill Cowher, first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Marty Schottenheimer (KC), first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 1

Marty Schottenheimer (SD), first non-losing season: 1, first winning season: 3

Of the remainder who had winning years, but never had back to back ones, here's when they had their first winning year:

Chan Gailey (Dal), 1

John Fox (Car), 2

John Fox (Den), 2

Jim Schwartz, 3

Dick Jauron (Chi), 3

Eric Mangini (NYJ), 1

Dom Capers (Car), 2

Mike Mularkey (Buf), 1

Romeo Crennel (Cle), 3

Todd Haley, 2

Tony Sparano, 1

Leslie Frazier, 3

Pete Carrol (Sea), 3

Bill Belichick (Cle), 4

Mike Munchak, 1

Mike Shanahan (Was), 3

Jim Haslett (NO), 1

Jim Fassel, 1

Jim Mora (Atl), 1

Raheem Morris, 2

And here are the ones who have never had a winning season

Pat Shurmer

Jason Garrett

Bobby Petrino

Josh McDaniels

Rod Marinelli

Joe Philbin (rookie)

Dennis Allen (rookie)

Greg Schiano (rookie)

Hue Jackson

Mike Singletary

Steve Spagnoulo

Jim Zorn

Ron Rivera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constant running out of the shotgun.

Not running Dwill outside (All three RBs pound up the middle despite being different types of runners)

Not running Cam on 3 and 1 situations despite a 80% success rate

Offensive playbook doesn't factor in the weak o-line, needs more quick passes.

Epically bad time management.

Constant and ineffective zone coverage

and the play so bad it made national news.

Up 28-27 and faced with fourth-and-1 on the Atlanta 45 with 1:44 left in the game, armed with two highly paid running backs and possibly the greatest short-yardage running quarterback in NFL history, and having gashed the Falcons that day for 5.7 yards per carry, Carolina Panthers head coach Ron Rivera punted. And there was a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of stat analysts suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

For the record I want the whole coaching staff wiped clean. They haven't improved the team in any aspect. When we win it's due to individual effort that overcomes the consistently terrible terrible playcalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2011 offense got exposed. Teams were playing the read option and keeping Newton in the pocket. They doubled Smitty and played tight man on everyone else. That was different than they did last year and it showed. I don't think the offense run last year was much different than what we debuted this year.

You don't think the fact our OL looked different and quit using 12 personel as our main package played a bigger role than teams "figuring out" the read option.

The Golden Calf of Bristol, RG, Wilson, Kapernick and Cam all run the zone read successfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites