Jump to content

Panthers fire HC Ron Rivera; secondary coach Perry Fewell named interim HC


TheKillerNacho

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Them not hiring Kitchens does not prove they would have been better off.  They could have just as easily hired another equally bad coach... you know, the same thing they have done for years whether they fire a coach midseason or not. 

To suggest keeping Jackson a full season would have then helped them hire a better/good coach makes no sense whatsoever.  It’s a ridiculous assertion.

Again, you keep projecting things.  You're the one who brought up this example, as if it could disprove the assertion that midseason firings are a bad idea.  While the Browns could've hired another stinker in this scenario, if you assume kitchens is one of the worst possible candidates they could've hired (he very likely was), statistically you're likely getting a better coach by hiring virtually anyone else instead (no where to go but up). 

But again your question was whether the browns would be better off if they didn't fire huge midseason. While I can't prove that one way or another (and neither can you), VERY SIMPLE logic can conclude that it PROBABLY would.  Unless you're way higher on kitchens than I am. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Again, you keep projecting things.  You're the one who brought up this example, as if it could disprove the assertion that midseason firings are not a bad idea.  While the Browns could've hired another stinker in this scenario, if you assume kitchens is one of the worst possible candidates they could've hired (he very likely was), statistically you're likely getting a better coach by hiring virtually anyone else instead (no where to go but up). 

But again your question was whether the browns would be better off if they didn't fire huge midseason. While I can't prove that one way or another (and neither can you), VERY SIMPLE logic can conclude that it PROBABLY would.  Unless you're way higher on kitchens than I am. 

It’s not simple logic though.  Browns have hired bad coaches for years.  They were dumb enough to hire Kitchens.  So what’s the “very simple logic” that concludes keeping Jackson an entire season would thus lead to them hiring a good coach?  I had no idea the Browns hiring a good coach was simple logic.

I’m not looking to prove anything.  You are the one who is implying that when a head coach is fired may have an affect on how well the next HC does.  Give me *one* single example of a HC not doing well because of when a previous coach was fired.  Otherwise what could possibly be the relation?  

Edited by iknowcool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, thedorchannel said:

am I crazy, or are those good numbers for both?

Among coaches that have been coaching for the last 9 consecutive years? Eh. It's good enough to justify why they were employed for that long, but not good enough to keep em. Jason Garrett has definitely had much more talent on his team than Ron though. He's had pro bowl to all-pro players at pretty much every position.

Edited by Malik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iknowcool said:

It’s not simple logic though.  Browns have hired bad coaches for years.  They were dumb enough to hire Kitchens.  So what’s the “very simple logic” that concludes keeping Jackson an entire season would thus lead to them hiring a good coach? 

Most other coaching candidates > Kitchens

+

Browns hire someone other than Kitchens

=

More likely than not that Browns hired a better coach than Kitchens

 

But I digress.  One instance doesn't mean anything.  I was just amused your grand example was actually more of an argument against what you were saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Most other coaching candidates > Kitchens

+

Browns hire someone other than Kitchens

=

More likely than not that Browns hired a better coach than Kitchens

 

But I digress.  One instance doesn't mean anything.  I was just amused your grand example was actually more of an argument against what you were saying. 

No it wasn’t.  You are implying that when a head coach is fired affects how the next coach does.  How is Kitchens being a bad coach have anything to do with Jackson being fired midseason?  

You just keep reading what you want to read.  My point this entire time has been when a coach is fired has no affect on how the next coach does.  The only way that example goes against my argument is if you think Jackson being fired midseason is why Kitchens is a bad HC.  A good HC is a good HC and a bad HC is a bad HC.  It’s ridiculous to think it’s tied to when the last HC was fired, there is 0 relation

Edited by iknowcool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

No it wasn’t.  You are implying that when a head coach is fired affects how the next coach does.  How is Kitchens being a bad coach have anything to do with Jackson being fired midseason?  

You just keep reading what you want to read.  My point this entire time has been when a coach is fired has no affect on how the next coach does.  The only way that example goes against my argument is if you think Jackson being fired midseason is why Kitchens is a bad HC.

 I said quite clearly from the beginning that it can also impact who gets hired afterwards. I also was quite clear I was talking about franchise success as a whole.  

You're right that you're trying to limit the scope to just how the next coach is impacted by the previous, and while I can also think of ways this could be the case, that's not the only angle here, and you seem to know that. 

You're trying to lock in kitchens as some sort of constant when he simply isn't.  The relevant question isn't whether or not kitchens would be a better coach. It's whether or not the browns would have a better coach (or more precisely, whether they're better off). While we can only speculate, I think the probability definitely leans towards "yes" .

 

I will also mention that without hindsight, I think the browns made a good decision at the time; hue was hurting the culture and development of players there. But that wasn't true of Ron. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I finally did what he wanted me to do and Google it myself.  And what I found was an article that used more data than just how the replacement, interim coaches fared in their 4-5 games and looked mostly into the years after as that’s what’s most important.  And the conclusion?  The same thing I’ve been saying: it doesn’t matter when the fire happens

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ganggreennation.com/platform/amp/2018/11/24/18095737/midseason-coaching-changes-the-year-after

I just don’t know how anyone can think the performance of the next head coach has anything to do with when the previous HC was fired.  There’s just 0 relation.  A HC isn’t somehow gonna be worse than he would be otherwise just because the ex-HC didn’t complete the season.  It doesn’t even make sense for that to be true

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

I think the probability definitely leans towards "yes" .

No, it is not probable that the same team that hired Hue Jackson, a worse coach than Kitchens, would have suddenly hired a better coach than Kitchens just by keeping Jackson the entire season.  

And again... how does the Browns choosing to hire a terrible coach have *anything* to do with when they fired Jackson?  It isn’t like they were forced into that decision.  It’s comical how you are trying to make it seem like the Browns would have hired a better HC merely to try and fit your argument, when it’s the same Browns that evaluated Kitchens and hired him anyway.  What’s stopping them from loving and hiring another equally bad candidate you probably haven’t heard about, just as was the case with Kitchens? 

Kitchens was a bad choice by the Browns that they could have avoided.  Browns firing Jackson midseason did not have to lead to the hire of Kitchens.  And Kitchens being bad had nothing to do with when Jackson was fired.

Edited by iknowcool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iknowcool said:

No, it is not probable that the same team that hired Hue Jackson, a worse coach than Kitchens, would have suddenly hired a better coach than Kitchens just by keeping Jackson the entire season.  

And again... how does the Browns choosing to hire a terrible coach have *anything* to do with when they fired Jackson?  It isn’t like they were forced into that decision.  It’s comical how you are trying to make it seem like the Browns would have hired a better HC merely to try and fit your argument, when it’s the same Browns that evaluated Kitchens and hired him anyway.  What’s stopping them from loving and hiring another equally bad candidate you probably haven’t heard about, just as was the case with Kitchens? 

 

Dear God. I explained this in extremely simple fashion for you earlier. You're being intentionally obtuse at this point.

Like if I let you draw from a deck of cards and you draw a 3, then I give you a chance to redraw with the goal of getting a better card would you not? Certainly,  you could draw a 2, but the odds are immensely in your favor!! Kitchens is a 3!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...