Firstly, I am an Aussie who live in the US and is a Jets fan, purely because I have an attachment to the Newtown Jets back in Australia, that is all. So my NFL history is only 6 years and counting, but here is my first post. I am curious to see the discussion develop. Personally, when a team loses on a consistent basis, of course people and personel have to start to become accountable, yet it is seemingly a trend of the coach who is the one who falls on the sword more than most. This is all fine if the coach has not reached milestones within a certain time period, but what if the coach has a proven history and the professional athletes under his command are failing to deliver based on their history? There is no doubt there would be a million opinions on the Vikings current status, but for me, BC would not have been my first choice to set the team back to what the public expect the Vikings to do (on a side note, chanting "Fire Childress" is the utmost igonorance from the Viking fans, when they should lynch their QB who is not as young as he used to be). This is not just a Vikings issue, there could be up to 6/7 teams who are not performing as they are expected to and Dallas would be second in the que. (If your a betting man, put the house on next weeks betting because you know the Vikings will walk it in!) I think there is alot more behind the scenes that public will never hear about, but unfortunately, the HC and staff are the ones out the door first, when these overpayed players should be answering the thunder from the owners on Monday morning! The only correct (IMO) decision I have ssen of late is 2009 Eagles with Mcnabb and Raiders. Just my thoughts...
The head coach is ultimately responsible for the climate of the locker room. good coaches can keep everyone on the same page even when things aren't going well. See Rex Ryan last year, he had talked the Jets up all season and they went on a massive losing streak. He managed to stay strong and keep the team behind him by handling the adversity well. A guy like Childress goes to a post game press confrence and throws his hall of fame QB under the bus for all to hear. That criticism may have been correct but he handled it in a poor manner. If he had an issue he should have handled it in private not through the media. It is stunts like that lead to a coach losing the respect of the players in the locker room.
The Head Coach can only control the locker room if he has the total support of the team owner and management. Jerry Jones has undermined the Coaching staff in Dallas and it looks like Ziggy Wilf is following Jerry's model.
There needs to be a vision at an organization-wide level. You can almost think of it as a culture. If you look at the most successful franchises, the owners have a vision of what the team should be and hire the GM and coaching staff accordingly. The problem with this is many owners, and quite frankly many fans, are just too impatient to actually wait and let the process takes it course. The best example I can give of a team that has done this successfully is the Pittsburgh Steelers.
I agree. The Patriots are another example. Even though as a Jet fan, I root against the Pats, I give their organization credit for solid management.
The culture, the plan, the people all make up success or failure, no question; lets take the Vikings and the Cowboys for the most recent examples. I highly doubt any coaching philosiphies and playbooks have changed since 2009 for either team, so with that statement, when players arent delivering passes, when players arent catching passes, when players arent making tackles and giving away stupid penalties or any combination of a multitude of reasons, why is the "proven coach" the one who is delivered the firing? To be more blunt, why isn't the under-performing player benched? I don't need to go into any names, there are quite a few across the league as you are aware. Yet, the coach, who has been with a team and has proven himself worthy as a head coach with contract extensions based on performance, is at the mercy of players who, either are too old, don't want to be there, getting outplayed, lost on field discipline, etc, etc. If both these teams were 7-1, 6-2 right now, would the coach be the one who is talked about on NFL Network? I doubt it, the coach would be witness to a prima donna in the making. I dont see Andy Reid all over the news as being the reson for the Eagles success, so why is the coach the one branded (for the most part) when that same team doesnt meet expectations after 8 games?
I agree with you here. i think accountability in Dallas actually falls on the player. They were winning for years (albeit not in the playoffs), but they decided that they could turn it on and off and got lazy. They broke their coaches trust in their professionalism and now, they are playing hard because their jobs are on the line. Minnesota is a different situation. That is all on the coach. They do not have a solid locker room, players distrust each other and the coach, and the coach publicly throws players under the bus. The whole fiasco in Minn started when Chilly was courting Favre, and treating him like president of a country. The Owner and staff allowed Favre to be treated better then others not only in secret, but publicly. How can you tell ONE player, you don't have to go to training camp? You then tell all your other players you do. Thats where it lies on the coach because you elevated one man above the team.
Ok, blame the owner then. Nobody is going to fire those guys. I don't really buy this anyway because a strong head coach could still deal with a hands on owner and keep the team in check. The Cowboys had plenty of success in the 90's.
It can definitely be on the players in some situations, but the organization sometimes needs to make changes to please the ones who make them money: the fans.
