Why is it all Rivera's fault?

[Marguide]

being older doesn't make you more likely to see the long view.

It makes you more patient, no doubt. And certain types of wisdom do come with age. But younger people tend to be more decisive and innovative.

I know my long term planning is not necessarily improving as I get older. What the hell do I care what happens 25 years from now if I'm not going to be around to worry about it? It's different when you're talking about your children's future, but on the job, older guys may have a shorter view than younger guys.

[Cyberjag]

Depends on what you want for results.

Want to build a team that can become a contender quickly, but fade just as quickly? That's relatively easy, easy enough that even a guy like Marty Hurney could do it.

Want to change the entire culture and build a perennial contender? That's not quite as simple, and generally takes a little more time.

I'd prefer option two.

I like option three, where you win right away and keep on winning. Option two only seems to work for guys who luck into a franchise QB late in the draft.

If you look at the best franchises out there right now, the ones that win and win big year in and year out, you'll see that most of them started winning under a regime right away and continued to do so.

Pittsburgh started winning again consistently under Cowher, and in his first season.

Green Bay started winning again under Holmgren

Ravens under Billick

Eagles under Reid, starting in his second season

Colts under Dungy won immediately (having Manning as a soph didn't hurt)

Saints started winning immediately under Payton

Falcons started winning immediately under Smith.

Then there's New England, which started winning in Belichick's second season, and it was his second stop.

I guess I'm saying that a good coach will change the culture all by himself, he doesn't need a GM to build it through several years of roster tweaking.

Who are you looking at in modern-era football that took years to build a consistent winner?

[panthers55]

The read option wasn't the base offense last year, it was peppered in. Chud tried to run every play out of that formation for the first few games this year.

It was still a big staple of Stewart's work last year. I think we all noticed it a lot more this year because teams shut it down. I don't think it was really that different.

[rayzor]

It makes you more patient, no doubt. And certain types of wisdom do come with age. But younger people tend to be more decisive and innovative.

I know my long term planning is not necessarily improving as I get older. What the hell do I care what happens 25 years from now if I'm not going to be around to worry about it? It's different when you're talking about your children's future, but on the job, older guys may have a shorter view than younger guys.

don't really buy that at all, but whatever. i know just as many impatient older people as i do patient ones. i haven't really gotten more patient than i already was (or wasn't) when i was younger.

i think it's like saying older people are wiser. just because you are older doesn't make you wiser or more patient. it should, but it's far from being a rule...at least one that i accept.

you have to have a balance of both patience and decisive and innovative and if you've got the HC job you should have all of those qualities.

[panthers55]

I like option three, where you win right away and keep on winning. Option two only seems to work for guys who luck into a franchise QB late in the draft.

If you look at the best franchises out there right now, the ones that win and win big year in and year out, you'll see that most of them started winning under a regime right away and continued to do so.

Pittsburgh started winning again consistently under Cowher, and in his first season.

Green Bay started winning again under Holmgren

Ravens under Billick

Eagles under Reid, starting in his second season

Colts under Dungy won immediately (having Manning as a soph didn't hurt)

Saints started winning immediately under Payton

Falcons started winning immediately under Smith.

Then there's New England, which started winning in Belichick's second season, and it was his second stop.

I guess I'm saying that a good coach will change the culture all by himself, he doesn't need a GM to build it through several years of roster tweaking.

Who are you looking at in modern-era football that took years to build a consistent winner?

The majority of those teams either had a great franchise quarterback or a great defense. Pittsburgh has always had a great defense which wins games. The same thing with the Ravens.

Green Bay had Favre and then Rodgers. Colts had Manning as you mentioned. Saints had Drew Brees and the falcons had Matt Ryan. Of course New England has Brady.

Who has had a great coaching history without a franchise quarterback or a great defense? I can't think of any. The quarterback was the most important factor that changed the culture by winning.

[panthers55]

I beg to differ:

1) Last year, we were in shotgun just over 60% of the time. This year, at least for the first 7 games, we were in shotgun closer to 85%.

2) Last year, we used 2 TE sets frequently. Early this year, we almost never used 2 TE

3) As stated by others, we relied much more heavily on read option plays early this year. Yes, we used it last year after mid-season, by not nearly as much as this year.

The first Tampa game was a perfect example of what was wrong with our offense. We were in 1/1 formations nearly the whole game, and the 1 TE was typically sent out on a pass pattern along with the 3 wide receivers. Tampa applied consistent pressure, and we didn't have enough blockers to counter. The result? We couldn't run the ball (and frankly didn't even try), and Newton was under pressure the whole game.

That type approach continued almost unabated until Hurney got fired. Then out of the blue, Chud decides maybe he should start to change things up a bit. Funny how that worked. That's why I don't know if I'll ever trust Chud completely.

Are these your numbers or did you get them from a stat site?

And you are right instead of 2 tight ends with one blocking, we went to a fullback in Tolbert. But on passing downs we still used 2 TEs.

Again any specifics on the read option other than your subjective opinion? You might be right but without some kind of proof, it is just speculation.

[Marguide]

Are these your numbers or did you get them from a stat site?

And you are right instead of 2 tight ends with one blocking, we went to a fullback in Tolbert. But on passing downs we still used 2 TEs.

Again any specifics on the read option other than your subjective opinion? You might be right but without some kind of proof, it is just speculation.

I charted maybe the first 6 or 7 games this year and compared them to similar matchups last year. I started several threads here in which I presented the data. So no, I'm not just talking out of my ass.

The last one I remember off the top of my head was following the Denver game. In that one, I showed that our one scoring drive in the first half featured a heavy use of under center I formation plays. It was our 2nd possession if I remember correctly. The rest of the half, we went back to almost exclusively shotgun plays with a heavy reliance on the read option. Chud did then make some adjustments after the half, but by that time it was too late as Denver was up big and killing us with the pass rush.

I just found some of my data...

This is from the 1st Atlanta game this year:

48 plays from the gun

13 plays under center

21 read option runs

8 I formation plays

These are from the Minnesota game last year:

39 shotgun plays

23 under center plays

11 I formation runs

3 read option runs

See the difference?

[FastNFurious]

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?

Are we blaming players for their lack of talent or the management for signing them??

[Argus Plexus]

I don't know, maybe because he's the head coach so he's basically in charge of everything and thus responsible for the failures of the team whether directly or indirectly.

[BigSyke]

because colts and redskins have similar teams and already in the playoffs.

[Cyberjag]

The majority of those teams either had a great franchise quarterback or a great defense. Pittsburgh has always had a great defense which wins games. The same thing with the Ravens.

Green Bay had Favre and then Rodgers. Colts had Manning as you mentioned. Saints had Drew Brees and the falcons had Matt Ryan. Of course New England has Brady.

Who has had a great coaching history without a franchise quarterback or a great defense? I can't think of any. The quarterback was the most important factor that changed the culture by winning.

I totally agree, and think Newton is a franchise quarterback. The fact that he led a top five offense as a rookie and had the most productive two first seasons in history supports that notion.

In three of the four seasons before Cowher got there, the Steelers finished in the bottom half of the league defensively. The Ravens were in the bottom half of the league all three years of their existence before Billick arrived (and he was an offensive guy--go figure).

With that said, both the Steelers and the Ravens had great defensive players--Ray Lewis and Ron Woodson. So you need either a franchise QB or a truly great defensive leader maybe. And you need a coach who can create the proper culture right away.

Still wondering what team took the other route, where they built the culture over the course of several seasons, with roster tweaks. Seems more like the Fox/Hurney approach to me, and I thought we had all tired of that.

[Bob NC]

One thing I find interesting is how Panthers fans have been brainwashed to believe it takes years to have change.

If I operated an NFL team that for the past decade has not been able to string 2 winning seasons together, I'd try to do the same thing. "One more year and we should be all set." "We have a new coach so it might take 2 years to make a difference."

Can you picture John Elway at a presser saying, "Okay, we brought in Foxy and now we have Peyton, so in 2 or 3 years we hope to trend upward."?

I'm sure Seattle brought in Carroll so they would see improvement in a few years.

Harbaugh in San Fran I'm sure was brought in so they could see 'improvement' in a few years.

It's not whether or not Rivera is "trending upward", it's how long can this franchise say, (and expect), the same thing year after year after year.

You all can count meaningless games as much as you want. As far as I'm concerned, the season is over after the meaningful games are over. Didn't Fox have the best winning percentage EVER in meaningless games? When the games are meaningless the quality of play is too. I'm a good Hold Em player, in my poker history, I'm ahead. I'm also the most dangerous short stack around. When my stack is short I play differently than I usually do, I go all in on draws, I'll bluff the pants off you. As a mostly conservative winning player, the chances I take as a short stack don't represent my style of play. It's incredible how many times I've come back from a short stack to place, show, or even win, but it's not a strategy you want to follow in the long term.

Who knows, maybe JR paying a name like Seifert so much hurt him more than anybody knows. He's name shy and prefers to go on the cheap now.

I don't know why, but in my imagination if I were to picture Bowen, Elway and Fox sitting around a table I picture them talking about schemes, and defensive theories and such. When I picture JR and Hurney and Rivera sitting around a table I imagine them talking about what hotel they are staying at on the road trip, or what new promos they can come up with in the stadium. I may be full of shyt, but that's what I see.

Give Rivera 3 years, when that doesn't work out, let's give someone else 4. From my seat it doesn't look any different. It's a mindset for this team.

We all believe 2 winning seasons is only a couple years away. Problem is, it always will be.

[Mr. Scot]

Sometimes it does take time, especially if you want it done right.

I'm equally flabbergasted by the "lottery mentality" a lot of fans have, thinking that if we just get one "right guy" then we'll be set for life.

It's rarely that simple.

Teams like the Patriots and Steelers thrive perennially because they have a total system (college scouting, free agency, coaching, assistants, etc) that's been built over time and all runs so smoothly that when you lose one component you just plug in the next guy you had prepared.

We're hiring a guy to build this team into that kind of system, and it doesn't happen overnight.

[Cyberjag]

The Steelers of the 80s looked exactly like the Panthers of the 00s, and Cowher took over and they started winning regularly and immediately.

The Patriots were winners before Belichick got there, it's arguable that they started winning under Parcells, and he also started winning in his second year there.

There just aren't any good examples of people who did it with this "build a winner over time" mentality. Good coaches just about always start winning right out of the gate. Coaches who put together multiple winning seasons in a row just about always do. I've looked, and I can't find an example in modern era football where a coach built a streak of those multiple winning seasons and wasn't winning by year two.

Maybe you can help me out there? I can give you a bunch of coaches who won right away for every one you mention.