| "We are going to take a comprehensive and thorough review of our football operation to make sure we are structured for long-term, sustained success,'' Tepper said. "Our vision is to find the right mix of old-school discipline and toughness with modern and innovative processes. |
It's a good quote, and to be honest, an intriguing approach. It seems to be all the rage right now and I do applaud David Tepper for having the
conviction to make the unprecedented move of firing a coach like Rivera mid season to start the process right now, and not dragging his feet.
However, I have a combination of issues and questions about it, that I thought instead of spreading the conversation out over several threads, we could make a discussion that is a catch all.
I'll start with my questions regarding the quote.
1. Tepper wants an approach where old school toughness meets modern processes.
What does that look like? We have seen a couple of teams seemingly move towards this and have success in recent years, namely the Eagles and their last run, but do we have any proven example of sustained success using this model? The Eagles seem to be regressing to the mean right now. What does sustained success look like with this model, and how do we know that this perfect mixture is responsible for any given team's success? How do we know it wasn't just the stars aligning? For instance, the metrics helped the Eagles find Carson Wentz, but it was Nick Foles who won the Superbowl. Just one instance, but it makes me wonder.
2. It seems to me that the perennial playoff teams, the ones that seem to be in the playoffs year in, and year out, are the same perennial playoff teams that were doing it before the analytics craze. On that note, there was a thread yesterday where Sean asked a great question about the Steelers success, and why their seemingly traditional model of a family oriented business running the team is experiencing more success without having to change the model but so much. Terps posted a really interesting reply to it, I hope he doesn't mind me posting it here.
They've only had 3 head coaches since 1969, and each of those three coaches has won a Super Bowl. Pretty impressive. They've also had the same GM (Kevin Colbert) since 2000.
So we know they value continuity...but how did they arrive at these particular hires? Continuity for continuity's sake isn't necessarily a positive...does anyone think Shurmur would become a perennial divisional contender given 10 years on the job?
So let's take a quick look at their three key leadership figures these past 20 years.
GM Kevin Colbert
- 1984: BLESTO Scout
- '85-'89: Dolphins Scout
- '90-'00: Detroit Lions Pro Scouting Director
- '00-'19 (hired age 43): Pittsburgh Steelers Director of Football Operations, named the franchise's first ever GM in '10
HC Bill Cowher
- '85-'86: Cleveland Browns Special Teams Coach
- 87-88: Browns' Defensive Backs Coach
- 89-91: KC Defensive Coordinator
- 92-06 (hired age 35): Steelers head coach
HC Mike Tomlin
- 95: VMI WR coach
- 96: Memphis grad assistant
- 97: Arkansas State WR coach
- 98: Ark. State DB coach
- 99-00: Cincinnati U DB coach
- 01-05: Tampa Bay DB coach
- 06: Vikings DC
- 07-Present (hired age 35): Steelers head coach
So they hire young guys who haven't held a job at that level in the past, and once they have them they hold onto them.
To be a fly on the wall in their interview process... |
Now I'm not saying that there is no analytical, advanced metrics at play here... I've got to believe most teams use these tools in some form or another, but how much? And why do the Steelers manage to run a family business and still pump out a perinnial contender each year? Why don't they need a consulting firm to hire a coach?
Now, my issues with it:
Football, no matter how modern you make it, will always be a violent, emotional game played by human beings. The analytics may be able to tell you the probabilities of going for it on 4th down, or going for two, etc... But they will NEVER be able to tell you which Odell Beckham (for example) is going to show up every Sunday, or how a player reacts to injury, adversity, any physical/mental variable that can't be quantified.
Finally, Tepper is being praised sight unseen for his bold approach with firing Ron Rivera. I don't know for sure, but it has to be somewhat unprecedented to fire a coach who is 5-7 midseason, 2 games under .500 with 4 to play, and has been hamstrung by missing his starting QB all season. That really is a bold move. But what if Tepper is wrong? Tepper is a business man. Ron Rivera is a football lifer. What qualifies Tepper as a football mind? If Tepper wants to bring in these consultants, shouldn't he leave Ron Rivera in place until these said consultants can give him an evaluation too? What if Tepper is making a big mistake?
Anyways, thought this would make a good discussion. Look at me!
I’d bet those results are pretty bad. Reid, McVay & Pederson would be the best hires off the top of my head. Belichick, Payton & Harbaugh we’re hired prior to 10 years back.
Point being, you can do a lot worse than Rivera.
Often little to do with each other , those qualities.
The NFL is obviously a tremendously competitive environment. To me, the teams that have cracked the code in terms of developing consistently competitive franchises are the Ravens/Pats/Steelers. Maybe the Saints, Seahawks, and Chiefs as well (I'm a big Reid fan).
I'm interested in seeing how Tepper's plan develops.
The NFL is obviously a tremendously competitive environment. To me, the teams that have cracked the code in terms of developing consistently competitive franchises are the Ravens/Pats/Steelers. Maybe the Saints, Seahawks, and Chiefs as well (I'm a big Reid fan).
I'm interested in seeing how Tepper's plan develops.
Well said.
Either old school toughness OR use of advance technology and analytics.
Why can't it be both?
I don't think any advocate of technology and analytics in football is suggesting to do away with old school toughness.
I am separating Analytics an Technology for a reason. Analytics is not technology. Its an approach and a process. It is usually supported by technology. But there are many more uses of technology even beyond supporting analytics.
The Analytics approach is about ideas and testing those ideas. So you still need people with ideas. The technology gives you the ability to test a much broader range of ideas. It provides the opportunity to test if conventional wisdom produces the best results, or are there other methods that can consistently show better results. The technology allows you to crunch the data much faster and thus test more ideas. What you need are people who are out of the box thinkers. In the end, its all just an augmentation process to provide deeper insight and hopefully guide improved decision making.
Other uses of technology:
VR simulators can give players the opportunity to get more reps. The coaches and tech can program the simulations to teach the player the desired techniques and things to see in live action.
Video analysis of players in practice. Coaches can't see everything. Parameters can be coded into a system that validates if players are doing what they need to do to optimize performance.
Interactive playbooks for laptops or tablets that go beyond the simple diagram, they can show graphics how plays should unfold against various opposing scenarios.
And I haven't even gotten into technology for health issues. Detailed measurements of strength and burst (quick twitch) of specific muscles and joints. Using this to help players rehab, or even designing strength and conditioning programs, also player evaluation for FA and draft, etc.
We can go on forever. There are literally thousands of ways tech can help. And its not just computers, although the computers always help with the math and analysis. Again, you need out of the box thinkers to come up with all the ideas and ways the tach can help. Figure out the one that are truly impactful and push those things to the limits. Drop the ones that don't make as much of a difference. Its going to be an evolutionary process. So the longer you wait to get started, the farther behind the evolutionary ladder you are...
You can do all this and STILL maintain old school toughness in your coaches, but give them tools that make what they want to get more effective. I think a lot of this is more and more critical with the CBAs and the fact that proactive time is more and more limited.
If that's what you want, let the technology help you find those players and avoid the ones that are more finesse. Let your strength and conditioning build those players to meet the demands. Give the players the learning tools to execute that approach...
It's not an either/or proposition.
I’d bet those results are pretty bad. Reid, McVay & Pederson would be the best hires off the top of my head. Belichick, Payton & Harbaugh we’re hired prior to 10 years back.
Point being, you can do a lot worse than Rivera.
I think the goal should be to do better than Rivera and hit a HR. I know BB is not walking through the doors of Jints Central while he's still alive - that ship has sailed - but I think with the proper due diligence we could strike gold. Which is why Shurmur should by fired as soon as possible to begin the search. That is why Tepper's move to fire Rivera is smart because he can get right into that evaluation.
To be clear, I don't mind Rivera being in the mix. But he's shouldn't be in the high valued target zone. Too many question marks in his resume...
And, frankly, finding the right coach only solves part of the problem. The larger problem is in management/scouting.
That's more Joe Brady and his wizardry getting Burrow to look like Joe Montana... ;)
Quote:
But, I’d be interested to see the results of every head coach hired in the last 10 years. What was their record, how many years were they employed, playoff appearances, etc.
I’d bet those results are pretty bad. Reid, McVay & Pederson would be the best hires off the top of my head. Belichick, Payton & Harbaugh we’re hired prior to 10 years back.
Point being, you can do a lot worse than Rivera.
I think the goal should be to do better than Rivera and hit a HR. I know BB is not walking through the doors of Jints Central while he's still alive - that ship has sailed - but I think with the proper due diligence we could strike gold. Which is why Shurmur should by fired as soon as possible to begin the search. That is why Tepper's move to fire Rivera is smart because he can get right into that evaluation.
To be clear, I don't mind Rivera being in the mix. But he's shouldn't be in the high valued target zone. Too many question marks in his resume...
And, frankly, finding the right coach only solves part of the problem. The larger problem is in management/scouting.
I agree with above thoughts as well bw. Shurmur is a bit a trainwreck but way too much of BBI blame lately has been funneling to him...clearly needs to be spread around much more broadly
Ignore all that shit.
10-34 does not work for me.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Results, that is all I really care about.
Fucking win or GTFO.
It sucks to suck.
the CBAs and the fact that practice time is more and more limited.
'86 team:
LT
BANKS
CARSON
BAVARO
SIMMS
MORRIS
2007 TEAM
MANNING
PLAX
STRAHAN
TUCK
WEBSTER
ROBBINS
SNEE
Who the fuck does this team have that can sniff the jocks of those guys?
Barkley, and that's it for now until some of the young defenders step up.
Peppers might ascend to that level, Williams and Lawrence also, maybe Hernandez becomes another Snee. Sheppard is very good when healthy, but his long term health is very much in question. Engram has shown only glimpses.
This team is a long way off in personnel and that's neither Gettleman's nor Shurmur's fault.
However, I know there is a good chance that won’t happen. Gettleman took on massive dead cap money this year & drafted Daniel Jones at #6 last April. Changing course 9 months later is unlikely.
I believe a huge part of our problem the last 6 years has been a lack of harmony between GM & HC. I don’t think Reese & Coughlin were on the same page. It never made sense to me that Shurmur was the guy after hearing Gettleman describe defensive minded head coaches. Gettleman doesn’t feel like a offensive specialist HC type GM. I don’t think it’s a good fit. I believe Gettleman wanted Patricia.
I do think Gettleman-Rivera would fit the best in terms of GM/HC philosophy, the best in a long term with this franchise. If Gettleman will be retained which I think is probably the case, I think pairing Rivera with him makes the most sense.
I don't think anybody understands your comment. Seems out of context.
What strategy? Who is getting punched in the mouth?
Only having 3 out of 9 winning seasons in Carolina jumps out. While Rivera's strength is D, in those 9 seasons Carolina only finished inside the top third in the league in 3X in PPG allowed. And he certainly wasn't short on talent on that side of the ball.
As I said earlier, I think we can throw Rivera into the mix as a possible HC candidate. That's fine. But let's fire Shurmur now and begin a real deep dive to find THE best candidates. And not settle for someone who is slightly above average.
'86 team:
LT
BANKS
CARSON
BAVARO
SIMMS
MORRIS
2007 TEAM
MANNING
PLAX
STRAHAN
TUCK
WEBSTER
ROBBINS
SNEE
Who the fuck does this team have that can sniff the jocks of those guys?
Barkley, and that's it for now until some of the young defenders step up.
Peppers might ascend to that level, Williams and Lawrence also, maybe Hernandez becomes another Snee. Sheppard is very good when healthy, but his long term health is very much in question. Engram has shown only glimpses.
This team is a long way off in personnel and that's neither Gettleman's nor Shurmur's fault.
Gettlemans free agents trades and drafts in that time frame have yielded pitiful results. In two years the team is at best the same talent wise as when he took over after 2017.
They were always super prepared. They always asked the tough questions, never settled for lazy answers. All views were backed up with facts. Where facts were lacking, and assumptions necessary - they were clearly stated. They were very comfortable with uncertainty - plenty of scenario planning for different outcome branches.
When Tepper says he wants toughness and analytics - he's talking about himself. His guys had their shit together because they needed to defend their investment thesis to Tepper and their colleagues. ACCOUNTABILITY>
Tepper was by no means an expert on every one of their investments. BUT HE KNEW IF HIS GUYS KNEW THEIR SHIT. He won't be Snyder - he won't be the know it all. BUT he will demand that every decision made by his new staff is not only the best possible decision - but each decision fits within a cohesive well thought out strategy.
Quote:
You get punched in the mouth !
I don't think anybody understands your comment. Seems out of context.
What strategy? Who is getting punched in the mouth?
Mike Tyson - look it up
Quote:
In comment 14704618 morrison40 said:
Quote:
You get punched in the mouth !
I don't think anybody understands your comment. Seems out of context.
What strategy? Who is getting punched in the mouth?
Mike Tyson - look it up
Yeah, ok, I remember Tyson saying that...
So what strategy was morrison referring to?
They were always super prepared. They always asked the tough questions, never settled for lazy answers. All views were backed up with facts. Where facts were lacking, and assumptions necessary - they were clearly stated. They were very comfortable with uncertainty - plenty of scenario planning for different outcome branches.
When Tepper says he wants toughness and analytics - he's talking about himself. His guys had their shit together because they needed to defend their investment thesis to Tepper and their colleagues. ACCOUNTABILITY>
Tepper was by no means an expert on every one of their investments. BUT HE KNEW IF HIS GUYS KNEW THEIR SHIT. He won't be Snyder - he won't be the know it all. BUT he will demand that every decision made by his new staff is not only the best possible decision - but each decision fits within a cohesive well thought out strategy.
I'd be curious on if you could elaborate on your dealings with them?
I can understand, if not.
Quote:
In comment 14704618 morrison40 said:
Quote:
You get punched in the mouth !
I don't think anybody understands your comment. Seems out of context.
What strategy? Who is getting punched in the mouth?
Mike Tyson - look it up
Co opted by Strahan.
If anyone is getting punched in the mouth and unable to execute their plan it’s Gettleman