Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
Which is one of the main reasons Pitt is one of the more successfull franchises. When Chuck Noll took over in 1969 the next four years the team went 1-13, 5-9, 6-8 before his first playoff year. Now days after 2 seasons people would be screaming for the guillotine. On the other hand, has Detroit, AZ, Atlanta, or NO had any coach for more than five years? Teams that show patience (with their HC) consistently outperform the teams that take the revoling door approach.Those calling for Gru-Allens heads will be calling for someone elses head in 2-3years, if they get their way.
Quote from: Cheveliar on May 11, 2007, 02:27:05 PMTelling me he should have won the game just doesn't wash with me...Takes 11, not 1 to get it done. So your stand is that, let's see, neithe rplayers nor coaches are to blame or they are both to blame in some mysterious blend. That's a nice "no I in team" sort of fortune cookie thought but then what is your criteria for evaluating a coach? At some point someone takes responsibility for a team, a department or a company.
Telling me he should have won the game just doesn't wash with me...Takes 11, not 1 to get it done.
Quote from: John Galt? on May 14, 2007, 06:04:48 PMWhich is one of the main reasons Pitt is one of the more successfull franchises. When Chuck Noll took over in 1969 the next four years the team went 1-13, 5-9, 6-8 before his first playoff year. Now days after 2 seasons people would be screaming for the guillotine. On the other hand, has Detroit, AZ, Atlanta, or NO had any coach for more than five years? Teams that show patience (with their HC) consistently outperform the teams that take the revoling door approach.Those calling for Gru-Allens heads will be calling for someone elses head in 2-3years, if they get their way.Chuck Noll took over a brand new team with no roster and no free agency. Comparing his first three years to the modern NFL is irrelevant.
Isn't it largely accepted that there's no I in team. So why is it different for a coach? Isn't he a critical part of the team. We accept that fact that you can't fire all 53 players so my notion isn't far fetched it's less than hypocritcal to say the least...
First move would have been to draft Steven Jackson instead of Michael Clayton. The next year we wouldn't have needed Cadillac and could have gotten Jamaal Brown. Two pro bowlers right there for the taking.
Quote from: Feel Real Good on May 13, 2007, 09:13:13 AMFirst move would have been to draft Steven Jackson instead of Michael Clayton. The next year we wouldn't have needed Cadillac and could have gotten Jamaal Brown. Two pro bowlers right there for the taking.Where can I get one of those 20/20 rear view mirrors? Man, I'd be a BBS Superstar!
Quote from: cobraboy on May 14, 2007, 09:04:38 PMQuote from: Feel Real Good on May 13, 2007, 09:13:13 AMFirst move would have been to draft Steven Jackson instead of Michael Clayton. The next year we wouldn't have needed Cadillac and could have gotten Jamaal Brown. Two pro bowlers right there for the taking.Where can I get one of those 20/20 rear view mirrors? Man, I'd be a BBS Superstar!So what you gonna do sit there and second guess yourself after every pick? That's why they have you...I wish I could get you and Chev to run a team. He'd never fire a coach and you'd never fire a GM since most picks look good "at the time".
Quote from: dalbuc on May 15, 2007, 08:45:40 AMQuote from: cobraboy on May 14, 2007, 09:04:38 PMQuote from: Feel Real Good on May 13, 2007, 09:13:13 AMFirst move would have been to draft Steven Jackson instead of Michael Clayton. The next year we wouldn't have needed Cadillac and could have gotten Jamaal Brown. Two pro bowlers right there for the taking.Where can I get one of those 20/20 rear view mirrors? Man, I'd be a BBS Superstar!I wish I could get you and Chev to run a team. He'd never fire a coach and you'd never fire a GM since most picks look good "at the time".So what you gonna do sit there and second guess yourself after every pick? That's why they have you...
Quote from: cobraboy on May 14, 2007, 09:04:38 PMQuote from: Feel Real Good on May 13, 2007, 09:13:13 AMFirst move would have been to draft Steven Jackson instead of Michael Clayton. The next year we wouldn't have needed Cadillac and could have gotten Jamaal Brown. Two pro bowlers right there for the taking.Where can I get one of those 20/20 rear view mirrors? Man, I'd be a BBS Superstar!I wish I could get you and Chev to run a team. He'd never fire a coach and you'd never fire a GM since most picks look good "at the time".
So what you gonna do sit there and second guess yourself after every pick? That's why they have you...
My biggest problem with Gruden is the fact that it seems his first prioroty is to find a QB that on paper fits his system, if he can run then he has a shot, if he can't then he is on the sh!t list.
Quote from: Cheveliar on May 15, 2007, 09:25:42 AMSo what you gonna do sit there and second guess yourself after every pick? That's why they have you...Any organization that doesn't review why they did what they did and how they could have done better has an issue. If 3 years after a draft it is obvious that Clayton is a flop and Steve Jax is "the man" I'd want to know, since we needed the RB as well, what criteria we used to make the bad pick and how to avoid it again. Plus, if you are running the show and you have people you can consistently look at them and think, "Wow, they could have picked player X and should have" that's how you know you have an issue. If your front office goes and picks Peter Warrick, Tim Couch, Andre Wadsworth, and Bryant Westbrook you'd best be doing some serious hindsighting since that historical view tells you your front office's foresight isn't what it needs to be and that is what they get paid to do.
And you have the year wrong....Mc kay picked cooper over jachson so but blame where it belongs! [banghead] [banghead]