panthers55

Yeah and I am saying a new guy is likely to do worse.

Because the 3-13 was years ago and the 6-6 shows where he is today. Better indication of his current ability. And I guess not having a secondary impacted why our defense got worse. Truth is you have to nitpick to find fault when he did a great job under the circumstances.

He proved a lot over the past 12 weeks and let's be real here we were God awful before he took over and went from 1-4 to 6-6 with his best player gone for the year. This isn't just me saying he did great but virtually anyone looking in. And the beef is you didn't beat good teams like the Bengals or Steelers. Give the man his due whether you want him as your coach or not.

Look he went 6-6 and you can't take that away. He had 3 different qbs and lost his best player. He took a few weeks to build his program and figure things out. Truth is he took Darnold and we averaged right at 23 points a game. Which is above the average offensive points in the NFL. I can totally get wanting someone else as Wilkes in boring and thinks a punt isn't a bad thing. But he did a good job and no reason to think he won't do better in the future.

But there is a greater chance that the new guy will turn out like Rhule. And no the NFL isn't geared to one year makeovers. You have a 90% chance Wilkes will be solid which he proved with this crapshow, and possible some spectacular years or you have a 60% chance your guy will be awful, a 20% chance he will be solid and 20% chance he will be spectacular in a new hire.

Because there is a 60% chance he won't even be solid.

They aren't that much better. But in Wilkes case you have real experience with the team and know he can win. With new guys with no proven experience it is a crap shoot. Still that is what folks want. Instead of taking a coach who could deliver solid but unspectacular results we go for the unknown since he could be great even if history says he wont.

It cuts both way you also have Kingbury. Lovie Smith, Eberflus, Dennis Allen among others flaming out. The Daboll success is what folks will remember and say let's do it. They don't remember that most new coaches struggle particularly with no extensive NFL experience or head coach experience.

What about Kingsbury, Eberflus, Smith or Dennis Allen. Lots of new and experienced coaches flaming out.

I am not a big fan of zone and like more man coverage and I think the defense wasn't as aggressive as the season wore on and I don't know how much injuries played into it.

If we pick someone with no head coach experience expect to be mediocre again. The winning percentage for new first time head coaches is around 42% their first year.

You mean like Sean Payton who went 8-8 or so for several years with Brees waiting for a defense. Truth is even primarily passing teams pass the ball 40% of the time or more if they can. And offense gets you in the playoffs but defense wins championships.

If the goal is to hire a HC, Wilkes check the boxes. The question is whether we ran because we didn't have a qb or whether he prefers to run all the time. Second, why do we assume that we can't find an OC without hiring one as head coach. Or that these OCs with. no head coach experience will come in and not take w or 3 years to learn how to be a head coach like Rivera.

Truth is Wilkes did a great job juggling 3 different qbs and managing that room. I figure with a stud qb and good offensive coordinator he could do very well. He has the head coach part down and can learn to be more like Riverboat and trust the offense if he has one. I don't think we have seen his ceiling. But I also won't be sad if we pick someone else. As long as we make a good choice.

He earned an interview but didn't earn the right to outright be named coach. 9

Pineiro is a free agent so unless we resign him we only have Gonzales under contract.

What is sad is a franchise whose fans argue and fight over draft position and losing. I hope we can get back back to playoff ball and meaningful games in January. We made some headway this year and hopefully we can continue the momentum next year. Good finish even though it didn't really increase Wilkes chances or show Darnold in a positive light other than a late drive to win the game.

He didn't do much to improve his outlook today. I am sure he will land someone but not for big money.

We hate the taints. Payton said earlier the Saints would win by 10. Suck it weasel.....

Why would Wilkes be another Rivera. Both Fox and Rivera were coordinators with no head coach experience at any level. Wilkes is proven he can get the maximum out of what he has. I think if he wins this week it is an indication the players are playing for Wilkes. They all want to go out on a good note and put up film. What happens after that they don't have much control over. If we lose I think it hurts Wilkes chances. Everyone knows it..

After a deeper dive I want to modify my earlier thoughts. What the data shows to me is that interim coaches dont win that much. And that there is not a correlation between interim record and later success Not many interim coaches turned around a team and if they did the future results were mixed. Likewise a few of the successful coaches later on had a poor interim record. So overall interim coaches win at around a .47 win rate in the future. Not great. What if we hire a rookie head coach versus hiring a previous head coach like Harbaugh? This article only covers year 1 and not subsequent years but this suggests that hiring a rookie coach or a veteran with a new team results in a winning percentage of .45 that year. And that rookie head coaches have a slightly lower win percentage but are 41% more likely to guide them in the playoffs in their rookie year. Again there seems to be feast and famine https://www.the33rdteam.com/category/breakdowns/deep-dive-evaluating-success-rate-for-first-year-head-coaches/ One conclusion is that it takes time to turn around a team and whoever the coach is will be lucky to get us to 8-8. And data on new hires is a mixed bag and not very definitive. Someone may have more data about subsequent years winning rate for retreads versus new coaches. I suspect it is situation specific with limited generalizability (if that is a word).

Our offense has been picking up steam as Darnold figures out everything. Truth is that McAdoo has done a great job with him. He has been giving Sam more control as Sam has mastered things. I think Darnold sitting and watching has done a lot for him. Let's see how he finishes against the Saints. He is playing for a contract somewhere. And this is the last opportunity to capture something on film this season and make a positive impression.

Thinking that they could just resume the game or that they would move heaven and earth with the schedule to accommodate this one game. The difference it makes in the standings is minimal and players and coaches won't complain about how it is decided. I am sure the players and coaches involved had a lot to say about what happened and were why the game was cancelled.

You got to remember they already sucked so that is not news. And most of those interim coaches were not at 500 or better post interim so why would they do better moving forward. But if you actually look at the chart you can see that interim coaches who were able to turn things around did better because obviously they were better coaches to begin with.

So what I got out of the chart was that if your team sucked and your interim coach couldn't turn them around, they weren't going to do it as a head coach. But in cases similar to Wilkes,where if we win Sunday he is 6-6, interim coaches who turned the team around and finished closer to 500 or better fared much better in the future. Not surprising at all. And yes there were exceptions to that as well.