Why Do You Fire A Coach?

I asked the following question in the post down below (the one with the picture of Spags in shock that we tried to run on fourth-and-one):

Discussion Question: Why does a five-point loss to the best team in the conference mean the coach should be fired?

I meant it as a legitimate inquiry, but obviously there's a subtext there.  We're all mad as hell about this loss, but clearly I believe you don't just fire a coach because he lost a close game against a team that to all reasonable observers appears to be far superior to his own.  My bias was obvious in the phrasing of the question and besides, everyone's still too pissed right now to even think about addressing that one rationally.

So let's try something a little different here.  We often get some pretty good discussions going around here.  However, one of the problems is that sometimes folks just want to rant and rave, rather than dealing with the discussion as framed.  That's cool, I get where you're coming from. 

But just as a change of pace -- and because this is such an incredibly important topic -- let's set this one up a little differently.  In this thread let's only have comments that are really on point.  If you want to simply bitch about Andy, please use the Spags thread.  Everyone reads all the comments anyway, so it's not like you won't be seen.

On this post, though, let's keep it to the following topic:  Why do you fire a coach?  (Note that the question isn't: "Why Andy Reid should be fired?"  Let's start more broadly than that and work our way down.)

Now I'm going to kick things off here, but then the floor is open.  And I have to tell you, it may not come through in this somewhat detached voice I'm writing in, but I'm absolutely devastated tonight.  You folks who are just Eagles fans have it lucky.  Those of us in the intersection set of Eagles fans and Penn State fans had about 30 hours to come to grips with the fact that while both our football teams still could have reasonably successful seasons, the big prize now appears well out of reach. 

Hell, the reason I'm still up writing right now is because if I go to bed, I'm going to soon after wake up.  And then I'm going to have to go to work.  On a Monday.  With the realization that football season -- the fun part, anyway -- appears to be over. 

Winter comes early this year.

All of which is to say, don't think I'm any less frustrated or any more satisfied with the current situation than you are.  But before I'm willing to start agitating for cutting ties with the most successful coach in franchise history, I damn well want to be sure it's the right thing to do.

So let's talk.

 - - - - - -

Gentlemen (and ladies, I know there are some), the question before the house is as follows: 

Why do you fire a coach?

As I see it, barring the truly bizarre events like that he's banging the owner's wife, it all starts with one thing:

The team has problems winning games.

That's pretty much it.  But of course, you don't just fire a guy because his team has problems winning games, otherwise no new coach would ever last four weeks with a turnaround franchise.  Which means you only fire a guy when:

The team has problems winning games AND you don't think the coach can fix the problems OR you think there's another coach who could do a better job doing so.

And that's it, in a nutshell.  Which I think is actually, generally speaking, not the approach most fans take.  Whenever fans argue that a coach should go, they always talk about the things he's done to this point.  They say he should be fired because he called the wrong plays or kept the wrong guys or went with the wrong quarterback.

But that's precisely wrong.  In fact, I think this point should get the indented bold treatment:

If your only concern is winning games going forward, it makes no sense to fire a coach because of what he's done in the past, unless those previous mistakes have for some reason destroyed his ability to succeed in the future.

And by future, I don't mean: "they still don't have a fullback and that could really hurt next week."  I mean something like: "the coach has so alienated his entire roster that the only time the players show any signs of teamwork is when they get together to egg the guy's house." 

Now I know what you're thinking at this point.  It's probably something like, "But he makes the same mistakes over and over and by now we know he won't change so OF COURSE we have to consider his past."  This is fair, although it's a mis-reading of my point, which is why I'm putting it out here for you.

I'm not saying we don't consider the full body of the coach's work before making our decision.  I'm just saying that, well:

Past decisions or performance only matter to the extent to which they can be used to predict future decisions or performance.

So the fact that Reid pulled the trigger on drafting Matt McCoy probably doesn't mean much these days given his drafting of Omar Gaither and Stewart Bradley.  The fact that Reid has never valued the running game enough -- and still doesn't, as seen by his bizarre decision to go without a real fullback -- certainly does.   

- - - - - -

So there you go, have at it.  Let's see if we can have a recommendation for Mr. Lurie by the end of the week.

Comments

[Eric]

Well, you're right that firing a coach opens up new problems. Are there good candidates out there that could do better? It's easy to say yes, but you don't know if that's true until you push forward with the decision. And it could end up being a train wreck.

But I want a leader of a team to admit that mistakes were made and changes are coming. Andy doesn't do that. He has his cliches and catch phrases.

Do you know what I find even more interesting? I read the Eagle message board. People have been clamoring for the fade for weeks prior to the San Fran game. What happens there? Andy calls the fade. Then people were clamoring for a wildcat. He runs the wildcat. It's like he has someone on the staff reading the boards with Andy asking prior to every game, "what play do they want me to run this week? Ok, let's run that here".

To me, it's very peculiar.

[Moe]

Dude, why would Lurie ever even consider firing Reid when all the games are sold out and merchandise sales are up ? Reid will NEVER be fired, unless the business side is facing problems.
There is no point in discussing this. If Andy ever resigns, Marty will take over as head coach Heckert will remain G.M.

Boy I would it love if a guy like Cowher took over. Someone who has won the Trophy as a head coach before and brings a different mentality and offensive approach.
Unfortunately, this will not happen.

[Supah]

You fire the coach when you think he doesn't give a legitimate shot of winning the SB in the near future (say, a few years, modified by the current state of the team). Most coaches should get leeway in Andy's situation because a good coach keeps a team competitive, really "puts his guys in positions" to win games. Combing the with a couple other factors (like lucky bounches and few key injuries), and a SB win is a possibility.

Andy certainly seems to do this. Last night, I saw a team as talented as the Giants that just couldn't put it together at key moments. Didinger said as much during his postgame - the Eagles stink in primetime and close games since the SB. The game was in reach in the 4th, but the Eagles just didn't have enough juice.

So, here's the thing. No matter how good a team is, it's going to find itself in games like this (especialy this year). If a team can't win games like this...almost ever...it's not going to find itself deep in the playoffs.

Maybe the Eagles can get hot in November and December again and squeeze in. But if that's it - if the Eagles can't win that nailbiter to get to the NFCC - it's time to fire the coach.

[BFH]

Everyone seems to have forgotten about the two challenges.

They weren't simply bad decisions, they were laughably bad.

I recognize all of the good things Reid has done and what he continues to do good for this team and organization.

But at this point we are all growing quite wary of his glaring faults. His in-game decisions are getting so bad he's becoming a punch-line.

It's difficult -- on the one hand I love the creativity in the red zone with DeSean. I love that they went back to the fade to Baskett.

On the other hand I think... "Wait, why am I so happy about that? It's been obvious to the rest of us for weeks".

Why does this movie always end the same way? Why does common sense always evaid Andy at the most crucial of moments?

[kuff6]

How about firing someone because they display a complete inability and/or unwillingness to learn from past mistakes? Or that you lose every single close game (which is, of course, not unrelated to the above point).

[Doc]

I like the way you laid down the ground rules for this argument Derek. Lets take this one:

I do think the team has trouble winning games (obviously) and I DON'T think the coach can fix the problems preventing them from doing so. BUT, coaches who can do a better job than what he is doing don't necessarily grow on trees.

Reid used to be an elite coach, and now he is merely a good one. At this juncture though, the Eagles need something better than "good".

I've always defended Reid & Co. given their successes. But those successes are rapidly fading in the rear view mirror. They've had basically one good season out of the last four. Four seasons is a lifetime in the NFL.

[Thorin]

I think you fire a coach because he can't build a winning team. Or because he loses the team and they'll no longer win for him (honestly, we may be there about now).

I think a lot in Philly agree with this statement right now:
"The team has problems winning games AND you don't think the coach can fix the problems OR you think there's another coach who could do a better job doing so."

What scares me is that that's exactly why they fired Buddy Ryan, and I remember how that turned out...

[BFH]

Derek -- I think you've done a good job of detailing the ideal reasons for potentially firing a coach.

But from an owner's perspective there are likely other factors. Even if using your determinants, Reid is that best choice... what if the fan base is so fed up with the guy that you risk losing business?

I'm not saying that's the case now, but that could be a factor in any owner's decision.

In terms of getting an answer to Lurie just based on your criteria --

This team clearly has a problem winning close games. I find this inarguable. And in today's NFL, you are going to play A LOT of close games.

There are some problems with this team that Reid is capable of fixing:

Where there is a lack of talent I think he is perfectly capable of evaluating that and addressing it. I think he game plans well and he certainly is more creative than he used to be.

I think there are some problems that are simply part of who he is and if you are going to keep him you need to understand them and be willing to live with them:

--He makes terrible in game decisions at crucial moments. This has been the case for several years now.

--He is terrible with challenges. Reid is a smart guy, and this baffles me. Maybe it's the guys upstairs. Maybe it's part of the terrible in game decisions. Last night it sure seemed like Reid was staring at the Jumbo before he, himself, made the decisions though.

--He never seems to get the clock management situation right. This is particularly frustrating in the age of videogames when every moron with a Playstation knows how to correctly manage the clock.

Is there another coach that can do a better job? Maybe. I don't think I have the energy for this one at the moment, but in my mind there are no sure things. Replacing Reid, for any reason, carries a great deal of undeniable risk.

[BFH]

Could it be as simple as this?...

When Reid can be deliberative, take his time, collaborate, and make a decision -- it is the right one more often than not.

When Reid is put on the spot, in a pressure situation, he makes the wrong one more often that not.

[shlynch]

As a Boston resident, I am inundated with Bill Belichick. The thing he does well is game preparation. He has a great game plan, and prepares his players to execute that plan very well -- and often with simplicity rather than complexity. AR has gone through spells where I believe that he did a systematically weak job preparing the team, but this year, I think that hasn't been the problem.

To me, AR/JJ's biggest problem is that they come up very small at the end of close games. AR is more guilty of that than JJ, I think; the defense seems to come up with big plays enough that it offsets its late game softness. And to that extent, I do think that AR keeps us from winning games. Belichick does a nice job of keeping it simple for his QB at the end, and he has had the good fortune of having a master of those situations in Tom Brady. But he has had success with Matt Cassel.

But given that weakness of AR's, it is only exacerbated by Donovan McNabb, who really struggles in clock management situations. A guy like Jeff Garcia could get it done. He could compensate for AR's struggles and run the 2 minute drill quickly, checking down properly and executing basic plays.

He did so again last night. It is one of those impossible relationships: AR and McNabb at once reinforce the best and the worst of each other. And I don't think that they can overcome the 'worst' side of things anymore. So for me, the question is, do you fire the coach or the QB? I think both would be immensely successful apart from the other, and I am sure we will regret whichever decision is made.

I honestly don't know for sure what the right answer is, but I don't think that 'neither' is an acceptable answer.

[Canadian Eagles Fan]

This question is meant to start in broad terms and widdle it's way down to an answer about Reid's job as Head Coach, and it was mentioned that personel should be disregarded. However, what makes the situation more disconcerting is that yesterday was a culmination of a few years of the organization's President over-seeing a re-modelling of the roster. The results: one hell of a pass-rushing Defence, with it's identity still coming into focus, warts and all; an O-line that can't run-block for our most potent offensive weapon; and receivers that have a lot of trouble creating distance between themselves and coverage.
The ideology of the same President allowed the Eagles to come into this season without a proven fullback, just like last season they entered without a proven punt-returner. These stand as both alarming disregard/respect for those positions and fodder for anyone wanting to make a case for how important those rolls are on a winning football team. The draft is whole other post.

The truth is, this isn't just a head coach, this is the leadership that has laid down the foundation this generation of the Eagles is built on.

That being said, in the good times I liked Andy Reid for his commitment to having high-character players and his cerebral grasp of how to build a winner. Now, we are not only ham-strung by bad in-game decision-making, but breakdowns in giving respect to fundamental roles that are used in every single football game. The pass sure can score points quickly, but it also gets the opponents D off the field to stay fresh. Meanwhile, our D gets ground into the sod for two-thirds of the game. The Giants had the ball for 39 minutes! A difference of 19!

The reason people are so frusterated can't be boiled down to one obvious 4 and 1 run(as maddening as it is). People are sick of having the run being a liability, both on O and D.

You can't win the Super Bowl if you don't RESPECT the role it plays in the game.

[GLS]

BFH posted what I came to post - In terms of the offense in particular, Reid shines when he has time to think and struggles when he doesn't. It also doesn't help that Reid has so many responsibilities with the team that he can't simply put in more time on working on his more glaring flaws, like clock management...

To me, the solution would be to get an OC that complements Reid's strengths in planning the passing game, the scripted plays, etc. -- one who is creative and focused in critical situations and who puts some emphasis on the run as a weapon rather than simply a setup for the passing game. But I think we're stuck with Marty, given his relationship with Reid.

There's really not going to be an easy solution, is there?

[bigmyc04]

Man, that post was a really winded way of saying, "I think that Andy should be given his walking papers yet I hate to break ties with his success record and the regime that we've, as Eagles fans, have come to know and lean on so which way should we go because I'm hopping angry and confused and can't take much more of this....discuss..."

Or so, that's how I took it.

Well, the way I see it is like this; ask yourselves these questions;

1) How is it that McNabb, in his 10th pro year or something, still continues to be unable to put consistently good, thorough games together?

2) What exactly has Andy accomplished in the four, count 'em, four years he's been the head coach since the Super Bowl?

There are many good candidates for this particular job out there...this roster is good...problem is; the driver of this roadster doesn't seem to be able to adjust his style to the ever changing races.

So, is it time? ?????

[bigmyc]

Uh, meant to say, "elaborate way of saying...", not "winded."

apologies.

[BFH]

When making a decision as colossal as a potential coaching change it's important to be deliberate. You can't let emotion dictate the process.

That being said... how can anyone not realize how absurd this is getting? Could anyone have believed that, after the Skins and Bears game, that Reid would let the fate of an entire game rest in the hands of the short-yardage running game again?

It's comically tragic, and I'm going to disagree with anyone who thinks that it's not important in this discussion.

[Ajay]

Derek-

Nice post. However, I think that the mistake you've often made regarding Andy's tenure here, which some of the other comments echoed, is that you've been incredibly risk-averse. Generally this is a good thing regarding head coach stability. However, the main argument to keep Andy Reid - "Remember the Rhodes era? Who knows if there's anyone better?" - is bad. If the main argument for keeping him is that we used to be worse before he got here then that's a weak rationale.

I think there are very clearly examples when a coach has "maxed out" in a franchise. It's not clear to me, looking at any of the evidence, that Andy will ever lead this team to a Super Bowl. He had a shot. He built this franchise up but can't seem to finish the deal. Sometimes you remove a coach when you aren't winning; other times you remove a coach when you aren't winning the big ones.

Just remember that a lot of people thought it was crazy to remove Tony Dungy in Tampa Bay given his past record of success. However, it was clear the franchise had gotten as much out of him as possible. I think the same situation holds true for Reid at this juncture.

[Derek]

Two quick points, then I'll back away again.

First, I don't think personnel should be off the table. I actually think that the core problem with this team is the lack of talent, not the coaching. Unfortunately for Reid, as much as we understand how the backroom GM duties are parcelled out, the buck stops with him on that one too.

Secondly, it's not a question of risk aversion. It's a recognition that Reid's track record suggests he's a better coach than the vast majority of the guys who have carried a whistle in this league. Which means it will be harder to replace Reid with a coach who is better than he is than it would be if he were, say, Marty Mornhinweg.

That doesn't mean it's still not time to say goodbye. You can make that argument and I really want to hear people do it because I think it's a necessary discussion. But a lot of this "Andy is done here" talk sounds an awful lot like the "Donovan is done here" talk from a year or so ago.

At this point, the people who wish Donovan wasn't still the QB are a pretty tiny minority.

Reid is a good, competent coach, but he has plateaued. He had his first two years of steady improvement. Four straight years of unrivaled success. And now four years of lousy teams. Without the lightning in a bottle magic that Garcia gave us, we would be looking at our fourth consecutive season with no playoffs.

The question is whether Eagles fans are willing to deal with the inevitable "one step back" in order to take two steps forward. If we got a new coach at the end of this season, next season would NOT be pretty (in my opinion). A new coach brings the semblance of "rebuilding". With a franchise QB and RB at or just barely past their primes, do we really want to entre rebuilding mode?

[BFH]

Derek -- I respectfully disagree that the biggest issue with this team is lack of talent.

Let me say this: If the fundamental errors made in the Bears and Redskins games were avoided, this team would be 7-2 instead of 5-4, and we wouldn't be talking about lack of talent.

It is not Reid the GM's fault that Shawn Andrews has some personal issues that seemed to come out of nowhere.

It is Reid the Coach's fault that he seems to forget that Shawn isn't out there and this iteration of the Eagles can not overpower a team on short-yardage.

On the other side of the ball, haven't we always thought that the Eagles defensive philosophy under JJ wasn't so much "stop the the run first" as it was "get fast, sure tacklers that can make a big play on the ball and on a blitz"?

Maybe those two things shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but under Reid/JJ's leadership that's the conclusion I draw.

When you continue to lose close games in the fashion the Eagles do, I find it hard to make the argument that talent is the issue. In close games little things make the difference. It's coaching decisions, it's fundamental execution, it's avoidance of stupid penalties.

[Tracer Bullet]

Let's consider this: This is exactly the team Reid wants and he's not winning with it.

Reid wants to 1) Throw the ball and 2) Rush the passer. This team does both of those things very well, despite their notorious inability to find talented WRs. Reid is less concerned about 1) Running the ball and 2) Defending the Run. This team is designed to get an early lead then unleash Johnson's slavering hounds toward the opposing QB. So far, they've failed to get an early lead, which means the rest of it doesn't work, and even in games where they've gotten an early lead (the Redskins, 49ers and Falcons games spring to mind) they've struggled mightily to hold it. The offense cannot shorten the game and the defense can't get off the field. And, lest we forget, the NFC East was crap for Reid's first six years. The other teams have caught up and he hasn't evolved.

After 10 years, it's safe to say that this team reflects this coach; his flaws and strengths are endemic to the organization. Considering that they've been mediocre at best for three of the past four years, it appears that he, and the team he's built with this philosophy, isn't good enough. He's taken them as far as he can. It's time for Reid to go.

[shlynch]

I don't see the problem as being lack of talent -- we had the ability to win every game we have played this year, we aren't being over-matched in terms of ability.

That said, I do think it is not worth discussing because AR effectively lost his GM hat this offseason. Seemed pretty clear to me that Banner/Roseman have seized the reigns there. They said in the past that the buck stops with him, but this offseason, that seemed to change. Thus, to me, the reason to fire him has to start and end with coaching, because that is all that he really has left right now.

[Thorin]

I think the Dungy Tampa Bay example is excellent here. Gruden took that team to one SB, they won, and then flamed the fuck out. Personally, I don't want that. I want a team that consistently wins and wins its share of super bowls along the way.

And it wasn't just Ray Rhodes after Ryan. it was Rich Kotite too. There were two attrocious coaching regimes before they found Reid. Everyone said yeah, it's time for buddy to go. But it took them years to truly replace the guy. And IMO, Reid's a better coach than Ryan was.

[Jason H]

I'm not sure how I feel about firing a coach at this point. Reid's record actually reminds me of this situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cowher

Cowher had a similar tenure in Pittsburgh. Very successful start followed by some middling years before finally peaking with a Super Bowl win. Can Andy Reid do the same? Maybe.

Everyone knows success in the NFL is cyclical with teams generally rising and falling over a 3-4 year period (with exceptions such as Colts/Pats on the good end and Lions/Cards on the bad end). The Eagles have definitely come down off their high at the beginning of the decade; though the talent level appears to be somewhat equal now. This team is not far from the top and a regime change has the potential for blowing everything up and starting over unless you can find a closer (a la Gruden in TB) who will make minimal changes to the scheme but get the most out of the talent.

But due to the age of players, you may be getting to the point where one last gasp is pointless and wholesale changes are needed anyway. At this point the Eagles need to upgrade FB, TE, OT, C, S, maybe 1 OLB and by next year possibly K. If you can fill 75% of those holes in the offseason, you should be able to take a run. If you can't, well how long will Westbrook and McNabb play at a high level? 1 maybe 2 years more?

[Eric]

I guess after thinking about it there are probably 3 to 4 tiers of NFL coaches.

Tier 1 are people like Belichick, Parcells, Lombardi, Walsh, etc.

Tier 2 is where Andy is. This includes guys like Fisher, Dungy, Holmgren, Cowher, maybe even Shannahan. 3 of the last guys have Super Bowls, but are not in that tier 1 mold.

Tier 3 is pretty much everyone else. Coaches that stick around a few years and have maybe one good year, some mediocre years, and some 4 and 12 years.

[Derek]

The dumbest coaching move of the night wasn't made by Andy Reid.

The Giants could have ended that game before our last four-and-out by picking up even one first down. They did not hand the ball to Brandon Jacobs a single time during that series.

Let me say that again for emphasis. Facing second-and-two and third-and-one, Tom Coughlin and his coaches decided NOT to use the most overpoweringly physical running back in the game today.

It boggles the mind.

And yet the Giants still won the game. But we blow off Couglin's boner because they won and say Reid should be fired because they lost.

- - - - -

After watching last night's game, is there anyone here who thinks the Eagles are a better team than the Giants? Anyone?

[Eric]

I hate when I can't edit stuff! haha It should be 4 of those last guys in tier 2 have Super Bowls.

[Ajay]

It seems we have two options as a franchise:

1.) We keep Andy Reid and hope that after his tenth season as a head coach in the NFL he finally fixes the problems with clock management, running the ball, etc. If he couldn't fix these issues after years two, four, six or eight, why would we expect a change now?

2.) We roll the dice and go with another coach. This could potentially be a step backward; it could also potentially be a step forward. But we'll never know until we try.

I simply think that we have players like McNabb and Westbrook who are really once in a generation type players; I fear we'll look back on their tenure here and wish we had done more to win a Super Bowl.

[BFH]

Oh, I know that boneheaded play-calling isn't solely under Reid's domain, and I recognized that too at the time:

http://www.igglesblog.com/iggles_blog/2008/11/how-did-he-catch-that.html#comment-138488164

"I can't believe, after the Jacobs fumble, the Giants came out and called three consecutive passes. That fumble spooked them enough to give up on their 17 ypc average?"

But there are important differences. One, Coughlin isn't calling the plays. Gilbride is, and it doesn't even seem like Coughlin has much input.

And Reid has a history of doing this. The Giants mauled us last night, and if we lose it on that last drive any other way it hurts, but it's different.

You can lose that game, but you simply can't do it by making the same exact mistakes you did early in the season. And it's not like last night the running game was working even a little bit. It was a complete failure before the last two plays.

On top of that, keep in mind it was under two minutes and they had 60 yards to go. Yes, that first down was a pressing need, but they needed a touchdown and they were still on the wrong side of the fifty.

Those two plays just showed a remarkable lack of understanding of the situation, what this team's weaknesses were, and what had happened so far in the game.

[BrianS]

Derek, I think the talent gap between the 2 teams is much wider than the final score indicated.

Particularly on offensive and defensive lines.

I'm still too mad about this one (The season being pretty much over by Thanksgiving 3 out 4 the last 4 years doesn't make me very happy) to really give an objective answer on Firing Andy Reid, nor is it my job to identify his replacement. (Jeff Lurie made a good hire in bringing Reid here, I think he can find another good coach even if it's not someone we're all really familiar with).

Somewhat sadly, though, I'm finding myself more and more agreeing with Slynch's concluding statement that the Reid and McNabb pairing may be better off if they're split up.

[benZ]

Because the Eagles have no heart. Sorry if that's harsh, but i can't explain why they're never... quite... there. it's classic Andy-- they're a "hair off". Well, that hair is inspiration, drive, determination, discipline, aggression, the intangibles. Maybe it's just #5, but I see a very jovial, easy-going, borderline lazy team that's loaded with talent and could be a dynasty. But every dynasty has a death grip. And we just toy with being great. I don't know what else besides a new Coach would bring us to that new level.

[Derek]

We don't have a safety as good as LaRon Landry. We don't have a linebacker as good as DeMarcus Ware. We don't have a lineman as good as Justin Tuck. We don't have a receiver as good as Plaxico Burress. We don't have an offensive lineman as Andre Gurode. We don't have a tight end as good as Jason Witten. We don't have a fullback.

We do have a great QB and RB. Asante may be the best cornerback in the division, but he's not an Asomugha type.

I'm not seeing the loads of talent.

[Thorin]

I'll take Cole over Tuck and a healthy Sean Andrews over Gurode. I'll gamble on Jackson and Bradley surpassing Burress and Ware with experience. I'd have taken B-Dawk in his prime over Landry twice on Sundays.

Is the talent not there, or is this just timing? and what does that mean for the coaching question?

[BrianS]

"I'm not seeing the loads of talent."

Reid's in charge of personnel, too, so I don't know that this exonerates him in any way (nor am I saying that's how you meant this).

Is it time for the organization to at least remove one of Reid's hats? If so, which one?

[Eric]

Maybe Lurie needs to unilaterally decide that they need to bring in an offensive coordinator that will challenge Andy or even bring in a guy and tell Andy he has little input during games.

[Sundar]

Why do you a fire a football coach?

The answer that bests serves this situation is that you fire a coach when their game plans are no longer successful. When the coach can no longer adapt to what it is that the opposition throws at him. Most of these coaches don't do much adapting to begin with, but the ones that do are HIGHLY successful (Bellichek). This IS the problem that we all see. Now, can we get a guy that can do better than Reid? I don't know, that's out of our hands.

[BFH]

"...We don't have a fullback."

Well, that got me to laugh.

Everything you said there is valid. We haven't drafted All-Pro talent in a while (deliberate avoidance of the "Pro-Bowl" term).

But is that really the difference in the four losses? In all of them the good guys had the ball in the fourth quarter with a chance to win the game. Doesn't that indicate that our talent is roughly equal? And if our talent is roughly equal, doesn't that mean that it's other aspects of the game (coaching?) that are killing us?

We have holes and we have strengths, they are undeniable. So does everyone else.

[BFH]

I'm one of the people who thinks the current power and talent structure of the NFL looks something like:

NYG
.
27 other teams, including the Eagles (and Titans)
.
.
.
.
.
Rams
Bengals
Chiefs
Raiders

Could we use an elite, game changing player like Ware or Burress? Of course. But I would argue it hasn't been the difference in our losses.

[Sundar]

The irony in all of this is that this offense is probably the closest to Reid's ideal image than it has ever been. Exclude Andrews' injury and you have a QB who may start off cold but can make all the throws and is cool in the pocket. An RB who can play anywhere. WR's who run great intermediate routes and are very quick. A great pass-blocking line (didnt allow one sack). It almost makes me laugh and wonder how many CLOSE games not just gimme games were won over the years because of Mcnabb's feet (plus arm), Westbrook's feet, JJ's aggressive play-calling, or Dawkins making a game changing play at the end?

I just wonder how many times those guys have saved Reid's job

[Derek]

> But is that really the difference in the
> four losses? In all of them the good guys
> had the ball in the fourth quarter with a
> chance to win the game. Doesn't that
> indicate that our talent is roughly equal?

Only if you assume away the importance of coaching in the first three quarters. Maybe the only reason they're even in those games that long is because of the gameplanning of Reid and Johnson going into the matchup.

Also, I think we have to separate the Redskins and Bears from the Giants and Cowboys. The Eagles are not at a talent disadvantage with the former, I think they may be with the latter.

[BFH]

>Only if you assume away the importance of >coaching in the first three quarters. Maybe >the only reason they're even in those games >that long is because of the gameplanning of >Reid and Johnson going into the matchup.

I see your point, but what do you think more likely...

A) That coaching kept the team close for three quarters and the talent failed at the end... OR
B) That the talent is good enough to stay in the game, but ultimately not good enough to overcome the boneheaded late-game decisions.

We do agree that the decisions are boneheaded, right?

>Also, I think we have to separate the >Redskins and Bears from the Giants and >Cowboys. The Eagles are not at a talent >disadvantage with the former, I think they >may be with the latter.

I can agree with this. The Cowboys, when healthy have stronger strengths (does that make sense?) than almost anyone in the league. The Giants running game is really a thing of beauty.

[BFH]

Well, tried to utilize the ">" as you did... screwed that right up. Should have utilized that handy "Preview" button.

[BFH]

I want to make this clear -- I'm not trying to take all credit away from Reid for keeping games close. In my mind the talent and the overall gameplanning are good enough to get this team to the playoffs.

Hasn't that always been the case in the Reid era?

The late-game breakdowns... heart-breaking and illogical... 'Boys, Bears, 'Skins, Giants... that have killed this team. And this isn't a new development in 2008.

[Steve P]

I have a strong preference NOT to fire AR. That said, something has to change. AR is as good or better than pretty much every coach in the league in everything that goes into making a team successful right up until gametime. I think it would be silly to throw that away. Unfortunately, he has shown absolutely no capacity for clock management or when to challenge a play and no signs of improvement for 10 ^%*&^%) years now.

Last night was, of course, typical. Criticize the two running plays all you want, I'm not sure they were the best calls, but the players still have to execute and they should be able to get a yard on 4th and 1 at midfield (where the defense still has to respect the pass. But, as usual, the clock/replay management left us no margin for error. The first replay challenge was as stupid as anything I've ever seen a coach do, and I say that without hyperbole. AR flat out threw away a time out (in a game, where it was obvious we would need them) with ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of getting that call overturned. That was fairly obvious from watching the play live and blindingly obvious after the first replay. If AR couldn't see it, there should be someone in the booth screaming at him to put the flag away. The second replay challenge was, I thought, worth making. After seeing the replay, it looked like it probably wqsn't going to go our way, but there was enough doubt that it was worth the risk of keeping it a one score game. So there's one timeout stupidly burned.

Second stupid decision was letting the clock run down to the two minute warning when they easily could have gotten a play off. Madden/Michaels said McNabb looked tired. If they were calling a running play anyway, that shouldn't have mattered (never mind the question as to why our QB is constantly "tired" in these moments). Also, from a tactical standpoint, doesn't it stand to reason that a running play for short yardage stands a better chance of succeeding in those circumstances with defenders rushing back to the line rather than after a timeout? Had AR done these two simple things, we may have been able to get the ball back with roughly 1:10 or so on the clock. Less than ideal circumstances, but still, another chance to score.

So should AR be fired? If the choices are simple yes or no, I'm starting to lean towards yes. But why, why, WHY can't the Eagles hire someone whose job it is to MANAGE THE CLOCK? The answer, I imagine is that this would be seen as some sort of admission of failure on the part of the coaching staff, yet AR had no problem delegating his play calling to Mornenwhig in '06. And HC/GMs routinely have their GM duties stripped from them. It's just unbelievable to me that this continues to go on. Even in the first half last night, after McNabb completed that ~20 yd pass to LJ over the middle, that was an obvious timeout situation, and he called timeout, but not before letting 6 or so seconds run off the clock. Shouldn't AR call that right away? Might that have given us another shot at the TD? In the close games, where this stuff really matters, the Eagles probably make AT LEAST two mistakes per game. That's worth putting someone on the payroll.

[Eagles in 2087]

Not to worry boys. You'll be winning your Super Bowl soon enough. Look at my handle :-)

[Paul]

Why do you fire a coach?

I agree with Derek in his assessment that the biggest reason you fire a coach is your belief that he cannot win games going forward. Obviously, this is a huge generalization because Andy will win games against the Seahawks and Falcons, and other inferior teams. And yes, he will win the occasional battle against very good opponents like the Steelers. However, can you honestly say you have faith in him to consistently do well against other top notch teams? I believe with his brand of football, you cannot. In this league you need to have a steady, balanced attack. Yes, the Eagles can get yards in bunches and sometimes appear to score at will, but they also have way too many 3 and outs.

Let's look at in a very general percentage terms. Let's say you pass it 100% on first down. Now, a good QB, which Donovan is, has about a 60% completion rating. So, 40% of the time you are looking at 2 and 10. Now, since we spend so little on our running game and every team knows it's coming, we generally run the ball on 2 and long which usually nets us about 3 yards, on average. So that means 4 out of every 10 series of downs, we are facing 3 and 7 at best. I hate to say it but the Giants, to me, were the epitome of play calling last night (sometimes). When they were successful the would run to set up the pass, which is exactly how you succeed in the NFL.

In closing, no I do not think Andy Reid is the right coach for this team AFTER THIS YEAR. I believe he is out-coached by other top coaches week in and week out and that we can not rely on him in the slightest to win a the big game. And like Derek said, that's the bottom line.

[meanguy]

here is my take on it: http://scrapplelog.blogspot.com/2008/11/ready-for-end-of-andy-reid-era.html

i'm ready for the end of the andy reid football era not because he is a bad coach, but because his philosophy and style are making me start to lose interest in professional football. with andy reid, winning is the only enjoyment you get out of watching a game. by design, the fans get nothing else.

andy doesn't let you in on what he's thinking. andy doesn't address reasons why things are happening. andy chooses to play the infernal worst coast offense. andy chooses to field a team giving up inches and pounds at almost every position on the field.

those are all his choices and are his choices to make. however, he has to lie in the bed that he makes. if he's going to choose to build a boring team and display a boring public persona, he must understand that winning and losing will be the only criteria. you can get away with some extra losses if you are entertaining. by design, andy's teams cannot.

i'm not ready to watch another rebuilding effort -- and that is where we are headed with the eagles loading up for the kevin kolb era -- led by andy reid. i can't take it anymore.

his teams lack size and physicality on both sides of the ball -- even his superbowl team was a finesse team. his offense bores me to death. i'm ready to move on -- and remember, this is coming from a fan who is constantly accused of being a reid apologist. i'm ready to move on.

[Smoke Dogg]

A lot of great comments here, I've really enjoyed reading all of this and I agree with most of what I've seen here.

I especially agree with Sundar. I think players like McNabb, Westbrook and Dawkins have been making Big Red look good for years. (And to his credit, Big Red brought 5 and 36) Even in the good years, I always thought the in-game decision making was poor, the play calling was poor and predictable and a lot of times I felt like A) The team won in spite of the head coach. B) The team lost too many games that they should have won, due to poor preparation or a lackluster performance by the entire team. (And a couple of NFC Championship games make this list)

I'm sorry, but look at the pre-bye week record and look at how lethargic and pathetic the team looked in some of those games. That is on the coach. The players have mentally checked out a week early and the coach could not get them back on track.

And as great as Donovan has been with this team, does anyone actually disagree that he could have been much better? When Feeley and Garcia have been in at QB, we have run an intelligent and balanced offense. With McNabb's incredible talent, I think he would have been a healthier and even more successful QB if Reid would have just learned from those experiences. "Hey, if I run a balanced offense, I can win even with A.J. Feeley.....imagine what McNabb could do." Instead, as soon as Donovan steps back on the field, even if he's not 100 percent, it's back to pass, pass, pass. (Except for the always predictable run on 2nd and 10, that usually nets about 1 to 2 yards.)

Like many have said.....a good reason to fire a coach is that he is either unwilling or unable to make adjustments or changes when things aren't working. In Andy's case, I think he is perfectly able, he's just not willing. His stubbornness has become far too much of a liability.

[Quest]

You fire a coach for these reasons:

1) Insubordination or actions "detrimental to the team" (see Al Davis words regarding Lane Kiffin)
2) Losing the confidence of the team (see Scott Linehan of the Rams)
3) When you have great talent but need a spark to get over the hump (Dungy for Gruden at TB)
4) Poor Performance (see David Shula)

Andy doesnt fit in any of these categories.

1) Andy is in full control, there is no chance of insubordination.

2) Losing the confidence of the team? Nope, his players are always playing their hearts out and are always play tough.

3) Need a spark? He doesnt have great talent, yes he has some great players but the others are nothing special. So bringing someone like Bill Cowher in to bring a spark wouldnt work. There are just too many question marks with this team.

4) Poor performance? He is in the elite 100 win club. The great ones always go through a down cycle (see Parcells, Gibbs, Cowher)
and Reid is no different.

Now if you want to argue about firing him as GM, then thats an argument that I can justify. Overall, he has not drafted well as other teams. Yes he has made some great draft picks but he has had too many poor ones too. He also passed over great players in the draft or traded the pick away. He has let some players go because he didnt want to pay them. He tried to get by with marginal players for positions that he thought were not important (see FB, see KR/PR). The list goes on and on.

[Gabe from BountyBowl]

Um, those last 46 callers stole my thunder.

What would everyone think about another ceremonial imaginary firing, at least on the play-calling front? It's almost two years to the day from when Andy Reid famously handed over the play-calling duties to Marty Mornhinweg. Remember that?

http://www.thatkidinthecorner.com/mt/thatkid/archives/2006/11/andy_reid_fires.html

Maybe it's time for something similar -- not wholesale regime change, but at least a fresh set of eyes on the playbook. Maybe they turn the whole thing over to Marty again, or maybe they give someone else a shot (Mark Whipple, this is your big week to design the game plan).

[middyfeek]

I'm not an Eagles fan. But I live in Eagles territory and I see all of their games. Here is what I can tell you as an objective observer.

Year in and year out Eagles fans overrate this team. This has been going on since the Buddy Ryan Era. They beat up on bad teams (of which there are a lot). This convinces Eagles fans that they're really good. Then they play a good team and it is the Eagles who fold.

Reid arrived around the same time as McNabb who, until he got hurt multiple times, was a very dangerous quarterback. Now it's obvious he will not run. Well, he was never that accurate a passer so, without the running threat, he's just another quarterback. What success Reid has had is attributable mostly to McNabb. Reid was never a good coach here. I've tried telling this to Eagles fans for several years. Only now do they see it.

Someone upthread said that the Eagles are as good as the Giants. They are not. I've heard more than one Eagles fan say that they are the most talented team in the league. They are not.

They're not a bad team but they're not a very good team either. Hell, there are no really good teams in the NFL anymore. The league wants parity and that's what they've got.