Mike Zimmer Should Be THE Example

[Essex Johnson]

(12-15-2020, 10:35 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: He probably is doing better there than he'd do here.

actually that was my point.. he is not.. one year in playoffs, next year out of playoffs.. underachieving at Minn... 

[THE PISTONS]

(12-16-2020, 09:52 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: actually that was my point.. he is not.. one year in playoffs, next year out of playoffs.. underachieving at Minn... 

He's basically Marvin...which is way better than Zac. But I doubt he'd coexist with management here.

This board is obsessed with former coaches. Although Zimmer is the best of the bunch.

[Essex Johnson]

(12-16-2020, 05:22 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: The Vikings play the Bears next, and that's going to be a key game for Zimmer. If they lose to the Bears, then they'll be 3-5 at home this year and could realistically end up 6-10 on the season. I think that game will go a long way in determining Zimmer's future. 

The idea of bringing Zac back, when he's likely to finish 4-27-1, is still mind boggling to me, even though it shouldn't be considering this franchise. Allowing a HC to come back for a 3rd year with a 2 year record that bad is unheard of during the SB era unless you're an 1960's/70's expansion team or the mistake by the lake.

So what was Chuck Noll record after two seasons ?  6-19, was 6-8 in 3rd season.. Bradshaw was 3-5 his first season then got hurt.. Burrow was 2-7-1 ..hmmm..  interesting that Noll was an assistant on a successful Colts team and Zac was an assistant on a successful Rams team....

[THE PISTONS]

(12-16-2020, 10:00 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: So what was Chuck Noll record after two seasons ?  6-19, was 6-8 in 3rd season.. Bradshaw was 3-5 his first season then got hurt.. Burrow was 2-7-1 ..hmmm..  interesting that Noll was an assistant on a successful Colts team and Zac was an assistant on a successful Rams team....

When you have to go back to the 70s to find a reference and the reference is still a huge stretch...

[Essex Johnson]

(12-16-2020, 10:03 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: When you have to go back to the 70s to find a reference and the reference is still a huge stretch...

when you have to ignore a factual statement to support your opinion that is a huge stretch. I could also post when teams have changed in 2 years coaches but hav e not seen a real change in performance the next year or two also... the point is 2 years is rarely a good measure of a coach on a bad team..

[Nicomo Cosca]

(12-16-2020, 10:17 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: when you have to ignore a factual statement to support your opinion that is a huge stretch. I could also post when teams have changed in 2 years coaches but hav e not seen a real change in performance the next year or two also... the point is 2 years is rarely a good measure of a coach on a bad team..

You can’t say that though, because it has been enough for several coaches recently. Shanahan, Flores, Kingsbury, etc have all turned bad teams around that quickly.

[JSR18]

(12-16-2020, 07:02 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: When I originally posted this I should have issued a disclaimer because several posters seem to have misinterpreted my line of thinking. In no way was I suggesting the Bengals re-hire Mike Zimmer. Rather, my thinking is the Front Office use his hiring in 2008 as a template for hiring future coaches and coordinators: Experienced, a proven record of success, and a brilliant communicator.

Hes a good communicator all right...[emoji57]

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Essex Johnson]

(12-16-2020, 10:30 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: You can’t say that though, because it has been enough for several coaches recently. Shanahan, Flores, Kingsbury, etc have all turned bad teams around that quickly.

You do understand that Shanahan was 10-22 first 2 seasons and I actually is looking at 3 losing seasons in 4 years as a head coach. You actually support my point 2 years does not mean a coach is a failure or success. Tom Landry took 6 seasons I believe to have a winning record.Cowher was 13-19 after 2 yrs with Steelers, record books are littered with coaches that were successful when given time

[THE PISTONS]

(12-16-2020, 10:30 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: You can’t say that though, because it has been enough for several coaches recently. Shanahan, Flores, Kingsbury, etc have all turned bad teams around that quickly.

But staying the course worked in the 1970s!

Essex is a Zac fanboy. So far Essex and Sled.

[THE PISTONS]

(12-16-2020, 11:00 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: You do understand that Shanahan was 10-22 first 2 seasons and I actually is looking at 3 losing seasons in 4 years as a head coach. You actually support my point 2 years does not mean a coach is a failure or success.

Is 10 wins more or less than 4?

The Dolphins and UC were smart enough to fire Zac after 1 year as OC.

[Essex Johnson]

(12-16-2020, 11:13 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Is 10 wins more or less than 4?

Is 3 losing seasons out of 4 warrant letting him.go? No..he also regressed in season 2 only winning 4 games.. we can play this all day.. in the end 2 seasons is hard to judge a coach taking over a bad team.. not sure how u cant see that..

[THE PISTONS]

Essex dont you both Burrow? But, 2 years of failure from Zac isnt enough. You need more...

[Nicomo Cosca]

(12-16-2020, 11:00 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: You do understand that Shanahan was 10-22 first 2 seasons and I actually is looking at 3 losing seasons in 4 years as a head coach. You actually support my point 2 years does not mean a coach is a failure or success.

No I didn’t. The 9ers saw immediate improvement under him. He took over a 2-14 team and won 6 games his first year. Zac Taylor probably won’t have that many wins in 2 full seasons. And he had Andy Dalton and Joe Burrow. SF had to trade for Garoppolo because they didn’t even have a QB when Shanahan got there.

[THE PISTONS]

(12-16-2020, 11:16 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Essex dont you both Burrow? But, 2 years of failure from Zac isnt enough. You need more...

Shanahan is 28-33. He went 6-10 in year 1 with a 49ers team that had a lot of talent leave.

Zac 2 years in doesn't have 6 wins.

Zac has 4 career wins. You're comparing him to a guy with 28 and think that's equivalent.

You may be the biggest Zac fanboy on the board!

[THE PISTONS]

(12-16-2020, 11:00 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: You do understand that Shanahan was 10-22 first 2 seasons and I actually is looking at 3 losing seasons in 4 years as a head coach. You actually support my point 2 years does not mean a coach is a failure or success. Tom Landry took 6 seasons I believe to have a winning record.Cowher was 13-19 after 2 yrs with Steelers, record books are littered with coaches that were successful when given time

Once again 13-19 is way better than 4-24-1.

Zac is historically bad.

[*jason*]

(12-16-2020, 10:41 PM)JSR18 Wrote: Hes a good communicator all right...[emoji57]

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

He actually really is. He's abrasive and all, but he can also get after guys in a calm and direct manner as well. I think it was on the first Hard Knocks where he had a meeting with Tank Johnson in his office. You could see it there.

[Essex Johnson]

(12-16-2020, 11:17 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: No I didn’t. The 9ers saw immediate improvement under him. He took over a 2-14 team and won 6 games his first year. Zac Taylor probably won’t have that many wins in 2 full seasons. And he had Andy Dalton and Joe Burrow. SF had to trade for Garoppolo because they didn’t even have a QB when Shanahan got there.

So fire him now after he regressed right?.. but dont fire the landrys of the world.. cant follow your logic at all.. so let's just be the browns of the NFL.. fire coaches after 2 years for 20.. how that work out.. guess your a fan boy of 2 year coaches.. I'm not.

[*jason*]

(12-16-2020, 10:17 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: when you have to ignore a factual statement to support your opinion that is a huge stretch. I could also post when teams have changed in 2 years coaches but hav e not seen a real change in performance the next year or two also... the point is 2 years is rarely a good measure of a coach on a bad team..

You're ignoring the fact that the game, and the league aren't even remotely the same as they were in the 1970s. What was the rush to do anything back then? Was Bradshaw gonna leave in free agency? Would anyone care if his overrated ass did?

[Nicomo Cosca]

(12-16-2020, 11:25 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: So fire him now after he regressed right?.. but dont fire the landrys of the world.. cant follow your logic at all.. so let's just be the browns of the NFL.. fire coaches after 2 years for 20.. how that work out.. guess your a fan boy of 2 year coaches.. I'm not.

This is just nonsensical. First of all, we already are the Browns. We’re looking at a 2nd consecutive 2 win season, and 5 losing seasons in a row. And we are far and away the worst team in the division. We can stop being afraid of turning into them. We’re there.

But since you brought them up, the Browns fired Freddy Kitchens after ONE year. How’s that working out for them? I think what Kevin Stefanski is doing is a lot more relevant than a example from 50 years ago.

[THE PISTONS]

Essex - I quit reading your nonsense posts comparing Zac to actual NFL coaches and I'll just reply to what I anticipate your posts look like.

Was Barry Switzer 0-15 on the road like Zac? 0-15!