NFL - Divisional Round - Best week of the year

[Nictarion]

Mexal

I have mixed feelings regarding Mike Zimmer possibly leaving. On one hand I don't want to lose him, but I do think he deserves a shot at being a head coach.

Who do you think we'd get to replace him if he goes?

[Mexal]

Mexal

I have mixed feelings regarding Mike Zimmer possibly leaving. On one hand I don't want to lose him, but I do think he deserves a shot at being a head coach.

Who do you think we'd get to replace him if he goes?

No idea to be honest. Depends what the Bengals think about LB Coach Paul Guenther. I like the work he has done with Burfict, seems to be well respected, knows the players strengths, and has worked under Zimmer for 6 years. He'd be my first choice though I have read reports that Zimmer would want to take him as his DC but the Bengals would have to allow that.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Yep, that's the one I played, I'm pretty sure.Remind me and I will play next season. :cheers:

Absolutely. Sounds like a plot.

[Jaime L]

I'm cool with the Gruden hire for the reasons Mexal noted. The Skins were going the coordinator route after another failure with a retread and realistically it was going to be an OC because RG3 is the #1 concern. You never know how a coordinator projects as a HC but at least he did some good things in Cincy and I think he's shown to be innovative which is a must in today's game. The rest we'll find out. But I take this over Darrell Bevell any day.

What I'm concerned about is that it sounds like they're just going to plug in coaches already on the Skins staff as the coordinators. Either Haslett stays as DC or Raheem Morris gets the job - I'm not sure either is close to deserving of it based on the defense's performance the last couple years. Sure there were issues with lack of talent and injuries but this has never been a fundamentally sound defense under Haslett. But they have prior connections to Gruden from Tampa Bay and the UFL so they get to stay. And sounds like the TE coach Sean McVay will be the OC because of those same connections.

I think Maith is right the whole thing was something of an inside job from the moment Bruce Allen fired the whole offensive coaching staff but kept those defensive coordinators and McVay. It doesn't mean it can't work, maybe this is the best way to build a cohesive coaching staff that knows it can work together and is on the same page philosophically, but you start to wonder how merit based these hires are. Part of me was hoping the new HC would bring in hungry, young guys from other staffs eager to prove themselves. I think Gruden fits that profile as a first time head coach but the rest of it feels too comfortable.

[Maithanet]

I'm cool with the Gruden hire for the reasons Mexal noted. The Skins were going the coordinator route after another failure with a retread and realistically it was going to be an OC because RG3 is the #1 concern. You never know how a coordinator projects as a HC but at least he did some good things in Cincy and I think he's shown to be innovative which is a must in today's game. The rest we'll find out. But I take this over Darrell Bevell any day.

What I'm concerned about is that it sounds like they're just going to plug in coaches already on the Skins staff as the coordinators. Either Haslett stays as DC or Raheem Morris gets the job - I'm not sure either is close to deserving of it based on the defense's performance the last couple years. Sure there were issues with lack of talent and injuries but this has never been a fundamentally sound defense under Haslett. But they have prior connections to Gruden from Tampa Bay and the UFL so they get to stay. And sounds like the TE coach Sean McVay will be the OC because of those same connections.

Haslett just has to go, his defenses are consistently below average, and aside from the seven game stretch in 2011, have never come up big when needed most. If Gruden really likes Morris and wants to give him a shot as DC, I can live with that, he was a good DC in the past and our secondary this past year looked a lot better than in 2011 despite having very similar talent.

But if that's the case, you can't demote Haslett to some sort of defensive assistant, can you? Having the previous guy lurking in the shadows sounds like a complete joke.

[DanteGabriel]

Apparently Josh McDaniels has decided that Cleveland is beneath him.

On the one hand, I'm sure the Cleveland fan is happy they don't get McDaniels. On the other hand, you just got turned down by Josh McDaniels... That's like getting ready for the prom and the pimply faced trenchcoat kid tells you he's not interested. Sure, you don't want to go with him anyway, but who does he think he is?

He might have decided that he wants to have a legit shot at sticking around for a while, a chance to really run a program the way he thinks it should run, and a regime that just fired a guy after one year in which he had a QB carousel is probably not going to be the stable work environment he's looking for.

And, sorry, no matter how badly McDaniels did in his last HC gig, the Browns job is a shit-show, due to aforementioned regime and a solid decade-and-a-half of institutional floppy red shoes bunglefuckery. There's talent there and a dedicated fanbase, plus the extra first-round picked they fleeced out of Indy, but between the trucker-cheating owner and the Banner/Lombardi broken promises tour, who wants to take a ride on that merry-go-round?

[Kalbear]

Kal - I don't understand what your objection was to my post in the previous thread. My main point was that I don't think it's always clear-cut in football to what extent it's one player versus the team or the offense versus the defense etc...

Jaime had suggested that advanced stats hadn't figured out a way to really gauge this, and I was just spitballing on that while agreeing. Then I threw in the random stat about Aikman and Brady only because it seemed like an example of two comparable accomplishments that arguably were achieved in different circumstances. What were you reacting to?

You were saying that Brady and Aikman were the only QBs in recent memory to have won 3 superbowls in 4 years. And I still say - so what? You might have been meaning to indicate that here are two guys that were worlds apart in their team make up, characteristics and the like but are rated by one metric only - if that's the case, you're probably closer to my side.

It's not clear cut. It's never clear cut. It'll never be clear cut. We want to be able to assign greatness to a specific person because of our weird desire to create heroes and villains out of people but the most important person in the equation isn't listed - it's the coach. And even then it isn't always; Barry Switzer is the obvious counterexample. Why we associate wins and losses to QBs at all without massive qualifications is beyond me - but associating superbowl wins is even worse. There are people that argue Eli Manning is the better Manning brother with no irony. There are people on these boards who have made the argument that until a QB wins a superbowl that QB is never going to win a superbowl and will never do so because they're not the kind of QB that can win a superbowl.

[Maithanet]

There are people that argue Eli Manning is the better Manning brother with no irony. There are people on these boards who have made the argument that until a QB wins a superbowl that QB is never going to win a superbowl and will never do so because they're not the kind of QB that can win a superbowl.

It's true, and that's always been the kind of clearly circular reasoning that bothered me. Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl, but "didn't" and "couldn't" are not the same thing. If the Dolphins had drafted Lawrence Taylor, how many Super Bowls does Dan Marino win? I'll give you a hint - it's not zero.

But on the other hand there are some quarterbacks who are "not Super Bowl winners", as in, they have never won a Super Bowl, and thier lack of talent indicates that unless they are utterly dragged across the finish line by the rest of their team, they never will. No-brainer candidates for this kind of labeling are terrible quarterbacks like Blaine Gabbert, Matt Lienart. More contraversional candidates are guys like Jay Cutler, Tony Romo, Andy Dalton, Carson Palmer. Basically any quarterback that has been in the league a few years, has at some point had a pretty talented team around him, and has failed to even win their conference.

[sperry]

Honest question: why would anyone take the Brown's job? On a team with no quarterback (i.e. no prayer to win at all), they just fired their coach after one season.

The national media was making a big deal out of Bob Stoops potentially taking that job, which was absolutely laughable. Why on earth would any coach give up a great gig to go to an absolutely hopeless situation. Barring getting the #1 pick next year and getting Winston (which may get you fired after one year), or miraculously finding a Russell Wilson in the third round (which isn't happening), how in the ever living fuck does a coach imagine they will be employed after three years with the team? And it's not like teams are lining up to hire Brown's castoffs.

Seriously, the team is owned by a criminal, managed by the three stooges, and DOESN'T have a QB!!

[Jaime L]

Honest question: why would anyone take the Brown's job? On a team with no quarterback (i.e. no prayer to win at all), they just fired their coach after one season.

The national media was making a big deal out of Bob Stoops potentially taking that job, which was absolutely laughable. Why on earth would any coach give up a great gig to go to an absolutely hopeless situation. Barring getting the #1 pick next year and getting Winston (which may get you fired after one year), or miraculously finding a Russell Wilson in the third round (which isn't happening), how in the ever living fuck does a coach imagine they will be employed after three years with the team? And it's not like teams are lining up to hire Brown's castoffs.

Seriously, the team is owned by a criminal, managed by the three stooges, and DOESN'T have a QB!!

Two reasons.

1) Scarcity - there's only 32 of these jobs. Might not make sense for Bob Stoops but the worst NFL headcoaching job is still a dream for thousands in the coaching ranks. If Weekend At Bernies era Al Davis can find guys who want that job, anyone can.

2) Pay - For a coordinator hard to turn down the opportunity to make $2-3 million/year when you're making $750K. Plus the contract will probably be for 3 years and it'll be guaranteed if you get fired like Chud. Gotta be super tough leaving $6-9 million on the table especially as this year's hot coordinator may be next year's forgotten man.

[Kalbear]

Yeah - you take it because you think you're hot shit and you can see what happens. Worst case is that it doesn't work out, you're a rich man and you can blame basically everything on completely shitty institutional control - which is probably true.

While head coaches that come from coordinators often fail (as all head coaches do), they also often have a fairly easy time of getting a coord job back.

[Maithanet]

While head coaches that come from coordinators often fail (as all head coaches do), they also often have a fairly easy time of getting a coord job back.

Yeah, although it does mean that you will never get another head coaching job in the NFL. I mean, no successful head coaches have ever been hired and later fired by the Cleveland Browns...

[Jaime L]

Yeah, although it does mean that you will never get another head coaching job in the NFL. I mean, no successful head coaches have ever been hired and later fired by the Cleveland Browns...

Bill Belichick? Marty Schottenheimer?

I could just be missing the joke.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Bill Belichick? Marty Schottenheimer?

I could just be missing the joke.

I think maith was being something...

http://s1336.photobucket.com/user/Lumpy67/media/sarcasm01_zpsf5df6142.jpg.html

[Jace, Extat]

He might have decided that he wants to have a legit shot at sticking around for a while, a chance to really run a program the way he thinks it should run, and a regime that just fired a guy after one year in which he had a QB carousel is probably not going to be the stable work environment he's looking for.

And, sorry, no matter how badly McDaniels did in his last HC gig, the Browns job is a shit-show, due to aforementioned regime and a solid decade-and-a-half of institutional floppy red shoes bunglefuckery. There's talent there and a dedicated fanbase, plus the extra first-round picked they fleeced out of Indy, but between the trucker-cheating owner and the Banner/Lombardi broken promises tour, who wants to take a ride on that merry-go-round?

Fair enough. I actually think McDaniels was really impressive with how he got great (offensive) play out of mediocre players, but he needs to tread carefully. If he goes crazy again, or just signs with the Browns/Jags, he'll never be more than Tom Brady's BFF.

It's true, and that's always been the kind of clearly circular reasoning that bothered me. Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl, but "didn't" and "couldn't" are not the same thing. If the Dolphins had drafted Lawrence Taylor, how many Super Bowls does Dan Marino win? I'll give you a hint - it's not zero.

But on the other hand there are some quarterbacks who are "not Super Bowl winners", as in, they have never won a Super Bowl, and thier lack of talent indicates that unless they are utterly dragged across the finish line by the rest of their team, they never will. No-brainer candidates for this kind of labeling are terrible quarterbacks like Blaine Gabbert, Matt Lienart. More contraversional candidates are guys like Jay Cutler, Tony Romo, Andy Dalton, Carson Palmer. Basically any quarterback that has been in the league a few years, has at some point had a pretty talented team around him, and has failed to even win their conference.

I don't think it's fair to put Cutler in that group. He's alternated between great defense/laughable offense and #2 offense/not even funny defense. I get that Cutler is largely viewed that way, but I disagree.

[Maithanet]

Bill Belichick? Marty Schottenheimer?

I could just be missing the joke.

Both actually, but I was specifically referring to Belichick

[Kalbear]

I don't think it's fair to put Cutler in that group. He's alternated between great defense/laughable offense and #2 offense/not even funny defense. I get that Cutler is largely viewed that way, but I disagree.

The biggest knock on Cutler at this point is that he has a very bad injury history. That more than anything will stop him from getting a ring. Fully healthy for a season? The Bears could easily be competitive in the next couple of years.

[trickster]

You were saying that Brady and Aikman were the only QBs in recent memory to have won 3 superbowls in 4 years. And I still say - so what? You might have been meaning to indicate that here are two guys that were worlds apart in their team make up, characteristics and the like but are rated by one metric only - if that's the case, you're probably closer to my side.

It's not clear cut. It's never clear cut. It'll never be clear cut. We want to be able to assign greatness to a specific person because of our weird desire to create heroes and villains out of people but the most important person in the equation isn't listed - it's the coach. And even then it isn't always; Barry Switzer is the obvious counterexample. Why we associate wins and losses to QBs at all without massive qualifications is beyond me - but associating superbowl wins is even worse. There are people that argue Eli Manning is the better Manning brother with no irony. There are people on these boards who have made the argument that until a QB wins a superbowl that QB is never going to win a superbowl and will never do so because they're not the kind of QB that can win a superbowl.

This discussion is quite fascinating. Consider Tom Brady’s remarkable career. If we want to put labels, he started out as Aikman 2.0, and was turning into Montana 2.0. He could not loose in the big games and especially in the playoffs. But over the last two thirds of his career, the narrative seemed to have changed. He has been more like Marino and Peyton Manning, great stats, average playoff record. Funny thing is his Troy Aikman phase has pushed him into my top 5 all time list. At the same time Eli Manning middling stats, inability to play consistently good over long periods, trumps his 2 Superbowl rings. He is NOT an all timer and rightfully so. To be one of the all time greats you need a combination of stats and wins. As to what proportion, is debatable and seem to vary from to player as stats and perception both go into this.

Brady was not putting up huge stats during his Superbowl winning years. For example during the 2004 season he was in the top 10 in terms of passer rating (9th ), yardage (10th ) and TD (6th ). These stats were pretty much the same the year before. By the time the 2004 season ended, like many observers, my perception was he was a very good QB playing for a great team. (For example in 2004, the Patriots were the number 2 defensive team in the league in terms of points allowed; they had the best point differential in the league). He was clutch as hell, always seemed to come through in the big moments. So he was more like Troy Aikman 2.0 than the stats compilers Marino or Manning. (On a quick side note Troy Aikman was actually ranked number 3 in the three major passing categories I mention in the league in 1992.) At the time Brady was an impeccable 9-0 in the playoff with 3 SB wins. Many had started to think he was the second coming of Joe Cool. His stats were nowhere near Manning’s. But Brady vs Manning was a legitimate debate (still is btw just to be clear).

Now within the next few years, Brady went Ninja on the league, started compiling unbelievable stats. He had the incredible 2007 season. His career stats started to look historically significant. By the time he retires he will be in the top 4 (with Favre, Manning and Brees) in terms of yardage (number 7 as of now) and TD passes (number 5 as of now). And what happened? He seemed to have lost his playoff mojo. He lost in two Superbowls as the favorite (although in 2011, many including me thought the Giants had a very good chance). His playoff record after 2004 is a pedestrian Manningesque 8-7. Is he a worse QB now? Would you take Brady circa 2004 or circa 2007-2013 if you had to play 3 playoff games? I would much rather have the current Brady with all the knowledge and experience even with a slightly diminished physical abilities compared to 2007. But hey, the narrative is he is not winning enough in the playoffs. That’s what people are saying about Manning and man if he looses against SD this weekend, he will never be considered (and rightfully so) the best ever. Being the best ever is actually winning the perception battle on top of having the stats to back it up. I am pretty sure if you switch Marino and Montana, the Niners win at least 4 Superbowls and Dolphins win zero. The coaching and the roster of the Niners were miles ahead of the Dolphins. But can we prove that? No!

As many have already said Football is such a team game that it is difficult to accurately separate the player and the team when we are debating the best ever. Coaching, weather, home field, injury, luck so many variables. It is easy to recognize that Marino was better than Aikman. But it becomes quite murky when you are debating Marino vs Elway or Elway vs Montana or Brady vs Manning. Dan Marino had overwhelming stats and no Superbowl win. His playoffs record is 8-10. He is one of the all time greats. People concede that he was not the reason why the Dolphins never won any Superbowl. Elway had good stats, much better than Aikman, but not as good as Marino’s. Before his two superbowl winning season his playoff record was 7-7. But he enhanced his legacy significantly and leapfrogged Marino in many people’s ranking by winning those two Superbowls and going 7-0 in the playoffs. But is he really a better QB than Marino (or his 1995 self)? Would he have won a single Superbowl if he was playing for the exact same Dolphins team that Marino had? Don’t think so. Would Marino win a couple of Superbowls if he were the Broncos QB instead of Elway? I think he would have.

[trickster]

The biggest knock on Cutler at this point is that he has a very bad injury history. That more than anything will stop him from getting a ring. Fully healthy for a season? The Bears could easily be competitive in the next couple of years.

Since this is the day for the hypothetical:Cutler on the 2006 Bears might have resulted in a Superbowl win for the Bears.

But I agree, he has been quite injury prone. But man the Bears D stinks now. It is worse than the Grossman era Bears offense.

Fair enough. I actually think McDaniels was really impressive with how he got great (offensive) play out of mediocre players, but he needs to tread carefully. If he goes crazy again, or just signs with the Browns/Jags, he'll never be more than Tom Brady's BFF.

I don't think it's fair to put Cutler in that group. He's alternated between great defense/laughable offense and #2 offense/not even funny defense. I get that Cutler is largely viewed that way, but I disagree.

:thumbsup:

[sperry]

This discussion is quite fascinating. Consider Tom Brady’s remarkable career. If we want to put labels, he started out as Aikman 2.0, and was turning into Montana 2.0. He could not loose in the big games and especially in the playoffs. But over the last two thirds of his career, the narrative seemed to have changed. He has been more like Marino and Peyton Manning, great stats, average playoff record. Funny thing is his Troy Aikman phase has pushed him into my top 5 all time list. At the same time Eli Manning middling stats, inability to play consistently good over long periods, trumps his 2 Superbowl rings. He is NOT an all timer and rightfully so. To be one of the all time greats you need a combination of stats and wins. As to what proportion, is debatable and seem to vary from to player as stats and perception both go into this.

Brady was not putting up huge stats during his Superbowl winning years. For example during the 2004 season he was in the top 10 in terms of passer rating (9th ), yardage (10th ) and TD (6th ). These stats were pretty much the same the year before. By the time the 2004 season ended, like many observers, my perception was he was a very good QB playing for a great team. (For example in 2004, the Patriots were the number 2 defensive team in the league in terms of points allowed; they had the best point differential in the league). He was clutch as hell, always seemed to come through in the big moments. So he was more like Troy Aikman 2.0 than the stats compilers Marino or Manning. (On a quick side note Troy Aikman was actually ranked number 3 in the three major passing categories I mention in the league in 1992.) At the time Brady was an impeccable 9-0 in the playoff with 3 SB wins. Many had started to think he was the second coming of Joe Cool. His stats were nowhere near Manning’s. But Brady vs Manning was a legitimate debate (still is btw just to be clear).

Now within the next few years, Brady went Ninja on the league, started compiling unbelievable stats. He had the incredible 2007 season. His career stats started to look historically significant. By the time he retires he will be in the top 4 (with Favre, Manning and Brees) in terms of yardage (number 7 as of now) and TD passes (number 5 as of now). And what happened? He seemed to have lost his playoff mojo. He lost in two Superbowls as the favorite (although in 2011, many including me thought the Giants had a very good chance). His playoff record after 2004 is a pedestrian Manningesque 8-7. Is he a worse QB now? Would you take Brady circa 2004 or circa 2007-2013 if you had to play 3 playoff games? I would much rather have the current Brady with all the knowledge and experience even with a slightly diminished physical abilities compared to 2007. But hey, the narrative is he is not winning enough in the playoffs. That’s what people are saying about Manning and man if he looses against SD this weekend, he will never be considered (and rightfully so) the best ever. Being the best ever is actually winning the perception battle on top having the stats to back it up. I am pretty sure if you switch Marino and Montana, the Niners win at least 4 Superbowls and Dolphins win zero. The coaching and the roster of the Niners were miles ahead than the Dolphins. But can we prove that? No!

As many have already said Football is such a team game that it is difficult to accurately separate the player and the team when we are debating the best ever. Coaching, weather, home field, injury, luck so many variables. It is easy to recognize that Marino was better than Aikman. But it becomes quite murky when you are debating Marino vs Elway or Elway vs Montana or Brady vs Manning. Dan Marino had overwhelming stats and no Superbowl win. His playoffs record is 8-10. He is one of the all time greats. People concede that he was not the reason why the Dolphins never won any Superbowl. Elway had good stats, much better than Aikman, but not as good as Marino’s. Before his two superbowl winning season his playoff record was 7-7. But he enhanced his legacy significantly and leapfrogged Marino in many people’s ranking by winning those two Superbowls and going 7-0 in the playoffs. But is he really a better QB than Marino (or his 1995 self)? Would he have won a single Superbowl if he was playing for the exact same Dolphins team that Marino had? Don’t think so. Would Marino win a couple of Superbowls if he were the Broncos QB instead of Elway? I think he would have.

It is impossible to separate the player and the team.