RobertAP wrote:Under Mike Smith, the Falcons have not lost back to back games.
Actually they have. Three times in 2009 they lost back to back games. It accounted for 6 of their 7 losses.
fun gus wrote:Let me ask a question to you and Pudge: what exactly needs to happen for Mike Smith to lose his job ( and Im talking on the field and in the office)? I told you my requirements..And Blank in 2011 told us his. Well, what is yours?
If you want a very specific event or benchmark that will then result in Smith's immediate dismissal, then I can't give you that. Basically, I need to feel like this team is consistently underachieving most weeks during the course of an entire season.
Is there one single factor that will determine that? No. How much does the team win in close games, do they play with consistent effort, are his questionable game day management decisions more regular occurrences, does the style of play not fit the personnel, etc.
RobertAP wrote:Pudge, I thought that I made it clear when I said that someone is not doing their job properly. Either Mike Smith isn't asking for what he needs, or Thomas Dimitroff isn't getting what Smith needs. What Smith needs (and has been needing to properly execute his style of play) is a better offensive line.
But by that same standard, then what coach is doing their job properly? Belichick clearly isn't doing his job properly. The Patriots did not give Tom Brady enough weapons to work with did they? Clearly someone is not doing their job properly. Don't give me that the Gronk/Hernandez thing snuck up on them. Sure it did in June. BUt they've had plenty of time since then to know that players like Donald Jones, Michael Jenkins, etc. weren't going to cut it.
The point I was trying to make with the Saban comp, was that IMO if you applied the same standards upon which you hold Mike Smith to, you would NEVER be satisfied with any coach.
Look, I too am unsatisfied with the state of the OL. But does that mean heads must roll? No.
This is something that I came to understand from living in Pittsburgh for 4 years is that a well-run football
organization doesn't simply cut and run whenever they are unsatisfied. Because when you really look at the big picture, you're going to be unsatisfied most years. Belichick has left his ownership and fan base unsatisfied by that
standard for 9 years. Certainly, they clearly need to make a change then right?
You hire the right people and let them do their job. And if you expect it to be done in 5 years, then you are either extremely lucky or extremely naive. As I said way back in 2008, it takes organizations basically a decade to build a Super Bowl winner.
Rich McKay didn't rebuild the abysmal Bucs organization and bring a title there until his 9th season as GM. Bill Polian was in his 9th season as GM when the Colts finally won a ring after him. Bill Parcells was hired by Bob Kraft to change the culture in NE in 1993, and it wasn't until the 9th season after that did Belichick finally succeed where Parcells had failed 5 years earlier.
An example of a team that built up in less time than that was the 2000 Ravens. Ozzie Newsome became their de facto GM in 1996, so that was his 5th year there. But the reality is that the roots of that Ravens success began in 1991 with the Browns when Newsome was hired as a scout, and they also picked up Mike Lombardi and Bill Belichick that same year. So essentially that took a decade. But even if you want to exclude that 5-yr. period in Cleveland, Newsome's quick success was greatly aided by the fact that he took a pair of 1st ballot HOFers with his first two picks in 1996 (Ogden & Lewis). Those picks alongside Jamal Lewis, Boulware, Jamie Sharper, Chris McAlister, Duane starks, alongside hits in FA like Siragusa, Sam Adams, Rod Woodson, Harry Swayne, would be more pivotal players added over the 5 years before it all coalesced into the 2000 team.
Look, I've been vocal that TD needs to do a better job. And if/when a day arrives where the Falcons drafting is that good, then I think it will result in the greater team success that all here seek. That day has yet to arrive.
But does that mean I believe TD should be fired? No. Do I think he's doing an unsatisfactory job? No. Do I think he's doing the job on a championship-caliber standard? No. But do I think he's capable of doing the job at that standard? Yes. He just needs to do it.
We may very well reach a point 2-3 years from now where my opinion on these matters is drastically different. But as of today, I don't have such an opinion. What I'm really looking forward is what TD & Co. plan to do for 2015 and beyond.
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.