Re: So does this mean that Cowherd was right?

Quote
zn

Quote
dzrams
Cowherd said McVay is going to get a lot of coaches fired. Sure sounds like that is the case. The climate in the NFL seems to have changed where teams have less patience for long rebuilds.

GB was not in a rebuild. And it's entirely possible it won't be next year either. They have Rodgers, they have a top OL (including one of the 2-3 best young LOTs in the league), and a lot of young talent on defense. Hard to guess about these things but to an amateur eye there may be enough there to get it going.

I am completely skeptical of the idea that with the right coach and ONLY that you can have an overnight turnaround. I will repeat what the evidence actually shows. Any overnight turnarounds people can name include a very strong presence of inherited talent.

I know people tried to finesse all this with semantic stuff about the word "talent." It means top talent of they type and quantity that has a certain critical mass to it. Usually that includes a qb but it doesn't have to--there are examples of it happening without the qb already being there. So I was not particularly persuaded by that semantics argument.

The way to calculate this is simple. Ask what percentage of starters were replaced. If you're keeping most of your defense and your whole offensive line and key star players, for example, then, chances are real good that explains why you won in year 1. If you don't win in year 1, you can still be a good coach--in fact most of the great coaches in history went through rebuilds---but you need to up the level of the talent. What would be preposterous (and Cowherd is just shallow enough to be this preposterous) would be to suggest that 2-3 turnarounds means your coach isn't great. Obviously any "theory" that dismisses Walsh, Noll, Landry, Belichick (among others) and closer to home examples like Vermeil, is not worth the breath it takes to expound it. That's my honest view.

....