I was surprised, but not shocked when Chip Kelly got fired. Heck, I literally wrote about the great chance he was taking back in March. I was less surprised when Tom Coughlin 'retired' after four straight seasons without playoffs. (records since 2010: 10-6, 9-7, 9-7, 8-8, 7-9, 6-10, 6-10), was fired. However, I was shocked when Lovie Smith was fired. I'm not sure when NFL teams will learn, because while Chip Kelly and Lovie Smith getting the ax are examples of teams reacting possibly (and in Smith's case, probably) too quickly, Coughlin stepping down is a sign of teams reacting too late. There really is no easy answer.
Chip Kelly was on a short leash after feuding with Eagles mainstay's like Howie Roseman, essentially kicking all the Reid-era guys to the curb and getting full control. After basically all his moves turned our wrong, and his famed offense was getting figured out at every turn, it was only a matter of time. Still, Jeffrey Lurie is a patient man. He gave Andy Reid 14 seasons, and only let him go when they fell to 4-12. He stood by Reid as the Eagles lost three straight Championship Games (compare this to Elway firing Fox after seasons of 13-3, 13-3 and 12-4). He was supposed to be behind Kelly, but when he saw a cold, insular guy who's personnel acumen should be roundly criticized he took swift action.
But then I see something like Lovie Smith getting axed in Tampa and I wonder if even Lurie acted too quickly. Lovie Smith was hired in Tampa Bay to give the Buccaneers a sense of stability. They had cycled through two coaches in five years following Jon Gruden's firing. Lovie Smith was brought in to build a defense, which he did despite personnel issues at many key positions (will the Buccaneers ever get a pass rusher). Lovie Smith went 2-14 in his first year, but went 6-10, and started 6-6 in 2015. His team was on the rise, with Jameis Winston having an at worst decent and at best good rookie campaign. The Buccaneers were seen as a team on the rise - and now Lovie is gone.
How quick is too quick? This really is a tough question in the NFL. Generally when a coach is fired in three or less seasons, I often think it went too quickly. Firing Mike Mularkey kept Buffalo in neutral until today. NFL teams are quick to pull the trigger, and it is hard to say if they should be. It is hard to build a system, build a personnel base that quickly, especially when you are inheriting the wasteland that was the 2013 Buccaneers under Greg Schiano.
Tom Coughlin is likely going to be a Hall of Fame coach. He won two Super Bowls with the Giants in five seasons. He was beloved by his players from 2007 onwards. He gave the Giants an appearance of consistency. And let's be real, he was pushed out. You can argue he should have been pushed out a while ago. His team seemed to buy into the 'get hot at the right time' hype too much. They went from a team that made the playoffs four straight seasons from 2005-2008. Then, he made the playoffs once in 7 seasons. They won the Super Bowl that season, but that leaves six different years without meaningful January football, including bad collapses in 2009, 2012 and 2014.
You can argue the Giants kept Coughlin in too long. It really is hard to know when the time is right. The NFL is constantly in a balance between 'win now' and 'consistency'. It is odd that some of the more forlorn franchises are the ones that are staying with the plan. Despite seasons of 3-13, 4-12 and 5-11, Gus Bradley has gotten a 4th season in Jacksonville, a team that employed Jack Del Rio for 8 seasons. The Bengals stayed with Marvin Lewis after a 2010 season that ended with a 4-12 season and a discontented QB. He's paid that off with five straight playoff games.
The easy out is to say that these teams are cheap and keeping their coaches to avoid paying two coach-level salaries - and maybe there is truth to that. But maybe stability matters. Maybe letting your coach build his team with his players matters.
I am more forgiving of the Eagles axing Kelly as he had shown that he got his own players and failed quite badly; but the Buccaneers are not Lovie's team yet. Lovie Smith, as he was when he coached in Tampa under Dungy, is a defensive coach. His defense worked in Chicago and would have in Tampa Bay. Of course, the Buccaneers spent basically all their draft capital on offense, never gave Lovie Smith pass rusher to work with, and now have gotten rid of him.
This all brings me to my team, the Colts, who have decided to retain both Chuck Pagano and Ryan Grigson. Retaining Grigson is not surprising to Colts fans, but keeping Pagano is. Chuck Pagano is loved by his players, but seems to be disliked by everyone else in Colts managements - including the GM that he openly feuded with. He has an antiquated view of football that Ryan Grigson took amazing measures - like hand-picking offensive coordinators - to overcome. Yet, here we are with a 4-year extension for Pagano.
The Colts, even in a season that was a massive disappointment, even if you want to explain away part of it because of Luck's injury, decided to stay the course. The Colts consider themselves one of the premier franchises, and those teams are defined by consistency. It is odd that all the teams that are either elite, or want to be elite, try to stay consistent, follow the Patriots model. The Cowboys have tried this by retaining Garret, same with the Panthers and Ron Rivera, who escaped firing after a 1-3 start in 2013, and has gone 34-10-1 since. The Colts see thamselves as that type of team, and have acted like it.
In the end, I'm not sure I have come to any comclusion here, which makes sense since there is no real answer. Teams have succeeded and failed at both. The Broncos, who I am sure view themselves as a top team, cut bait with John Fox, and hired the Team President's personal friend as head coach, and it somehow has suceeded.
The only main takeaway I have is what I will wrote about shortly as a quasi-part 2: why is the GM seen as a more powerful position above the coach. We have seen numerous instances of the coach getting fired and the GM being retained. Is that the right way to go. That really should be explored more. It seems the GM always wins the power struggles, the GM is the one that always gets to pick is coach. Should it be that way? There definitely is ample reason to thnk that may not be the best approach. Until next time, I guess...
Chip Kelly was on a short leash after feuding with Eagles mainstay's like Howie Roseman, essentially kicking all the Reid-era guys to the curb and getting full control. After basically all his moves turned our wrong, and his famed offense was getting figured out at every turn, it was only a matter of time. Still, Jeffrey Lurie is a patient man. He gave Andy Reid 14 seasons, and only let him go when they fell to 4-12. He stood by Reid as the Eagles lost three straight Championship Games (compare this to Elway firing Fox after seasons of 13-3, 13-3 and 12-4). He was supposed to be behind Kelly, but when he saw a cold, insular guy who's personnel acumen should be roundly criticized he took swift action.
But then I see something like Lovie Smith getting axed in Tampa and I wonder if even Lurie acted too quickly. Lovie Smith was hired in Tampa Bay to give the Buccaneers a sense of stability. They had cycled through two coaches in five years following Jon Gruden's firing. Lovie Smith was brought in to build a defense, which he did despite personnel issues at many key positions (will the Buccaneers ever get a pass rusher). Lovie Smith went 2-14 in his first year, but went 6-10, and started 6-6 in 2015. His team was on the rise, with Jameis Winston having an at worst decent and at best good rookie campaign. The Buccaneers were seen as a team on the rise - and now Lovie is gone.
How quick is too quick? This really is a tough question in the NFL. Generally when a coach is fired in three or less seasons, I often think it went too quickly. Firing Mike Mularkey kept Buffalo in neutral until today. NFL teams are quick to pull the trigger, and it is hard to say if they should be. It is hard to build a system, build a personnel base that quickly, especially when you are inheriting the wasteland that was the 2013 Buccaneers under Greg Schiano.
Tom Coughlin is likely going to be a Hall of Fame coach. He won two Super Bowls with the Giants in five seasons. He was beloved by his players from 2007 onwards. He gave the Giants an appearance of consistency. And let's be real, he was pushed out. You can argue he should have been pushed out a while ago. His team seemed to buy into the 'get hot at the right time' hype too much. They went from a team that made the playoffs four straight seasons from 2005-2008. Then, he made the playoffs once in 7 seasons. They won the Super Bowl that season, but that leaves six different years without meaningful January football, including bad collapses in 2009, 2012 and 2014.
You can argue the Giants kept Coughlin in too long. It really is hard to know when the time is right. The NFL is constantly in a balance between 'win now' and 'consistency'. It is odd that some of the more forlorn franchises are the ones that are staying with the plan. Despite seasons of 3-13, 4-12 and 5-11, Gus Bradley has gotten a 4th season in Jacksonville, a team that employed Jack Del Rio for 8 seasons. The Bengals stayed with Marvin Lewis after a 2010 season that ended with a 4-12 season and a discontented QB. He's paid that off with five straight playoff games.
The easy out is to say that these teams are cheap and keeping their coaches to avoid paying two coach-level salaries - and maybe there is truth to that. But maybe stability matters. Maybe letting your coach build his team with his players matters.
I am more forgiving of the Eagles axing Kelly as he had shown that he got his own players and failed quite badly; but the Buccaneers are not Lovie's team yet. Lovie Smith, as he was when he coached in Tampa under Dungy, is a defensive coach. His defense worked in Chicago and would have in Tampa Bay. Of course, the Buccaneers spent basically all their draft capital on offense, never gave Lovie Smith pass rusher to work with, and now have gotten rid of him.
This all brings me to my team, the Colts, who have decided to retain both Chuck Pagano and Ryan Grigson. Retaining Grigson is not surprising to Colts fans, but keeping Pagano is. Chuck Pagano is loved by his players, but seems to be disliked by everyone else in Colts managements - including the GM that he openly feuded with. He has an antiquated view of football that Ryan Grigson took amazing measures - like hand-picking offensive coordinators - to overcome. Yet, here we are with a 4-year extension for Pagano.
The Colts, even in a season that was a massive disappointment, even if you want to explain away part of it because of Luck's injury, decided to stay the course. The Colts consider themselves one of the premier franchises, and those teams are defined by consistency. It is odd that all the teams that are either elite, or want to be elite, try to stay consistent, follow the Patriots model. The Cowboys have tried this by retaining Garret, same with the Panthers and Ron Rivera, who escaped firing after a 1-3 start in 2013, and has gone 34-10-1 since. The Colts see thamselves as that type of team, and have acted like it.
In the end, I'm not sure I have come to any comclusion here, which makes sense since there is no real answer. Teams have succeeded and failed at both. The Broncos, who I am sure view themselves as a top team, cut bait with John Fox, and hired the Team President's personal friend as head coach, and it somehow has suceeded.
The only main takeaway I have is what I will wrote about shortly as a quasi-part 2: why is the GM seen as a more powerful position above the coach. We have seen numerous instances of the coach getting fired and the GM being retained. Is that the right way to go. That really should be explored more. It seems the GM always wins the power struggles, the GM is the one that always gets to pick is coach. Should it be that way? There definitely is ample reason to thnk that may not be the best approach. Until next time, I guess...
