Lol WEAK again...erm are you aware that Bellichick was FIRED from the Browns In his first job? Are you aware that Pete Carroll was fired from THREE different NFL teams before winning a chip In Seattle? Are you aware that John Harbaugh was a SPECIAL TEAMS COACH before winning a chip with the Ravens? Apparently not as you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself with that pathetic post above if you was.
[Reply]

Actually, I am aware of all of those things, as they help make my point indirectly.

Your argument is that one of those guys is going to walk in and just be better than a 20 year head coach with the second most wins in league history and considered the best offensive mind in the modern era, in spite of the fact that not one of them has a single day of NFL head coaching experience.

Belichick had to fail FOUR times as the Browns HC, earning only one winning season.

He then was HC of the Jets for exactly 30 minutes.

He took the HC job as the Patriots HC and promptly posted a 5-11 season.

That's FIVE seasons he didn't deliver a SB to begin his career as a HC.

Carroll had to fail multiple times first.

Harbaugh failed to deliver a SB FOUR times as Ravens HC before finally getting one in 2012(?).

Do I really want to bring in a newly minted HC and watch them learn to be a winning HC for at least four more seasons? Because that's the average time it's going to take for a really really good HC, according to the numbers, kiddo.

And there's absolutely no way of knowing whether any of those guys you listed are really good enough to become a Super Bowl winning coach. In fact, again the numbers argue heavily against them. The very real probability for those guys is that none of them will ever become a Super Bowl winning coach, regardless of what team they end up coaching for.

There's no guarantees in the NFL. But the math alone suggests we're far better off just standing pat for at least two more years.
[Reply]

Wrong again...McCdaniels HAS been a head coach already so he has experience. And how long did it take Pederson to win a chip? Two years? So your statement about time is not born in facts. Reid has a great record of winning yes..but guess what? HE ALSO HAS A RECORD OF LOSING ON THE BIG STAGE at both Philly and KC...so at some point he either has to prove he can win a chip or get out...eight years would be long enough imo.
[Reply]

As if Andy Reid were sacrosanct.

Shutting the door on the idea completely is amazingly stupid and very, VERY Lil' Chiefy.
[Reply]

McDaniels was one of the worst HCs I've ever seen. I wouldn't let him pay me to coach my dog to sit.

And Pederson is what is called an outlier. There are a few of those. My statement was about the vast, overwhelming majority of new HCs that go to new franchises. Tossing out an outlier is less than nothing so far as analytics go.

And to be fair, Andy never had much of a chance to win it all with Alex Smith as his QB. I doubt there are three coaches in the NFL that could.

If we're going to talk about giving Andy a realistic chance to get one with Mahomes, we need to think three or four years. Starting with last year, when he got us to the AFCCG, I believe. And nearly won that game. So two or three years.

Then you can go all batsh*t crazy or whatever.
[Reply]

And to be fair, Alex Smith was his choice for QB.
[Reply]

Did he have a lot of better choices? I don't recall Russell Wilson or Aaron Rodgers being available at the time. If I'm wrong, please educate me.

Alex Smith was the best option out of the limited options at the time. And as I recall, there was hope of a significant upside. It simply didn't pan out. Alex became what he was always going to become, because at the end of the day he didn't have that personality trait to just pull the trigger when he needed to. I don't see how that's anyone's fault.

And if we're honest, when you consider what the Chiefs were prior to Andy Reid and Alex Smith, they both were a huge upgrade, right?

Bottom line, the Chiefs organization gave Andy five years to figure out if Alex was the guy. Alex didn't grow into the position. Andy drafted a new guy.

And here we are.
[Reply]

He had been wanting to trade for Alex Smith since he was in Philly. Don't act like he was just out of options. If there were other options Alex Smith would have still been his choice.
[Reply]

I just checked; the options available in 2013 were Matt Flynn, Nick Foles, and Geno Smith.

'Nuff said.
[Reply]

Is that SB MVP Nick Foles?
[Reply]

Just found this.

Going back in time and not knowing what we know now, and realizing that Cassel wasn't the franchise QB we were hoping for, in spite of being coached up by Bill Belichick and the QB-whisperer Josh McDaniels, (shocking, I know) Andy Reid traded for Alex Smith:

"Smith has obviously been better than Matt Cassel over the last two seasons, but not over his entire career.

Smith with Jim Harbaugh as the head coach looks a lot like Matt Cassel with Bill Belichick and Josh McDaniels as his coaches.

There are two things that do clearly differentiate Smith from Cassel.

First, Smith is not thought of as a deep thrower but he has a pretty good record on deep passes. In 2011, he ranked ninth in DVOA on passes over 16+ yards through the air. In 2012, he ranked 14th. Cassel was 36th in 2011 and 20th in 2012.

In addition, Smith has an absurdly good record against big blitzes, even when he was poor otherwise. For some reason, he was slightly worse against big blitzes in his breakout 2011 season, but if we look at 2009-2012 combined, we find Smith with 5.9 net yards per play against 3-5 pass rushers but 7.6 net yards per play against 6+ pass rushers. For 2012, those numbers are 5.7 and 11.2, respectively."

-Aaron Schatz, Football Outsiders, 2013
[Reply]

Yes. The same streaky as hell Nick Foles, who still hasn't learned to read defenses better than any average QB.

And also the guy that almost no one thought that much of for his entire career UNTIL Wentz went down and Foles went on to win a SB.

Hell, there aren't a lot of teams that were interested in him when he left the Eagles, hence his arrival in Jacksonville.
[Reply]

That's ok. He'll be able to read his ring.

The guy torched the best defensive mind in the game and won a SB but you are about to tell me all about how Alex Smith was/is better.

Do the numbers 31-10 and 21-3 mean anything to you?
[Reply]

Hindsight is 20/20.

On paper in 2013, Alex was the better choice. It's the same thing as looking at the relative strengths and weaknesses of a couple teams, say the Chiefs and the Colts, and deciding that on paper, the Chiefs should win that game.

Reality can and sometimes will diverge wildly from all analysis at any time. But no one in their right mind with everything on the line bucks the evidence and picks Foles over Smith in 2013.

People seem to forget just how raw and poor Foles was in 2012. His record was 1-5, a 60% completion rate, threw 6 TDs and 5 INTs.

Not great.

In fact, comparing his numbers to Alex Smith's in 2012, it's not even a question. Alex was by far the better choice in 2013.

Alex Smith numbers from 2011:

13-3, 61% completion percentage, 3144 yds, 17 TDs 5 INTs.

Alex Smith's numbers from 2012, benched in Week 10 for CK:

6-2-1, 1737 yds, 70.3 completion percentage, 13 TDs 5 INTs.

No one, and I mean no one, picks Foles over Smith after looking at those numbers. It's not even close.
[Reply]

This makes sense.

That Colts game last Sunday though...
[Reply]