[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

chief31;225462 wrote:

Simple mathematics. No coin toss. No bookies. Just like you asked for.

Look… I am thrilled to have you back here. You bring terrific discussion.

I simply expect a man to recognize, and admit, a mistake. I had to do it with so many of The Chiefs’ players that I underestimated.

And I apologize for getting into the mud-slinging with ya.

But, when you are so quick to make comments like “Do you want some cheese with that whine?”, you can expect some backlash.

Maybe my saying “This is pure horses***” didn’t come off as jovial as it was intended, and I apologize for that too.

As for the regular season numbers, here is The Steelers’ division,(North/Central) from ’97 to ’06, minus the division leader, instead of just subtracting The Steelers.

261-346-1, 42.9%

That is still 0.5% above the average for all division (minus division winners) for the past nine seasons. Which was 42.4%.

Even during the first five seasons, where I did not contest that the division was sub-par, the rest of the division still managed 109-163, 40.1%. Still not quite pathetic.

I just think that, much like Berry, Edwards, and Cassel, you misjudged Cowher, and continued to hold a bias, instead of just biting the bullet, and admitting to the misjudgment.

I’ll leave it at that. You can have the last word.

You responded to my post, not I to you. You obviously wanted an argument. Don’t blame me for pointing out your lack of knowlegde.

Oh, how exactly did you judge Berry, Edwards, and Cassel? I know you’re a fair-weather fan and all, but remember that every post you’ve made is saved on the server here. Assuming you haven’t erased them in embarassment.

By the way, I did nothing but defend Cassel pre-season. Nor did I say Berry would be anything but a good-to-great FS (although I’d have drafted different). But I don’t expect you to be honest enough to admit that.

And I’m proud of you. It was brave of your to avoid a post pointing out your complete lack of knowledge. How brave of you.

I’ll give you the last word. To give me a real apology. If you’re not going to do that, don’t bother posting.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

chief31;225456 wrote:

Unhappy? Boy do you have the jokes and wisecracks.

First you send me emails all new year’s eve asking me to come back here. Next, you’re objecting to every post you can find. Make up your mind.

chief31;225456 wrote:

Perhaps I seem unhappy to you, because I didn’t hold onto the “The Chiefs suck” mentallity that you did, putting me on the opposite side of discussions from you.

Oh, is Cowher coach of the Chiefs? I’m beginning to think you’re just spoiling for a fight.

chief31;225456 wrote:

Ya see, instead of being afraid to show my face after the team made a fool of me, I stayed, had my share of crow, and enjoyed a very impressive season of Chiefs football.

I didn’t just hide away for the entire season, until the team lost in the playoffs, to come and start downing them again..

I’ve been out of the country since late August. I teach abroad every fall (and sometimes in Spring). If that disturbs you in some way, call someone who cares.

chief31;225456 wrote:

So Bill Bellichick is a poor HC in the regular season, because the division he has been in, taking away his team’s success, had a 47.4% winning percentage? Is that right? Just as you suggest that Cowher was a poor regular season HC because his division managed just a 47.0 winning percentage, when subtracting the best team in it?

You might want to lern how to spell “Belichick.” You look like you don’t know what you’re talking about whe you consistently spell it wrong.

That whooshing sound is things going over your head. Neither Belichick nor Cowher is a terrific reglar season coach. They aren’t terrible ones either. They’re just good ones. What separates Belichick from Cowher is the fact that Belichick doesn’t manage to fail in the postseason (most years, tonight’s game was rough).

chief31;225456 wrote:

Let me get back to you on this one…

Yeah, I’ll hold my breath.

chief31;225456 wrote:

8-9 in the playoffs is far from bad.

It’s far from “good” too.

chief31;225456 wrote:

About this whole Ricky Bobby mentality that you seem to have going on…

I figured someone like you might love that movie.

chief31;225456 wrote:

You do realize that “If you’re not first, you’re last” was a joke, right?

It was. It wasn’t funny. Much like the rest of that movie. What’s your point?

chief31;225456 wrote:

No. Really. Not being a wise-guy, it actually was a joke.

You know as much about funny as you do about football.

chief31;225456 wrote:

First five seasons in the playoffs, 4-5.

Yes, I know. I showed you the stats.

chief31;225456 wrote:

Next five, 8-4.

Um, the perception of Cowher pre-2005 is the issue is what we’ve been discussing. Minus 2004, Cowher was 4-4.

chief31;225456 wrote:

What math class was that?

Is it really that hard for you to look up Cowher’s post-season stats? Apparently it is.

chief31;225456 wrote:

I know. I know.

No, you don’t.

chief31;225456 wrote:

You are quick to point out that his team didn’t make the playoffs for three years. Clearly the mark of a terrible HC. 😆

When did I do that? I did pre-season. So did you. Are you now going to pretend you didn’t? I might just have to start calling you a fair weather fan.

But only because it’d be accurate.

chief31;225456 wrote:

No they didn’t. It was just you.

Oh, the rumors about the Steelers replacing Cowher pre-2005 all came from me. I didn’t realize I was that important.

chief31;225456 wrote:

You just don’t get a fifteenth season to prove anything, if people don’t believe you are a very good HC.

The Hunts obviously believed Herm Edwards was a very good HC. Were they right?

chief31;225456 wrote:

It just doesn’t happen.

The guys who employed King Carl for decades might disagree.

chief31;225456 wrote:

Ooo. Yet more quick wit, from the intellectual.

I’ve been called many things. But never intellectual. I did learn the term “transference.” Look it up and learn from it.

chief31;225456 wrote:

What positives? A terrible HC has no positives.

Every HC has some positives Otherwise they wouldn’t be hired. Even Herm had some positives (he knew his DBs, **** him).

chief31;225456 wrote:

Better? I’ll disagree. Equal? I’m with ya.

That’s certainly an opinion that is yours. Unfortunately, it’s a bad one.

chief31;225456 wrote:

Wow. More “big boy talk”? Who would have thought it?

Pointing out that *I* know what I’m talking about and “others” don’t isn’t “big boy talk.” When you are a “big boy” you’ll know the difference.

chief31;225456 wrote:

More of that “advanced” math, eh? Two Super Bowl runs, is not equal to one Super Bowl run.

Great. What are you talking about this time?

chief31;225456 wrote:

Cowher’s reputation is based, partly, not solely, on 2005. And it supported by over a decade of dominance.

Andy Reid/Marty Schottenheimer sorts of dominance. Which is more impotence than dominance.

chief31;225456 wrote:

Taking your team to the playoffs 9, out of thirteen, years is far from “futility”.

Tell Marty that.

chief31;225456 wrote:

And he kept winning that way.

chief31;225456 wrote:

Doesn’t it seem like it should be even more impressive that he did all that winning without a “top-notch” QB?

OK…

There are sixteen teams that make the playoffs. Of those, one will win The Super Bowl. That makes the average 6.25%.

So, by your beloved mathematics, that means sixteen trips to the playoffs should get a Super Bowl victory.

Cowher did it in only ten trips. An average of 10%.

Average – 6.25%
Cowher – 10%

Also, since two teams make it to The Super Bowl, that means it is a one, in eight, chance (12.5%)of reaching The Super Bowl.

Cowher made it twice (Should take sixteen years) in only ten playoff appearances. (20%)

Average – 12.5%
Cowher – 20%

He nearly doubled both of those base percentages.

Now, considering that all of the words that you have used to describe Cower as a playoff coach would mean “less than average”, and his actual performances have been far above average, this makes you wrong, as a matter of fact.

Now, back to the notion that his division was so weak, you brought the number 47.0% for the division’s record, when subtracting the best team…

Well, I decided to run some numbers for ya…

You tell me, of these divisions, minus their best team, over the past nine seasons (Since the last re-alignment) is the strong division….

AFC
North – 186-246, 43.1%
East – 195-237, 45.1%
South – 191-241, 44.2%
West – 176-256, 40.7%

NFC
North – 167-265, 38.7%
East – 204-227-1, 47.2%
South – 195-237, 45.1%
West – 152-280, 35.2%

Overall league average, minus each division’s winner, for those nine seasons – 1466-1990, 42.4%

You’re numbers for The Steelers, from ’97-’06, came to 47.0%.

Where does that rank in the list above? It’s second best, and only 0.2% away from first, isn’t it?

And, where does it rank against the overall average? Is it 4.6% better than average?

It is, isn’t it?

Aww, you finally did some homework.

One, we’re not flipping coins. There isn’t a 10% chance of winning a SB. You might want to discover the world of probability, lines, spreads, and odds. Or, you know, talent.

Two, when you say “their best teams” are you just erasing the division winner, or are you just subtracting one particular team from each division? Because, believe it or not, there’s a difference between the Redskins having a down year and a generation of Browns/Bengals/Jags sorts of futility.

Three, yes, a coach shouldn’t be employed for sixteen years without a SB trip. Who disagrees with this?

Fourth, the question isn’t whether Cowher had a good 2005. The question is whether Cowher would be considered anything by average if it weren’t for his 2005 run.

Fifth, if Andy Reid or Borv Turner pulls together a SB in 2011, would you consider their tenures a decade of dominance? Quit ducking the question.

chief31;225456 wrote:

Where ya gonna back-peddle to

chief31;225456 wrote:

now?

I may back-peddle one day. But it won’t be from the likes of you.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

slc chief;225417 wrote:

they hired the head coach of the only team that had a worst record then them.come on are you really trying to argue and say fox is a good head coach.if he was a good head coach they would not have finished with the worst record in the nfl.i dont care what excuses he has. your players either want to play for ya or they dont.they were not even competative in 70% of there games.and people think he is a good coach ha

Is that directed at me? As I said earlier:

“Fox is a good hire for them – in the short term. He’s not going to lead them to a SB or even probably a playoff spot, but he’ll instill discipline, help develop Tebow (he did wonders with Delhomme) and help rebuild the defense. Best of all, he doesn’t get involved in front office affairs. He wants to coach, not be in charge of player personnel. He won’t firesale his best players McDaniels-style.

That said, he isn’t the strongest coach, he generally does poor in developing offensive skill players, and his teams always seem to be injured/beat up.

I think he’ll have some nice 6-10 to 9-7 sorts of years while rebeuilding the team. He’ll then be replaced for someone younger who can make the Broncos truly competitive.”

He’s not a great coach, but he was a good hire for the Broncos. People don’t realize how bad that team is. They need someone inoffensive who can develop some building blocks on defense and offense. They need someone who won’t meddle with front office decsions. Most of all, they need a competent coach who doesn’t mind not being a championship contender – Fox is the best they could get.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

matthewschiefs;225409 wrote:

So you don’t think that a coach who consitantly gets his teams to the playoffs and consitantly wins at least one game in the playoffs is a good coach? I think your defintion of what it takes to be a good coach is far to high.

I think that a team that constantly wins it division (for whatever reason) is going to get to face a lot of 9-7, 10-6 happy-to-be-there teams in the 1st round of the playoffs. I think Cowher won a lot of division titles because he got to beat up on the likes of the Bengals and Browns every year. I guess I just don’t see the difference between a coach who consistently gets a win over one of those or someone like Marty.

Maybe the best way to put my POV: If Cowher had won the games he was favored to, they’d have 3-4 more rings. He was repeatedly and consistently upset in the playoffs by worse teams. That you can’t say the same of guys like Walsh, Belichick, or even those lesser guys like Vermeil, Shanahan, or Gruden. That 80% of his reputation comes down to the worst officiated SB in history

matthewschiefs;225409 wrote:

But what would one of your post be without me disagreeing LOL

I love it when someone like you consistently and intelligently disagrees with me. This isn’t a debate with a right or wrong answer, just different ways of looking at it. At best, all we can do is demonstrate the reasons why we can’t possibly agree, and ask whether that rubric is reasonable.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

matthewschiefs;225398 wrote:

No I wouldn’t really. Outside his first 2 playoff years he at least won 1 game in every playoff after. That’s pretty good. Consider how many teams like us have no won a single playoff game in years.

Again, this is where you and I divide. Pittsburgh kept losing in the playoffs to teams it was supposed to win against. Just like Peyton Manning has with the Colts. You and I just have much different defintions of what constitutes a very good QB/playoffs coach. Which is OK, obviously.

matthewschiefs;225398 wrote:

3 of his playoff loses are to The Pats. To of those came after the pats started there superbowl winning ways. Did Cowher ever have a qb anywere near as good as Tom Brady? I don’t think he did. Kordel Stewart,Tommy Madex? That helped Belicheck beat him.

It *was* his decision to go with guys like O’Donnell, Maddox, and Stewart. He (like the Chiefs unfortunately) didn’t see the value of grooming a young franchise QB He had to be talked into drafting Big Ben. Now, he helped turn Ben into what he is (on the field, anyway) today, no doubt, but he kept trying to win wihtout a top-notch QB.

matthewschiefs;225398 wrote:

I’m sorry how many divison Championship games has Andy Reid made. Sure he only won one of those games but only 4 teams a year get to that point. And he has been one of those 4 teams what 5 times. That’s nothing to be ashamed of. Many coaches would dream of getting that far. Turrner i agree is not a good coach. He has had the benifit of a good team that he walked into. Players help make coaches look much better then what they are sometimes.

Again, I think this just relates to our inability to agree what constitutes a very good playoffs coach/QB. My defintion is a coach/QB that wins the games he should win and even a couple that he should lose. Your is kinder than that.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

matthewschiefs;225391 wrote:

Peyton has become a very good playoff Qb over the years he has won many playoff games. I don’t think that he is a great otherwise he would have a winning record in the playoffs.

When you get into a playoff record I think that ANYONE that has a winning record is a very good coach. You are playing the best of the best when it comes to playoff games. Winning more then you lose is good in the regular season VERY good in the playoffs.

So . . . would you agree with me that, prior to 2005, Bill Cowher was not a good playoff coach, as he had a losing playoff record in the fourteen years until then?

My point, just in case it’s being missed, is that Cowher’s current reputation is entirely dependent on 2005. That people have forgiven him almost a decade and a half of futitility and playoff chokes based on one fluky SB run. That unless you’re willing to give him fifteen years and unlimited suport, you’re not going to win much with him.

Look, I understand your rubric. But I don’t agree with it. I’m not going to call guys like Barry Switzer and Andy Reid great playoff coaches. Hell, by your rubric, Norv Turner is a playoff win away from being a very good playoffs coach. I’ve seen Norv Turner, Andy Reid, and Barry Switzer coach and they aren’t very good anythings.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

matthewschiefs;225347 wrote:

I think peyton is a very good playoff qb not great. witch is what i said about Cowher. I said that he is a very good head coach. There is a little bit of a jump from very good to great. At least that’s how I look at it.

I think most people would disagree with you about Peyton Manning’s being a very good playoff QB.

But if you think he’s good, I understand why you think Cowher’s good.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

Bike;225359 wrote:

Peyton Manning has had very little support. From the HC to his OC to his recievers and RB’s to the defense, Its truely amazing that Manning has managed to bring his ragtag motley crew to the playoffs as much as he has this past decade.
Do you see where I’m coming from?

I like Manning. I think he’s, technically, the greatest QB ever.

But he hasn’t been able to translate his regular season success into playoff success. There are a lot of reasons for that, and not all of them are him. But the Colts have done their best to continually draft him top skill players. You ever look at the Colts 1st rounders since they drafted Manning:

1999 – Edgerrin James (RB)
2000 – Defense
2001 – Reggie Wayne (WR)
2002 – Defense
2003 – Dallas Clark (TE)
2004 – No 1st rounder
2005 – Defense
2006 – Joseph Addai (RB)
2007 – Anthony Gonzalez (WR)
2008 – No 1st rounder
2009 – Donald Brown (RB)
2010 – Defense

They’ve drafted Manning 3 first round RBs, 2 first round WRs, and 1 first round TE. That’s six skill position players. They also traded a 1st rounder for Tony Ugoh (LT) and used their first pick of the 2008 draft on a C.

That isn’t a “motley crew.”

Manning just fails to win in the playoffs. I think a lot of it is that he’s bad (well, not as good) against 3-4 defense, and most defenses he’s lost to in the playoffs have been 3-4 ones.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

chief31;225349 wrote:

Yeah. Let me rethink the math with a total disregard for logic, like you.

Or . . . just be correct. I know, it seems like a tall order. But re-take some high school math and you’ll get there.

And as an aside, you seem to be much unhappier now than when I was last here. Did you dog die or something? Or are you only happy when the Chiefs are failing?

chief31;225349 wrote:

How about Bellichick? Nobody has an issue with his success, do they?

No one has an issue with Beichick’s success, correct.

chief31;225349 wrote:

If we eliminate the records of the most successful team in the division, how does that division look?

2010 – 22-26
2009 – 22-26
2008 – 27-21
2007 – 22-26
2006 – 23-25
2005 – 18-30
2004 – 23-25
2003 – 22-26
2002 – 26-22
2001 – 30-33

235-260 or a 47.4% division.

WOW!!! That’s absolutely amazing!!!!! The same percentage, when you take away the best team in the division?

And if Belichick were as poor as Cowher in the postseason, people woudn’t be calling him one of the greatest coaches ever.

chief31;225349 wrote:

Who would have thought that you could remove the most successful portion of a group, and see that the rest of the group is less successful?

chief31;225349 wrote:

Mind-boggling, I know.

I know this is your way of trying to excuse the fact that the Steelers basically got 4-6 extremely easy division wins a year against the likes of the the Browns, Bengals, and Jags for Cowher’s entire tenure. Unfortunatle,y numbers don’t lie.

chief31;225349 wrote:

But, does it help The AFC North/Central to include that the numbers look even worse because of the fact that they had two expansion teams in there?

chief31;225349 wrote:

So glad I decided to to rethink that. Because it does make it seem like The Steelers were in a tougher division that what he Patriots have been in for the past ten years.

Nope.

And if the Pats were only being judged on their regular seasons from 2000-present, no one would consider Belichick a top-10 all-time HC.

chief31;225349 wrote:

So he was 8-9 in the playoffs, if you ignore his best achievement?

Yes, until 2005, Cowher was a bad playoffs coach. And if 2005 hadn’t happened, he’d go on the Andy Reid/Marty Schottehemier list of good regular season/bad playoff coaches. One good year has retroactively made everyone pretend Cowher was great all along.

chief31;225349 wrote:

You don’t want to credit his earlier playoff short-comings to a new HC learning? You’d rather just hold everyone to the highest possible standard?

If he hadn’t done better in his first five years than the next five years, you might have an argument. But he did do better, so you don’t.

chief31;225349 wrote:

Meh. Go ahead. He still did pretty damn good.

Until 2005, no one thought so. Everyone thought he was an underachiever.

Everyone on this board seems to lack long-term memory.

chief31;225349 wrote:

Cheese? Whine?

chief31;225349 wrote:

Ooooo. Good one.

It’s an oldie, but goodie, whenever someone is whining. Like you were.

chief31;225349 wrote:

All the while, you are just reaching for every straw that you can, to try and discredit enormous success.

Going 9-10 in the playoffs over fourteen years is not enormous success.

Andy Reid is currently 10-9 over twelve years. If he wins the SB next year, are we all going to start pretending he’s had a decade of dominance?

chief31;225349 wrote:

Acquiring a team that has dominated their division for fifteen years, just a year removed from a Super Bowl victory, with a track record of producing great players, to replace great players, and a DC that has learned to run the league’s best defense from the previous HC staying on board isn’t a great situation to start with?

To reverse your quote, you’re only posting the positives, not the negatives.

chief31;225349 wrote:

Maybe you’d like to explain what is a better situation to start out a HC career?

Off the top of my head, Norv Turner (SD) and Mike Martz (Rams) inherited a much better situation than Tomlin did.

chief31;225349 wrote:

I like Tomlin. But sustaining an existing success would be a whole lot easier than starting from scratch.

You don’t see the irony of this when discussing Cowher’s career?

chief31;225349 wrote:

No more? The 8 wins to that 8-9, prior to his Super Bowl Victory season (So as to discredit him) is like Marty?

chief31;225349 wrote:

That’s just plain wrong. 5-13 is not equal to 8-9.

The fact is that you are trying to suggest that he isn’t that good, by pulling out his best achievements and saying that he didn’t have much success.

It isn’t just how much they lost. It’s that they continually lost as favorites.

chief31;225349 wrote:

I have to think that it’s the chin, itself, that bothers you about Cowher. Because fifteen years of dominance doesn’t really lend itself to much criticism.

Or, maybe it’s because I can actually make and retain memories, and I haven’t forgotten Cowher’s records and reputations before 2005.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

Coach;225383 wrote:

Delhomme was developed???? Really?? He was chased out of carolina by the fans and went to Cleveland and stunk there too. He is arguably the single largest reason John fox never won a Lombardi trophy.

Does everyone here have long term memory problems? Delhomme was a Pro Bowler with the Panthers. He was a good-to-great QB from 2003 to 2007, leading the Panthers to the SB in 2003 (where he threw for 323 yards and 3 TDs, no interceptions, and a 113.6 passer). He played in the a tough division and kept the Panthers competitive year in and year out. He just got old.

John Fox never won a Lombardi trophy because (1) injuries decimated the Panthers yearly (they had the worst traiing staff in the NFL), (2) they drafted terribly, and (3) they refused to hold on to their top FAs.

Not because of Jake Delhomme.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

matthewschiefs;225343 wrote:

While I agree that it is a moot point I think that Bill Cowher is a very good head coach. He may not have had the toughest divison in football but when you played his teams you always new that you were in for a fight. You can use the weak divson for the regular season but he went to 2 superbowls and won many more games in the playoffs he was playing some really good teams there. he has a 12-9 playoff record that’s not to shabby.

But I don’t want a change in head coach. I like Haley he has done a great job as the chiefs coach and I think that he is only going to get better

Let me ask – do you consider Peyton Manning a great playoff QB?

Peyton Manning’s post-season record is 9-10.

Until the 2005 run, Cowher’s was 8-9.

Do you see where I’m coming from?

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

chief31;225341 wrote:

Pure horse s***!

That’s certainly your opinion. Unfortunately, it’s a bad one.

chief31;225341 wrote:

With the exception of the first few seasons, Cower was 96-63-1 from ’97 through ’06. And, in that time, The AFC Central/North was a better than .500 division.

Really? Minus Pittsburgh (ya know, the team feasting on the weak division):

1997 – 32-31-1
1998 – 28-36
1999 – 41-39
2000 – 39-41
2001 – 36-44
2002 – 18-30
2003 – 23-25
2004 – 21-27
2005 – 23-25
2006 – 25-23

That’s 286-321-1. Or a 47.0% division.

So . . . you wanna rethink your math there?

chief31;225341 wrote:

And that is allowing you to neglect his first five seasons, where the division was weaker. Over those five seasons, the new HC had a record of 53-27, with four divisional championships.

Really? Minus Pittsburgh (ya know, the team feasting on the weak division):

1992 – 22-26
1993 – 22-26
1994 – 16-32
1995 – 23-41
1996 – 29-35

That’s 112-160. Or a 41.2% division.

So . . . you wanna rethink your math there?

chief31;225341 wrote:

Now…

How about that playoff record of 12-9?

12-9 is a “miserable” playoff record?

1992 – Cowher starts 0-1 in the playoffs, despite being the no. 1 seed
1993 – Cowher loses in the Wild Card round, is now 0-2
1994 – Cowher is upset by San Diego in the AFC Championship, is now 1-3
1995 – Pittsburgh beats the 10-6 Bills and 9-7 Colts to advance to the SB. Where he loses. Cowher is 3-4.
1996 – Cowher beats the 9-7 Colts in the 1st round, but gets killed by the Pats in the 2nd, Cowher is 4-5
1997 – Cowher beats NE 7-6, and then loses to Denver in the AFC Championship, Cowher is 5-6
1998 – Pittsburgh misses playoffs
1999 – Pittsburgh misses playoffs
2000 – Pittsburgh misses playoffs
2001 – Pittsburgh gets No. 1 seed, beats the 10-6 Ravens in the divisional round and loses to NE in the championship, Cowher is 6-7
2002 – Pittsburgh beats the 9-7 Browns in the wild card game, then loses to Tennessee in the next round, Cowher is 7-8
2003 – Pittsburgh misses playoffs
2004 – Pittsburgh beats the 10-6 Jets in the st round, loses to NE in the Championship, Cowher is 8-9
2005 – Pittsburgh wins the SB. Cowher jumps to 12-9.
2006 – Pittsburgh misses playoffs

Hey, you see how it’s only 2005 making his record respectable?

chief31;225341 wrote:

Making it to two Super Bowls, winning one, (The other game may have been bought) is “miserable”?

Except for 2005, Pittsburgh never beat anyone but those teams they were expected to beat. Many of the games they lost they lost as the favorites. It’s called “choking.” Cowher was an expert at it.

chief31;225341 wrote:

This has to be a joke.

Do you want some cheese with that whine?

chief31;225341 wrote:

And Mike Tomlin, while he has done a fantastic job of sustaining the success that Cower brought, was clearly the luckiest man in The NFL when he took over as The Steelers’ HC. What a perfect situation to start with.

Yeah, taking over an 8-8 team with a QB who suffered brain damage in a motorcycle accident was a terrific situation. And do you have an idea how many starters of that 2006 season are starting in the playoff game today?

chief31;225341 wrote:

But, four years of excellence is, in no way, comparable to taking a losing franchise and turning it into a fifteen year domination machine.

Bill Cowher is like Marty Schottenheimer, if Marty had an improbable run to the SB his final season. No more.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

Look, I’m not Haley’s biggest fan. But bringing in Cowher would be a terrible idea.

I know the media sucked up to Cowher for a decade and a half, but he was not a strong game coach. He coached in the worst division in FB (AFC Central – some mixture of Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Jags, and Titans/Oilers) and ran up winning regular season records. But he was a miserable playoffs coach, only winning a SB in that miserable, horribly officiated Seahawks/Steelers SB. Mike Tomlin has done more in Pittsburgh in his four years than Cowher did in his whole tenure.

Anyway, it’s all moot, because Cowher will only go somewhere he has complete power over player personnel. And Pioli ain’t giving that up.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

4everchiefsfan25;225278 wrote:

I’am claiming you can have a HC that doesnt no crap about how to develop a QB. There are only a few NFL coaches that really know how to develop a QB. Thats why they have QB coaches because a lot of HC’s dont know how to develop a quarterback

The competence (or lack thereof) of a HC will *always* affect the development of a QB, espeically a rookie. A HC can shatter a QB’s confidence by yanking him around a depth chart. By motivating or de-motivating him. By making sure he’s prepared for gametime. By making sure he’s complimented on the field with the correct players. In practice.

If you’re just talking throwing mechanics, you’re right. But there’s a whole lot more to it than that.

[bwilliams]

Up

0

Down

::

slc chief;225202 wrote:

it was okay i expected a little more bridges did a good job though

Agreed. I thought the acting was good across the board. But the movie never figured out exactly what it was trying to be and SPOILER the twenty minutes after the snakebite was just padding the running time. Actually, a lot of the movie felt like padding (meeting the crazy doctor, Cogburn v. LaBouf shooting match, Cogburn’s decision to turn around).

Probably the worst Coen Brothers’ movie.

[Author]

Posts