what other franchises have done something similar? where the team was experiencing progress in a rebuild and they fired the head coach for an up and comer coordinator.
not saying it hasn't happened just trying to think if it's been done elsewhere
I'm not sure, but I could give you a pretty good list of teams that regret not doing that - starting with Washington with McVay & Cleveland with Kyle Shanahan.
What other franchises have traded two firsts, two seconds, & $8M for a Head Coach? The Glazers haven't been afraid of big moves in the past. They simply chose the chicken-shit route this time around. Nobody it's saying it would have been easy, but it would have been the correct move for the franchise.
what other franchises have done something similar? where the team was experiencing progress in a rebuild and they fired the head coach for an up and comer coordinator.
not saying it hasn't happened just trying to think if it's been done elsewhere
Its not that uncommon, right? Maybe thats why you qualified it like that?
The Bills just fired their successful HC citing "playoff wall" and replaced him with an internal hire. The Bucs fired Dungy for the "playoff wall." You already mentioned Lovie, which was admittedly a different situation given Lovie's record.
I think the reason Bowles/Coen was different is primarily a point I've made here a bunch: that the Bucs (and especially Licht) probably looked at Bowles as someone who kept the team relevant in less than ideal situations (dead cap etc). One way he did that was by hiring and then losing Canales. And then hiring Coen. So, to turn around and fire playoff Bowles to replace him with his own second successful OC hire was probably several bridges too far on the "bridge too far" loyalty scale (especially with Arians as a VP).
The "have to be bold" thing from Biggs is the very worst kind of hindsight nonsense. If Coen struggled last season NO ONE would be celebrating the Glazers bold call to NOT fall for Coen lmao. Moves like firing Bowles for Coen or like the Bills move I mention above are not "bold" they are REACTIONARY. Just like Dungy > Gruden, who wasnt even the choice lol. When reactionary choices work out people go "oooh how bold" and when they dont they cry about Lost Decades . . . Gruden > Morris > Schiano . . .
if you watch the Bucs show on Amazon, it should be pretty clear that the Glazers are trying to avoid a second Lost Decade, perhaps to a fault.
(FWIW, there were negative questions about Coen's personality inside of OBP, so there had to be some understandable doubt about his ability as a HC)
Nobody it's saying it would have been easy, but it would have been the correct move for the franchise.
lol, like hiring Bill Parcells!
Yea and everyone knew it was the right thing to do. Everyone but the glazers, Licht, and arians. I think people were waiting for someone better to come along anyway since the game vs the rams in the playoffs. He's just not a good hc. Bucs leadership chose their friend. He's not the absolute worst hc in the league but the bucs with who've they have had on their team needed someone better to lead them and there is no question they could have been better. Potential was certainly there and why people have been so frustrated.
what other franchises have done something similar? where the team was experiencing progress in a rebuild and they fired the head coach for an up and comer coordinator.
not saying it hasn't happened just trying to think if it's been done elsewhere
Its not that uncommon, right? Maybe thats why you qualified it like that?
The Bills just fired their successful HC citing "playoff wall" and replaced him with an internal hire. The Bucs fired Dungy for the "playoff wall." You already mentioned Lovie, which was admittedly a different situation given Lovie's record.
I think the reason Bowles/Coen was different is primarily a point I've made here a bunch: that the Bucs (and especially Licht) probably looked at Bowles as someone who kept the team relevant in less than ideal situations (dead cap etc). One way he did that was by hiring and then losing Canales. And then hiring Coen. So, to turn around and fire playoff Bowles to replace him with his own second successful OC hire was probably several bridges too far on the "bridge too far" loyalty scale (especially with Arians as a VP).
The "have to be bold" thing from Biggs is the very worst kind of hindsight nonsense. If Coen struggled last season NO ONE would be celebrating the Glazers bold call to NOT fall for Coen lmao. Moves like firing Bowles for Coen or like the Bills move I mention above are not "bold" they are REACTIONARY. Just like Dungy > Gruden, who wasnt even the choice lol. When reactionary choices work out people go "oooh how bold" and when they dont they cry about Lost Decades . . . Gruden > Morris > Schiano . . .
if you watch the Bucs show on Amazon, it should be pretty clear that the Glazers are trying to avoid a second Lost Decade, perhaps to a fault.
(FWIW, there were negative questions about Coen's personality inside of OBP, so there had to be some understandable doubt about his ability as a HC)
id hardly call the bills situation similar. They weren't experiencing any playoff success. This year, with no Burrow, Mahomes or Jackson in the playoffs, STILL...they couldn't make any noise in playoffs. McDermott should have been fired....and i'd argue the Bills didn't really upgrade with Brady and was a poor move but i digress....a little different than a post Brady era rebuild that somehow we remained a playoff team.
With Dungy, again, kept hitting a playoff wall, expectations high, traded for Keyshawn and thus, wanted to make a splash. Are the Bucs a similar situation? We seem very mid on both sides of the ball and benefiting from a weak division. The Dungy Bucs had championship apsirations......do the Bucs feel that way about this team? Hard to phantom.
Of course Lovie was a situation where the team was losing and losing bad, they just spent draft capital on a first overall QB. Quite a different situation.
so yeah i do feel it's uncommon as the 3 you mentioned, dont really fit the mold.
Biggs mentioned good points on teams regretting it...which i would put the Bucs with Coen in that very category. I just dont know how reasonable it was to expect them to do it at that time. Even knowing all the things at play, a progressing worse defense, an offense that carried the team, etc.
Yea and everyone knew it was the right thing to do. Everyone but the glazers, Licht, and arians. I think people were waiting for someone better to come along anyway since the game vs the rams in the playoffs. He's just not a good hc. Bucs leadership chose their friend. He's not the absolute worst hc in the league but the bucs with who've they have had on their team needed someone better to lead them and there is no question they could have been better. Potential was certainly there and why people have been so frustrated.
Brian Flores filed racial discrimination lawsuit in 2022
Todd Bowles is head coach of team post Brady that won back to back divisions at the time, winning a playoff game in the first year, and increasing win total year over year.
Expectations for the Bucs were low
This was happening all around the time of 2024/early 2025 where current climate was still Democrat policy. (view Gruden getting kicked out of ROH back in 2021 and reinstated in 2025)
If you don't think the Glazers were worried about blow back, you guys aren't living in the real world.
so yeah i do feel it's uncommon as the 3 you mentioned, dont really fit the mold.
this is your mold: "progress in a rebuild"
I would imagine many people here might frame it closer to the others I mentioned, "success was not really enough success." Some even arguing the the Bucs were going backwards. That is why you would get rid of "playoff Bowles" for a never head coached before HC candidate.
So, that is why I mentioned your qualifier. It depends on how you frame it.
so yeah i do feel it's uncommon as the 3 you mentioned, dont really fit the mold.
this is your mold: "progress in a rebuild"
I would imagine many people here might frame it closer to the others I mentioned, "success was not really enough success." Some even arguing the the Bucs were going backwards. That is why you would get rid of "playoff Bowles" for a never head coached before HC candidate.
So, that is why I mentioned your qualifier. It depends on how you frame it.
to be clear, i thought Bowles was never qualified to be hired. He didnt have success his first go around as head coach
i thought they should have fired him after 2022 season and then again after 2025 season
i am not a Bowles bro. But yes, there was absolutely no expectations for the Bucs following Brady and the Bucs knocked it out of the park, mainly due to striking gold with Baker.
the 2024 season ended in a thud.....but still hard to phantom then getting rid of Bowles after 2023 and 2024 seasons even though it was clearly the right move. Extending Bowles prematurely made absolutely no sense...so it could just be the team is incompetently run.
2025 ended disastrously. Not sure how he survived that...
Expectations for the Bucs were low
team was experiencing progress in a rebuild
a low expectations progressing rebuild?
lol
makes sense right?
team was without Brady. signed a journeyman QB for 1 year prove it deal. They end up going 9-8, win the division, progress over the last with Brady, and even manage to win a damn playoff game. Also, while outmatched the entire game went toe to toe with Detroit with Baker lighting it up that playoff series.
then in 2024, expectations raised and Bucs reach double digit wins (again all due to Baker and Coen, but i digress) Disappointed significantly in the playoff game (again primarily the Baker fumble and Barton brain freeze) btu still the team was looking up.
i think if you asked post Brady, during the Brady years, and with the likes of Trask on the roster.....if the Bucs would have continued division dominance, not many of us would have bet money on that.
Biggs mentioned good points on teams regretting it
Biggs is like the kiss of death.
In hindsight, SURE. BUT, I am not sure anyone who mattered on the Redskins regretted letting go of KYLE Shanahan at the time.
Thats because it was MIKE Shanahan's team AT THE TIME and they had something like 3 wins AT THE TIME they were all let go. And the team didnt just have Kyle Shanahan, it had McDaniel, McVay and La Fleur. And McVay replaced Shanahan as the next OC. (By the way, the Redskins were pretty shitty with McVay as the OC)
So my point is that everyone can say stuff like that in hindsight but its almost never true in real time. Hell, maybe most true for Coen because the team wasnt total shit and the offense was obviously good and INBOVATIVE!
It usually takes some sustained success over several stops to have a true blue chip NFL HC candidate and plenty of people probably thought Shanahan and McVay would be good HCs "some day" but at points in their career they were also relatively unnoticed. Shanahan is something like COACH of the YEAR as the OC of the Falcons. Quite a distance form 3 win Redskin days, so tats why he goes to the 49ers
Yea and everyone knew it was the right thing to do. Everyone but the glazers, Licht, and arians.
Yeah, there were plenty of posters here calling for it at the time. Those folks aren’t using hindsight now, like the Bowles leghumper is proclaiming. They knew it then.
Yea and everyone knew it was the right thing to do. Everyone but the glazers, Licht, and arians.
Yeah, there were plenty of posters here calling for it at the time. Those folks aren’t using hindsight now, like the Bowles leghumper is proclaiming. They knew it then.
Like you were calling for Trask as QB1 and White as RB1 . . .did you "knew it then" too?
Leave it you, Biggs . . . . to (unknowingly) make the point
One of my favorite topics and I know (as everyone rolls their eyes) that they are tired of hearing about it from me. Alas, its a message board so anytime it comes up, I am going to chime in with my two coppers worth. Not sure it fits entirely here, but this is where its landing.
In today's NFL, a defensive-minded head coach is fighting an uphill battle when it comes to winning a Super Bowl. And as long as Todd Bowles is running the show in Tampa, the Bucs are gonna keep running into that same ceiling.
The NFL isn't the same league it was 20 years ago. Rules are designed to help offenses. Quarterbacks are protected like never before. Passing games are more explosive, and every offseason teams are searching for the next offensive genius. The reality is that offense drives championships in the modern NFL.
When you look back over roughly the last 25 years, offensive-minded head coaches and coordinators have won somewhere around 60-65% of the Super Bowls. Think about the names: Andy Reid, Sean McVay, Sean Payton, Mike McCarthy, Doug Pederson, Jon Gruden, and of course Bill Belichick paired with the greatest quarterback ever. Even when defensive coaches make it to the big game, they're often relying on elite quarterback play or an offensive coordinator who gets hired away the second they have success. See Liam Coen for our Bucs because I think he has the capability to be next in line somewhere/sometime soon.
Let's say your offense finally becomes a top-five unit. What happens? Your offensive coordinator gets poached for a head coaching job. Now you're starting over. The system changes. The terminology changes. The quarterback has to adjust. The continuity disappears. But when you have an offensive-minded head coach, the offense stays intact. Andy Reid isn't leaving Kansas City. Sean McVay isn't leaving Los Angeles. Their quarterbacks get the same voice, the same philosophy, and the same system year after year.
Now let's bring it back to Tampa Bay.
Todd Bowles is a good defensive coordinator. I have conceded that many times. His game plan against Patrick Mahomes in Super Bowl LV was a masterpiece because he just had to focus on the defensive side of the football. He's earned respect around the league for what he does defensively and rightfully so. But being a great coordinator and being a Super Bowl-winning head coach are two different things.
The other issue is game management philosophy. Bowles coaches conservatively and his management philosophy is from the past and will not work in today's NFL. He trusts his defense. He prefers field position battles. That sounds great until you're staring across the sideline at Reid, McVay, Kyle Shanahan, or another coach who's looking for ways to score 35 points. You can't beat modern NFL offenses by trying to win every game 20-17.
The goal shouldn't just be making the playoffs. The goal should be winning another championship. And if we're being honest, does anyone truly look at Todd Bowles and think he's going to outscheme Reid, McVay, Shanahan, Ben Johnson, or the next wave of offensive innovators when everything is on the line as a head coach? I don't; maybe if he was just a d-coordinator but that's the extent of it. I have zero faith in Bowles being able to do that as a head coach.
The Bucs have talent. Baker Mayfield has proven he's more than capable of winning games. The offensive weapons are there. Knees is very vocal about his belief of our WR room being a top 5 and the only argument I have with that take is a top 5 on paper and a top 5 on the field are usually 2 different things. But eventually Tampa Bay has to ask itself a difficult question:
Are we trying to be a consistently good team, or are we trying to win a Super Bowl? Because in today's NFL, those are not necessarily the same thing.
Todd Bowles might be able to keep Tampa relevant in a very weak division. He can keep them in the playoff hunt in a weak division. But if the goal is another Lombardi Trophy, history suggests that betting on offensive innovation is a much safer wager than betting on defensive conservatism and with him, we are closer to a Greg Schiano / Lovie Smith record and team than we are to a Jon Gruden / Bruce Arians record and team.
Oh and on topic, the Bucs hold all the cards when it comes to Vita Vea. He can either shut up and play or shut up and sit. Those are the only two options he truly has right now. Will he be traded? Not likely....not unless a team really overpays for it.
