La Canfora: Gase entering treacherous waters in Miami

Your first argument doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if veterans used to once be rookies if it's statistically speaking true that vets perform a lot better: you go with the vet.

Happens to be in this case that there's only a slight improvement in win % by vets vs. rookies, so your second argument does makes sense: it's a crapshoot.

 

Well when you marginalize it like that (typical). I mean clearly it's not about the resume that people have issue with.

 

I think it makes alot of sense. The great coaches were still rookies, once. Someone had to take a chance on them. If the only coaches ever hired were veteran coaches, then in a relatively short time, we'd be out of possible coaching candidates. It's silly to cry about a rookie head coach, when the team has been such a dumpster fire it would be pretty much impossible to get a well established head coach to come in and stake his reputation on the line on a losing team.

 

I'll try explaining this only one more time because I was clear the first time.

Let's suppose you do have a situation where statistically speaking a 2nd hire on average wins 2/3 of the games while a rookie wins only 1/3 of the games. Now you are looking to hire a coach for your team. Does it matter if vets used to be rookies? Who cares.. you hire the vet because that gives you the best chance to win (if nothing else is being considered).

Only reason that doesn't apply here is because the difference in win % between rookies and 2nd/3rd hires is marginal. So the only reason the argument against rookies doesn't hold much water in this case is that predicting success is a crapshoot. I hope that's clearer.

 

Sooooo, because a hypothetical scenario which you admit, doesn't actually apply to this case, says his point is wrong, then his point is wrong? Interesting.

 

La Canfora? That piggy s.o.b. really fell off the face of the earth huh? For good reason.

 

Let ME try again.

1. Rookie HC'S commonly go to crappy teams, as crappy teams can't demand and acquire the best coach on the market, normally.

2. All great coaches were at some point a rookie HC. Being a rookie HC does not mean you won't be a good first time HC. The odds may be stacked against you, but that's a different story.

 

Whatever the actual win percentages, whether a vet used to be a rookie will be irrelevant information, so yes his point is wrong.

 

Neither point has any relevance to what I said.

Anyway, I'm done arguing the obvious. The logic is no different than someone saying you shouldn't care if you hire a baby or an adult for a job because adults used to be babies.

OK.. that's my final point on this obvious matter.. you guys can have the last words.

 

No it isn't.

You are applying logic for players to logic for coaches and the numbers prove, you can't do that. One of the possible reasons, is that, you know, all vet coaches were rookies once.

 

The numbers prove babies can't do that job of adults. The numbers for rookie vs vet head coaches prove either can do the job.

 

That's a lame response.

1. It absolutely matters which teams rookie head coaches are going to. Rookie coaches on terrible teams have a much harder time winning than veteran coaches taking over mediocre teams.

2. Saying that the odds are that rookie head coaches don't do as well as veteran coaches may be true, however slightly, but it doesn't mean that rookie head coaches are never successful. So, using a slight difference in win percentage is not a good reason to be against the hire.

 

Why don't we just give them time to prove whether they can do this or not, maybe the dynamic and structure is good right now.maybe gase is the next young star, maybe Chris Grier is good at evaluating talent, maybe tannenbaum will stay in his executive lane...why not let this play out, it's only fair..and imo the smart thing to do, unless you are some serious pontiff who sees how all this goes south.

 

Why not let him what he does well..let his coordinators do their job, maybe he has multitasking skills..

 

Uh no. That's not it.

The baby is inherently incapable. The playing field is not level there.

 

Every end has a new beginning, this is the point where we should all be just fans and let's support the young coach who so may seem to have tremendous respect for...

I mean did someone see him interact with players and think this guy is a joke?... Like philbin?

 

There's nothing else to do but let him prove. Who's arguing otherwise? He's already been hired.

But fan forums have become an echo chamber of "welp there's always next year" with this organization and the guys at the very top of it have proven time and time again they're incapable of putting the right football people in place to change the course. What makes this year any different? Blind hope?

I applaud those who are disgusted with this pervasive nonsense. Voice them loud and clear anywhere they can.

 

Thank you. And that was the point I was making. How can one ***** about a rookie coach when the veteran you want was a rookie once. You can't have one without the other, so railing against it is rather pointless.

 

well Mr. Zombie. If you came here looking for brains, you might go a bit hungry.

 

Agree with this. We are all hoping Gase can break the cycle. But to blindly buy what this owner and FO are selling is pretty crazy given their track record. It's a bunch of dopey nerds trying to play a mans game and failing miserably every step of the way. Love your signature, BTW.

 

Winning % of rookie HCs is not as relevant imo as success rate, and the success rate is very low, and that's not even the crux of our "great matter", it's setting the franchise right again, it's getting someone in here that actually knows what they're doing so some solid ground work can be set for a floundering franchise.

The whole "all the great coaches were rookie coaches" is nothing but a huge marginalization, why don't we take it further and say truthfully for lets say Cambo, that every great HC used to be a position coach, or for players, why bother arguing over players drafted, any player drafted has just as good a chance since all great players were college players at one time.

 

What are the numbers of the bold and how are you quantifying success rate? 8 head coaches on their first team were in the playoffs this year alone.

 

Obviously until all of them win a SB at once they're a failure.

 

I do have to admit with Cam and Philphin there was a dork feeling about them. I don't feel that with Gase. That has to be a positive.

 

Haha... me too.

 

Yeah, I'd be very interested to know what "success rate" is if it isn't "winning percentage."

 

How many are successful, pretty simple, the winning % can be skewed by successful hires, but HCs are a lot like QBs, there's not a lot of them to go around, not good ones anyway, for the same reasons, only certain people can do the job, and most that try fail.

 

I think it's harder to evaluate a HC independent of win % than a QB independent of win % because you have a lot more stats that QB performance is associated with.

I think resnor wants a stat that would distinguish "successful" from "win %". The only ones I can think of are stats related to playoffs (appearances/wins/how deep) and stats related to length of tenure.

 

If you're trying to determine % of HCs that are successful, then win % doesn't really answer that question, and I think in our case success rate is more relevant to the issue.

As far as what the actual numbers are, I don't know, but for anyone who's been paying attention to it, it's a really easy answer, most fail, is it 1 in 10. 15, 20? I don't really know, I do know however that it's a low %.

Also, as I was saying in that comment, I think stability is what this team needed more than anything, and getting a guy that actually knows what he's doing is the best chance for that, whether or not a Coughlin would lead us to SBs isn't as important right now imo, than just getting on the right track.

 

Ok...so what is success? "Success rate is more relevant to the issue." What is success, and how are you determining the "success rate?"

You keep saying "success" and "success rate," but never identifying what those are. The successful coaches are the ones who win. The successful coaches go deep in the playoffs...which is also winning.

 

Well.. let's ask resnor's question again. How are you defining "successful"? Is it # of playoff appearances/wins or tenure or something else?

Maybe start by listing who you think are the successful coaches and we can infer what you mean by successful?

 

SR is calculated by how many yards the coach can pick up as a percentage of those required for a first down or TD, obvs

 

Lol at ridiculous internet banter, you guy's don't know what success is then I can't help you.

 

I think we do know. It's some combination of number of wins and win % (combination is important so you get longevity in there) with greater weight placed on playoff games and especially SB's.

 

If you're saying win% doesn't count as being successful, then you have to define what is "successful". You can't discount something like that (without actually explaining why, btw) then not give us the definition you're going by.

 

This is why I believe you're trolling.

How can you discount win % and then not even explain what you're calling success rate and when asked, you go full douche?

 

This is so classic.

 

Please define full Douche.

How can you use the term gull douche and not explain what full douche is?

 

See, I know you're proud of yourself, but you're not even making an accurate comparison.

I'm not taking a known indicator of being a douche and disregarding it, then not defining it.

How about you, why don't you define what Finster means for success rate?

Or do you think the board is better served with you being a douche as well?

 

Not sure if serious.