fun gus wrote:Sorry, but the NFL is a business and should be ran as such.
You mean like the way Daniel Snyder or Jerry Jones run their organizations? Or like how Blank ran it when he first got here?
I'm not comparing Cowher and Smith. Your argument is similar to arguments I made in the past. That all of the coaches that lasted longer than 9 years basically won or went to a Super Bowl in their first 4 or 5 years. Jeff Fisher, Andy Reid, Cowher, Shanahan, etc. I get that.
Think about this. The Steelers won a Super Bowl under Mike Tomlin in his 2nd year. They went to another one in his 4th year (2010) and lost to Green Bay. Last year, they were "upset" by the Broncos in the playoffs. This year, they limped to 8-8 after a 6-3 start and being widely considered at the midpoint of the year to be one of the 5 best teams in the league. Let's say the Steelers miss the playoffs again in 2013, thanks in part to the continued souring relationship between Roethlisberger and Todd Haley. Remember that Tomlin dismissed Arians after 2011, he goes onto do what he did in Indy, and that decision could be made worse if he somehow manages to get the Cardinals back into contention in 2013.
A lot of fingers will begin to be pointed at Tomlin. Will he be on the hotseat? In many NFL cities, I believe the answer is yes, and that seat starts to warm up after (in this hypothetical situation) 3 subpar years. But in Pittsburgh with the Rooneys, I don't believe that will be the case.
Because the Rooneys aren't constantly re-evaluating their coaches in the same way that most do.
Now, I'm sure your counter is Tomlin's hardware buys him added time. But the point I'm trying to make is that the Rooneys hired a good guy, and believed they hired the right guy and thus instead of focusing on "what he has done for us lately" or "how is he helping us", they instead approach it as "how can we
If you were to make that counter, you would be falling into the trap that others do in believing Super Bowls are magic. Because my counter to your entire premise fun gus is that essetnially you are stating that a handful of plays completely determine whether or not Mike Smith is worthy of being retained as a coach. Basically if Matt Bryant misses that FG, then all of a sudden Mike Smith deserves to be fired.
If Harry Douglas doesn't slip on that catch, then Mike Smith suddenly is a great coach.
Now, the good sign here Fun gus is that you yourself have admitted this "inconsistency." And as a fan, you are more than welcome to have such inconsistency because you like the rest of us aren't in charge of jackshit. But in the case of Arthur Blank, who is in charge, such an inconsistency is bad.
My point about Super Bowls are magic is the point that you're basically using the fact that one team won or lost to determine one is good and the other is bad. Now suddenly Mike Tomlin's coaching is seen as good because he's been in a Super BOwl. Jim Harbaugh is outstanding because they beat the Falcons. And Mike Smith's job is questionable because of a close win over Seattle and a close loss to San Fran.
Are these things being based off Mike Smith's coaching? No. They are basically being based around whether Matt Bryant makes a kick, Jacquizz Rodgers picks up a block, or Tony Gonzalez catches a pass (in the Seattle game), not off any decisions made by Mike Smith.
The same with RobertAP. His opinion that Smitty should be fired is completely changed if Harry Douglas doesn't slip. Or the refs throw the flag on Bowman at the end or if Ryan throws to Tony in the final moments instead of elsewhere. These aren't evaluations of Mike Smith's coaching ability. It's the same argument I've made in the past with you about Ryan vs. Flacco. The gist of your argument is not really a comparison of the two QBs, it's a comparison of the two teams.
If you're evaluating Smitty's coaching ability, you should try to minimize how much influence 1 or plays have on that. Instead, you should instead be evaluating all of the plays, and in the case of Mike Smith, we have well over 5000 to evaluate. And the overwhelming majoiryt of them indicate that Smith is one of the best coaches in the league.
I criticize John Fox after the DEN-BAL not because the Broncos lost the game. The Broncos lost that game because of Rahim Moore's bad coverage. I criticized Fox because of my belief that his decision to run on 3rd downs late int he game and not try for the W before OT were bad coaching decisions. Now in retrospect it has been stated that those were all instances where Peyton Manning made the call. And if that is true, then my criticism of Fox is subdued if he was not in control (the issue of should he have been
is a separate one).
RobertAP wrote: I say this because I do not believe that Mike Smith has what it takes to win a super bowl.
And the question I pose is which coaches do you or did you think had what it takes to win a Super Bowl. Did you think either Harbaugh brother had what it took prior to last week? What about Belichick, Tomlin, Whisenhunt, McCarthy, Coughlin, Shanahan, Dungy, John Fox, Holmgren, etc?
The point I'm trying to make is that no one thinks anybody is capable of winning a Super Bowl until they actually do it
. It is completely a reactive analysis, as opposed to proactive/predictive.
This is important because if you can accurately say you can/have judged other coaches to be SB-caliber in the past/present, then your evaluation of Smitty has merit. Otherwise, you're simply judging Smitty in a vaccuum, and if that is the case then what are you basing this off?
And the answer is the fact that he has yet to win a Super Bowl. And again, that is a highly flawed way of viewing things. Because as I pointed out above in my response to fun gus, the reason you think that is because of Harry Douglas slipping on a play, or the ref not throwing a flag on a defensive holding or Matt Ryan fumbling a snap, not based off anything that Mike Smith is coaching.
But again, if the feather in your hat is as you've stated before "I was right about Mularkey & Van Gorder, therefore I know what I'm talking about when it comes to coaches." then my counter to that is "So was I" yet I have a completely different opinion than you about Smith. How do we reconcile this?
backnblack wrote:The notion that Smitty didn't let his players play holds virtually no water to me. Sat on the lead? Hardly. We wer ebombing away in the second half. We just didn't connect. Our players lost the game..not the coaches. Not even a little. If you fire Smitty after the Seattle squeaker then you just fired the guy who was one fumbled shot gun snap away from taking his team to the SB. People always point to Bobby Cox as abig game choker. Really? Did he get deeked by the SS rather than looking at his base coach. Did he serve up a HR to Jim Leyritz? On the big stage it is about the players nine times out of ten. Cox made some mistakes in 20/20 hindsite but not nearly as many as the guys on the field did. Smitty ball coul be pointed to last year versus the Giants. But this year? No way. We were a largely one dimensional team that did incredibly well given that restriction.
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.