Please stick to the topic at hand. Leave nonsense for nonsense areas such as the TT forum and baseball forum.
I got your point, but didn't agree with it. I feel that it would have been better to simply have written, "You are arguing semantics." That way nobody unfamiliar with the baseball thread would ask themselves, "What?" and/or feel it necessary to venture into the baseball forum to try to figure out your point. It would also have been less combative. Hey, I've made loads of sarcastic comments in the past, too. I am trying to refrain from doing so in the future in the regular forums here. (All bets are off in the baseball and TT forums.) Again, I'll discuss football with people here and do it in a fair manner. All I ask is to please read what I wrote/will write as opposed to what you think I wrote or wish I wrote (see JetsLookingforDWare TOTALLY misinterpreting a post which led to insane amounts of trashtalking and his eventual one-year banishment). Also, please keep the nonsense in the nonsense areas of this message board.
I'm sorry, but I just don't think this applies anymore. The Dolphins are a prime example of that. With FA, trading, draft, etc, there's a high roster turnover rate which has led to general parity in the NFL. The window of opportunity for most coaches seems to be around 3-5 years. If they cannot produce a winner by then (provided ownership is playing its part too), then teams move on. Therefore, Cincy's overall franchise record throughout its history doesn't really have anything to do with Lewis treading .500 for the past half decade. They've had talent on that team and he hasn't taken them anywhere, regardless of their lack of success in the past.
I agree with that. (I'm just cherry picking, though. I am not getting into that Lewis, Bengals, and Pates thing.) Yeah, three or four years is what most head coaches will get these days. If you look at it, you might find that if a coach doesn't make the postseason in one of his first two seasons, he probably won't pan out with that team.
Agreed. And because of this, franchise history has no bearing on what a new coach is hired to do now, which is win. Hypothetically, let's say an NFL team going into the 2010 season was winless in its history. If, in four years, that coach goes 4-12, 7-9, 3-13, 6-10; does that mean he should keep his job because, compared to the team's history, he was a good coach and this is a good team? Whereas, compared to the rest of the league, [the actual opponents], the team sucks. Or do you say, "Although he's done better than any previous regime, it's still time to move on and find someone who will get us to the Playoffs and Superbowl"? Personally, I wouldn't be content with having four poor seasons like that just because they were better than past teams. I'd want to keep looking till a HC who shows he can get to the post season is found.
Haha. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes. I just hope you didn't forget your pass; the hallway monitor has been on the prowl.
I that is a mistake. What if Ten had done that w/ Fisher who had a similar record to Lewis his first 4-5 years? Pitt w/ Cowher, the giants easily could have fired Coughlin before '07. Every situation is different. It is fairly easy to turnaround a team from bad to good but it's not easy going from good to great and that is why there is so much turnover in the coaching ranks. Look at Mangini, we went from 4-12 to 10-6 and he was a genius- 2 years later he's fired after going 9-7.
Yeah I've been reading all of his chest pounding. He's competing at a high level, and he brings nothing but facts, and he's so smart, and giving out kudos for what makes a better message board experience. I wonder what he does when he goes to a sports bar? Does he stand up and lecture people that swear? I wonder if he walks up to people and says "you clearly have no idea what you're talking about..this is what's going on"
How about fighting it out with nyjunc in the TT forum so that you are not given another vacation from the board?
