114 replies to this topic

[panthers55]

And again, history shows that when a new GM keeps a coach who hasn't been successful yet, the team doesn't go anywhere and the coach ends up getting fired anyway.

Casserly hired Kubiak in January of 2006 and was replaced by Rick Smith in June. Smith kept Kubiak through 3 non winning seasons then after a 9-7 year they regressed to 6-10 in 2010. Smith stayed the course and they had consecutive winning seasons in 2011 and 2012,

[Cyberjag]

I stand corrected!

Maybe we can be like the Texans then. I'll go reserve my 2016 playoff tickets now!

[Mr. Scot]

I'm not that tied to Rivera. honestly. If he were fired I wouldn't scream.

But with that said, I'm not convinced that firing him is the right move. And I'm definitely not convinced that just replacing the coach is enough to turn the team into a winner.

My top choice: Give Rivera a season with the new GM in place and see what happens.

[panthers55]

Kubiak is a perfect example, I should have thought of him. Took him four seasons to post his first winning record and six to make the playoffs. I'm sure that Rivera can do better, right?

Carroll isn't the best example, because he's got a winning history. One season in New York where he lost, then three straight in New England where he won right out of the gate. So you kind of already have proof he's capable of winning.

But there's Kubiak. Seven years in and he finally got back to back winning seasons. I hope that retaining Rivera doesn't mean that we experience the same, but you have shown that it IS possible.

Carroll and Shanahan are good examples of coaches that struggled but are now in the playoffs. If you say they aren't good examples because they have a winning history lets remember than that isn't any guarantee they will be successful in their next gig. Look at Mariucci who was wildly successful in San Francisco and then went to Detroit and they stank. Or even our own Seifert. Maybe it was a San Fran thing but past success doesn't guarantee anything.

[panthers55]

I stand corrected!

Maybe we can be like the Texans then. I'll go reserve my 2016 playoff tickets now!

No need for the heavy sarcasm. You asserted it doesn't happen I showed you where it did.

The reason Houston struggled so mightily was lack of a healthy franchise quarterback and playing in a tough division. Plus of course being an expansion team. In many ways it mirrors some of the reasons we have struggled as well in the past 4 years.

[Building Leaper]

The Indianapolis Colts and Washington Redskins would like a word...

The two best starting seasons in NFL HISTORY for a quarterback and both end in losing seasons while Andrew Luck and RG3 are in the playoffs in their first seasons.

As a Panthers fan, that is infuriating.

Neither of those teams are winning a super bowl anytime soon. Washington will NEVER win a championship with their current roster. Cam will win a super bowl before luck and the great rgiii will never win if he stays a redskin

[Kevin Greene]

I'm not gonna make a Mr. Scot's length post. I'm sorry if you expected that.

I just wanna know why this board seems to blame Rivera only, even though we have a serious lack in talent and experience. Why is it so impossible for you guys to put the blame on the players and assistant coaches as well?

It's pretty simple,
If the players dont win on the field in the NFL it's a result of several factors.
Either they dont have the skill necessary or aren't coached well enough.
I'd say it's a combination of both, we have had a total of 3 Playoff appearences in the last 16 years.
So the blame lies with:
The GM, selecting the talent on draft day.
The head Coach, in charge overall and responsible for assistant coach hires.
And the Players, who if they lack the necessary Coaching or skill or worse yet intestinal fortitude to succeed on the field are a direct result of the program that put them on the field.

Also, have you been reading the Huddle and seen the amount of flack Chud, McDermott and whatever flavor of the month Special teams coach gets hurled at them?

[NanuqoftheNorth]

Carroll and Shanahan are good examples of coaches that struggled but are now in the playoffs. If you say they aren't good examples because they have a winning history lets remember than that isn't any guarantee they will be successful in their next gig. Look at Mariucci who was wildly successful in San Francisco and then went to Detroit and they stank. Or even our own Seifert. Maybe it was a San Fran thing but past success doesn't guarantee anything.

I think all the coaches you have listed are good examples of why, no matter how talented they are, without a strong organization to support them, head coaches tend to fail.

To me, it is looking more and more like the wrong guy was let go in 2010, Fox should have been retained and Hurney should have been dismissed.

Until the Panthers organization commits to a total solution, top to bottom, and give up on this "Mom and Pop" approach they have been using since the second year of their existence, they are likely to continue to be a losing franchise.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

No need for the heavy sarcasm. You asserted it doesn't happen I showed you where it did.

The reason Houston struggled so mightily was lack of a healthy franchise quarterback and playing in a tough division. Plus of course being an expansion team. In many ways it mirrors some of the reasons we have struggled as well in the past 4 years.

This is a risky comparison since Houston has been fading fast and may be one and done.

Those are a lot of years and talented players to commit to one coach, who still may turn out to be a false profit, incapable of getting the Texans to the promised land.

[Marguide]

This is a risky comparison since Houston has been fading fast and may be one and done.

Those are a lot of years and talented players to commit to one coach, who still may turn out to be a false profit, incapable of getting the Texans to the promised land.

Kubiak is very fortunate that Wade was brought in.

[Cyberjag]

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.

[panthers55]

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.

[Cyberjag]

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.

[panthers55]

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.

[Cyberjag]

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.