Buccaneers fire Super Bowl-winning head coach Gruden
NFL.com Wire Reports
NFL Network's Adam Schefter is reporting that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have fired head coach Jon Gruden.
General manager Bruce Allen was also dismissed.
"We will be forever grateful to Jon for bringing us the Super Bowl title, and we thank Bruce for his contributions to our franchise," said Buccaneers co-chairman Joel Glazer. "However, after careful consideration, we feel that this decision is in the best interest of our organization moving forward."
Gruden went 60-57 in seven seasons as head coach of the Buccaneers, including the playoffs. He was the youngest coach to win a Super Bowl when he led Tampa Bay to a 48-21 win over the Oakland Raiders in Super Bowl XXXVII, his first season with the team.
Gruden's firing means that there will be 10 new head coaches next season, the most since the 2005-06 season
I know it won't happen but wouldn't it be funny if the Colts offered Gruden their head coaching job for a year and they end up winning the Super Bowl with the same team as this year....Then their team ends up going downhill like the Yucs....Nah, but I just was thinking out loud. LOL
I hope Gruden NEVER head coaches again in the NFL.
I have been saying he sucked for years. He sucked even when he came here but the dilusional hardcore Buc fan had defend him tooth and nail.
No talent hack that did it with Tony's team. He added some new plays to the O that year which helped push that ALREADY BUILT championship team over the top.
The guy is a decent O coordinator but no way a head coach
He's not a terrible coach... that team doens't have a ton of talent year in and year out but hey are still near the playoffs or in every year. They are typically the least talented team in their division but they get in anyway.
ahh, a nice smattering of comments above, some actually had thought behind them.
The ax falling on Gruden was no surprise to buc fan. I watched the press conf after the Raider game and you could tell he was gone. Bucs plain quit..why?
Cause the defense was sick of playing lights out and losing games. It basically came down to Gruden and his lack of offense genius.
But do you blame him? Not one legit star on the offensive side of the ball his whole time with the bucs! QB's..Gradkowski, Simms and Jeff Garcia Brad Johnson. RB's Warrick Dunn, Mike Pittman and Ernest Graham. Wide outs Joey Galloway, Joe Jervicous, Keenan McCardell, Mike Clayton and Antonio Bryant?
What would you expect from a 6 year run from those groups of players? Would you expect a super bowl? Would you expect multiple divison titles in what has proved to be one of best divisions in football year in and year out?
The Glazers are cheap, they don't want to spend any money, they would rather ride home grown talent like Brooks and Barber into the ground before they spend money on a true playmaker!
It also didnt' help that Monte Kiffin shut it down 4 weeks early. That Tennessee stunt he pulled right before the Carolina game was bush league. Everyone will remember him as the defensive genius, but I will remember him quitting when it got convient.
Can someone tell me of a coach now that could of done a better job with the players above? Reid? Phillips? Dungy?
no no and no
Gruden did fine with what he was given and that wasn't much. He took a team of nobodies and they dominated and entire season...in a 6 year span Ill take that any day of the year!
<< <i>ahh, a nice smattering of comments above, some actually had thought behind them.
The ax falling on Gruden was no surprise to buc fan. I watched the press conf after the Raider game and you could tell he was gone. Bucs plain quit..why?
Cause the defense was sick of playing lights out and losing games. It basically came down to Gruden and his lack of offense genius.
But do you blame him? Not one legit star on the offensive side of the ball his whole time with the bucs! QB's..Gradkowski, Simms and Jeff Garcia Brad Johnson. RB's Warrick Dunn, Mike Pittman and Ernest Graham. Wide outs Joey Galloway, Joe Jervicous, Keenan McCardell, Mike Clayton and Antonio Bryant?
What would you expect from a 6 year run from those groups of players? Would you expect a super bowl? Would you expect multiple divison titles in what has proved to be one of best divisions in football year in and year out?
The Glazers are cheap, they don't want to spend any money, they would rather ride home grown talent like Brooks and Barber into the ground before they spend money on a true playmaker!
It also didnt' help that Monte Kiffin shut it down 4 weeks early. That Tennessee stunt he pulled right before the Carolina game was bush league. Everyone will remember him as the defensive genius, but I will remember him quitting when it got convient.
Can someone tell me of a coach now that could of done a better job with the players above? Reid? Phillips? Dungy?
no no and no
Gruden did fine with what he was given and that wasn't much. He took a team of nobodies and they dominated and entire season...in a 6 year span Ill take that any day of the year!
Thanks Jon, good luck and goodbye!
Bucs Fan >>
I nominate this for the most pathetic post ever on a CU forum, including all the Open Forum posts.
A stupid firing by a stupid team. I have one word to contribute on the subject-- VARIANCE. There's nothing that can be done to control it, or tame it, or (in most cases) even mitigate it.
Every team starts the season with an expected number of wins. Whether you hit that expected number, or fall short, or exceed it, is due almost exclusively to circumstances that lie outside of the head coach's sphere of control. A head coach has very little control over a team's turnover ratio, for instance-- and yet this is one of the factors that has the strongest causal effect on winning.
You think the Dophins-- i.e., 'the same team that went 1-15 last year'-- suddenly got that much better with the addition of Pennington, and the removal of Taylor and Thomas. If you do, you're an idiot. The Dolphins' 'miraculous turnaround' is due in very large part to the fact that they were 'lucky' in the turnover differential this year. Next year, they'll probably come back to Earth.
I cannot understand why people have such a hard time getting their head around this concept when it's something that affects them every single day. Example: Last week I bowled a 522 series in my Friday bowling league. this works out to about a 174 average for three games; a very bad performance by a league bowler. Tonight I bowled a 672, which works out to a 227 average for the night. This, by contrast, is a very good performance. So, am I a 174 bowler? No. Am I a 227 bowler? No. I'm about a 205 bowler. But there are going to be weeks-- and even seasons-- where my performance varies significantly from the mean, and it will have NOTHING to do with how I have handled those factors over which I have direct control.
Bottom line---Jon Gruden is a fine coach who's been screwed over by a bunch of front-office nitwits. The same goes for Shanahan, Billick, and any number of very competent, hardworking guys who've had their lives completely uprooted by short sighted trolls working in the front office of the team which employs them.
Bottom line Tampa Brass finally realized that the queer tough guy look that Gruden puts on his face is just what it is- a queer look, it doesnt do anything except get camera shots and fat broadcasters commenting on it.
Oh and to answer your question on who would have done better with that offense? Thats simple- Bill Belichek.
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
What would you rather have Matt....6 season at 8-8 or a few division titles, a super bowl and a few 4 wins season? Cowboys would take the championship any day of the year!
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
These numbers aren't relevant unless you control for the talent that a coach had on its team. If a coach goes .500 with inferior talent-- which the Bucs may have had-- then that's an excellent record. If you have that record with superior talent then you're a mediocre coach.
My feeling is that anyone who can go .500 in the NFL over seven seasons with below average quarterbacking is an outstanding coach. Very, very few coaches can claim such a record without consistent play at the quarterback position.
Interesting post, boo, but sometimes the perception is too much for a team to accept, and the perception in Tampa is that the Bucs as a team quit down the stretch..sometimes a change of scenery works wonders too...Pennington, for instance, to cite one of your examples, was essentially done with his tenure in NY, and undoubtedly benefitted with the change of scenery...the reduction in turnovers in Miami also has a lot to do with the system put in place by the coaching staff and if nothing else you knew that Parcells as GM would emphasize such a philopsophy and lay the groundwork for such a game plan...much like what he did when he was coach of the Jets and the INT-challenged Testaverde had his finest season...in football, it's becoming increasingly apparent that overall success of a team has much to do with the coaching staff and the system put in place by the coaches that gives the players the best chance to succeed...of course talent is the great equalizer, but in a league like the NFL, which has a salary cap, and where the playing field is level for the most part, the system put in place by the coaching staff has a greater effect than you'd think..just look at the endless ineptitude of the Lions for the opposite example of how a team should be run...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
What would you rather have Matt....6 season at 8-8 or a few division titles, a super bowl and a few 4 wins season? Cowboys would take the championship any day of the year!
I saw Emmitt Smith on TV, he has gray hair....
JS >>
Like I said Kevin, no shame in him not being a good head coach. The owners finally realized the team was not going anywhere.
I would hate to be a Buc fan for the upcoming seasons.
The franchise is a wooden pirate ship that just hit a coral reef...sorry.
Emmitt does have gray hair. However, his 3 super bowl rings make him feel better about it
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
What would you rather have Matt....6 season at 8-8 or a few division titles, a super bowl and a few 4 wins season? Cowboys would take the championship any day of the year!
I saw Emmitt Smith on TV, he has gray hair....
JS >>
Like I said Kevin, no shame in him not being a good head coach. The owners finally realized the team was not going anywhere.
I would hate to be a Buc fan for the upcoming seasons.
The franchise is a wooden pirate ship that just hit a coral reef...sorry.
Emmitt does have gray hair. However, his 3 super bowl rings make him feel better about it >>
A bad head coach with a super bowl ring.....how many coaches today would take that?
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
These numbers aren't relevant unless you control for the talent that a coach had on its team. If a coach goes .500 with inferior talent-- which the Bucs may have had-- then that's an excellent record. If you have that record with superior talent then you're a mediocre coach.
My feeling is that anyone who can go .500 in the NFL over seven seasons with below average quarterbacking is an outstanding coach. Very, very few coaches can claim such a record without consistent play at the quarterback position. >>
The whole problem with this Guy is the fact that Gruden is too blame as much as the GM was for the talent that team aquired. He had a big say who that team picked up via draft, trade or free agency
The guy couldn't get along with alot of his players. B Johnson, K Johnson, Galloway......... he would sit them over personal issues he held against them.
<< <i>Interesting post, boo, but sometimes the pereception is too much for a team to accept, and the perception is that the Bucs as a team quit down the stretch..sometimes a change of scenery works wonders too...Pennington, for instance, to cite one of your examples, was essentially done with his tenure in NY, and undoubtedly benefitted with the change of scenery...the reduction in turnovers in Miami also has a lot to do with the system put in place by the coaching staff and if nothing else you knew that Parcells as GM would lay the groundwork for such a game plan...much like what he did when he was coach of the Jets and the INT-challenged Testaverde had his finest season...in football, it's becoming insreasingly apparent that the coaching staff and the system put in place and the game plan that gives the players the best chance to succeed has a great deal of significance with the results on the field... >>
I have two problems with this analysis. First, it assumes tha Pennington's performance this year was due to change in scenery. He (Pennington) has always been a competent, if unspectacular, quarterback in the NFL, and I see no reason to assume that this year's production is anything other than a visit to the tail in the variance curve. Alternatively, Pennington may have put a season like this together for the Jets, particularly after they added Faneca. Overall, you need to provide proof that Pennington's performance this year is due to a change in scheme, and not the result of randomness.
Second, we all recall that Gruden has had-- again, overall-- a solid track record in the NFL; both as a head coach and as a coordinator. So, are we to assume that Gruden got dumber after winning the Superbowl? That a head coach who seems intelligent and dedicated somehow quit learning-- or worse yet, lost his understanding of the game-- after an additional six years of experience? To put this in perspective, have you ever known anyone who got WORSE at their job as time went on (excluding jobs that require physical exertion)? Experience correlates positively with success; people who love their job, and who stick with it, get better at it; they don't get worse. Or at least this is what happens a majority of the time.
True, it's possible that Gruden 'lost his touch', or some other such nonsense. But ask yourself this: What's more likely? That Gruden forgot how to coach an NFL team, or that his team hit a patch of bad luck this year?
<< <i>Interesting post, boo, but sometimes the pereception is too much for a team to accept, and the perception is that the Bucs as a team quit down the stretch..sometimes a change of scenery works wonders too...Pennington, for instance, to cite one of your examples, was essentially done with his tenure in NY, and undoubtedly benefitted with the change of scenery...the reduction in turnovers in Miami also has a lot to do with the system put in place by the coaching staff and if nothing else you knew that Parcells as GM would lay the groundwork for such a game plan...much like what he did when he was coach of the Jets and the INT-challenged Testaverde had his finest season...in football, it's becoming insreasingly apparent that the coaching staff and the system put in place and the game plan that gives the players the best chance to succeed has a great deal of significance with the results on the field... >>
I have two problems with this analysis. First, it assumes tha Pennington's performance this year was due to change in scenery. He (Pennington) has always been a competent, if unspectacular, quarterback in the NFL, and I see no reason to assume that this year's production is anything other than a visit to the tail in the variance curve. Alternatively, Pennington may have put a season like this together for the Jets, particularly after they added Faneca. Overall, you need to provide proof that Pennington's performance this year is due to a change in scheme, and not the result of randomness.
Second, we all recall that Gruden has had-- again, overall-- a solid track record in the NFL; both as a head coach and as a coordinator. So, are we to assume that Gruden got dumber after winning the Superbowl? That a head coach who seems intelligent and dedicated somehow quit learning-- or worse yet, lost his understanding of the game-- after an additional six years of experience? To put this in perspective, have you ever known anyone who got WORSE at their job as time went on (excluding jobs that require physical exertion)? Experience correlates positively with success; people who love their job, and who stick with it, get better at it; they don't get worse. Or at least this is what happens a majority of the time.
True, it's possible that Gruden 'lost his touch', or some other such nonsense. But ask yourself this: What's more likely? That Gruden forgot how to coach an NFL team, or that his team hit a patch of bad luck this year? >>
ding ding ding, we have a winner! Not only did we have no players on offense, but those we had got hurt. You don't think Gruden would of won a few more SB's if he had TO, Whitten, Romo and Marion Barber on the O side of the ball...yous cwazy!
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
These numbers aren't relevant unless you control for the talent that a coach had on its team. If a coach goes .500 with inferior talent-- which the Bucs may have had-- then that's an excellent record. If you have that record with superior talent then you're a mediocre coach.
My feeling is that anyone who can go .500 in the NFL over seven seasons with below average quarterbacking is an outstanding coach. Very, very few coaches can claim such a record without consistent play at the quarterback position. >>
The whole problem with this Guy is the fact that Gruden is too blame as much as the GM was for the talent that team aquired. He had a big say who that team picked up via draft, trade or free agency
The guy couldn't get along with alot of his players. B Johnson, K Johnson, Galloway......... he would sit them over personal issues he held against them.
He is not innocent here. >>
But you can't control for that, Matt. That's what I'm getting at. If you draft a player who was a stud out of college, or pick up a great player in free agency, and he ends up being a bust, that is not necessarily the fault of the guy who evaluated the talent. This is something that almost nobody understands, but it NEEDS to be understood.
Example: Let's say some guy asks you for a job mowing lawns. You do your due diligence-- you check his references, talk to his former employers, etc-- and come to the conclusion that he's a hard working guy who wants to do an honest job. So, you hire him. He works well for three weeks, but then suddenly he goes on a PCP bender and runs over one of your customer's Golden Retriever with a riding lawnmower. Are you to blame in this situation? Should we all look at Matt and say 'Wow, Matt really need to do a better job of evaluating talent'? No! We say, 'Matt checked his references, and did everything he could do, but there was no way to know this guy would be such a moron.'
Same goes for Gruden. Every-- or at least most-- of the choices he made re: player acquisitions seemed like reasonable moves at the time. Whether they work out or not is not something that the coach cannot control.
First, it assumes tha Pennington's performance this year was due to change in scenery.
I do believe that..the system in Miami put him in a far better position to succeed than the systen he was in here in NY..some guys just seem to thrive on a change of scenery when they've fallen out of favor at a certain locale..
Regarding Gruden, he may have "won" a Super Bowl as coach, but many people believe that was Dungy's team (and rightfully so, IMO) and that he just rode the coattails (similar to Switzer in Dallas following Johnson)...throw out that one year and he has been an average coach at best, and that's probably giving him more credit than he deserves..
I also find it amusing that suddenly Stalin claims that TB had no talent...every year over Gruden's tenure he couldn't stop crowing how great they were on both sides of the ball, LOL!!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You don't think Gruden would of won a few more SB's if he had TO, Whitten, Romo and Marion Barber on the O side of the ball...yous cwazy!
And hwo many Super Bowls has Dallas won with this core of players?? Better yet, how many playoff games have they won? That's right...ZERO...with Gruden it would have been no different..Ok, maybe they win ONE playoff game, the one vs Seattle..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
These numbers aren't relevant unless you control for the talent that a coach had on its team. If a coach goes .500 with inferior talent-- which the Bucs may have had-- then that's an excellent record. If you have that record with superior talent then you're a mediocre coach.
My feeling is that anyone who can go .500 in the NFL over seven seasons with below average quarterbacking is an outstanding coach. Very, very few coaches can claim such a record without consistent play at the quarterback position. >>
The whole problem with this Guy is the fact that Gruden is too blame as much as the GM was for the talent that team aquired. He had a big say who that team picked up via draft, trade or free agency
The guy couldn't get along with alot of his players. B Johnson, K Johnson, Galloway......... he would sit them over personal issues he held against them.
He is not innocent here. >>
But you can't control for that, Matt. That's what I'm getting at. If you draft a player who was a stud out of college, or pick up a great player in free agency, and he ends up being a bust, that is not necessarily the fault of the guy who evaluated the talent. This is something that almost nobody understands, but it NEEDS to be understood.
Example: Let's say some guy asks you for a job mowing lawns. You do your due diligence-- you check his references, talk to his former employers, etc-- and come to the conclusion that he's a hard working guy who wants to do an honest job. So, you hire him. He works well for three weeks, but then suddenly he goes on a PCP bender and runs over one of your customer's Golden Retriever with a riding lawnmower. Are you to blame in this situation? Should we all look at Matt and say 'Wow, Matt really need to do a better job of evaluating talent'? No! We say, 'Matt checked his references, and did everything he could do, but there was no way to know this guy would be such a moron.'
Same goes for Gruden. Every-- or at least most-- of the choices he made re: player acquisitions seemed like reasonable moves at the time. Whether they work out or not is not something that the coach cannot control. >>
Okay but then who or what controls it? Look at the Niners, Steelers, Patriots and Cowboys during their Dynasty runs. What I'm getting from your post is that Gruden was just a poor sob that had a 6 year run of bad luck because his players didn't "work out".
Then looking at the teams I mentioned above, they were just lucky that their players "worked out" and they all went on to have great success. Fact is, each team I mentioned was basically run by a football / draft day mastermind. That is something Gruden is not.
have you ever known anyone who got WORSE at their job as time went on
Coach Gruden, for one..
Gruden's 11-year career coaching record is 95-81 (very good but hardly great, averaging little better than an 8-8 season overall), and he has not won a playoff game since winning the Super Bowl with Dungy's, err Tampa Bay's Bucs. Other than that season, he had never advanced past the first round of the playoffs, so I certainly wouldn't categorize him as an excellent coach by any means, more like a mediocre one...he's hard some very talented teams over that span, certainly no league doormats and the full record speaks for itself...even super fan Kevin stated in a prior post that the Bucs "quit" on Gruden this year and that tells me all I need to know about the present day effectiveness (or lack thereof) of a head coach, when a team with everything to play for quits or folds down the stretch like the Bucs did this past season..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
In all seriousness this is the way I perceive Jon Gruden,,,good offensive coordinator, smart with x's and o's and frankly, he's does sometimes outsmart other coaches during the games including Andy Reid with clever offensive adjustments that as a longtime football fan, I notice.
But and it's a big but, I believe he is a poor motivator of his players, and I saw it close up as an OC for the Eagles, the players there simply didn't respect him and I've heard that also with the other teams he has coached, and frankly...lack of respect is fatal in any head coaching position, especially in football.
<< <i>In all seriousness this is the way I perceive Jon Gruden,,,good offensive coordinator, smart with x's and o's and frankly, he's does sometimes outsmart other coaches during the games including Andy Reid with clever offensive adjustments that as a longtime football fan, I notice.
But and it's a big but, I believe he is a poor motivator of his players, and I saw it close up as an OC for the Eagles, the players there simply didn't respect him and I've heard that also with the other teams he has coached, and frankly...lack of respect is fatal in any head coaching position, especially in football. >>
Steve, the problem is he doesn't believe in or respect his players. That's why he had so many "personal" issues with many of them.
In fact, Micheal Clayton (Bucs wr) was just talking on ESPN about that very thing. He said ( as well as other teamates said) "it felt like they were out there playing for themselves with no leadership."
A player on the team speaking out for others is as close as you will ever get to the real story behind what was really going on there.
<< <i>Then looking at the teams I mentioned above, they were just lucky that their players "worked out" and they all went on to have great success. Fact is, each team I mentioned was basically run by a football / draft day mastermind. That is something Gruden is not. >>
Agreed, and he insists on carrying too much weight with the front office, a problem with numerous teams including the Eagles.
<< <i>A bad head coach with a super bowl ring.....how many coaches today would take that? >>
An unemployed bad coach...
How many consecutive winning seasons in the past seven. Did it once I think, this year and last.
<< <i>What would you expect from a 6 year run from those groups of players? Would you expect a super bowl? Would you expect multiple division titles in what has proved to be one of best divisions in football year in and year out? >>
You did time and time again Joey. Funny how reality comes up and smacks you in the head sometimes huh?
so according to Boo everything that is bad just happens and everything good is just a coincidence. So it’s nobody’s fault when bad and no one hard work when it’s good – it’s just a coincidence.
So Parcells is just the luckiest man alive – the moons are aligned everywhere he is at?
Phil Jackson just happens to get lucky? Jordan and Kobe and Shaq had never won a Championship with out Jackson. Patrick Riley won in LA, had great success with NY and won a Championship with Miami – was all that luck?
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". - Gandhi
<< <i>so according to Boo everything that is bad just happens and everything good is just a coincidence. So it’s nobody’s fault when bad and no one hard work when it’s good – it’s just a coincidence.
So Parcells is just the luckiest man alive – the moons are aligned everywhere he is at?
Phil Jackson just happens to get lucky? Jordan and Kobe and Shaq had never won a Championship with out Jackson. Patrick Riley won in LA, had great success with NY and won a Championship with Miami – was all that luck? >>
It might be. The fact is, we don't know. It's very, very difficult to figure out what percentage of a team's performance is due to coaching, and what percentage is due to the players. So instead of saying 'I don't know', we get all this half-baked crap about 'relating to players' (you think Chuck Noll was a hugs-n-kisses guy?), or win percentages over small sample sizes, blah blah blah.
People in Philly have been calling for Andy Reid's head for years. If the Eagles make to the Super Bowl, and both McNabb and Roethlisberger have terrible games, but in the closing seconds of a 10-10 game Roethlisberger hits Dawkins in the chest with the ball, and Dawkins takes it to the house, do you think there will be ONE GUY in Philly calling for Reid to get fired? Of course not. He'll be called a 'winner', someone who 'got it done', etc. etc., when in point of fact he just incredibly lucky. Luck plays a huge role in NFL results. I mean, it almost cannot be overemphasized. Whizzenhunt is just another average first year coach if Warner doesn't find the fountain of youth this year, and Delhomme doesn't start throwing the ball every other play to guys in red and white jerseys last week. We aren't hearing anything about Spagnola if Miami doesn't have a gaudy turnover diff. this year. Crennel's team went 10-6 last year, then fell of the truck this year, and it's all due to the play at quarterback. Did Crennel get 'lucky' last year, or 'unlucky' this year? How do you know?
My opinion on the NFL is that there are, at any given time, probably 25-26 coaches who are all run close together in ability, with 3 or so coaches who are probably superior and 3 who are inferior. If you have a decent coach-- like Tampa did-- then keep him. You probably aren't going to get a better one, and the coach's role in building (or directing) a team to a Superbowl is wildly overrated anyway. You keep the coach, hope you get lucky in the draft and that the turnover Gods smile on you next year, and be done with it.
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
These numbers aren't relevant unless you control for the talent that a coach had on its team. If a coach goes .500 with inferior talent-- which the Bucs may have had-- then that's an excellent record. If you have that record with superior talent then you're a mediocre coach.
My feeling is that anyone who can go .500 in the NFL over seven seasons with below average quarterbacking is an outstanding coach. Very, very few coaches can claim such a record without consistent play at the quarterback position. >>
The whole problem with this Guy is the fact that Gruden is too blame as much as the GM was for the talent that team aquired. He had a big say who that team picked up via draft, trade or free agency
The guy couldn't get along with alot of his players. B Johnson, K Johnson, Galloway......... he would sit them over personal issues he held against them.
He is not innocent here. >>
But you can't control for that, Matt. That's what I'm getting at. If you draft a player who was a stud out of college, or pick up a great player in free agency, and he ends up being a bust, that is not necessarily the fault of the guy who evaluated the talent. This is something that almost nobody understands, but it NEEDS to be understood.
Example: Let's say some guy asks you for a job mowing lawns. You do your due diligence-- you check his references, talk to his former employers, etc-- and come to the conclusion that he's a hard working guy who wants to do an honest job. So, you hire him. He works well for three weeks, but then suddenly he goes on a PCP bender and runs over one of your customer's Golden Retriever with a riding lawnmower. Are you to blame in this situation? Should we all look at Matt and say 'Wow, Matt really need to do a better job of evaluating talent'? No! We say, 'Matt checked his references, and did everything he could do, but there was no way to know this guy would be such a moron.'
Same goes for Gruden. Every-- or at least most-- of the choices he made re: player acquisitions seemed like reasonable moves at the time. Whether they work out or not is not something that the coach cannot control. >>
Okay but then who or what controls it? Look at the Niners, Steelers, Patriots and Cowboys during their Dynasty runs. What I'm getting from your post is that Gruden was just a poor sob that had a 6 year run of bad luck because his players didn't "work out".
Then looking at the teams I mentioned above, they were just lucky that their players "worked out" and they all went on to have great success. Fact is, each team I mentioned was basically run by a football / draft day mastermind. That is something Gruden is not. >>
All the teams you have mentioned had outstanding quarterbacks. In fact, if you go through the list of NFL coaching 'geniuses', you'll notice that all of them- or at least the vast majority-- had a top-flight quarterback. It's very easy to look like a 'mastermind' when you have a great quarterback (ask Mike Shanahan, who actually was NICKNAMED the 'Mastermind' when he still had Elway); it's not so easy when you don't.
I would be very surprised if this was just a happy accident.
The bottom line is this: You win in the NFL by:
a) getting lucky in the later rounds of the draft b) having an outstanding quarterback
That's just about it. The rest is surface noise: Stuff for guys like Merrill Hoge to blather on about when he's rubbing elbows with Trey Wingo. And notice that neither of these two factors are (for the most part) in the coach's control.
when i read this in my local paper this morning i was surprized, why did they wait so long??
Fred
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
<< <i>It might be. The fact is, we don't know. It's very, very difficult to figure out what percentage of a team's performance is due to coaching, and what percentage is due to the players. So instead of saying 'I don't know', we get all this half-baked crap about 'relating to players' (you think Chuck Noll was a hugs-n-kisses guy?), or win percentages over small sample sizes, blah blah blah.
People in Philly have been calling for Andy Reid's head for years. If the Eagles make to the Super Bowl, and both McNabb and Roethlisberger have terrible games, but in the closing seconds of a 10-10 game Roethlisberger hits Dawkins in the chest with the ball, and Dawkins takes it to the house, do you think there will be ONE GUY in Philly calling for Reid to get fired? Of course not. He'll be called a 'winner', someone who 'got it done', etc. etc., when in point of fact he just incredibly lucky. Luck plays a huge role in NFL results. I mean, it almost cannot be overemphasized. Whizzenhunt is just another average first year coach if Warner doesn't find the fountain of youth this year, and Delhomme doesn't start throwing the ball every other play to guys in red and white jerseys last week. We aren't hearing anything about Spagnola if Miami doesn't have a gaudy turnover diff. this year. Crennel's team went 10-6 last year, then fell of the truck this year, and it's all due to the play at quarterback. Did Crennel get 'lucky' last year, or 'unlucky' this year? How do you know?
>>
I agree to a certain point but believe that it's much more than luck and actually pertains to a coach and his staff finding the right (perhaps not best in ability) combination of players and the proper blend of leadership qualities, not only in themselves but on their squad.
Reid changed his tack over the last part of the season. The defense was basically OK, and saved some games for the team. The offense was lifeless, due mostly to the play calling and Reid's insistence on passing the ball. Once they began to run a more balanced offense the squad performed better. Why? Probably not just because opposing defenses were now looking for another threat, but because it drove the offense to perform better in new or different situations. McNabb performed better too.
The successful coach (leader) is not afraid to see problems in himself and correct those problems. He will do this because his goal is based on the team's objectives, not his own. Hopefully Reid has seen this and will continue in future seasons. He has spent years being too hard headed when it comes to play calling. Growth can be a screwy thing. In making some procedural changes Reid also seems to have switched up his outward personality lately. He seems more loose in public and on the sidelines, grew the beard, etc. I like the feeling and think this is what the Philly fans want to see.
I must warn you, it is the only book ive read directly on the subject. So for all I know it is the worst one ever written. I doubt that though, he even uses some sports references like Maris' 61 homers.
KOBEcollector
Posts: 3,873 ✭✭
Comments
buh-bye
RB
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
NFL.com Wire Reports
NFL Network's Adam Schefter is reporting that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have fired head coach Jon Gruden.
General manager Bruce Allen was also dismissed.
"We will be forever grateful to Jon for bringing us the Super Bowl title, and we thank Bruce for his contributions to our franchise," said Buccaneers co-chairman Joel Glazer. "However, after careful consideration, we feel that this decision is in the best interest of our organization moving forward."
Gruden went 60-57 in seven seasons as head coach of the Buccaneers, including the playoffs. He was the youngest coach to win a Super Bowl when he led Tampa Bay to a 48-21 win over the Oakland Raiders in Super Bowl XXXVII, his first season with the team.
Gruden's firing means that there will be 10 new head coaches next season, the most since the 2005-06 season
I hope Gruden NEVER head coaches again in the NFL.
<< <i>Perhaps Stalin is playing "taps" for Jon Gruden. LOL >>
I'm sure Kev and all of the bucs fans are happy as Gruden ran their organization downhill.
I have been saying he sucked for years. He sucked even when he came here but the dilusional hardcore Buc fan had defend him tooth and nail.
No talent hack that did it with Tony's team. He added some new plays to the O that year which helped push that ALREADY BUILT championship team over the top.
The guy is a decent O coordinator but no way a head coach
To all the Chucky defender's I have this to say:
Told you all
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Dave
Well, there's always "Matt Bryant Day" in Tampa whenever he kicks a FG longer than 25 yards.
Looks like next year's choice to wear the "Gay Pirate Creamsicle" unis will be a timely one.
What are the odds that Chuckie shows up drunk trying to crash the home locker room at Ray Jay on Feb. 1?
JOhn
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
The ax falling on Gruden was no surprise to buc fan. I watched the press conf after the Raider game and you could tell he was gone. Bucs plain quit..why?
Cause the defense was sick of playing lights out and losing games. It basically came down to Gruden and his lack of offense genius.
But do you blame him? Not one legit star on the offensive side of the ball his whole time with the bucs! QB's..Gradkowski, Simms and Jeff Garcia Brad Johnson. RB's Warrick
Dunn, Mike Pittman and Ernest Graham. Wide outs Joey Galloway, Joe Jervicous, Keenan McCardell, Mike Clayton and Antonio Bryant?
What would you expect from a 6 year run from those groups of players? Would you expect a super bowl? Would you expect multiple divison titles in what has
proved to be one of best divisions in football year in and year out?
The Glazers are cheap, they don't want to spend any money, they would rather ride home grown talent like Brooks and Barber into the ground before they spend
money on a true playmaker!
It also didnt' help that Monte Kiffin shut it down 4 weeks early. That Tennessee stunt he pulled right before the Carolina game was bush league. Everyone will
remember him as the defensive genius, but I will remember him quitting when it got convient.
Can someone tell me of a coach now that could of done a better job with the players above? Reid? Phillips? Dungy?
no no and no
Gruden did fine with what he was given and that wasn't much. He took a team of nobodies and they dominated and entire season...in a 6 year span Ill take
that any day of the year!
Thanks Jon, good luck and goodbye!
Bucs Fan
<< <i>ahh, a nice smattering of comments above, some actually had thought behind them.
The ax falling on Gruden was no surprise to buc fan. I watched the press conf after the Raider game and you could tell he was gone. Bucs plain quit..why?
Cause the defense was sick of playing lights out and losing games. It basically came down to Gruden and his lack of offense genius.
But do you blame him? Not one legit star on the offensive side of the ball his whole time with the bucs! QB's..Gradkowski, Simms and Jeff Garcia Brad Johnson. RB's Warrick
Dunn, Mike Pittman and Ernest Graham. Wide outs Joey Galloway, Joe Jervicous, Keenan McCardell, Mike Clayton and Antonio Bryant?
What would you expect from a 6 year run from those groups of players? Would you expect a super bowl? Would you expect multiple divison titles in what has
proved to be one of best divisions in football year in and year out?
The Glazers are cheap, they don't want to spend any money, they would rather ride home grown talent like Brooks and Barber into the ground before they spend
money on a true playmaker!
It also didnt' help that Monte Kiffin shut it down 4 weeks early. That Tennessee stunt he pulled right before the Carolina game was bush league. Everyone will
remember him as the defensive genius, but I will remember him quitting when it got convient.
Can someone tell me of a coach now that could of done a better job with the players above? Reid? Phillips? Dungy?
no no and no
Gruden did fine with what he was given and that wasn't much. He took a team of nobodies and they dominated and entire season...in a 6 year span Ill take
that any day of the year!
Thanks Jon, good luck and goodbye!
Bucs Fan >>
I nominate this for the most pathetic post ever on a CU forum, including all the Open Forum posts.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Every team starts the season with an expected number of wins. Whether you hit that expected number, or fall short, or exceed it, is due almost exclusively to circumstances that lie outside of the head coach's sphere of control. A head coach has very little control over a team's turnover ratio, for instance-- and yet this is one of the factors that has the strongest causal effect on winning.
You think the Dophins-- i.e., 'the same team that went 1-15 last year'-- suddenly got that much better with the addition of Pennington, and the removal of Taylor and Thomas. If you do, you're an idiot. The Dolphins' 'miraculous turnaround' is due in very large part to the fact that they were 'lucky' in the turnover differential this year. Next year, they'll probably come back to Earth.
I cannot understand why people have such a hard time getting their head around this concept when it's something that affects them every single day. Example: Last week I bowled a 522 series in my Friday bowling league. this works out to about a 174 average for three games; a very bad performance by a league bowler. Tonight I bowled a 672, which works out to a 227 average for the night. This, by contrast, is a very good performance. So, am I a 174 bowler? No. Am I a 227 bowler? No. I'm about a 205 bowler. But there are going to be weeks-- and even seasons-- where my performance varies significantly from the mean, and it will have NOTHING to do with how I have handled those factors over which I have direct control.
Bottom line---Jon Gruden is a fine coach who's been screwed over by a bunch of front-office nitwits. The same goes for Shanahan, Billick, and any number of very competent, hardworking guys who've had their lives completely uprooted by short sighted trolls working in the front office of the team which employs them.
Oh and to answer your question on who would have done better with that offense? Thats simple- Bill Belichek.
YUCS are a mess
LMAO
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
Yea, but Gruden is a first ballot hall of fame coach in the pre-season Hall of Fame, located directly southwest about 50 miles from Tampa.
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
What would you rather have Matt....6 season at 8-8 or a few division titles, a super bowl and a few 4 wins season? Cowboys would take the
championship any day of the year!
I saw Emmitt Smith on TV, he has gray hair....
JS
<< <i>Yea, but Gruden is a first ballot hall of fame coach in the pre-season Hall of Fame, located directly southwest about 50 miles from Tampa. >>
BAM
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
These numbers aren't relevant unless you control for the talent that a coach had on its team. If a coach goes .500 with inferior talent-- which the Bucs may have had-- then that's an excellent record. If you have that record with superior talent then you're a mediocre coach.
My feeling is that anyone who can go .500 in the NFL over seven seasons with below average quarterbacking is an outstanding coach. Very, very few coaches can claim such a record without consistent play at the quarterback position.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
What would you rather have Matt....6 season at 8-8 or a few division titles, a super bowl and a few 4 wins season? Cowboys would take the
championship any day of the year!
I saw Emmitt Smith on TV, he has gray hair....
JS >>
Like I said Kevin, no shame in him not being a good head coach. The owners finally realized the team was not going anywhere.
I would hate to be a Buc fan for the upcoming seasons.
The franchise is a wooden pirate ship that just hit a coral reef...sorry.
Emmitt does have gray hair. However, his 3 super bowl rings make him feel better about it
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
What would you rather have Matt....6 season at 8-8 or a few division titles, a super bowl and a few 4 wins season? Cowboys would take the
championship any day of the year!
I saw Emmitt Smith on TV, he has gray hair....
JS >>
Like I said Kevin, no shame in him not being a good head coach. The owners finally realized the team was not going anywhere.
I would hate to be a Buc fan for the upcoming seasons.
The franchise is a wooden pirate ship that just hit a coral reef...sorry.
Emmitt does have gray hair. However, his 3 super bowl rings make him feel better about it
A bad head coach with a super bowl ring.....how many coaches today would take that?
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
These numbers aren't relevant unless you control for the talent that a coach had on its team. If a coach goes .500 with inferior talent-- which the Bucs may have had-- then that's an excellent record. If you have that record with superior talent then you're a mediocre coach.
My feeling is that anyone who can go .500 in the NFL over seven seasons with below average quarterbacking is an outstanding coach. Very, very few coaches can claim such a record without consistent play at the quarterback position. >>
The whole problem with this Guy is the fact that Gruden is too blame as much as the GM was for the talent that team aquired. He had a big say who that team picked up via draft, trade or free agency
The guy couldn't get along with alot of his players. B Johnson, K Johnson, Galloway......... he would sit them over personal issues he held against them.
He is not innocent here.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>yea, yea. yea, Gruden won a Super Bowl, and so did Barry Switzer. >>
says the fan of the team with no rings
<< <i>yea, yea. yea, Gruden won a Super Bowl, and so did Barry Switzer. >>
Exactly!!
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>Interesting post, boo, but sometimes the pereception is too much for a team to accept, and the perception is that the Bucs as a team quit down the stretch..sometimes a change of scenery works wonders too...Pennington, for instance, to cite one of your examples, was essentially done with his tenure in NY, and undoubtedly benefitted with the change of scenery...the reduction in turnovers in Miami also has a lot to do with the system put in place by the coaching staff and if nothing else you knew that Parcells as GM would lay the groundwork for such a game plan...much like what he did when he was coach of the Jets and the INT-challenged Testaverde had his finest season...in football, it's becoming insreasingly apparent that the coaching staff and the system put in place and the game plan that gives the players the best chance to succeed has a great deal of significance with the results on the field... >>
I have two problems with this analysis. First, it assumes tha Pennington's performance this year was due to change in scenery. He (Pennington) has always been a competent, if unspectacular, quarterback in the NFL, and I see no reason to assume that this year's production is anything other than a visit to the tail in the variance curve. Alternatively, Pennington may have put a season like this together for the Jets, particularly after they added Faneca. Overall, you need to provide proof that Pennington's performance this year is due to a change in scheme, and not the result of randomness.
Second, we all recall that Gruden has had-- again, overall-- a solid track record in the NFL; both as a head coach and as a coordinator. So, are we to assume that Gruden got dumber after winning the Superbowl? That a head coach who seems intelligent and dedicated somehow quit learning-- or worse yet, lost his understanding of the game-- after an additional six years of experience? To put this in perspective, have you ever known anyone who got WORSE at their job as time went on (excluding jobs that require physical exertion)? Experience correlates positively with success; people who love their job, and who stick with it, get better at it; they don't get worse. Or at least this is what happens a majority of the time.
True, it's possible that Gruden 'lost his touch', or some other such nonsense. But ask yourself this: What's more likely? That Gruden forgot how to coach an NFL team, or that his team hit a patch of bad luck this year?
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting post, boo, but sometimes the pereception is too much for a team to accept, and the perception is that the Bucs as a team quit down the stretch..sometimes a change of scenery works wonders too...Pennington, for instance, to cite one of your examples, was essentially done with his tenure in NY, and undoubtedly benefitted with the change of scenery...the reduction in turnovers in Miami also has a lot to do with the system put in place by the coaching staff and if nothing else you knew that Parcells as GM would lay the groundwork for such a game plan...much like what he did when he was coach of the Jets and the INT-challenged Testaverde had his finest season...in football, it's becoming insreasingly apparent that the coaching staff and the system put in place and the game plan that gives the players the best chance to succeed has a great deal of significance with the results on the field... >>
I have two problems with this analysis. First, it assumes tha Pennington's performance this year was due to change in scenery. He (Pennington) has always been a competent, if unspectacular, quarterback in the NFL, and I see no reason to assume that this year's production is anything other than a visit to the tail in the variance curve. Alternatively, Pennington may have put a season like this together for the Jets, particularly after they added Faneca. Overall, you need to provide proof that Pennington's performance this year is due to a change in scheme, and not the result of randomness.
Second, we all recall that Gruden has had-- again, overall-- a solid track record in the NFL; both as a head coach and as a coordinator. So, are we to assume that Gruden got dumber after winning the Superbowl? That a head coach who seems intelligent and dedicated somehow quit learning-- or worse yet, lost his understanding of the game-- after an additional six years of experience? To put this in perspective, have you ever known anyone who got WORSE at their job as time went on (excluding jobs that require physical exertion)? Experience correlates positively with success; people who love their job, and who stick with it, get better at it; they don't get worse. Or at least this is what happens a majority of the time.
True, it's possible that Gruden 'lost his touch', or some other such nonsense. But ask yourself this: What's more likely? That Gruden forgot how to coach an NFL team, or that his team hit a patch of bad luck this year? >>
ding ding ding, we have a winner! Not only did we have no players on offense, but those we had got hurt. You don't think Gruden would of won a few
more SB's if he had TO, Whitten, Romo and Marion Barber on the O side of the ball...yous cwazy!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
These numbers aren't relevant unless you control for the talent that a coach had on its team. If a coach goes .500 with inferior talent-- which the Bucs may have had-- then that's an excellent record. If you have that record with superior talent then you're a mediocre coach.
My feeling is that anyone who can go .500 in the NFL over seven seasons with below average quarterbacking is an outstanding coach. Very, very few coaches can claim such a record without consistent play at the quarterback position. >>
The whole problem with this Guy is the fact that Gruden is too blame as much as the GM was for the talent that team aquired. He had a big say who that team picked up via draft, trade or free agency
The guy couldn't get along with alot of his players. B Johnson, K Johnson, Galloway......... he would sit them over personal issues he held against them.
He is not innocent here. >>
But you can't control for that, Matt. That's what I'm getting at. If you draft a player who was a stud out of college, or pick up a great player in free agency, and he ends up being a bust, that is not necessarily the fault of the guy who evaluated the talent. This is something that almost nobody understands, but it NEEDS to be understood.
Example: Let's say some guy asks you for a job mowing lawns. You do your due diligence-- you check his references, talk to his former employers, etc-- and come to the conclusion that he's a hard working guy who wants to do an honest job. So, you hire him. He works well for three weeks, but then suddenly he goes on a PCP bender and runs over one of your customer's Golden Retriever with a riding lawnmower. Are you to blame in this situation? Should we all look at Matt and say 'Wow, Matt really need to do a better job of evaluating talent'? No! We say, 'Matt checked his references, and did everything he could do, but there was no way to know this guy would be such a moron.'
Same goes for Gruden. Every-- or at least most-- of the choices he made re: player acquisitions seemed like reasonable moves at the time. Whether they work out or not is not something that the coach cannot control.
I do believe that..the system in Miami put him in a far better position to succeed than the systen he was in here in NY..some guys just seem to thrive on a change of scenery when they've fallen out of favor at a certain locale..
Regarding Gruden, he may have "won" a Super Bowl as coach, but many people believe that was Dungy's team (and rightfully so, IMO) and that he just rode the coattails (similar to Switzer in Dallas following Johnson)...throw out that one year and he has been an average coach at best, and that's probably giving him more credit than he deserves..
I also find it amusing that suddenly Stalin claims that TB had no talent...every year over Gruden's tenure he couldn't stop crowing how great they were on both sides of the ball, LOL!!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
more SB's if he had TO, Whitten, Romo and Marion Barber on the O side of the ball...yous cwazy!
And hwo many Super Bowls has Dallas won with this core of players?? Better yet, how many playoff games have they won? That's right...ZERO...with Gruden it would have been no different..Ok, maybe they win ONE playoff game, the one vs Seattle..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
These numbers aren't relevant unless you control for the talent that a coach had on its team. If a coach goes .500 with inferior talent-- which the Bucs may have had-- then that's an excellent record. If you have that record with superior talent then you're a mediocre coach.
My feeling is that anyone who can go .500 in the NFL over seven seasons with below average quarterbacking is an outstanding coach. Very, very few coaches can claim such a record without consistent play at the quarterback position. >>
The whole problem with this Guy is the fact that Gruden is too blame as much as the GM was for the talent that team aquired. He had a big say who that team picked up via draft, trade or free agency
The guy couldn't get along with alot of his players. B Johnson, K Johnson, Galloway......... he would sit them over personal issues he held against them.
He is not innocent here. >>
But you can't control for that, Matt. That's what I'm getting at. If you draft a player who was a stud out of college, or pick up a great player in free agency, and he ends up being a bust, that is not necessarily the fault of the guy who evaluated the talent. This is something that almost nobody understands, but it NEEDS to be understood.
Example: Let's say some guy asks you for a job mowing lawns. You do your due diligence-- you check his references, talk to his former employers, etc-- and come to the conclusion that he's a hard working guy who wants to do an honest job. So, you hire him. He works well for three weeks, but then suddenly he goes on a PCP bender and runs over one of your customer's Golden Retriever with a riding lawnmower. Are you to blame in this situation? Should we all look at Matt and say 'Wow, Matt really need to do a better job of evaluating talent'? No! We say, 'Matt checked his references, and did everything he could do, but there was no way to know this guy would be such a moron.'
Same goes for Gruden. Every-- or at least most-- of the choices he made re: player acquisitions seemed like reasonable moves at the time. Whether they work out or not is not something that the coach cannot control. >>
Okay but then who or what controls it? Look at the Niners, Steelers, Patriots and Cowboys during their Dynasty runs. What I'm getting from your post is that Gruden was just a poor sob that had a 6 year run of bad luck because his players didn't "work out".
Then looking at the teams I mentioned above, they were just lucky that their players "worked out" and they all went on to have great success. Fact is, each team I mentioned was basically run by a football / draft day mastermind. That is something Gruden is not.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Coach Gruden, for one..
Gruden's 11-year career coaching record is 95-81 (very good but hardly great, averaging little better than an 8-8 season overall), and he has not won a playoff game since winning the Super Bowl with Dungy's, err Tampa Bay's Bucs. Other than that season, he had never advanced past the first round of the playoffs, so I certainly wouldn't categorize him as an excellent coach by any means, more like a mediocre one...he's hard some very talented teams over that span, certainly no league doormats and the full record speaks for itself...even super fan Kevin stated in a prior post that the Bucs "quit" on Gruden this year and that tells me all I need to know about the present day effectiveness (or lack thereof) of a head coach, when a team with everything to play for quits or folds down the stretch like the Bucs did this past season..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
But and it's a big but, I believe he is a poor motivator of his players, and I saw it close up as an OC for the Eagles, the players there simply didn't respect him and I've heard that also with the other teams he has coached, and frankly...lack of respect is fatal in any head coaching position, especially in football.
<< <i>In all seriousness this is the way I perceive Jon Gruden,,,good offensive coordinator, smart with x's and o's and frankly, he's does sometimes outsmart other coaches during the games including Andy Reid with clever offensive adjustments that as a longtime football fan, I notice.
But and it's a big but, I believe he is a poor motivator of his players, and I saw it close up as an OC for the Eagles, the players there simply didn't respect him and I've heard that also with the other teams he has coached, and frankly...lack of respect is fatal in any head coaching position, especially in football. >>
Steve, the problem is he doesn't believe in or respect his players. That's why he had so many "personal" issues with many of them.
In fact, Micheal Clayton (Bucs wr) was just talking on ESPN about that very thing. He said ( as well as other teamates said) "it felt like they were out there playing for themselves with no leadership."
A player on the team speaking out for others is as close as you will ever get to the real story behind what was really going on there.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>Then looking at the teams I mentioned above, they were just lucky that their players "worked out" and they all went on to have great success. Fact is, each team I mentioned was basically run by a football / draft day mastermind. That is something Gruden is not. >>
Agreed, and he insists on carrying too much weight with the front office, a problem with numerous teams including the Eagles.
<< <i>A bad head coach with a super bowl ring.....how many coaches today would take that? >>
An unemployed bad coach...
How many consecutive winning seasons in the past seven. Did it once I think, this year and last.
<< <i>What would you expect from a 6 year run from those groups of players? Would you expect a super bowl? Would you expect multiple division titles in what has proved to be one of best divisions in football year in and year out? >>
You did time and time again Joey. Funny how reality comes up and smacks you in the head sometimes huh?
So Parcells is just the luckiest man alive – the moons are aligned everywhere he is at?
Phil Jackson just happens to get lucky? Jordan and Kobe and Shaq had never won a Championship with out Jackson. Patrick Riley won in LA, had great success with NY and won a Championship with Miami – was all that luck?
<< <i>so according to Boo everything that is bad just happens and everything good is just a coincidence. So it’s nobody’s fault when bad and no one hard work when it’s good – it’s just a coincidence.
So Parcells is just the luckiest man alive – the moons are aligned everywhere he is at?
Phil Jackson just happens to get lucky? Jordan and Kobe and Shaq had never won a Championship with out Jackson. Patrick Riley won in LA, had great success with NY and won a Championship with Miami – was all that luck? >>
It might be. The fact is, we don't know. It's very, very difficult to figure out what percentage of a team's performance is due to coaching, and what percentage is due to the players. So instead of saying 'I don't know', we get all this half-baked crap about 'relating to players' (you think Chuck Noll was a hugs-n-kisses guy?), or win percentages over small sample sizes, blah blah blah.
People in Philly have been calling for Andy Reid's head for years. If the Eagles make to the Super Bowl, and both McNabb and Roethlisberger have terrible games, but in the closing seconds of a 10-10 game Roethlisberger hits Dawkins in the chest with the ball, and Dawkins takes it to the house, do you think there will be ONE GUY in Philly calling for Reid to get fired? Of course not. He'll be called a 'winner', someone who 'got it done', etc. etc., when in point of fact he just incredibly lucky.
Luck plays a huge role in NFL results. I mean, it almost cannot be overemphasized. Whizzenhunt is just another average first year coach if Warner doesn't find the fountain of youth this year, and Delhomme doesn't start throwing the ball every other play to guys in red and white jerseys last week. We aren't hearing anything about Spagnola if Miami doesn't have a gaudy turnover diff. this year. Crennel's team went 10-6 last year, then fell of the truck this year, and it's all due to the play at quarterback. Did Crennel get 'lucky' last year, or 'unlucky' this year? How do you know?
My opinion on the NFL is that there are, at any given time, probably 25-26 coaches who are all run close together in ability, with 3 or so coaches who are probably superior and 3 who are inferior. If you have a decent coach-- like Tampa did-- then keep him. You probably aren't going to get a better one, and the coach's role in building (or directing) a team to a Superbowl is wildly overrated anyway. You keep the coach, hope you get lucky in the draft and that the turnover Gods smile on you next year, and be done with it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's face it, the guy is just not a good head coach. No shame in that. He just needs to do what he does best, o coordinator.
In 7 years with Tampa Bay his record is:
57-55 translating to a .509 winning %.......not even close to being good. >>
These numbers aren't relevant unless you control for the talent that a coach had on its team. If a coach goes .500 with inferior talent-- which the Bucs may have had-- then that's an excellent record. If you have that record with superior talent then you're a mediocre coach.
My feeling is that anyone who can go .500 in the NFL over seven seasons with below average quarterbacking is an outstanding coach. Very, very few coaches can claim such a record without consistent play at the quarterback position. >>
The whole problem with this Guy is the fact that Gruden is too blame as much as the GM was for the talent that team aquired. He had a big say who that team picked up via draft, trade or free agency
The guy couldn't get along with alot of his players. B Johnson, K Johnson, Galloway......... he would sit them over personal issues he held against them.
He is not innocent here. >>
But you can't control for that, Matt. That's what I'm getting at. If you draft a player who was a stud out of college, or pick up a great player in free agency, and he ends up being a bust, that is not necessarily the fault of the guy who evaluated the talent. This is something that almost nobody understands, but it NEEDS to be understood.
Example: Let's say some guy asks you for a job mowing lawns. You do your due diligence-- you check his references, talk to his former employers, etc-- and come to the conclusion that he's a hard working guy who wants to do an honest job. So, you hire him. He works well for three weeks, but then suddenly he goes on a PCP bender and runs over one of your customer's Golden Retriever with a riding lawnmower. Are you to blame in this situation? Should we all look at Matt and say 'Wow, Matt really need to do a better job of evaluating talent'? No! We say, 'Matt checked his references, and did everything he could do, but there was no way to know this guy would be such a moron.'
Same goes for Gruden. Every-- or at least most-- of the choices he made re: player acquisitions seemed like reasonable moves at the time. Whether they work out or not is not something that the coach cannot control. >>
Okay but then who or what controls it? Look at the Niners, Steelers, Patriots and Cowboys during their Dynasty runs. What I'm getting from your post is that Gruden was just a poor sob that had a 6 year run of bad luck because his players didn't "work out".
Then looking at the teams I mentioned above, they were just lucky that their players "worked out" and they all went on to have great success. Fact is, each team I mentioned was basically run by a football / draft day mastermind. That is something Gruden is not. >>
All the teams you have mentioned had outstanding quarterbacks. In fact, if you go through the list of NFL coaching 'geniuses', you'll notice that all of them- or at least the vast majority-- had a top-flight quarterback. It's very easy to look like a 'mastermind' when you have a great quarterback (ask Mike Shanahan, who actually was NICKNAMED the 'Mastermind' when he still had Elway); it's not so easy when you don't.
Consider:
Shula-- Griese/Marino
Noll- Bradshaw
Landry-Staubach
Walsh-Montana
Johnson-Aikman
Belicheck--Brady
Dungy--Manning
I would be very surprised if this was just a happy accident.
The bottom line is this: You win in the NFL by:
a) getting lucky in the later rounds of the draft
b) having an outstanding quarterback
That's just about it. The rest is surface noise: Stuff for guys like Merrill Hoge to blather on about when he's rubbing elbows with Trey Wingo. And notice that neither of these two factors are (for the most part) in the coach's control.
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
<< <i>It might be. The fact is, we don't know. It's very, very difficult to figure out what percentage of a team's performance is due to coaching, and what percentage is due to the players. So instead of saying 'I don't know', we get all this half-baked crap about 'relating to players' (you think Chuck Noll was a hugs-n-kisses guy?), or win percentages over small sample sizes, blah blah blah.
People in Philly have been calling for Andy Reid's head for years. If the Eagles make to the Super Bowl, and both McNabb and Roethlisberger have terrible games, but in the closing seconds of a 10-10 game Roethlisberger hits Dawkins in the chest with the ball, and Dawkins takes it to the house, do you think there will be ONE GUY in Philly calling for Reid to get fired? Of course not. He'll be called a 'winner', someone who 'got it done', etc. etc., when in point of fact he just incredibly lucky.
Luck plays a huge role in NFL results. I mean, it almost cannot be overemphasized. Whizzenhunt is just another average first year coach if Warner doesn't find the fountain of youth this year, and Delhomme doesn't start throwing the ball every other play to guys in red and white jerseys last week. We aren't hearing anything about Spagnola if Miami doesn't have a gaudy turnover diff. this year. Crennel's team went 10-6 last year, then fell of the truck this year, and it's all due to the play at quarterback. Did Crennel get 'lucky' last year, or 'unlucky' this year? How do you know?
>>
I agree to a certain point but believe that it's much more than luck and actually pertains to a coach and his staff finding the right (perhaps not best in ability) combination of players and the proper blend of leadership qualities, not only in themselves but on their squad.
Reid changed his tack over the last part of the season. The defense was basically OK, and saved some games for the team. The offense was lifeless, due mostly to the play calling and Reid's insistence on passing the ball. Once they began to run a more balanced offense the squad performed better. Why? Probably not just because opposing defenses were now looking for another threat, but because it drove the offense to perform better in new or different situations. McNabb performed better too.
The successful coach (leader) is not afraid to see problems in himself and correct those problems. He will do this because his goal is based on the team's objectives, not his own. Hopefully Reid has seen this and will continue in future seasons. He has spent years being too hard headed when it comes to play calling. Growth can be a screwy thing. In making some procedural changes Reid also seems to have switched up his outward personality lately. He seems more loose in public and on the sidelines, grew the beard, etc. I like the feeling and think this is what the Philly fans want to see.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
Thank you for that link, BigFische. I just ordered the book, and look forward to reading it!
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/