NFL Coaching Dumps
- Thread starter Heim
- Start date
jimmythegreek
The opening odds start here
Everflus gets one more chance, and unless he gets traded in the draft, Fields too.
cheapseats
EOG Master
Brandon Staley lost his way. Chargers will need a strong personality at HC.
cheapseats
EOG Master
Pete no more Seahawks HC
Agreed, although if no playoffs next year, its sayanara for Eberflus. And with all the draft picks and money available and a weak NFC, it's a perfect scenario for a big move up.
Chicago -- in the event that they keep Fields -- is not in a bad situation, relative to the rest of the league.
I believe that, in the 2024 season, Fields will be in the fourth and final year of his rookie contract.
This year, he had 20 total TDs (passing and running) and 13 total turnovers (picks and fumbles lost).
That's a 1.54 ratio, which is not great but is not totally horrible in relation to some of the QBs that made it onto the field this year.
And the Bears didn't get completely eliminated from the playoffs until Week 17.
The team thus can draft the next "can't miss" overall #1 draft pick QB (with that Carolina draft pick) and develop them for up to an entire season (possibly more) while Fields starts.
If Fields stays healthy, turns a corner, markedly improves his play, and gets them into the 2024-25 playoffs, then they can cross the bridge created by that situation then.
If not, then they can see what they've got with the new QB once they're eliminated from the playoffs. And likely let Fields go as his rookie contract expires.
C.J. Stroud is the exception to the rule -- rookie QBs, even future HOF rookie QBs, most typically turn the ball over more than they score and they thus lose games. Lots of games.
The Packers, in contrast to all these teams throwing rook QBs to the wolves and trying to ride it out (all hopefully without getting the coach and GM fired in the process), have done fairly well letting Rodgers and then Love play understudy for I think it was three years each. No doubt frustrated the hell out of Rodgers and Love as they chomped at the bit. But it worked out both times.
The Bears have the luxury -- if they keep Fields (or bring in some other likely placeholder) -- of not having to rush their new #1 overall pick QB out onto the field.
That's not a bad situation, all things considered.
The fans and the media are like Charlie Brown with Lucy and the football. Each year, they proceed on the premise that the next "can't miss" #1 overall QB pick won't miss. Yet, exceptions like Stroud aside, that's not what typically happens. The new #1 just produces another lost season (which in this case would be the last for Eberflus) while, for some reason, the rook QBs just can't wrap their head around the fact that after 2.5 seconds they better not have the ball in their hand (or at least need to be moving, fast, off their spot).
So, yeah, the Bears are in a decent situation.
Last edited:
In that same vein, note that the Bears were 4-3 with Fields during his second stint in the 2023 season, with Fields having 8 total TDs to 5 total turnovers (1.6 ratio).
He certainly isn't -- but relative to (a) a large number of QBs that make it onto the field, and (b) what even future HOF rook QBs typically do coming fresh off the draft, he can serve a purpose.
Like Parcells said, there is no 1-800-QRTRBAK.
Some of these guys that make it onto the field aren't even breaking above even a 1:1 ratio with their total TD to total turnover ratio.
Relative to what else is out there, he'll do for another season while Chicago develops a potential franchise QB.
The teams that listen to the fans and media by repeatedly hitching their star to "can't miss" rook QB after "can't miss" rook QB after . . . keep doing that repeatedly because it's rarely a recipe for sustained success in the NFL.
I would try to avoid following a paradigm that typically guarantees "a team getting high draft picks for years on end." I would follow the more successful model of the Packers, and understudy the new #1 at least until Chicago was out of the playoffs in 2024-25, which was after Week 17 this year.
Yes, the Packers had two successive HOFers in Favre and Rodgers. But sometimes you make do with what you have. And to me playing Fields another year -- while also trying to make the rest of the team better -- is preferable -- as a "least worst" option -- to just repeating the same typically losing formula of throwing a rook QB to the wolves.
It's not a great situation, but it is a decent one in my opinion.
Like Parcells said, there is no 1-800-QRTRBAK.
Some of these guys that make it onto the field aren't even breaking above even a 1:1 ratio with their total TD to total turnover ratio.
Relative to what else is out there, he'll do for another season while Chicago develops a potential franchise QB.
The teams that listen to the fans and media by repeatedly hitching their star to "can't miss" rook QB after "can't miss" rook QB after . . . keep doing that repeatedly because it's rarely a recipe for sustained success in the NFL.
I would try to avoid following a paradigm that typically guarantees "a team getting high draft picks for years on end." I would follow the more successful model of the Packers, and understudy the new #1 at least until Chicago was out of the playoffs in 2024-25, which was after Week 17 this year.
Yes, the Packers had two successive HOFers in Favre and Rodgers. But sometimes you make do with what you have. And to me playing Fields another year -- while also trying to make the rest of the team better -- is preferable -- as a "least worst" option -- to just repeating the same typically losing formula of throwing a rook QB to the wolves.
It's not a great situation, but it is a decent one in my opinion.
FairWarning
Bells Beer Connoisseur
Nothing they do surprises me.
The "whatever" part of that being the key.
If they can get a good deal for Fields -- who you've said is not good -- and can also get some other QB in as a placeholder for a year or two without giving up too much, then by all means . . . . They'd be in a roughly comparable situation to where they are currently, while maybe snagging -- net -- an extra future late-round draft pick along the way.
The Bears aren't going to the 2024-25 Super Bowl, even if they do squeeze into the playoffs -- like they had a remote shot to do this year.
So it's a question of developing the team in a sustained way for the 2025-26 season and beyond.
Clearly, I'm not a fan of starting rook QBs, whether looking to short term success or their long term development. Some teams have no choice. The Bears currently do.
Teams that repeatedly fire their GM and HC while hoping that a #1 overall QB pick will magically fix everything that's wrong with not just the team -- but the whole organization starting with the owner -- just keep losing.
With the 2023 Carolina Panthers being a prime example.
And franchises like the Steelers and the Packers being the counter-example to that. They don't run the table every year, but they do have sustained success -- much more than like a Carolina under Tepper -- over the years and decades.
I chose my words carefully -- the Bears are in a decent situation relative to the rest of the league.
They can use Fields for a year -- inherently with no commitment beyond the year -- while they develop their new #1 overall pick as a long term starter in a patient and more effective fashion.
Yeah, maybe they instead can trade him off for a 2025 4th round pick and get some other placeholder in on a one-year contract.
But, given the overall QB market, they may wind up with just a QB starting over in a new system who has a TD to T/O ratio right around . . . 1.54.
It's a decent situation, relative to the rest of the league . . . and relative to what else is likely going to be available to them in the QB market in a situation where they've just drafted the next hoped-for franchise QB.
If they can get a good deal for Fields -- who you've said is not good -- and can also get some other QB in as a placeholder for a year or two without giving up too much, then by all means . . . . They'd be in a roughly comparable situation to where they are currently, while maybe snagging -- net -- an extra future late-round draft pick along the way.
The Bears aren't going to the 2024-25 Super Bowl, even if they do squeeze into the playoffs -- like they had a remote shot to do this year.
So it's a question of developing the team in a sustained way for the 2025-26 season and beyond.
Clearly, I'm not a fan of starting rook QBs, whether looking to short term success or their long term development. Some teams have no choice. The Bears currently do.
Teams that repeatedly fire their GM and HC while hoping that a #1 overall QB pick will magically fix everything that's wrong with not just the team -- but the whole organization starting with the owner -- just keep losing.
With the 2023 Carolina Panthers being a prime example.
And franchises like the Steelers and the Packers being the counter-example to that. They don't run the table every year, but they do have sustained success -- much more than like a Carolina under Tepper -- over the years and decades.
I chose my words carefully -- the Bears are in a decent situation relative to the rest of the league.
They can use Fields for a year -- inherently with no commitment beyond the year -- while they develop their new #1 overall pick as a long term starter in a patient and more effective fashion.
Yeah, maybe they instead can trade him off for a 2025 4th round pick and get some other placeholder in on a one-year contract.
But, given the overall QB market, they may wind up with just a QB starting over in a new system who has a TD to T/O ratio right around . . . 1.54.
It's a decent situation, relative to the rest of the league . . . and relative to what else is likely going to be available to them in the QB market in a situation where they've just drafted the next hoped-for franchise QB.
blueline
EOG Master
If you're not going to extend Fields, keeping him serves no purpose.
I am of the belief that the QB of the future should be in the lineup...doesn't have to be week 1 but, certainly at some point in the rookie season.
I'm not under any illusion about the Bears making the playoffs with or without Fields.
I'm interested in laying the foundation for long-term success...that sooner or later this franchise would get it right.... it's likely to take blind luck to accomplish that.
I am of the belief that the QB of the future should be in the lineup...doesn't have to be week 1 but, certainly at some point in the rookie season.
I'm not under any illusion about the Bears making the playoffs with or without Fields.
I'm interested in laying the foundation for long-term success...that sooner or later this franchise would get it right.... it's likely to take blind luck to accomplish that.
Ah well . . . different paths seeking the same ultimate objective . . . a year from now it may well be a chorus of "the new overall #1 QB isn't the answer . . . we need someone else (and a new HC and GM)" and it then will be wash, rinse, repeat for years to come, coming back to basically the same exact situation year after year, just like it is with Carolina, etc.
FairWarning
Bells Beer Connoisseur
Hoodie gone in NE, quite the week for legendary coaches.
mr merlin
EOG Master
2 years of mediocrity(and that's being generous) is not a blip, it was time to move on.
mr merlin
EOG Master
Did he get fired(officially)? So he's getting paid the rest of his contract, I assume he had another 2-3 yrs on his contract, getting paid $8-10 million/yr for doing nothing is rather tempting at his age.
mr merlin
EOG Master
Fields is the worst possible QB to have, he has flashes of being avg so it's hard to actually give up on him. If you just look at him as a passer what do you really have - a very bad QB, add in his running and he's "almost ok".
Belichick without Brady at QB is 81-99, for a .450 win percentage -- including the year with Cassel in for Brady.
Without the fortuity of Brady stepping in in Week 2 of the 2001 season, BB's second year at NE, he very likely would have been subject to the same typical coaching carousel timing. That is, he would have had another few years of mediocre performance before being booted like he was before in Cleveland, after a .450 record over that five years.
Much like his .433 win percentage in NE over the four years after TB left for TB.
Without the GOAT, he very well may have been just a footnote in Wikipedia, rather than a lauded GOAT himself.
I'd look for someone else, and let Belichick be a gruff, rude old man on his own time -- or at least on one of those NFL talking heads shows that I don't watch.
Without the fortuity of Brady stepping in in Week 2 of the 2001 season, BB's second year at NE, he very likely would have been subject to the same typical coaching carousel timing. That is, he would have had another few years of mediocre performance before being booted like he was before in Cleveland, after a .450 record over that five years.
Much like his .433 win percentage in NE over the four years after TB left for TB.
Without the GOAT, he very well may have been just a footnote in Wikipedia, rather than a lauded GOAT himself.
I'd look for someone else, and let Belichick be a gruff, rude old man on his own time -- or at least on one of those NFL talking heads shows that I don't watch.
For their sake, I hope not.
kane
EOG master
Great post
cheapseats
EOG Master
Beli seems to have that Hollywood charisma. Chargers lie in wait.
Patrick McIrish
OCCams raZOR
Reasonable but I still believe BeliCheat is/was more than TB.
Seen it too long, seen him take superstars away from the other team, just totally shut down the one man he didn't want to beat him.
I think he still has plenty in him but I do not want him coming in as a GM/HC. We can get guys in the white shirts and ties, stick to the hoodies.
If you do that I think BB can still bring out as much as anyone in a team. Despite Bowles overachieving this year I wouldn't mind BB in Tampa.
As a pretty good coach once said, "you are what your record says you are."
Bill Belichick without Tom Brady is a .450 winning percentage head coach.
With all of the "shutting down the other team's best player", with all of the "terrorizing rookie QBs," and with all of the other expressions of the Belichick Mystique built up by all the talking heads over the years, Belichick nonetheless is a .450 winning percentage head coach without Tom Brady.
Without Tom Brady providing the offensive pressure to in turn help his defense by putting opposing offenses in bad game situations, Belichick has been unable to shut down opposing offenses with enough success to do better than a .450 winning percentage.
Without Tom Brady providing the offensive pressure to in turn help his defense by putting opposing rookie quarterbacks in bad game situations, Belichick has been unable to shut down opposing rookie QBs -- like most recently Devito and the Giants -- with enough success to do better than a .450 winning percentage.
And without Tom Brady providing the leadership to get everyone in the organization to drink the Kool-Aid (or more historically accurately, Flavor Aid), Belichick is a .450 winning percentage coach.
"You are what your record says you are."
Bill Belichick is a .450 winning percentage coach without Tom Brady.
cheapseats
EOG Master
'Pants, who would you nominate as best or better HC without a top 5 QB by passer ratings. Say last 10 years.
mr merlin
EOG Master
Dont forget belechek might have cost his team a super bowl when he sat malcolmb butler to prove that HE was in charge.
Cheap, if you have that sort of breakdown handy, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
If your basic point is that head coaches typically don't have success without a top QB, which likely is generally true, then why do I need Belichick?
Rookie HC DeMeco Ryans took a team that was 3-13-1 the prior year to a 10-7 record and the playoffs in substantial part because his team hit the lottery with rookie QB Stroud -- an exceedingly atypical rookie QB that could produce more TDs than T/Os and thus win rather than lose games due to play specifically at the quarterback position.
Yeah, you need a quarterback in this league, which is why I focused earlier in this thread on what (recurring) actions by teams typically give a top pick rookie QB the best chance for long term success.
But count me unpersuaded by all the Belichick Mystique that built up while he had the greatest quarterback of all time not just playing for, but leading, his team for 18 or so years.
As an example, in Week 12 of this year, I faded the fuck out of New England -3 as a contest pick despite NE -3 being one of the top stale lines plays in the contests, at -153 as a Pinny Lean play and -152 as a Bookmaker Lean play at the midnight contest close for the SuperContest. (That's a colossal lean if you track the stale lines plays over the contest year, almost approaching "free square" territory.)
I did that because I thought all the mystique that had built up while Belichick had Brady about Belichick's record versus rook QBs was just bullshit and hype. Rook QBs turn the ball over and lose games. "That's what they do." They do it against everyone, not just Belichick. If you have Tom Brady as your QB for 18 years, and thus don't get fired after four or five years, you're going to play a lot of rook QBs who don't play well.
And DeVito's play -- at least as of that point in the season -- wasn't all that bad, especially as measured against the low bar performance bar set by typical rook QBs.
So I faded the fuck out of NE -3.
That's the thing about stale lines plays. A line can be steamin' like an express train these days based on very simplistic, and one-sided, analysis, like "Bill Belichick crushes rookie QBs."
Yeah, so, actually, I should just join the chorus of "Hire Belichick; He's the Greatest Coach of All Time."
And then he can give me at least four or five years more of opportunities to short his side when the market steams his side based on the Belichick Mystique, at least so long as another future Hall of Fame QB doesn't fall into his lap.
If your basic point is that head coaches typically don't have success without a top QB, which likely is generally true, then why do I need Belichick?
Rookie HC DeMeco Ryans took a team that was 3-13-1 the prior year to a 10-7 record and the playoffs in substantial part because his team hit the lottery with rookie QB Stroud -- an exceedingly atypical rookie QB that could produce more TDs than T/Os and thus win rather than lose games due to play specifically at the quarterback position.
Yeah, you need a quarterback in this league, which is why I focused earlier in this thread on what (recurring) actions by teams typically give a top pick rookie QB the best chance for long term success.
But count me unpersuaded by all the Belichick Mystique that built up while he had the greatest quarterback of all time not just playing for, but leading, his team for 18 or so years.
As an example, in Week 12 of this year, I faded the fuck out of New England -3 as a contest pick despite NE -3 being one of the top stale lines plays in the contests, at -153 as a Pinny Lean play and -152 as a Bookmaker Lean play at the midnight contest close for the SuperContest. (That's a colossal lean if you track the stale lines plays over the contest year, almost approaching "free square" territory.)
I did that because I thought all the mystique that had built up while Belichick had Brady about Belichick's record versus rook QBs was just bullshit and hype. Rook QBs turn the ball over and lose games. "That's what they do." They do it against everyone, not just Belichick. If you have Tom Brady as your QB for 18 years, and thus don't get fired after four or five years, you're going to play a lot of rook QBs who don't play well.
And DeVito's play -- at least as of that point in the season -- wasn't all that bad, especially as measured against the low bar performance bar set by typical rook QBs.
So I faded the fuck out of NE -3.
That's the thing about stale lines plays. A line can be steamin' like an express train these days based on very simplistic, and one-sided, analysis, like "Bill Belichick crushes rookie QBs."
Yeah, so, actually, I should just join the chorus of "Hire Belichick; He's the Greatest Coach of All Time."
And then he can give me at least four or five years more of opportunities to short his side when the market steams his side based on the Belichick Mystique, at least so long as another future Hall of Fame QB doesn't fall into his lap.
Patrick McIrish
OCCams raZOR
Correct. "You are what your record says you are."
Not "You are what your record says minus the GOAT or any other player we wish to pretend was never on your team".
Kind of silly.
Just curious who are some of the better coaches in the NFL today since BeliCheat is a fraud?
Patrick McIrish
OCCams raZOR
Good question.
Also in the BB and TB thing the reality is if Brady goes to almost any other franchise (maybe ANY other organization) he probably never is the GOAT.
BB takes the 7th rounder, turns him into the greatest of all time and now it's used against him, LOL.
He isn't allowed to count wins that Brady played in......
Only in forumville.
We move on.
kane
EOG master
My top 5 in no special order
John Harbaugh, Mike Tomlin, Andy Reid, Kyle Shanahan, Sean McVay
Honorable mention
Mike McDaniel, Kevin Stefanski, Matt LaFleur
Patrick McIrish
OCCams raZOR
Where would you put BB in all that?
BTW it's early for sure but I think that dude in Houston is going to be a good one.