Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't do much studying around this thread - but something popped into my head.
The Pats and Eagles were arguably the best franchises in the 2000 decade.
Both teams have (Pats) or had (Eagles) good coaches. Here's what I am thinking.
The Eagles just got rid of Reid. However, many of the star players are the same, and we are starting to see the same problems in their play - turnovers, penalties, bad decisions, etc. The players even said that they were having fun after week 1. Now in week 3, after two losses - the old starts to creep in.
The Pats are plug and play. Belechick and Brady are tied at the hip and all other players are expendable. Sometimes they get rid of people and we wonder why - like Welker, didn't make sense. But I think what Belechick looks at is not only performance, but loyalty and commitment. After a while, people can get weary of the same system, or they get bored. Maybe they start griping privately in the locker room. My bet is that Belechick senses that and they are gone.
He would rather have less talented people who run the system effectively than those with higher talent who are no longer motivated.
So should the Eagles have kept Reid, and handled player personnel like the Patriots and Belechick?
Is this why bad teams stay bad - because they are continually changing coaches every 2-3 years while keeping bad or unmotivated players?
"The Pats and Eagles were arguably the best franchises in the 2000 decade."
How many Super Bowls did the Eagles win? How many were they even in? Heck, the Eagles weren't even the best team in Pennsylvania. The Steelers won twice in the decade...
Either Pittsburgh or Ind. would own the other top spot. As to your question, I am really not sure. I think Reid has proved he is a better coach then anyone else they have brought in. However, all coaches inevitably get fired after a few bad seasons. BB will be no different. Eventually teams have to move in a new direction.
We don't do much studying around this thread - but something popped into my head.
The Pats and Eagles were arguably the best franchises in the 2000 decade.
Both teams have (Pats) or had (Eagles) good coaches. Here's what I am thinking.
The Eagles just got rid of Reid. However, many of the star players are the same, and we are starting to see the same problems in their play - turnovers, penalties, bad decisions, etc. The players even said that they were having fun after week 1. Now in week 3, after two losses - the old starts to creep in.
The Pats are plug and play. Belechick and Brady are tied at the hip and all other players are expendable. Sometimes they get rid of people and we wonder why - like Welker, didn't make sense. But I think what Belechick looks at is not only performance, but loyalty and commitment. After a while, people can get weary of the same system, or they get bored. Maybe they start griping privately in the locker room. My bet is that Belechick senses that and they are gone.
He would rather have less talented people who run the system effectively than those with higher talent who are no longer motivated.
So should the Eagles have kept Reid, and handled player personnel like the Patriots and Belechick?
Is this why bad teams stay bad - because they are continually changing coaches every 2-3 years while keeping bad or unmotivated players?
I don't think there should be a such thing as firing a headcoach after 14 seasons. Once you are the coach of a team that long then it should be your decision when you leave.
"The Pats and Eagles were arguably the best franchises in the 2000 decade."
How many Super Bowls did the Eagles win? How many were they even in? Heck, the Eagles weren't even the best team in Pennsylvania. The Steelers won twice in the decade...
I think he means from 2000 to 2005 and should have said the early 00's because both teams went down after 2005
The Pats after winning 3 SB's the first five years of the 00's was 0-2 in the next two SB appearances after 2005.
The Eagles after reaching the NFC Championship game 4 straight years between 2001 and 2005 only reached the championship game once after 2005.
And that happens to all teams because players get older or sign with other teams so it's hard to stay on top forever.
I guess this is why there is not much studying here - most are focused on a throw away line.
The point is which is better - to keep a good coach and have constant player turnover - or to keep good players and turnover the coaches when the team does bad?
Giants are a good example this year - let's say they go 4-12. They have had a good track record in the past with 2 SBs.
So would you fire Coughlin or get rid of decent players?
Reid is not just a good coach, he was a great coach and IMO, he needed a change as much as Philly did. I think the move will benefit him the most but its still too early to come to any conclusions about the Chip Kelly era. He might turn out to be the next great coach, or he might just be another Steve Spurrier.. really too soon to know.
As for Belichick. He really reminds me of Tom Landry. Belichick has a system in place and he sticks to the system and it works regardless of who is on the field. Now it will be interesting to see how the Pats fare when Brady is gone. We got a small glimpse of that when Brady missed a season due to injury and the Pats seemed fine even though they missed the playoffs with an 11-5 record (wow!). No doubt Brady is the glue that is holding this team together.. once he is gone, we will find out just how great Belichick is or is not.
I guess this is why there is not much studying here - most are focused on a throw away line.
The point is which is better - to keep a good coach and have constant player turnover - or to keep good players and turnover the coaches when the team does bad?
Giants are a good example this year - let's say they go 4-12. They have had a good track record in the past with 2 SBs.
So would you fire Coughlin or get rid of decent players?
There is no consistency with the Giants which is why Tom needs to go. They have missed the playoffs 4 out of the last 5 years which is sad. Yes they have a SB but they get no credit as a good franchise because they miss the playoffs all the time.
So I wonder if Coughlin plans to make any changes this week heading into KC. Change the OC or DC? Or just continue to stand on the sidelines with a frowned up face and not make adjustments. I never considered him to be much of a coach because he waits to long to make changes and rather act like a fan and show frustration. Coaches are not supposed to show frustration only make adjustments.
They have missed the playoffs 44 out of the last 5 years which is sad.
Wow. That is really bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
