Simms couldn't win in college. What makes you think he will be a successful pro? The Simms discussion is ridiculous.
The Manuel benching is pure idiocy. Every single person knows that Orton is not the answer. Maybe he gets them an extra two wins this season so they finish with 7 or 8 wins instead of 6. So the Chiefs have no QB in 2014 or 2015 and have no first round draft pick in 2015. They won't be able to draft a QB until 2016 and won't know if that QB is the answer until 2017 or 2018. Say good bye to Buffalo as a contender for a long long time. Is that what we want for the Jets also - on the continual QB carousel??
My comment was more an anti-Orton post than pro-Simms. I am not suggesting Simms gets a chance to start just saying I'd rather Simms start for me than orton b/c I know my team won't win w/ Orton.
we have and it's proven, he helped one team make the playoffs. a team that made a SB w/ rex Grossman starting and a team that benchec Orton for rex Grossman. Orton had good teams in Denver and failed, he saw Tebow win w/ a team he couldn't get to the playoffs. a year ago he was a big signing as a backup, had his chance and what does he do? throws an INt to end Dallas' season then quits on them.
Harbaugh is a task master. That's the wrong way to go after you've had a player party coach. If the Jets replace Rex, and I think that's a huge IF at this point, they'd be better off getting a stable coach who doesn't land on the players like a ton of bricks. They might get a bump out of it the first year, like they did with Mangini after Herm, but that approach usually backfires in the end.
disagree. They've had it too easy in club Rex. I'd go with the disciplinarian right now all the way. Maybe someone will get his ass chewed out for committing bullshit penalties for once. Maybe there would be better protection of the football because they know they will be held accountable for it.
And when you swing to the other extreme things will stay off kilter. There's a lot of evidence right now that supports the idea that good coach - bad coach is a mistake waiting to happen. If you're hiring bad coach to get over the top and win it can work for a season if you already have enough talent to get there and the good guy wasn't motivating them properly. The Jets don't have that talent yet.
Gruden replaces Dungy in TB - the talent is there and BOOM over the top SB win. Then 6 year decline as the Bucs tune out Chucky and go 45-51 over that span. Mangini replaces Herm in NY - the old players get cut, the roster talent stabilizes with 2 OL picks and Chad healthy for once and the Jets improbably make the playoffs. Then 13-19 as Mangini's disciplinarian style gets under the players skin and he's out. Schiano replaces Morris in TB - offensive performance goes from near worst to good. Team rebounds from 4-12 to 7-9 then Schiano's my way or the highway style causes a major collapse even through a huge talent infusion via free agency. http://www.bucsnation.com/2013/6/1/4387240/tampa-bay-buccaneers-2013-offseason-greg-schiano Saban replaces Wannstedt in Mia - offensive performance improves, defense improves, Fins improve by 5 games. Then the discipline causes things to slowly unravel. Sparano replaces Cameron in Mia - everything improves then the Fins slowly sink back in to the muck again. I'm just using things from the last decade because I think player entitlement has gone through the roof in the 00's. If you look back in time the same pattern is pretty clear but I think it has been accentuated in an era with true free agency and in which players have come to grips with the fact that they have very short careers. It's hard to threaten a decent starter with professional extinction when he knows if you cut him somebody else will likely take a chance on him. All he has to do is survive the season and you'll either send him packing or he'll leave of his own accord if his contract is up. To be clear, I think a team gets a short term bump in productivity when they make a change in either direction, from disciplinarian to player's coach or vice-versa. I just don't think there's any long-term gain at all and the evidence suggests a decline once the shock has worn off. If you don't have the talent you don't get the bump either.
half those coaches just suck in general though. Schiano sucked. Sparano replacing Cameron? they both sucked Saban was there 2 seasons - hardly a great example. Why not use the classic disciplinarian/player's coach change in Belichick replacing Carroll?? oh- wait that doesn't work for your argument. How about Coughlin replacing Fassel? I'd even argue that Sean Payton is a great example of a disciplinarian replacing Haslett. Having said that - I do believe the potential exists for a short term bump followed by the disciplinarian style getting old. I think that's true of any coaching style though. I think the "player's coach" style can get old too.(it's getting old with Rex) I think it's very rare that a coach's message will continue to resonate within the same organization in the long term no matter the message. That's why you hire and fire coaches...that's why I also think replacing with the opposite style is a great idea. It keeps players motivated and allows you to take advantage of that short term bump. This organization has done a very good job with that. I thought replacing Groh/Parcells with a player's coach like Herman Edwards was a good idea. I thought replacing Herm with a disciplinarian like Mangini was a good idea and I thought replacing him with Rex, a players coach was a good idea. Now Rex's message isn't working. It's time for some discipline. This team desperately could use a discipline minded offensive coach for their next hire. Harbaugh is just an example of that. But there are probably other guys who fit that mold out there that would be good hires as well.
I think the right play is give Geno this week.... If he plays well and we win he keeps going..., if he sucks and we lose, it depends on the rest of our division..... If everybody loses and we are still only 1 game out, then I think you make the switch......
