Quote:The above notwithstanding....0-16 should get anyone fired.
Even 1-15 I'd keep Bradley around. Even Jimmy Johnson went 1-15....But totally winless, I don't know how you could sell that.
Have there ever been a head coach kept around after a totally winless season in the NFL?
It's only happened three times in the modern NFL. You can throw out the Baltimore Colts in 1982 because the season was cut in half because of a strike. One is the Lions. The other two are expansion teams (1960 Cowboys, 1976 Bucs). Both those coaches kept their jobs but as expansion teams, that is not a surprise. So really all you have is the 2008 Lions to reference. And that was a few years into a regime with Millen and Marinelli.
Quote:The above notwithstanding....0-16 should get anyone fired.
Even 1-15 I'd keep Bradley around. Even Jimmy Johnson went 1-15....But totally winless, I don't know how you could sell that.
Have there ever been a head coach kept around after a totally winless season in the NFL?
Haha yeah. McKay and the Bucs. He lasted 8 years.
Quote:Third season
Completely agree! Year 1 = Rebuild beginning and total junk of a team (0-16 highly likely). year 2 = better talent, still young, still gaining experience (should be 6-7 win team) year 3 = experienced young talented players, should be competitive with all teams played (8-10 win team, maybe better). There is no way he's on the hot seat right now. We knew this coming in. We'd be a junk team. It's going to take time. Every leadership position (Khan, Caldwell, Bradley) said we must be patient and stay with the plan. It's going to take time.
In 1976 The Bucs were 0-14 and the worst team in NFL history.
In 1979 the Bucs were playing at home in the NFC Championship game.
just a thought!
Quote:In 1976 The Bucs were 0-14 and the worst team in NFL history.
In 1979 the Bucs were playing at home in the NFC Championship game.
just a thought!
It's a happy thought. I will think it.
Quote:Tom Landry.
Changing the question just a little bit: Has a coach ever been retained after losing every single game? Landry didn't lose every game.
The thing about Bradley is, in the NFL you are generally only as good of a head coach as the quality of assistant coaches that you are able to acquire, particularly the Coordinators on offense/ defense/ ST's/ that you have...
and Fisch & Babich were both mediocre at best/ terrible at worst, hires for OC/DC.
Quote:The thing about Bradley is, in the NFL you are generally only as good of a head coach as the quality of assistant coaches that you are able to acquire, particularly the Coordinators on offense/ defense/ ST's/ that you have...
and Fisch & Babich were both mediocre at best/ terrible at worst, hires for OC/DC.
I agree, but the other side of the coin is the OC/DC are only as good as the players they have. And we don't have a lot of talented players and playmakers. I agree, the schemes used are very redundant and lack "scheme". But that could be pertaining to the lack of talent we have. I agree though, they are really on the hot seat. I think year 2 will their hot seat time as we should have a lot more talent and experience at that point.
Quote:Changing the question just a little bit: Has a coach ever been retained after losing every single game? Landry didn't lose every game.
No, but he was winless. He had a single tie -- but the game also didn't have overtime.
Quote:You get mad they don't win. You get mad they win. You get to advance a narrative either way.
Don't get mad at Mad Dog; he's been busy helping Chip Kelly revolutionize the NFL.
Quote:The thing about Bradley is, in the NFL you are generally only as good of a head coach as the quality of assistant coaches that you are able to acquire, particularly the Coordinators on offense/ defense/ ST's/ that you have...
and Fisch & Babich were both mediocre at best/ terrible at worst, hires for OC/DC.
In today's NFL you are as good as your QB.
My contention is that you have to be consistent. You fired Mularkey after one season because he showed nothing to produce a winner. If Bradley gives you more of the same, wouldn't it be hypocritical to show an extended amount of patience? And I don't want to hear that "Mularkey was Smith's hire" nonsense, because I wholeheartedly believe that firing somebody solely because of who hired him is ridiculous.
Quote:My contention is that you have to be consistent. You fired Mularkey after one season because he showed nothing to produce a winner. If Bradley gives you more of the same, wouldn't it be hypocritical to show an extended amount of patience? And I don't want to hear that "Mularkey was Smith's hire" nonsense, because I wholeheartedly believe that firing somebody solely because of who hired him is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter what you wholeheartedly believe, because you aren't in position of firing anybody. It's not even remotely ridiculous to fire Mularkey because he was tied to Gene Smith. In fact it's
common sense. Even TMD would agree with that. You don't fire a GM, and then force the new GM to stick with the old guy's coach.
Not to mention that Mularkey had a history of failure. I'm not sure what you don't get about that, or what so many others don't get about it. Mularkey failed in Buffalo. He should never have been the hire in the first place. It wasn't his first rodeo. This is Bradley's first shot as a head coach in the NFL. He has a clean slate.
How people expect him to be fired after a single year with Blaine Gabbert and Chad Henne at Quarterback, when Jimmy Johnson could only get a single with with Hall of Fame QB Troy Aikman in his first year.
Quote:
How people expect him to be fired after a single year with Blaine Gabbert and Chad Henne at Quarterback, when Jimmy Johnson could only get a single with with Hall of Fame QB Troy Aikman in his first year.
And this can identically be said about Mularkey. Ignoring the fact that he was hired by a different regime, did you apply this logic last offseason when everybody was screaming for change yet again?
Quote:And this can identically be said about Mularkey. Ignoring the fact that he was hired by a different regime, did you apply this logic last offseason when everybody was screaming for change yet again?
Ignoring the totally important fact that he had been a coach in the NFL again...
and ignoring the fact that Gene Smith hired Mularkey, and ignoring that tying a new GM to a coach the previous GM is
totally stupid...
and ignoring all the relevant facts
Why would I have applied this logic again? Who's alt are you?
Quote:Ignoring the totally important fact that he had been a coach in the NFL again...
and ignoring the fact that Gene Smith hired Mularkey, and ignoring that tying a new GM to a coach the previous GM is totally stupid...
and ignoring all the relevant facts
Why would I have applied this logic again? Who's alt are you?
Alt?
I truly believe that if this team not only goes 0-16 AND continues to get blown out of each and every game you have to strongly consider replacing the HC. How can you sell a 0-16 coach to your roster? The locker room would be divided in a heart beat.
Quote:In 1976 The Bucs were 0-14 and the worst team in NFL history.
In 1979 the Bucs were playing at home in the NFC Championship game.
just a thought!
The Jags already used up that expansion exemption in 1996. Then they went again in 1999 (just like the Bucs in '82). Then the team screwed over a beloved QB and fell into ignominy for a decade, just not as hard or as bad as the Bucs of the 80s.
Quote:I truly believe that if this team not only goes 0-16 AND continues to get blown out of each and every game you have to strongly consider replacing the HC. How can you sell a 0-16 coach to your roster? The locker room would be divided in a heart beat.
You don't re-sign Jedd Fisch. You make changes at a lower level.
It'd be a hard sell to a new coach to say "Yeah, we only gave those guys a year! But woo boy did they do terrible with a terrible roster!"
Walsh was hired after a 2-14 year, and then went 2-14. This team could have easily gone 0-16 last year if MJD had been where he is this year.
Bradley and Caldwell have absolutely zero pressure on their shoulders and it shows. They have 2 years to fail as hard as they can. In case my fellow Jag fans have not figured it out we are tanking, the process has already begun.
I have so much respect for the 60K Jag fans that show up to Everbank week in and week out knowing we are going to get slaughtered without a single play to drool on or over-hype for future hope.
I respect Khan dividing business and football decisions but would like to see a little less cheerleading and defending of poor play and a little more authoritative leadership.
Did you listen to Tomlin's post game comments? He said they suck and those that do not get better will not be on the team. A very different mentality then we have here.