The case for firing Gruden ASAP

[rocskins]

Well, I don't recall Garrett going 3-13, playing musical chairs with the QBs, being unprofessional, throwing players under the bus, etc...Garrett's main criticism was always going 8-8. 

 

Honestly, we don't need to go for the in demand coordinator after Gruden is fired, unless that coordinator has HC experience in the NFL.  This organization isn't built for 1st time coaches.   There are only 32 teams in the NFL.  There are only a few opportunities to coach in the NFL.   There won't be a problem finding a coach.

 

What if you were a manager of a business and you hired someone you thought would be a good employee because they said the right things during the interview.  After a few days, you see the employee is rude to customers and doesn't produce.  After you talk to him,  he continues to run customers off and has poor production.  The employee has only been with you a week, but sometimes you have to say "this was a poor hire and he needs to be replaced."

My point exactly.   This buffoon brings out the worst in his team.  We just hired the wrong coordinator from Cincinnati SMH.  

[I Love The Skins]

Yeah, cuz at least their crazy owner realizes that at some point you need to draft 1st round talent on your Oline...even Jerruh can get that right....ugh....

 

Actually it was his son Stephen who got it right if Jerry had his way they would have drafted Johnny Manziel.

[Voice_of_Reason]

It took him 4 years before he improved his record. How many Super Bowl coaches were great their first season?

That's a good question.  I'd have to do some actual digging, but going backwards, just off the top of my head: EDIT: I didn't do this off the top of my head. I looked it up. 

 

- Pete Carroll: 6-10 in 1994 with the Jets, 10-6 in 1997 with the Pats, followed by 9-7, 9-7, 6-10, fired.  Back to NFL in 2010, 7-9, 7-9, 11-5, and we're off.  

- John Harbaugh: Hired in 2008, went 11-5.  Worst season was 8-8.  Won SB in 2012. 

- Tom Coughlin: Hired as Jags first HC, went 4-12 with expansion Jags.  9-7 and playoffs next year, 11-5, 11-5, 14-2 the next three years. Established himself as a pretty good coach pretty quickly.  1st season in NY was 6-10, followed by 11-5.  Won 2 SBs.

- Mike McCarthy: Green Bay 2006, 8-8.  Followed by 13-3, 6-10 (I honestly don't remember the Pack being 6-10 in 2008.), 11-5, 10-6, and SB champs.  

- Sean Payton: Hired in 2006, 10-6, 7-9, 8-8, followed by 4 double digit winning seasons and a SB.  

- Mike Tomlin: Hired in 2007, 10-6, 12-4 second season with a SB.  Worst record has been 8-8.  

- Tony Dungy: Hired in 1996 at the Bucks.  6-10, 10-6, 8-8, 11-5, 10-6, 9-7, then fired.  Hired by Indy, and never won less than 10 games.  (Though that guy Peyton might have had something to do with that.)

- Bill Cowher: Hired in 1992. 11-5, 9-7, blah-blah, Won the SB in 2005.  Took a while.  But he had mostly winning seasons, 10 playoff appearances.  

- Bill Belichick: Hired in 1991 with the browns.  6-10, 7-9, 7-9, 11-5, 5-11, Fired.  Hired by the Pats in 2000. 5-11, 11-5 (SB), 9-7, 11-5 (SB), 11-5 (SB) and hasn't had a non-double digit winning season since 2003.  (That guy Brady might have helped that as well...)

- Hired by Raiders in 1998.  8-8, 8-8, 12-4, 10-6, then traded to the Bucs.  12-4 (SB).  Interesting he was fired after 2 9-7 seasons (I didn't remember that), and I'm pretty sure that the bucs regret that particular decision.  

 

That's as far as I'm going to go back now, most of the coaches prior to that are out of the league, the league was very different, etc.

 

Summary: Some coaches won right away, some took some time.  The best is probably John Harbaugh.  Came in, succeeded right away, and hasn't looked back.  Though I think Mike Tomlin might put an argument in as well. 

 

I'm not saying I expected Gruden to be great this year, but 3-11 isn't cutting it. I think alot of us thought this team could go at least 6-10 coming into this season.

The expectations were SO low, and yet they weren't able to meet them.  The bar was literally laying on the flow, that's how low we've lowered it.  And they tripped on it, and couldn't get over.  Very sad.

[Hersh]

Summary: Some coaches won right away, some took some time.  The best is probably John Harbaugh.  Came in, succeeded right away, and hasn't looked back.  Though I think Mike Tomlin might put an argument in as well. 

 

That's good research. I would say just looking at your list the the ones that were success came into good organizations that had pretty good teams already in place. Sean Payton being the exception but I think he came with Drew Brees. I don't think N.O. was any good before Payton.

[MattFancy]

Good digging there VOR. But when you look at those, it doesn't seem like there are many coaches who were worse than 6-10 their 1st season who went on to have good careers.

 

And you're right, most fans weren't in here expecting the playoffs this season. We were looking for a team that was going to show progess under a new HC. With the hope of getting on the right path. I would say that we haven't even sniffed that.

[Hersh]

What if you were a manager of a business and you hired someone you thought would be a good employee because they said the right things during the interview.  After a few days, you see the employee is rude to customers and doesn't produce.  After you talk to him,  he continues to run customers off and has poor production.  The employee has only been with you a week, but sometimes you have to say "this was a poor hire and he needs to be replaced."

 

This isn't close to a relevant scenario. As far as Garrett goes, didn't they end up bringing in multiple assistants for him on offense and ultimately strip him of a lot of duties?

[Voice_of_Reason]

I wouldn't be totally sick about it but, no, I wouldn't support that.

My main point is that, presently, we would ruin (or negatively affect) any coaches career, even if we were to get the right structure and the right people in place up top. Because we haven't been an organization built in a manner conducive for anyone's success; it would take at least a couple years (more realistically 3-4 years) for us to get to that point.

You know, there was only one guy on earth who had the gonads to tell Dan to go stick it, get the hell out and let him run the organization the way he wanted to.  That guy was hired in 2001, and fired that same year.  

 

Say what you want about Marty, he wasn't going to let Dan get in the way.  And the only way Dan could get in the way (which is what he wanted to do) was to fire Marty.  Which is what he did.

 

Since then, he's been allowed to "meddle" in some way, shape or form, whether it be being directly involved in player-personnel decisions, or just giving star players preferential treatment. 

 

Since Marty was fired, there hasn't been anybody who has been able to make this a professional organization, top to bottom, and that includes Gibbs II, who spent more time placating Snyder than one would have hoped.  

[Hersh]

Not a SB coach, but Jim Harbaugh took over a 6-10 49ers team and for the next 3 seasons had them in at least the NFCCG.

 

John Harbaugh took a 5-11 Ravens team and turned them into an 11-5 team the next season. And he's won a SB with them.

 

I'm not saying I expected Gruden to be great this year, but 3-11 isn't cutting it. I think alot of us thought this team could go at least 6-10 coming into this season.

 

Compare the talent level of those teams to what the Redskins have now. Personally, I don't think it's close as they had a lot more talent particularly on defense.

 

I think this team actually would have been about 6-10 with a change at DC.

[Skinsinparadise]

I wouldn't be totally sick about it but, no, I wouldn't support that.

My main point is that, presently, we would ruin (or negatively affect) any coaches career, even if we were to get the right structure and the right people in place up top. Because we haven't been an organization built in a manner conducive for anyone's success; it would take at least a couple years (more realistically 3-4 years) for us to get to that point.

 

 

Not sure, am following your point.  My point was if Jay bombing here speaks of Allen and both of them go and by extension we get a new top flight personnel person -- would you be ok with it?   If am following your point you wouldn't be ok with it because even though the solution might be in place when it comes to personnel -- we'd still be unfairly punishing Jay for Allen's ineptitude and Jay deserves a clean slate?

[VRIEL1]

First of all, the defense wasn't just loading the box every single play, considering the Redskins call pass more than they run, the defense was ready for a pass heavy game and there were plenty of times they could have run the ball and try and gain traction. 

 

My issue is not that the QB can or can't be allowed to change the play call, which you seem to have latched onto, my issue is that A) The coach can't use that as an excuse for an answer when being questioned why he abandons the run or doesn't call many run plays, and just because you're not successful doesn't mean you just completely abandon the run. At least try some draws and screens or something.

 

If the coach is telling me that he is calling run plays but the QB is changing out of them.... who am I to not believe him? I'm not on the field with a head set on knowing what he is or is not doing?

 

I will add this... if we are 3rd and long there is no reason why the team should be running, and as we all know and have heard the announcers say every week that for some reason this team seems to get into 3rd and long more often then not. So they are being forced to pass the ball to try and get the first down. Especially when they get a 10 to 15 yrd penalty or sack, and there were a ton of sacks yesterday I thought I heard 16,  they almost need to pass just to get the 1st down.

 

The plays that really get under my skin are the plays in which they need 10+ yards and they throw a 3 yrd pass. I get YAC but come on at least get to the first down marker then try to get YAC.

[Voice_of_Reason]

That's good research. I would say just looking at your list the the ones that were success came into good organizations that had pretty good teams already in place. Sean Payton being the exception but I think he came with Drew Brees. I don't think N.O. was any good before Payton.

You're 100% right.  Notice Mike Tomlin taking over the Steelers, John Harbaugh taking over the Ravens.  Both had won SBs in the previous 5-10 years, and were stable organizations.

 

Carroll took over a very "eh" Seattle team, and was "eh" for 2 years, but did win a division at 7-9 and win a playoff game. 

 

Sean Payton took over a bad Saints team. They were 3-13 the year before, and coached by, (wait for it, wait for it, wait for it ...) Jim Haslett! Now, I give Haslett a half-pass for the 3-13.  They played a couple pre-season games in NoLA, then had to evacuate because of Katrina, and spent the remainder of the year wandering around the country, and essentially no home games, no real training facilities, and a city under-water.  I think even Vince Lombardi would have had a tough time that year.  Prior to that year, they were 8-8 2 years in a row.  

 

Payton BROUGHT Brees to New Orleans, coming off of a shoulder injury.  The team also lifted the spirits of an entire city, as the entire area tried to 'get well' from one of the worst natural disasters to ever hit our shores.  

 

Good digging there VOR. But when you look at those, it doesn't seem like there are many coaches who were worse than 6-10 their 1st season who went on to have good careers.

 

And you're right, most fans weren't in here expecting the playoffs this season. We were looking for a team that was going to show progess under a new HC. With the hope of getting on the right path. I would say that we haven't even sniffed that.

Yeah, none of the really good coaches were epically terrible their first year.  Tom Coughlin (I think) was the worst at 4-12, but that was an expansion team.  They made the playoffs the next year and beat the #1 seeded Broncos at home.  Dude proved he could coach pretty quickly. (Interestingly, he could NEVER beat Fisher when he was in Jax.  The year they went 14-2 and then lost in the playoffs, they lost 3 times to the Titans.)

 

There are several who took over bad organizations, like Dungy taking over the Bucs, Payton with the Saints, Belichick with the Browns.  And I don't think that the Raiders team that Jon took over was all that good either. 

[Zguy28]

So, game management at the end yesterday, better or worse than Joe Gibbs and the infamous double timeout?

[VRIEL1]

 

 

What if you were a manager of a business and you hired someone you thought would be a good employee because they said the right things during the interview.  After a few days, you see the employee is rude to customers and doesn't produce.  After you talk to him,  he continues to run customers off and has poor production.  The employee has only been with you a week, but sometimes you have to say "this was a poor hire and he needs to be replaced."

 

I would say that you are talking about two different things. If Gruden was talking rude to the media, cursing them out, rude to the owner and cursing him out, rude to the fans and cursing them out....I'd say yea check with the NFL and see if they will back you in firing him for reason. But you hire some one and they seem to have said all the right things in the meeting but seem clueless? Gruden is not clueless as he has coached before and had a decent resume. Just because it's not working out here after 1 year of a 4 year deal does not mean you fire him. Figure out what is wrong, try to fix what is wrong, then move on if you have to. Gruden can't fix whats wrong right now since it's middle season. Most of what's wrong is the players injuries, players themselves, and defensive scheme. Part Special teams as well.

[Rodriggo]

Non division QBs:

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick - Loss

Chad Henne - Win

Russell Wilson - Loss

Carson Palmer - Loss

Charlie Whitehurst - Win

Teddy Bridgewater - Loss

Josh McCown - Loss

Colin Kaepernick - Loss

Andrew Luck - Loss

Shaun Hill - Loss

 

About as easy a run of opposing QBs as it gets in the league and they're 2-8.

[VRIEL1]

That's a good question.  I'd have to do some actual digging, but going backwards, just off the top of my head: EDIT: I didn't do this off the top of my head. I looked it up. 

 

- Pete Carroll: 6-10 in 1994 with the Jets, 10-6 in 1997 with the Pats, followed by 9-7, 9-7, 6-10, fired.  Back to NFL in 2010, 7-9, 7-9, 11-5, and we're off.  

- John Harbaugh: Hired in 2008, went 11-5.  Worst season was 8-8.  Won SB in 2012. 

- Tom Coughlin: Hired as Jags first HC, went 4-12 with expansion Jags.  9-7 and playoffs next year, 11-5, 11-5, 14-2 the next three years. Established himself as a pretty good coach pretty quickly.  1st season in NY was 6-10, followed by 11-5.  Won 2 SBs.

- Mike McCarthy: Green Bay 2006, 8-8.  Followed by 13-3, 6-10 (I honestly don't remember the Pack being 6-10 in 2008.), 11-5, 10-6, and SB champs.  

- Sean Payton: Hired in 2006, 10-6, 7-9, 8-8, followed by 4 double digit winning seasons and a SB.  

- Mike Tomlin: Hired in 2007, 10-6, 12-4 second season with a SB.  Worst record has been 8-8.  

- Tony Dungy: Hired in 1996 at the Bucks.  6-10, 10-6, 8-8, 11-5, 10-6, 9-7, then fired.  Hired by Indy, and never won less than 10 games.  (Though that guy Peyton might have had something to do with that.)

- Bill Cowher: Hired in 1992. 11-5, 9-7, blah-blah, Won the SB in 2005.  Took a while.  But he had mostly winning seasons, 10 playoff appearances.  

- Bill Belichick: Hired in 1991 with the browns.  6-10, 7-9, 7-9, 11-5, 5-11, Fired.  Hired by the Pats in 2000. 5-11, 11-5 (SB), 9-7, 11-5 (SB), 11-5 (SB) and hasn't had a non-double digit winning season since 2003.  (That guy Brady might have helped that as well...)

- Hired by Raiders in 1998.  8-8, 8-8, 12-4, 10-6, then traded to the Bucs.  12-4 (SB).  Interesting he was fired after 2 9-7 seasons (I didn't remember that), and I'm pretty sure that the bucs regret that particular decision.  

 

That's as far as I'm going to go back now, most of the coaches prior to that are out of the league, the league was very different, etc.

 

Summary: Some coaches won right away, some took some time.  The best is probably John Harbaugh.  Came in, succeeded right away, and hasn't looked back.  Though I think Mike Tomlin might put an argument in as well. 

The expectations were SO low, and yet they weren't able to meet them.  The bar was literally laying on the flow, that's how low we've lowered it.  And they tripped on it, and couldn't get over.  Very sad.

 

How many of those HC's were given a coaching staff and told make it work vs. the HC's whom got the job and hired all new people? I'm sorry my expectations were high only because of how he had Cinci rolling but after game 3 I noticed that in my opinion Gruden didn't have the big OL his scheme needed like it had in Cinci, instead he was using Shanahan's smaller, but faster, OL whom seem to get bowled over. in my opinion. I also think he was trying to blend his scheme into what was already in place which is similar to what I think Shanahan did with the "Read Option" and RG3. Hoping consistency would play a huge part didn't work out for him. I think Gruden should have just came in and hand picked his assistants and fired all the ones we had. But how much of that was Snyder or Allen's fault? After game 3 I figured this team would be 3-13 again.

[VRIEL1]

You know, there was only one guy on earth who had the gonads to tell Dan to go stick it, get the hell out and let him run the organization the way he wanted to.  That guy was hired in 2001, and fired that same year.  

 

Say what you want about Marty, he wasn't going to let Dan get in the way.  And the only way Dan could get in the way (which is what he wanted to do) was to fire Marty.  Which is what he did.

 

Since then, he's been allowed to "meddle" in some way, shape or form, whether it be being directly involved in player-personnel decisions, or just giving star players preferential treatment. 

 

Since Marty was fired, there hasn't been anybody who has been able to make this a professional organization, top to bottom, and that includes Gibbs II, who spent more time placating Snyder than one would have hoped.  

 

100% true. I'd add Marty went on to San Diego and started like 8-8, went 4-12, then 12-4, 9-7, 14-2, then started going down hill again.

[TSO]

Not sure, am following your point.  My point was if Jay bombing here speaks of Allen and both of them go and by extension we get a new top flight personnel person -- would you be ok with it?   If am following your point you wouldn't be ok with it because even though the solution might be in place when it comes to personnel -- we'd still be unfairly punishing Jay for Allen's ineptitude and Jay deserves a clean slate?

 

   No, no... actually what I'm saying is I'd rather continue to punish Jay than someone else, lol.

 

I'm convinced that if we're to bring in a new coach, even after fixing the FO properly, he'd have very little chance of succeeding as is. I want to first build the roster with this improved FO (which would take at least a couple years, but more realistically around 3-4 years) so that either a) Gruden proves he is good enough and improves along with the personnel or b ) He doesn't and we bring in the new guy to work in an environment where he is untarnished by the previous suckage.

 

I just don't want to see another coach get ruined here. I am 99% sure that's exactly what will happen if we were to bring in another coach. 

 

Finally, any coach willing to take the job here knowing the organizational failures of the past would automatically prove he's not the "right guy", because only a fool would put himself in that position. 

 

This FO needs to prove itself capable of being ran professionally for a few years before any self-respecting human being would come here to be the Head Coach of what said FO has built. Only someone desperately trying to "win now" while totally having a lack of awareness that it's next to impossible to do such with this current group as assembled would accept the position, otherwise. And we'd be stuck with the same scenario as the last two seasons.  

 

So, let Gruden continue to be the guy who suffers for the awfulness that is our organization until it is, at the very least, respected around the league and then either we'll know he's the right guy for it or we can find the right guy who will get to start fresh with a healthy environment conducive to success.  

 

I'm trying my best to explain it here, but this is what I'd want in chronological order:

 

1) Fire Allen as GM. He can be allowed to retain Team President role if desired.  

2) Hire GM based on talent evaluating credentials. Have contract stipulations that include no avenue for his responsibilities, respective to his title, to be undermined by anyone within the organization. 

3) Re-shape the scouting department according to how he sees fit.

4) Implement a 3-4 year plan to rebuild the team by prioritizing the trenches and having a basic vision for what the team should look like.

5) Once some semblance of this plan has been successfully implemented, see if the current coaching staff has improved along with personnel to compete at the highest level and, if not...

6) Hire the right guy who would come to an organization set up for success to take the improved personnel to the next level.

 

My point is, jumping to #6 here immediately would only hurt this "right guy" because in order for him to succeed the first 5 need to occur. Why do that to anyone? It's like a restaurant known for it's awful food, being supplied by an awful food supply company, filled with awful cooks, etc... and the owner goes out to hire a new Head Chef but keeps the same recipes, food supply company and most of the awful cooks because "he likes them". To think this Head Chef is going to be able to have any success and then, when he doesn't, to replace him with someone else thinking that might work... who are we kidding now? Why ruin another Head Chef?  

 

What does it also say about the Head Chef willing to take the job? He either didn't do any research on the restaurant and couldn't care less, or he's just looking to get paid. Clearly, his success is not a significant part of the equation.      

[theTruthTeller]

The Dallas Cowboys organization is the prime example of how not to run a football franchise, yet they still can field teams that make the playoffs and for the most part be consistently good or better than the Redskins. Jerry Jones is literally the worst possible owner you could have for a football team, and yet they are doing better than the Redskins. Why? good coaching can still overcome bad organization, and the very things people criticize Jones for doing, he was still doing back in the 90s when they were winning (and why he drove off his coaches). 

I need some back up info here - how is Jones the "worst possible owner"?  A lot of people criticize Jerry Jones for being the GM - but I prefer an owner who makes himself GM and takes heat for his decisions over an owner who makes decisions through his hand picked yes men any day of the week.  At least Jones doesn't hide behind a bunch of unqualified losers.  Aside from being creepy, I think Jones is a pretty good owner/GM.  He is very aggressive in working the draft, gets great undrafted free agents (Romo, Bailey, Beasley) and low dollar free agents (McClain - technically a trade, Selvie, Durant), keeps his best players.  

 

Sometimes he pays way too much (Carr, Roy Williams the receiver), occasionally he lets a player go too early.  So do all the "real" GMs.  On the flip side, he invests in UDFAs and low draft choices that show promise.  Of the four players that he has more or less lifetime contracts with, two are UDFAs.  I can tell you right now that Jones thinks that Dustin Vaughnn is the next starting QB for the Cowboys, and they are being very careful with his development.  And next year, Tyler Patmon will be a starting CB.

 

When Garrett became head coach, they still had a lot of talent, but Garrett decided that the team was getting old and set about changing the roster.  Jones went along with the plan and stuck up for Garrett through four years that were very frustrating for Dallas fans.  I know because I live in Dallas.  Now they have one of the youngest teams.  They still have some holes, which I think will hurt them come playoff time if they make it, but they are at a point where most of the big holes can be plugged up in a single off-season.

 

Bottom line: he bought a 3-13 team and, in the following 25 years, he has 8 losing seasons and three Super Bowls.  Pretty decent.  I'm not sure why you think Johnson, Switzer, Gailey, Campo, Parcells, Phillips, and Garrett is so much better than Turner, Schottenheimer, Spurrier, Gibbs, Zorn, Shanahan, and Gruden.  The mix of college coaches, coordinators and established coaches looks pretty similar to me.  If anything, Jones has taken more risks than Snyder in selecting coaches.  The one key difference is that he personally knew half the coaches for many years before they became head coach.

[Voice_of_Reason]

How many of those HC's were given a coaching staff and told make it work vs. the HC's whom got the job and hired all new people? I'm sorry my expectations were high only because of how he had Cinci rolling but after game 3 I noticed that in my opinion Gruden didn't have the big OL his scheme needed like it had in Cinci, instead he was using Shanahan's smaller, but faster, OL whom seem to get bowled over. in my opinion. I also think he was trying to blend his scheme into what was already in place which is similar to what I think Shanahan did with the "Read Option" and RG3. Hoping consistency would play a huge part didn't work out for him. I think Gruden should have just came in and hand picked his assistants and fired all the ones we had. But how much of that was Snyder or Allen's fault? After game 3 I figured this team would be 3-13 again.

I think that this is a very good point.

 

I place a lot of blame on Allen in this regard: They made a lot of hodge-podge decisions that made sense in a vacuum, but not all-together.

 

Keep the zone-stretch running game used by the Shanahans.  Ok! We'll keep the OL coach to help teach it.

Sign Roberts and DJax, who are good down-the-field threats. OK!

 

Both are ok decisions.  But by keeping the running game the same, and switching out the skill positions, they destroyed part of the personnel group that made the outside-zone most effective.  

 

So, they don't have the big OL that Jay would like to run a more power style running game.  But they don't have the aggressive run-blocking skill position guys to help the outside running game.

 

It's just a jumble of personnel that wasn't put together well by Allen and the personnel guys.  And that puts Jay into a legitimately tough spot.  

 

They need to figure out who they want to be offensively, and pick something, and get players that are good at that.  Because they actually have some talent, but it's all mis-matched, and nothing is working well.  

[Glenn X]

When Gruden was hired, I had wanted to believe that his success at the Tinkertoy level of football (e.g. the Arena Football League) had prepared him for big-time pro football.  However, witnessing how this season has unfolded has now convinced me that he's in way over his head.  I'm not sure if RG3 is the long-term answer for us at QB.  But if it's true that Gruden has totally given up on RG3 (and what remains of RG3's unique skill-set), then I'm prepared to move on from Gruden.  Let's be candid here: Jay Gruden is a dime-a-dozen NFL coach; there's nothing inherently special or irreplaceable about him.

 

Now, as for the front office structure, yes, I'd love to see that overhauled at the same time that we overhaul our coaching staff.  Hell, I'd love to see Bill Polian as our next GM.  However, knowing our luck, Polian is now over-the-hill and will just come here to collect a big paycheck from Snyder.  Ugh.

[TSO]

I think that this is a very good point.

 

I place a lot of blame on Allen in this regard: They made a lot of hodge-podge decisions that made sense in a vacuum, but not all-together.

 

Keep the zone-stretch running game used by the Shanahans.  Ok! We'll keep the OL coach to help teach it.

Sign Roberts and DJax, who are good down-the-field threats. OK!

 

Both are ok decisions.  But by keeping the running game the same, and switching out the skill positions, they destroyed part of the personnel group that made the outside-zone most effective.  

 

So, they don't have the big OL that Jay would like to run a more power style running game.  But they don't have the aggressive run-blocking skill position guys to help the outside running game.

 

It's just a jumble of personnel that wasn't put together well by Allen and the personnel guys.  And that puts Jay into a legitimately tough spot.  

 

They need to figure out who they want to be offensively, and pick something, and get players that are good at that.  Because they actually have some talent, but it's all mis-matched, and nothing is working well.  

 

I don't think people realize just how significant this is. There's so many moving pieces that don't fit properly on this team assembled by an incompetent GM and a scouting department that lacks any accountability, and is constantly undermined by the owner and even the coaches, there is simply no way anyone could get it to function with any coherency.

 

This is why nothing is more important than a solid FO with sound structure where talent evaluators rule the day on personnel and build teams based on a common vision with their coaches. Right now we have a situation where everyone has equal say and our GM, who has never been a great talent evaluator, decides who to "side with". And our owner is best buddies with that guy. It's idiocy.

 

Change that first, period. No need to allow someone else to come in and try to put this smorgasbord of bad moves together well enough to make it seem okay. At best he'll give us a good end of season run or something to just make the playoffs, only for it to completely collapse again immediately afterwards.

 

It's not even that all of our scouts are awful. We clearly can identify good players from time to time and bring them in... but we don't prioritize properly (the trenches) and we don't have a clear vision as to what we want our strengths to be so that we can have a natural flow within our roster with guys that all fit with each other.     

[Voice_of_Reason]

100% true. I'd add Marty went on to San Diego and started like 8-8, went 4-12, then 12-4, 9-7, 14-2, then started going down hill again.

Marty wasn't a SB winning coach, so I didn't include him. But for giggles:

 

He was hired as an interim coach with the browns in 1984.  Went 4-4.  1985, went 8-8. Then 12-4 (Lost to Broncos, "The Drive"), 10-5, 10-6 and was fired. 

 

With KC, he started 8-7-1, then went 11-5, 10-6, 10-6, 11-5, 9-7, 13-3, 9-7, 13-3, 7-9, and was done.  

 

With 'Skins, 8-8, done.

 

With San Diego, he went 8-8 (started like 6-2 or something), 4-12 (Worst record of his coaching career), 12-4, 9-7, 14-2, and fired after a loss to the Patriots in the playoffs.

 

I put this together a while ago, but as far as Marty's playoff record, which was a putrid 6-13 (But he GOT to the playoffs all but 5 of his seasons as a HC), he lost to some epic Coach/QB combinations:

 

Browns:

'85: Shula/Marino

'86 - '87: Dan Reeves/John Elway

'88: Oilers, should have won that one. 

 

KC:

'90: Shula/Marino

'91: Levy/Kelly

'92: San Diego - Eh, could have won that one

'93: Levy/Kelly

'94: Shula/Marino

'95: Indy, should have won that game. 

'97: Shanahan/Elway

 

San Diego:

'04: Really should have figured out how to beat Herm Edwards and Chad Pennington

'06: Belichick/Brady.

 

That's a lot of losses to HOF QBs and HCs. He never had a QB of a HOF nature, except for a few years when Montana played for KC.  Otherwise, it was guys like Kosar, Elvis Grbac, etc.  In San Diego, he had Brees before Brees was Brees.  If he had stayed, I think that they would have gotten a SB somewhere along the line.  He certainly was a better coach than Norv. 

[ZRagone]

  I'm trying my best to explain it here, but this is what I'd want in chronological order:

 

1) Fire Allen as GM. He can be allowed to retain Team President role if desired.  

2) Hire GM based on talent evaluating credentials. Have contract stipulations that include no avenue for his responsibilities, respective to his title, to be undermined by anyone within the organization. 

3) Re-shape the scouting department according to how he sees fit.

4) Implement a 3-4 year plan to rebuild the team by prioritizing the trenches and having a basic vision for what the team should look like.

 

See...I agree with you up till here, but it's your logic after here that confuses me. Or more, your logic getting there.

 

I LOVE the notion of rebuilding a team with a basic vision for what the team should look like...but to me, "what the team should look like" is the type of thing that a GM and Coach need to forge together and work towards, at least initially. I think trying to give a team an identity as to how it should be set up and what kind of players it needs, and THEN after you do that trying to find a coach, is going backwards. You can do it, but I don't think it's the most advantageous way to go about it. Why? Because it's limiting you somewhat on what coaches you're going for, because you have to find someone that specifically fits the vision you already created.

 

If Gruden is our head coach I can't imgaine that a GM, in the process of trying to get that "basic vision" for the team, isn't going to be drafting and buying players that suit what Gruden wants to do or likes to do as a coach. Which is fine...IF what Gruden likes and wants is in line with the basic vision that your GM wants.

 

If it's NOT in line with that vision though, then it presents a problem.

 

What if Gruden wants a DC who's going to run a 3-4, but the GM wants to start building the defense with 4-3 personnel?

 

What if Gruden wants a larger, more power based running game with O-Line and backs that fit that, but a GM prefers a ZBS scheme and more agile/mobile lineman?

 

What if Gruden wants speedy deep quick slot type guys all over, but the GM prefers to go down a Chicago model with BIG WR's all around.

 

What if Gruden wants a traditional drop back QB, but the GM would prefer to find some of the new breed mobile dual threat types?

 

And on and on.

 

Sure, the GM could just get the players and styles he wants and stock pile for when he's ready to replace Gruden...but the question is then, why? It's going to cause resentment in a coach and will likely make any "coaching" that gets done questionable in terms of it's use for those players in the future. It also just fuels greater media pissing matches which Gruden has shown a penchant for getting into.

 

At best, I'd say grab a GM and tell him to evaluate things entirely, including the coach. Don't fire Gruden before hiring the new GM. If the GM feels that what Gruden wants, how Gruden coaches, how Gruden thinks is in line with what he wants to do in the next 3 to 4 years...then he can keep Gruden. If it's NOT in line with what the GM thinks, then I want the GM to have every ability to fire Gruden and consider that $20 million a sunk cost for the organization and go about finding the coach he wants to bring in and help create and guide that vision over the next 3 years.

[Voice_of_Reason]

 

Change that first, period. No need to allow someone else to come in and try to put this smorgasbord of bad moves together well enough to make it seem okay. At best he'll give us a good end of season run or something to just make the playoffs, only for it to completely collapse again immediately afterwards.

 

It's not even that all of our scouts are awful. We clearly can identify good players from time to time and bring them in... but we don't prioritize properly (the trenches) and we don't have a clear vision as to what we want our strengths to be so that we can have a natural flow within our roster with guys that all fit with each other.     

I agree 100%  A lot of the moves make sense in a vacuum. Some don't.  (Luavao? What the hell?)

 

But when you put all the decisions together, they make NO sense.  

 

There's something to be said for adjusting to your talent.  I get that.  But it's really tough to adjust to your talent when part of your talent is not complementary to it'self.  If you adjust to make the passing game better, you break the running game.  You adjust to make the running game better, you break the passing game.  Just based on what different people are good at. 

 

It's lunacy. I don't even care if the GM isn't a great talent elevator.  That's why you have scouts.  What I want is a GM that has a complete view of the entire roster and organization, and understands how to use the information provided by the scouts to put together a roster.

 

Avoid a situation, like, say, drafting a second pass-rushing OLB in the first round (and then a 3rd pass-rushing OLB in the second round) of drafts to try and drum up a pass rush, not understanding that 60% of the time when you don't blitz, one of the OLB is either not on the field or dropping into coverage.  

 

That's the type of moronic personnel moves that CAN'T happen.  Forget that Kerrigan is maybe the best player on the defense.  He should NEVER have been drafted.  He's actually BETTER when Orakpo is out of the lineup, because it allows him to play his position more naturally, and not drop into coverage as often, because they are trying to get Orakpo pass-rushing attempts while not blitzing.

 

It's such elementary stupidity.  And it's been going on here since Bethard left, with Casserly, Vinny, Shanahan/Allen. for 30 years.  

 

You'd think at some point, we'd just catch a Goddamn break out of sheer luck.  

[TSO]

 

See...I agree with you up till here, but it's your logic after here that confuses me. Or more, your logic getting there.

 

I LOVE the notion of rebuilding a team with a basic vision for what the team should look like...but to me, "what the team should look like" is the type of thing that a GM and Coach need to forge together and work towards, at least initially. I think trying to give a team an identity as to how it should be set up and what kind of players it needs, and THEN after you do that trying to find a coach, is going backwards. You can do it, but I don't think it's the most advantageous way to go about it. Why? Because it's limiting you somewhat on what coaches you're going for, because you have to find someone that specifically fits the vision you already created.

 

.....

 

 

 

I agree, ZRagone, which is why I said "basic vision". I think, if implemented properly, you allow most good coaches to come here and succeed. Jim Harbuagh and Andy Reid, most recently, were not needed to "forge an identity" with the previous FOs when they went to the 49ers and Chiefs in order to succeed. That's because they're good enough to know what they've got and handle it properly. I just don't think ANYONE is good enough to handle what we have right now properly. 

 

So, finding the right guy after we've implemented a solid, basic vision will not be too hard. Having a top Oline/Dline alone will make anyone look good, anyway. But finding the guy to take it to the next level, after we've implemented a basic vision that could fit with the majority of coaching schemes, would be much simpler.

 

Most coaches run some form of a power running scheme, right? Much fewer run the ZBS to the degree we had done so and to the degree of having Olinemen like ours. Most coaches want their Oline to excel at anchoring when pass blocking. I think defensively, a 3-4 versus a 4-3 isn't something that would stop a good coach from coming here. Teams line up in the nickel most of the time nowadays anyway. Either way, everyone wants Dlinemen who can excel at pass rushing and can stop the run well enough. I mean, there's a standard here that we can get to. The more specific needs (like a coach who really likes a pass-catching RB or wants bigger CBs, etc...) can be addressed once that guy gets here, but those things won't make or break that coach.