Is this what Dolphins fans have come to?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

(Note my phrasing in Cowher's case, btw, and note that the coach I DID use for comparison was Dungy, not Cowher.)

Actually you cited TWO coaches.  Not just Dungy but also Belichick. 

You may have also noticed nobody has pointed out all the Lombardi that Cleveland has won since he got fired.  It was a great move for that franchise

[Pappy13]

I disagree on both counts. You singled out something that was practically in parentheses, but whatever...

So you disagree that Cowher is the most relevant coach when talking about long term stability coinciding with success? Why? That was Hoodie's example. You brought Dungy into the discussion because he didn't have immediate success, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that the Steeler's success may have had something to do with the fact they've only had 4 coaches.

On to Dungy... Yes, the Bucs weren't exactly known for being stable (ever), but the Dolphins haven't exactly been lighting it up recently either.

Fair enough. So let's see the Bucs were 24-24 under Dungy in his first 3 years and they kept him. Sparano is 25-23 in his first 3 years and they kept him. Seems like both teams stuck with their coach. I'm sure there were a few in Tampa that didn't exactly think Dungy was the answer either, but they stuck with it. Same in Miami.

The point is, and this is why I do believe Dungy is a relevant comparison, that Tampa got that stability with Dungy.

And if Sparano has a bit more success next year with the Dolphins, like maybe a playoff birth, I'll be happy with giving him more time to continue to improve the team, but at some point you got to see results. You can't just keep giving the guy year after year just for stability, you have to believe he's improving the team.  Back to back 7-9 seasons is pretty ugly, but if he follows it up with a nice 10-6 or something, I'll cut him some slack. Another 7-9 though and the progress just isn't being shown.

[Pappy13]

Actually you cited TWO coaches.  Not just Dungy but also Belichick. 

I'm gonna do something that I don't normally do, I'm gonna ask a question without really knowing the answer.  Prior to Belichick, how many coaches did New England go through?  I'm assuming it's quite a few.  You're not gonna honestly tell me you think the reason that New England was mediocre for so long is because they didn't stick with one head coach are you?  And you're also not gonna honestly tell me that the reason they have stuck with Belichick has NOTHING to do with the fact they have been winning, but rather the fact that they are winning has to do with the fact they stuck with Belichick?  Seriously?

[fyo]

So let's see the Bucs were 24-24 under Dungy in his first 3 years and they kept him. Sparano is 25-23 in his first 3 years and they kept him. Seems like both teams stuck with their coach. I'm sure there were a few in Tampa that didn't exactly think Dungy was the answer either, but they stuck with it. Same in Miami.

...

And if Sparano has a bit more success next year with the Dolphins, like maybe a playoff birth, I'll be happy with giving him more time to continue to improve the team, but at some point you got to see results. You can't just keep giving the guy year after year just for stability, you have to believe he's improving the team.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect there... Seems like you agree with me...

So you disagree that Cowher is the most relevant coach when talking about long term stability coinciding with success?

Now you're just plucking things out of context. The reference was clearly to the "bad" stint cited, which you then tore into.

As for the "overall" picture of the Steelers. Yes, I do think long term stability at head coach has been a major factor in their ability to seemingly always be contenders. It's not JUST about the head coach, it's the whole franchise. If the head coach isn't shopping for the groceries, it's clearly important to have some stability in the position that does said shopping.

[fyo]

Prior to Belichick, how many coaches did New England go through?  I'm assuming it's quite a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_Patriots_head_coaches

Most relevant in recent history is perhaps the firing of Pete Carroll. And, yes, I'm gonna say that if it weren't for hindsight, Carroll should've been given more time. Sometimes it's just a few bad bounces that cause these things and it wouldn't have taken much for Carroll to stick. Now that he's gotten another chance in the NFL, we'll see if he "has what it takes", although the comparison to Belichick is likely never going to look good .

[Pappy13]

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect there... Seems like you agree with me...

About what?  That you base your decision on whether or not to fire the head coach on how well or not the team performs?  You got me there. Not sure why you may have thought I disagreed with you on that count.

As for the "overall" picture of the Steelers. Yes, I do think long term stability at head coach has been a major factor in their ability to seemingly always be contenders.

How is that any different than what we just agreed to above? That if you have success you keep the head coach and if you don't you get rid of him? The Steelers had success, plenty of it, so they kept him DESPITE the fact he had a couple bad years. The fact is that he showed success first. Same with Dungy, only to a lesser degree. Had Dungy been 8-40 in his first 3 years, you think Tampa sticks with him? NOT ON YOUR LIFE! For Tampa 24-24 WAS success. He HAD shown success, at least a little bit and that's why they stuck with him.

This is true of Sparano. He has shown a bit of success, the 11-5 year and the 2 7-9 seasons actually looked pretty good until the last 3 games of both seasons where they had a total collapse. He has shown some success and I'm absolutely sure that's why he was given an extension. He has been cut some slack. But he's running out of slack and time.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm gonna do something that I don't normally do, I'm gonna ask a question without really knowing the answer.  Prior to Belichick, how many coaches did New England go through?  I'm assuming it's quite a few.  You're not gonna honestly tell me you think the reason that New England was mediocre for so long is because they didn't stick with one head coach are you?  And you're also not gonna honestly tell me that the reason they have stuck with Belichick has NOTHING to do with the fact they have been winning, but rather the fact that they are winning has to do with the fact they stuck with Belichick?  Seriously?

To answer your first question.  I think that the reason NEP was bad for so long had to do first with bad and often changing ownership.  Which then translated into inconsistent and often shifting coaching and GMs never allowing the team to build.  

My point was Cleveland let BB go too soon.  

[Pappy13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_Patriots_head_coaches

Most relevant in recent history is perhaps the firing of Pete Carroll. And, yes, I'm gonna say that if it weren't for hindsight, Carroll should've been given more time. Sometimes it's just a few bad bounces that cause these things and it wouldn't have taken much for Carroll to stick. Now that he's gotten another chance in the NFL, we'll see if he "has what it takes", although the comparison to Belichick is likely never going to look good .

Whoa whoa whoa!  Carroll should have been given more time? If they did, they might not have Belichick? Actually I'd say that supports the idea that you only give guys so much time before you move on and try to find something better.

[fyo]

Whoa whoa whoa!  Carroll should have been given more time? If they did, they might not have Belichick? Actually I'd say that supports the idea that you only give guys so much time before you move on and try to find something better.

That's a hindsight argument. What were the odds of finding what has turned out to be, arguably, the best coach in the history of the NFL (although the cheating stigma does put a bit of an asterisk to it, IMHO)?

If you absolutely KNOW you have someone better waiting in the wings (and that he'll stick around), then fine, go ahead and fire your coach REGARDLESS of his performance. Did Kraft know that? Maybe, but I doubt it. And that's what we're talking about here... what did Kraft know AT THE TIME... hindsight is irrelevant.

This is true of Sparano. He has shown a bit of success, the 11-5 year. And the 2 7-9 seasons actually looked pretty good until the last 3 games of both seasons where they had a total collapse. He has shown some success and I'm absolutely sure that's why he was given an extension. He has been cut some slack. But he's running out of slack and time.

Okay... so we agree... on pretty much all points... hrm... I don't necessarily agree with you on the "running out of slack and time", but that's just a matter of slight degree, I think. If the team gets 6-7 wins next season, it would take a lot of mitigating circumstances for me not to believe it would be better to move on.

As for the whole causality issue... yes, clearly successful teams don't tend to fire their coaches, so it makes it difficult to figure out which caused what. I'm simply arguing that fielding a perennial contender is IMPOSSIBLE without stability at head coach. That's why I advocate not jettisoning a head coach too early, despite what may be lackluster results.

When you switch head coach, it affects everything. Depth is almost always completely shot with the new coach getting rid of all sorts of "good-but-not-great" players. If he's LUCKY and avoids too many injuries, there may be time to restock with "his type" of players before ownership succumbs to pressure and fires him. The same can be said to a certain extent about the other coaches. It takes time for a new head coach in particular to surround himself with the personnel he needs to succeed.

[Pappy13]

To answer your first question.  I think that the reason NEP was bad for so long had to do first with bad and often changing ownership.  Which then translated into inconsistent and often shifting coaching and GMs never allowing the team to build.  

My point was Cleveland let BB go too soon.  

Perhaps.  Perhaps it was the fact that he went to New England and got a better ownership group and got lucky enough to draft an unknown QB named Brady that he helped develop into a stud QB.  Perhaps all that had a lot more to do with it than the fact that he wasn't given enough time in Cleveland.  Perhaps?

[fyo]

Perhaps.  Perhaps it was the fact that he went to New England and got a better ownership group and got lucky enough to draft an unknown QB named Brady that he helped develop into a stud QB.  Perhaps all that had a lot more to do with it than the fact that he wasn't given enough time in Cleveland.  Perhaps?

Brady wasn't a stud QB when the Patriots won their first Super Bowl. Not by a long shot.

[Pappy13]

Brady wasn't a stud QB when the Patriots won their first Super Bowl. Not by a long shot.

Agreed.  But then again they were nearly knocked out of the playoffs by the Raiders that year...and now we all know the tuck rule.

There's always a little bit of luck involved when you win a Super Bowl.  Always.

[MikeO]

True, but I strongly doubt the ability of random forum posters to judge the potential of a coach.

That includes yourself with that comment there buddy.

[Pappy13]

That's a hindsight argument. What were the odds of finding what has turned out to be, arguably, the best coach in the history of the NFL (although the cheating stigma does put a bit of an asterisk to it, IMHO)?

What evidence is there that he's the best coach in the history of the NFL?  According to you and Hoodie, the reason the Patriots are good is because of stability, not because of Belichick.  Carrol would have done just as well as Belichick had he just been given enough time.  That's your argument and when it's put into those terms even you don't believe it.

As for the whole causality issue... yes, clearly successful teams don't tend to fire their coaches, so it makes it difficult to figure out which caused what. I'm simply arguing that fielding a perennial contender is IMPOSSIBLE without stability at head coach.

No it's not.  The Steelers have proved that.  They've switched coaches 3 times and continue to field a perennial contender every year.

[fyo]

What evidence is there that he's the best coach in the history of the NFL?  According to you and Hoodie, the reason the Patriots are good is because of stability, not because of Belichick.  Carrol would have done just as well as Belichick had he just been given enough time.  That's your argument and when it's put into those terms even you don't believe it.

No, I don't believe Carrol could have done just as well as Belichick. I don't think it's likely ANYONE could. Let me just state this: I really, really dislike Belichick. He's a lying, cheating, unsportsmanlike SOB. But I also think he's the best coach in the National Football League.

No it's not [impossible to field a perennial contender without stability at head coach].  The Steelers have proved that.  They've switched coaches 3 times and continue to field a perennial contender every year.

What. The. Fuck.

Seriously, you're going to use the STEELERS as the poster-boy for instability at head coach???

Yeah, they've switched coaches three times since 1968. Cowher had a "short" stint... just 14 years.