Will he get a job next year?

 

Sucks to be them.

 

Hahahahaha go Philbin! Now they're gonna light it up.

 

Hey...

Maybe Philbin is a better coach than we thought. He certainly won't have an average *** QB as an excuse.

 

Have fun with that, Packer fans.

 

One has to wonder how much of Philbin’s failure here had to do with Tannehill not being able to get the job done.

 

I don't wonder at all. Philbin was a terrible head coach.

 

Philbin is an awesome person so I wish him all the luck in the world. I personally don't love him as a head coach though.

 

Or how much of Tannehill not developing enough is a result of Philbin being a crap coach?

 

Seen that Resnor posted the same thread as this before me. Can an admin merge to his please?

 

This is great news. Hopefully Miami can pick up a disgruntled Gregg Williams for DC with a promise of a legit chance to be HC next year if Gase doesn't get his crap together!

 

Easy decision for the Pack as he is at least familiar with the logistics of things like running practices and such, and is knowledgeable with Rogers. I find it hard to see him actually being hired as HC beyond this interim period though, unless Rogers is really pushing for it. They would be an interesting landing spot for a Lincoln Riley type though. That franchise needs some energy, and McCarthy wasn't doing anything.

As for McCarthy ... ew no.

I mean, both things can be true in the statements "Philbin is a bad head coach" and "Ryan Tannehill is not a good quarterback."

 

[QUOTE="texanphinatic, post: 3119867, member: 165”]I mean, both things can be true in the statements "Philbin is a bad head coach" and "Ryan Tannehill is not a good quarterback."[/QUOTE]

Except that I didn’t say Tanny is not a good QB. I said he hasn’t developed enough. Maybe Philbin was less concerned with picking gum wrappers and more concerned with teaching, then maybe Tanny wouldn’t have been hamstrung early in his career, and some of his current issues might have been overcome.

 

Well people said that McCarthy on the NFL Network should had parted at the end of the season. But I guess team officials see it differently then the media and we do. Good run however.

 

My sympathies and condolences to any Packers fans. Hopefully it is only an interim appointment with no long term consequences.

 

I have heard time and time again on this site bang the drum about how a great elite quarterback can overcome a team's weaknesses. Well Rodgers is just that. I give credit where credit is due. Rodgers is a phenomenal quarterback and yet, a 4-7-1 record...and you can't say Rodgers isn't doing what he's supposed to...61.7% comp, 20/1 TD/INT and 3271 yards.

So could this possibly mean that even a GREAT quarterback can't bail your team out?

 

The prospect of getting Williams as DC is intriguing. We need a DC...a REAL DC in the worst way!!

 

Shhhh it's the QB and only the QB that can take accountability for losing. Oh, and the Head Coach when it's convenient.

That said, Rodgers is a great example of how an elite QB can still perform with crap around them.

Though no-one here should be debating Tannehill is that.

 

Any chance he has learned a few things about being a head coach since he left Miami?

 

I want to see him tell Rodgers he can't call audibles and he has to stay in the pocket.

 

You have heard that a great QB can overcome a team's weaknesses from idiots and those who don't understand the game. There were plenty who understood better, you being one of them.

 

Well if he starts trading the packers best players then no

 

Way to overly simplistic of a narrative. The QB can overcome many deficiencies, but a bad HC is not one of them. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...estions-packers-firing-mike-mccarthy-2018-nfl
The Packers were a low talent mess of a team outside of Rogers whose coaching and playcalling had been going downhill for years. It caught up to them. He is, however, a focal point that the Packers can continue to reliably build around for the next half dozen years at least.

Except that I didn’t say Tanny is not a good QB. I said he hasn’t developed enough. Maybe Philbin was less concerned with picking gum wrappers and more concerned with teaching, then maybe Tanny wouldn’t have been hamstrung early in his career, and some of his current issues might have been overcome.

The one saying Tanny is not a good QB is me ... that's my whole point. I think it possible/likely that both Philbin and Tanny are bad, and neither was to blame for the other. I could be wrong, we likely will never know, but considering Tanny isn't really all that different now than he was years ago ... I feel pretty confident in just saying we picked the wrong guy.

 

No you are right, by all means, just pick the worst QB off the scrap heap and it's super bowl time. It's a miracle we haven't won like 10 in a row at this point!

 

Has nothing to do with topic. And there are plenty of examples of below average QBs winning Super Bowls.....Jim McMahon, Nick Foles, Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler, etc....

 

It's almost like ... like ... like there are exceptions to rules sometimes? :up:

*edit because I got curious*
In the past 10 years, there really have been very few weak overall QBs. The weakest is probably Foles, who had one of the easiest roads having a first round bye and home field (thanks to Wentz), with a dominant defense and not having to play 3/4ths of the regular season and with a new coach (aka, not much tape on Foles running the concepts he would run in the late stage playoffs). He made the most of the opportunity, but to pretend that is a replicable situation? No.

Other than him, you have that one insane run by Flacco, and a few years of CKap under Harbaugh. While I wouldn't be super interested in either right now, at their peak they absolutely outplayed Tannehill and changed and won games.

Past that? Brady multiple times, both Mannings multiple times, Newton, Brees, Matt Ryan, Russel Wilson a few times, Big Ben, A-Aron and Kurt Warner.

 

I actually did not mind Philbin trying to teach Tannehill to stand up in the pocket. Honestly, Tannehill is much better for it. He stands tall, takes some damned hard hits and is pretty darned accurate doing it.

In theory, that marriage should have worked. Miami even brought in his HC from college to help ease the transition for crying out loud. Crap happens. I’m sorry, but there’s something in the water in Miami. Just when things seem to go right, they go wrong.

I really like Tannehill, and I think he’s solid. But at some point, you have to cut ties. He has been given enough time. Circumstances happen. For Tannehill, it’s always something other than him, but he’s literally never picked up the team and put the team on his shoulders except for a stretch in 2016.

If he wins out and wins a playoff game, I’d give him a pass. But he better win out.

 

The big problem for me regarding Philbin and Tannehill is that watching film of his rookie year Tannehill was making more anticipatory throws and Philbin did his best to erase that from his game. Gase hase reversed that trend and got that part of RT’s game going in the right direction. However, even now Tannehill isn’t as fast on the trigger with throws leading the receiver as he was when he was a rookie.

Philbin wanted RT to be too safe, too robotic and too unwilling to scramble. Tannehill for his part was too coachable and did what Philbin told him to do without complaint.

 

Once again, not the topic. What me and Dark Knight are laughing about is the belief by some on these boards that a great QB can take a team with weaknesses and win a super bowl. We know you can win with a below average, average, good and great QB now show me all the QBs who took poor teams, elevated their play and put them on their backs and won a super bowl. This nonsensical argument is brought up by those who think it's a shortcut to the superbowl. As if you don't have to build a Superbowl team around an elite QB just as you would around an average qb.

I'll save you time. It's never happened. Not once in 52 Super Bowls. Regardless of the caliber of your QB you have to build a complete team around them. There are no shortcuts

 

Please, stop trying to confuse everyone with facts lol!!!

Found this and it's an interesting ready. Reiterates what I've been screaming for years about defense and championships. It only goes back to 2014 but still...if you look at past Super Bowl winners, you see what the vast majority have in common...a top 10 defense!

 

Absolutely. It's why I think the Chargers are the team to watch in the AFC and not the Chiefs. THey actually have a decent defense and now Bosa is back

 

The problem with that list, from a statistical perspective.
1) z-scores i.e. how much better/worse you are than average is a better measure than ranking.
2) the leage has expanded from 26 teams to 32 teams, so early teams on that list had it easier to get higher rankings.
3) defensive and special team returns are are included in points made/allowed so it isn’t a clean measure of offensive/defensive production.

 

I can't fix #3 easily but #1 and #2 can be fixed with this for teams that won the SB:


And for teams that won a playoff game:


So for both SB winners and for playoff game winners offense is slightly more important. Turns out that's true for Wild Card winners and Division playoff winners, but not for Conference champions. For the Conference Championship the average z-score for offense is 0.6431 and for defense it's 0.7026 so for whatever reason defense has been slightly more important there historically. But in general offense > defense in terms of importance: for regular season, playoffs and SB's.

 

#1 offense has met the #1 defense nine times. The team with the #1 defense has won 8 times. You will be hard pressed to find a better bet in this world.

 

Well there are a bunch of problems with that stat. First you're only looking at one side of the ball, that is one team's offense vs. other team's defense without caring about the other defense vs. offense matchup. Second, there's no reason to think any relationship between offense and defense should be restricted to #1 vs. #1. That is, you should see the trend for most SB winners, but we see the opposite trend.

So I'm chalking this up to a cherry picked stat that doesn't really fit the trend. Maybe a better way to explain it is to show you that many random processes do produce long streaks that seem too improbable to be true. Let's stick to the SB.

This is a history of SB coin tosses:
https://www.printyourbrackets.com/super-bowl-coin-toss-results.html

Look at who won the SB coin toss say in the last 25 years. The NFC won it 21 out of 25 times lol. You think that's evidence it's NOT a random process? In fact the NFC won it 14 consecutive years from 1998-2011. Point is.. random processes do produce these types of streaks and you can find them if you just keep looking.

 

Some relavent sayings:
- Random distribution is not even distribution.
- Correlation is not causation.
- Dice (or any other randomized process) are like the male appendage, they have neither memory or conscience.

If you look hard enough you will find a random clump that can be made to fit any argument. It’s how we got the scare about powerlines causing health problems 20 years ago. In that case they laid a map with transmission lines over a map of various health problems and hey presto they were able to find various clumps that matched some parts of of the transmission network. That bit of pseudo-statistical BS cost God knows how many millions of dollars of wasted effort and created genuine health problems related to stress.