SDUT: Changing coaches doesn't guarantee a turnaround

[Robin Miller]

Changing coaches doesn't guarantee a turnaround

By Kevin Acee, Andrew Burer

Friday, December 9, 2011

There is talk among those with ties to Jon Gruden that the former Super
Bowl-winning head coach will seriously weigh a return to the sideline
following the completion of this season.

If so, then it is interesting that Gruden, of all people, provided a
voice of reason earlier this week.

Gruden, the man a contingent of Chargers fans believe could come in and
not only lead their team to a Super Bowl but fix City Hall’s budget
crisis and probably get a new stadium built downtown and on the Chula
Vista waterfront, in his role as ESPN commentator on the "Monday Night
Football" telecast said:

“Be careful what you ask for. If you don’t like Norv (Turner), you’re
going to have a hard time finding someone who can do what he can do.”

Funny thing is, Chargers President Dean Spanos was already familiar with
the philosophy, which is why he continues to struggle with what he must
do at season’s end if his team does not make a run to the playoffs.

Spanos has hired four head coaches as Chargers president, and the only
one that had a winning season in his first year with the team was Norv
Turner.

Yes, Spanos is disappointed, frustrated and deeply concerned about the
direction of his franchise. Those familiar with his thinking say it is a
virtual certainty Turner will be fired if he fails to duplicate the
miracle of the 8-8 ’08 -- wherein the Chargers came back from three
games down with four to play to win the AFC West -- or at least get
themselves to the brink by being alive come the Jan. 1 finale at Oakland.

But Spanos is also said to be waiting until the season is finished to
finalize his plans for Turner and General Manager A.J. Smith.

As he does so, it is appropriate, if not a little bit of premature
speculation, to wonder just what effect a coaching change would have.

History says, not much right away … and maybe not much ever.

For every Jim Harbaugh (10-2 so far in his first year as head coach in
San Francisco), there are several of Steve Spagnuolo (10-34 in three
seasons with St. Louis).

Of the 56 head coaching changes in the NFL between 2002 and ‘10, only 16
of the new coaches had winning records in their first full season and
just 13 made the playoffs in that first season.

The average first-year record of those coaches was 7-9.

Nine of those coaches made it to the Super Bowl since being hired, and
six of them won.

Gruden, Bill Callahan (Oakland) and Jim Caldwell (Indianapolis) went to
the Super Bowl in their first season in charge of new teams. Gruden’s
Tampa Bay Buccaneers won Super Bowl XXXVIII in San Diego after the 2002
season.

Conversely, 10 of the 15 current head coaches hired between 2008 and ’10
have losing records since being hired.

While the likes of Gruden, Dungy and Bill Cowher may seem enticing, of
the 12 coaches who have won a Super Bowl and gone on to coach another
team, not a single one has won it all with two different teams.

Jeff Fisher, who coached the Tennessee Titans in their Super Bowl XXXIV
loss and is known to be interested in a possible Chargers opening, would
have a daunting task overcoming history.

Among the five coaches to take two different teams to a Super Bowl, only
Don Shula and Dick Vermeil won a Super Bowl after losing the title game
the first time around. Dan Reeves took two different teams to a Super
Bowl, losing three times.

The coach who might finally bring the first Super Bowl title to San
Diego doesn’t necessarily have to be a proven winner.

Of the 32 current head coaches in the NFL, 25 are still in their first
stints as a head coach. Among current coaches, just Bill Belichick and
Tom Coughlin were head coaches with other teams before winning a Super
Bowl with their current team.

So just making the change doesn’t ensure change.

League sources have said over the past two weeks that if Turner is fired
he will be in high demand as an offensive coordinator and his
availability could even prompt teams to drop current coordinators.

Smith is also predicted to have multiple opportunities should he be
jettisoned.

All sources – personnel people and agents -- spoke on the condition of
anonymity.

It is believed Smith will be a candidate when the Oakland Raiders hire a
general manager job and also be in line for possible job openings in St.
Louis and Miami.

Raiders President Amy Trask and owner Mark Davis, according to sources,
will consult with former Raiders coach and broadcaster John Madden and
former Green Bay Packers General Manager Ron Wolf. The latter is said to
be pushing Reggie McKenzie, the Packers director of football operations.
But Smith is on the Raiders’ radar, and sources say he and McKenzie will
both be candidates.

Just this week, Smith’s name was associated by some in league circles
with the possible job opening in Miami.

Dolphins General Manager Jeff Ireland and head coach Tony Sparano have
two years remaining on their contracts, and there has been speculation
that a strong finish to the season will save one or both of their jobs.
But while owner Stephen Ross is said to have softened in his desire for
a big-name, big-money coach, the availability of Gruden could rekindle
that interest.

Just a thought: It is well-known throughout the league that Gruden and
Smith have a close relationship.

Or maybe Ross will decide to heed the general advice Gruden dispensed
Monday night.

Andrew Burer is a Union-Tribune intern.

.

[mail@nomail.com ReneG]

> Spanos has hired four head coaches as Chargers president, and the only one
> that had a winning season in his first year with the team was Norv Turner.

A monkey could have coached that team to a winning record.

[frndt...@aol.com]

Perhaps Gruden said what he said so in case he does come in, none of
the players in the Norv camp, if any are left, can think he pushed for
the job.

[Randall Turner]

Well, maybe. Then again, maybe he said what he said because it's a
challenge to find an offensive mind as good as Norv's.

[Robin Miller]

I don't think Norv has brought anything to this team. Assuming your
statement was serious, how has Norv demonstrated his offensive
brilliance? I think he's run a predictable, limited offense that depends
most of the time on pure physical dominance. When the Chargers had
superior talent, they won. Now that they don't, they don't win.

This, I think, is my biggest gripe about Norv--I don't see that's he's
even brought his supposed strength to the team.

--Robin

[PBDepot]

I think with a proper FB his offense would've been close to what he
wanted it to be (like in '07) You can blame AJ for that. But the real
problem is all the team fundamental errors and penalties over the last
few years. Nothing has been more costly and detrimental than those.
There's still a lot of good players left that can succeed with the
proper leadership, and Norv's proven he's not that man. Time to roll
the dice on the naughty & nice and see what Santa brings us.

[brian]

Well you have to admit that there are a lot less good players on this
team now than there was when the coach took over. The trend has been
apparent for some years now. As to blame, I have to disagree....

I think those penalties come because the player is getting beat
physically by a bigger or stronger or faster, a better player.

Coaching can't make up for many of these deficiencies so our "weaker"
guys need an edge and break the rules and get caught. Playing smarter
or different through coaching changes little in the war of the
trenches.

Today our first string players on either line are mostly only
adequate, our backups are by definition less than that. I don't
believe that a new coach through some "better plan" or emotional
coaching ploy can motivat these men to do much better than they are
doing now.

Once we became fundamentally weaker (through lack of acquiring talent
or because of injury) than other teams we began to loose. Coaching did
not change, the quality of the players changed and so that is where we
must apply effort. Not in wasting time changing things that aren't the
problem.

my $.02

[ScottW]

On Dec 10, 9:37 pm, Robin Miller <complex....@invalid.com> wrote:

> Randall Turner wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 4:55 pm, "frndthd...@aol.com"<frndthd...@aol.com>  wrote:
> >> Perhaps Gruden said what he said so in case he does come in, none of
> >> the players in the Norv camp, if any are left, can think he pushed for
> >> the job.
>
> > Well, maybe. Then again, maybe he said what he said because it's a
> > challenge to find an offensive mind as good as Norv's.
>
> I don't think Norv has brought anything to this team. Assuming your
> statement was serious, how has Norv demonstrated his offensive
> brilliance? I think he's run a predictable, limited offense that depends
> most of the time on pure physical dominance.

I think that statement is just absurd on all 3 points. Chargers
have been the epitomy of finesse and skill rather than physical.
Norv's offense is only predictable in a very small number of
situations (like first play which they run to get a look at the
defensive set against our base offense 2 WR set) or the FB dive on
short yardage. Other than that it's very diverse with the ball spread
around to every eligible receiver.

> When the Chargers had
> superior talent, they won. Now that they don't, they don't win.

Maybe you expect coaching to be able compensate for too large a talent
disparity.

>
> This, I think, is my biggest gripe about Norv--I don't see that's he's
> even brought his supposed strength to the team.

I wonder what team you watch on Sundays.

ScottW

[Robin Miller]

ScottW wrote:
> On Dec 10, 9:37 pm, Robin Miller<complex....@invalid.com> wrote:

>>
>> I don't think Norv has brought anything to this team. Assuming your
>> statement was serious, how has Norv demonstrated his offensive
>> brilliance? I think he's run a predictable, limited offense that depends
>> most of the time on pure physical dominance.
>
>
> I think that statement is just absurd on all 3 points. Chargers
> have been the epitomy of finesse and skill rather than physical.

Well, that may have been a poor word choice by me. I meant that the
Chargers have succeeded primarily by being more talented than the other
team, rather than as a result of anything that Norv has added.

> Norv's offense is only predictable in a very small number of
> situations (like first play which they run to get a look at the
> defensive set against our base offense 2 WR set) or the FB dive on
> short yardage. Other than that it's very diverse with the ball spread
> around to every eligible receiver.

There have been a lot of games this season in which very little the
Chargers did on offense appeared to surprise the other team.

In today's game, by contrast, the Buffalo defense was off-balance most
of the game. I thought this was a very well-called game. Norv even went
away from his almost-absolute tendency to run on first down every time.

--Robin

[Marvin Dobine]

On Dec 11, 7:00 am, brian <bfunk...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I think those penalties come because the player is getting beat
> physically by a bigger or stronger or faster, a better player.
>
> Coaching can't make up for many of these deficiencies

Oh ya they can. Witness what John Fox is doing with the Denver
Broncos. He changed the schemes so that they fit the personnel. That's
what a good coach does. He designs the schemes so that players are
asked to do things which are within their abilities.

For instance, when they went with Tebow instead of Orton they changed
the offense to the read-option because Tebow doesn't have the skills
to run a normal West Coast style offense.

Marvy D in KC

[Randall Turner]

LOL You're taking MY theory and just swapping out "the Coach" for "the
Quarterback"!

We depend on secondary evidence for offensive scheme sophistication.
We have to depend on analysts' comments. We can't do primary research,
because we don't have a full-field view. When Gruden is commenting
that Norv's offense is a model for other teams and that they dissect
his route combos for techniques, it's as close as we can come to
analyzing his scheme. Likewise secondary "money" evidence ala San
Francisco grumping about losing him, and how quick he'll get snapped
up when we release him, support direct analyst evaluations. And
finally, the fact that we've had a high-scoring offense for so many
years now.

And then on the other hand I've got you, a bunch of idiot radio
personalities, and the occasional print media column pandering to the
lynch mob. All the NFL guys disagree, sorry.

So yeah, I'm serious - he's a top offensive mind - and quit stealing
my theories!

[Randall Turner]

On Dec 11, 5:05 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Other than that it's very diverse with the ball spread
> around to every eligible receiver.
>

I was going to mention this when someone else brought up Rivers
throwing it to so many different receivers last year. Plays are
generally designed to open up a particular receiver (or set of
receivers) and/or put the defense on the horns of a dilemma, where
they have to pick their poison. Picks (rubs), clearing out underneath,
pressing to make a safety commit, whatever - doesn't matter the
particular mechanic. The fact that many different receivers are
catching the ball during a game means two things:

1) There's no obviously broken mismatch that we can exploit.
2) The offensive scheme is designed to diversify pass distribution.

It's not primary evidence that the offensive scheme is sophisticated -
again, we'd have to be able to see and break down the routes for that.
But it is valid secondary evidence.

[Randall Turner]

> my  $.02- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

holy crap, what a wonderful post! (wonderful == agrees with my
worldview)

[Randall Turner]

Marvin, I would be very careful about giving Fox too much credit for
the Tebow phenomenon in Denver right now. Denver is doing it in spite
of their coach, not because of them. Both Fox and Elway wanted nothing
to do with Tebow. (For good reason, I'd have agreed with their
rationale - but then I wouldn't deserve any credit for his success,
either.)

[ScottW]

On Dec 11, 5:11 pm, Robin Miller <complex....@invalid.com> wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 9:37 pm, Robin Miller<complex....@invalid.com>  wrote:
>
> >> I don't think Norv has brought anything to this team. Assuming your
> >> statement was serious, how has Norv demonstrated his offensive
> >> brilliance? I think he's run a predictable, limited offense that depends
> >> most of the time on pure physical dominance.
>
> >    I think that statement is just absurd on all 3 points.  Chargers
> > have been the epitomy of finesse and skill rather than physical.
>
> Well, that may have been a poor word choice by me. I meant that the
> Chargers have succeeded primarily by being more talented than the other
> team, rather than as a result of anything that Norv has added.

I think if you give Belichek an inferior talent roster at every
position, he will lose every game.
I also think it is ridiculous for you to presume you can sort out the
mass of variables of 11 players of varying talent, some superior to
the opponent and some inferior and judge that the plays that succeed
do so only because the talent of some of our players was superior.
And if our team has a superior talent matchup...wouldn't it be stupid
for the coach not to exploit it? Or would you prefer he prove to you
that he can win anyway by going away from our strength against their
weakness?

It's an absurd bias you've succumbed to.

>
> > Norv's offense is only predictable in a very small number of
> > situations (like first play which they run to get a look at the
> > defensive set against our base offense 2 WR set) or the FB dive on
> > short yardage.  Other than that it's very diverse with the ball spread
> > around to every eligible receiver.
>
> There have been a lot of games this season in which very little the
> Chargers did on offense appeared to surprise the other team.

Good defenses don't get surprised. Surprises are going to be out of
character plays and often high risk plays that may work once.
If you want surprises, the fake punt deep in our territory was a game
changer.

>
> In today's game, by contrast, the Buffalo defense was off-balance most
> of the game.

Successful balanced attacks will do that. "Predictable and limited"
offenses do not.
You can't have it both ways. Its the same offense that one week is
predictable and limited and another keeps the opponent off-balance.
Do you think the difference isn't in the offense but in the opponent?

> I thought this was a very well-called game.


> Norv even went
> away from his almost-absolute tendency to run on first down every time.

Another absurd statement that won't survive scrutiny of the playbooks.

ScottW

[ScottW]

On Dec 12, 7:19 am, Randall Turner <randall.tur...@att.net> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 5:05 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Other than that it's very diverse with the ball spread
> > around to every eligible receiver.
>
> I was going to mention this when someone else brought up Rivers
> throwing it to so many different receivers last year. Plays are
> generally designed to open up a particular receiver (or set of
> receivers) and/or put the defense on the horns of a dilemma, where
> they have to pick their poison. Picks (rubs), clearing out underneath,
> pressing to make a safety commit, whatever - doesn't matter the
> particular mechanic. The fact that many different receivers are
> catching the ball during a game means two things:
>
> 1) There's no obviously broken mismatch that we can exploit.
> 2) The offensive scheme is designed to diversify pass distribution.

The key word of this debate is diverse as opposed to Robin's limited
perception.

>
> It's not primary evidence that the offensive scheme is sophisticated

Sophisticated is subjective IMO, not necessarily a synonym for diverse
and certainly no guarantee of success.

Gilbride tried to put in his "read and react" offense in San Diego,
touted by some at the time as the most sophisticated offense ever
devised. It was also too sophisticated to successfully execute.

-
> again, we'd have to be able to see and break down the routes for that.
> But it is valid secondary evidence.

An offense that has plays which get the ball to every eligible
receiver including RBs and FBs and exploits all levels of the field
(short middle and deep), runs the ball both up the middle and wide via
handoffs and pitches, is IMO...anything but limited.

ScottW

[Randall Turner]

> ScottW- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL I think you're being pissy because Tebow's got your panties in a
bunch, Scott. Arguing that "simple" and "sophisticated" aren't
antonyms is a bit too much of a hairsplit for me, unless I'd gone out
of my way to make a point they were (exact antonyms). And I don't
think an offense that provides real-time options is a bad thing. It's
definitely not "simple".

We don't know if Gilbride's offense failed 'cause it was crap or our
dudes were gomers, either - same argument, coaching vs. (mental)
talent.

[ScottW]

Actually its the 1 in 3 (or worse) odds of getting a better coach
after Norv and the bizarre perceptions people have of his playbook.

> Arguing that "simple" and "sophisticated" aren't
> antonyms is a bit too much of a hairsplit for me,

It was "limited" and "diverse"....You tossed in sophisticated :).

> unless I'd gone out
> of my way to make a point they were (exact antonyms). And I don't
> think an offense that provides real-time options is a bad thing. It's
> definitely not "simple".
>
> We don't know if Gilbride's offense failed 'cause it was crap or our
> dudes were gomers, either - same argument, coaching vs. (mental)
> talent.

From what I read (which is just bits and hints over the years)...he
had to drop it to get an offensive coordinator job after the chargers
and has never tried to fully implement it since. When it worked it
was stunning.
When it failed, which was often..it was turnover city.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Wether they wanted to or not...once they went with Tebow they have
revised the playbook for Tebow and have put in a system they wouldn't
have dreamed of with Orton.

Denvers Tebow nightmare is just beginning.

ScottW

[Randall Turner]

> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They put in a option-pass scheme for Tebow, because that's what he
played (and is suited to play). <shrug> If this was Miami in 2008
springing the Wildcat on NE, yeah, coaching genius. Nowadays? Not so
much, and as the Tebow article posted here sez... they were just
doing it for form's sake to shut up the fans.

[PBDepot]

Exactly. And no one's saying there aren't talent issues or the like,
but that's no reason to excuse bad coaching.

It really does seem as if the game has passed Norv by. He's shown
glimpses at times of altering his style to fit what he's got, but he's
just so inconsistent with it and so often reverts back to the old.
I've been complaining about it since year one (believe it's what
ultimately cost the Bolts the AFCC game in '07) and 5 years now is
plenty of time to know for certain. At the very least Norv has shown
by not making the playoffs in consecutive years that he certainly
can't succeed in an unpredictable environment. And that's all San
Diego is right now.

[Marvin Dobine]

Respectfully disagree.

If they wanted to "Suck for Luck" they would have left in a pro-style

[Randall Turner]

> Marvy D in KC- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Marvin, I mis-cited the Tebow article in this forum instead of the one
that I actually read, but "sources close to Bronco management" said
just that - the Broncos were planning to start Tebow for a couple
weeks to shut the fans up, then planned to start the rebuilding
process. The Tebow phenomenon caught them totally by surprise.

I'm not making it up. :)

You want me to hunt it down?

[Randall Turner]

> You want me to hunt it down?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

'ere we go. quote:

"A few weeks ago, I was talking with a high-level NFL executive who
told me, based on talking directly with the Broncos, that the team's
original plan was to play Tebow a few weeks for the fans, and then
start with the rebuilding process."

article:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d824fa6bf/article/broncos-luck-is-residue-of-tebows-design-more-on-week-14

From Michael Lombardi, NFL.COM, so not a fly-by-night blogging site.

(of course I _will_ make shit up, but not this time. :)

[ScottW]

Maybe they should have looked at the schedule in front of them first.

Why did they bother to draft Tebow anyway? Convert him to WR - H back?

Anyway, this phenom is going to set back their rebuilding
plans...unless he somehow wins against decent opposition - which I
maintain Denver has not faced with Tebow at QB.

ScottW

[ScottW]

On Dec 12, 3:04 pm, PBDepot <chu...@paintball-depot.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:41 am, Marvin Dobine <glowst...@ravemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 7:00 am, brian <bfunk...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > I think those penalties come because the player is getting beat
> > > physically by a bigger or stronger or faster, a better player.
>
> > > Coaching can't make up for many of these deficiencies
>
> > Oh ya they can. Witness what John Fox is doing with the Denver
> > Broncos. He changed the schemes so that they fit the personnel. That's
> > what a good coach does. He designs the schemes so that players are
> > asked to do things which are within their abilities.
>
> > For instance, when they went with Tebow instead of Orton they changed
> > the offense to the read-option because Tebow doesn't have the skills
> > to run a normal West Coast style offense.
>
> Exactly. And no one's saying there aren't talent issues or the like,
> but that's no reason to excuse bad coaching.

You keep saying it as if talk makes it so.

>
> It really does seem as if the game has passed Norv by. He's shown
> glimpses at times of altering his style to fit what he's got, but he's
> just so inconsistent with it and so often reverts back to the old.
> I've been complaining about it since year one (believe it's what
> ultimately cost the Bolts the AFCC game in '07) and 5 years now is
> plenty of time to know for certain. At the very least Norv has shown
> by not making the playoffs in consecutive years that he certainly
> can't succeed in an unpredictable environment.

You mean he can't succeed with an immobile QB behind a really bad O-
line?
What a shock.
Could you just once provide some specifics on what the Chargers do on
offense that actually supports this plethora of platitudes you rain
down?

ScottW

[Randall Turner]

Well, the Jets at home would qualify as "decent". I agree that he
hasn't faced a NE-caliber team, but fuck dude, this is the one I'd
rather they DID win, don't jinx it!

[ScottW]

with Sanchez at QB? He's barely ok. Denvers D completely shut him
down. Without the points off turnovers this is an offensively
pathetic 1 TD game.

> I agree that he
> hasn't faced a NE-caliber team, but fuck dude, this is the one I'd
> rather they DID win, don't jinx it!

It's in the bag :).

ScottW

[PBDepot]

On Dec 13, 9:07 am, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 3:04 pm, PBDepot <chu...@paintball-depot.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 12:41 am, Marvin Dobine <glowst...@ravemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 11, 7:00 am, brian <bfunk...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I think those penalties come because the player is getting beat
> > > > physically by a bigger or stronger or faster, a better player.
>
> > > > Coaching can't make up for many of these deficiencies
>
> > > Oh ya they can. Witness what John Fox is doing with the Denver
> > > Broncos. He changed the schemes so that they fit the personnel. That's
> > > what a good coach does. He designs the schemes so that players are
> > > asked to do things which are within their abilities.
>
> > > For instance, when they went with Tebow instead of Orton they changed
> > > the offense to the read-option because Tebow doesn't have the skills
> > > to run a normal West Coast style offense.
>
> > Exactly. And no one's saying there aren't talent issues or the like,
> > but that's no reason to excuse bad coaching.
>
>  You keep saying it as if talk makes it so.

I'm still waiting for proof that Norv is a good HC. Keep talking...

> > It really does seem as if the game has passed Norv by. He's shown
> > glimpses at times of altering his style to fit what he's got, but he's
> > just so inconsistent with it and so often reverts back to the old.
> > I've been complaining about it since year one (believe it's what
> > ultimately cost the Bolts the AFCC game in '07) and 5 years now is
> > plenty of time to know for certain. At the very least Norv has shown
> > by not making the playoffs in consecutive years that he certainly
> > can't succeed in an unpredictable environment.
>
>  You mean he can't succeed with an immobile QB behind a really bad O-
> line?

Rivers mobility isn't quite the detriment you make it out to be, and
his accuracy more than makes up for it. Besides, the O-line hasn't
always been patchwork, but Norv has still always found ways to muck
things up. And your ignorance of those instances doesn't suddenly make
them irrelevant.

Remember when Norv idiotically wasted the two TO's and a challenge at
the end of a loss a few weeks back? Of course you don't. There's a
laundry size list of BS like that over the last 5 years.

> What a shock.
> Could you just once provide some specifics on what the Chargers do on
> offense that actually supports this plethora of platitudes you rain
> down?

It's not my job to continuously refresh your selective memory.

[Randall Turner]

> It's not my job to continuously refresh your selective memory.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I was waiting for specifics too. So, that's it? Norv called a timeout,
then decided to challenge a play, and he's a bad coach? Kevin Acee
wrote about that:

"He had determined before the play to call the timeout. Then they
decided to try the challenge, considering it a favorable risk/reward.
The play in question occurred on the opposite side of the field. Yes,
unfortunate. Perhaps avoidable. I think just bad timing ..."

Nothing about the two interceptions Rivers threw in the 4th quarter
that game, no, you're convinced he'll bounce back, but Norv is toast.

Logic fail.

[PBDepot]

Bad timing = Norv Turner

I know your blinders don't allow for it, but Rivers has already
bounced back. Please stop homering for a coach not you or anyone else
can prove deserves to be an HC in this league. It's a very isolated
view, and it's getting tiresome.

[Randall Turner]

> view, and it's getting tiresome.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You don't even understand what I said. You put the blame on the coach,
and attach no responsibility to the quarterback.

(How do I know you didn't understand?) welp, then you just did it
AGAIN - Rivers has bounced back, no love for Norv's offense.

Get it? Inconsistency == logic fail.

[ScottW]

Rivers accurate? He throws catchable balls but he's not in the class
of Bree, Brady, Rodgers for accuracy.
The difference is a matter of a foot.

> Besides, the O-line hasn't
> always been patchwork,

True, but if you're going to claim the starting talent in
guys like Clary or Hardwick isn't at least suspect,
you're just not watching.
Even McNeil when nicked isn't exactly a dominant player and his
neck is an issue more often than not these days.

> but Norv has still always found ways to muck
> things up. And your ignorance of those instances doesn't suddenly make
> them irrelevant.
>
> Remember when Norv idiotically wasted the two TO's and a challenge at
> the end of a loss a few weeks back? Of course you don't. There's a
> laundry size list of BS like that over the last 5 years.

If it's BS like that its all BS.
I don't think the issues you raise like the timeout/challenge are real
game
changers. You're nitpicking on minor crap and the chance of getting
an overall
better coach are less than 1 in 3.

>
> > What a shock.
> > Could you just once provide some specifics on what the Chargers do on
> > offense that actually supports this plethora of platitudes you rain
> > down?
>
> It's not my job to continuously refresh your selective memory.

Only if you actually want to make a cogent argument...which is
suspect.
If there is one thing you could and should be bitching about is Norv
insisting
to push for the big play and take shots while Domboy is getting
torched at LT as if he's got a QB who could actually move. But that
would be Martyballish.

ScottW

[ScottW]

No credit for Norv plugging a guy with 2 days on the team into the
critical left tackle spot so all the other backups
can return to their natural positions. A rather high risk move that
paid off.

The idea that two good games against teams that are in such disarray
as Buffalo and Jacksonville is what it takes to "bounce back" is a
joke.
What has bounced back is Gates and Floyd and the O-line.

ScottW

[Randall Turner]

> ScottW- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Whatever the particulars, though, if you're always blaming one party
and always excusing another for the _same_ result (offensive
effectiveness), it's bullshit. And if everyone in the world is doing
it, guess what, it's _still_ bullshit.

[ScottW]

Hacksaw says the latest rumor in SD is AJ stays and hires Wade
Phillips back as HC.

If they do that (and most callers thought feel Wade is little
improvement from Norv as HC, good coordinator that never made it as HC
though I wonder how Dallas fans are liking the kid Garrett)...why not
keep Norv as coordinator (they'll be paying him anyway) or bring in
Wade as DC and co-HC. Norv strikes me as the kind of guy who won't
let ego get in the way of such things.
Perhaps the two of them can get done what neither of them can do on
their own.

ScottW

[phlash74]

I would have preferred Wade be hired to Norv when Marty was let go and
said so at the time, but in my mind that was damning Wade with faint
praise. After the way he flopped in Dallas (though I do wonder how
much any coach can succeed under Jerry Jones nowadays), I really
wouldn't want to see this happen at all. I'd be in favor of Norv
remaining OC if he was willing to take a demotion, but I think he'd be
likelier to go elsewhere as a coordinator. I think the Chargers
really need to hire someone who's NOT another retread that's had
multiple chances.

I'll take comfort in the fact that Hacksaw's never been right about
anything in his life. What station is he on now? He was always
entertaining in his delusions. I also liked him as the radio play by
play guy.

Michael

[ScottW]

He's on 1090 around noon. Definitely take anything he comes up with
hefty dose of salt.

ScottW

[David F. Mishiwiec Sr.]

Hefty dose of salt!? Hell, Hacksaw is the National Enquirer of Sports
Journalists and I use the term "journalists" very loosely when it comes
to this character. His "best 15 minutes" is 75% bullshit, 15% innuendo
and about 10% stuff he stole from somebody else.

--
**********************************************************************************************************************************
David F. Mishiwiec Sr.

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic
into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting
measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension,
is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

~John Adams~, letter to Jonathan Jackson, Oct. 2, 1789
**********************************************************************************************************************************

[PBDepot]

You mean like you do with Norv? Funny how the whole pot-kettle-black
aspect of this seems to go right past you.

Yes, Rivers is playing better individually. He's been playing better
even before these last two wins. What does that have to do with Norv
and the way he's run the team the last 5 years? I don't get it. Are
you trying to say that Norv somehow started coaching better? Or that
the players suck so bad that they can only pull off his genius plans
against crappy teams? Honestly, I know you don't want us putting all
the blame on the HC and rightfully so, but ignoring his problems won't
fix the team either. No one has been able to come up with a reason yet
to exonerate Norv, and I doubt anyone ever will. Simple as that.

[PBDepot]

That's complete BS.

> > Besides, the O-line hasn't
> > always been patchwork,
>
> True, but if you're going to claim the starting talent in
> guys like Clary or Hardwick isn't at least suspect,
> you're just not watching.
> Even McNeil when nicked isn't exactly a dominant player and his
> neck is an issue more often than not these days.

Two former Pro Bowlers, one aging and banged up, the other just really
banged up. Yeah I take that into consideration, but the protection
wasn't that bad before the Raiders injured everyone and I stand by
what I said.

> > but Norv has still always found ways to muck
> > things up. And your ignorance of those instances doesn't suddenly make
> > them irrelevant.
>
> > Remember when Norv idiotically wasted the two TO's and a challenge at
> > the end of a loss a few weeks back? Of course you don't. There's a
> > laundry size list of BS like that over the last 5 years.
>
> If it's BS like that its all BS.
> I don't think the issues you raise like the timeout/challenge are real
> game
> changers.  You're nitpicking on minor crap and the chance of getting
> an overall
> better coach are less than 1 in 3.

All of Norv's decisions have far reaching consequences, that's what
makes the position so important. The subtitles of the way he works
took a number of years to fully grasp, but it's plainly obvious now.
The guy is not a good motivator, he runs a sloppy penalized, mistake
ridden team, and his game time decisions are questionable. While I'll
agree it'll be hard to find a good HC to run this team, finding one
who could at least match what Norv has done won't be. The bar has been
set VERY low.

> > > What a shock.
> > > Could you just once provide some specifics on what the Chargers do on
> > > offense that actually supports this plethora of platitudes you rain
> > > down?
>
> > It's not my job to continuously refresh your selective memory.
>
> Only if you actually want to make a cogent argument...which is
> suspect.
>  If there is one thing you could and should be bitching about is Norv
> insisting
> to push for the big play and take shots while Domboy is getting
> torched at LT as if he's got a QB who could actually move.  But that
> would be Martyball

That's basically my main concern. Norv just seems unable to adapt to
anything.

[Randall Turner]

> to exonerate Norv, and I doubt anyone ever will. Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

God, you're such a fucking IDIOT. I swear, if you were in the room
with me I'd shake you 'till your teeth rattled.

Of COURSE I'm saying "the players suck so bad that they can only pull
off his genius plans against crappy teams", strip the loaded hyperbole
and that's EXACTLY what's been happening! Then one week we add
Gaither, and Gates feels better, plus playing a couple bottom-feeders,
and the offensive scheme works!

This is like arguing with some KKK dude over segregation.

[PBDepot]

I figured that's where your problem lies. (btw, I never wear white
before spring.)

[Randall Turner]

> before spring.)- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

dude, a hoodie's always in fashion.