Why do new coaches overhaul rosters?

[PeterDude]

Because they think they're are all smarter than the coaches who preceded them, and being faith based, McClappity is even more stubborn and ignorant than most.  If he prays asking for "guidance" then no wonder why the Bills suck so bad...

Edited October 22, 2018 by PeterDude

[Thurman#1]

19 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Goff was considered a total bust before McVay.

 

 

Yeah, by people who are silly enough to think you can judge a QB by his rookie year. People who think that are very often simply wrong.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Lmao.

 

Its the fans fault? 

 

 

 

It's the fans fault that the team has sucked for a long time? Nope. That's on the people who created those rosters, hired the coaches, etc. Guys like Marv as GM, Whaley, Nix, etc.

 

It's the fans fault that the fans own expectations for turnaround time in the current conditions are unrealistic? 

 

Yes siree Bob.

 

Not that all fans were suffering from the overoptimism. But obviously plenty did.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Bangarang]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

The Ram and Eagles were not rebuilds. They were reloads. Snead's been the GM in L.A. since 2012, building pretty consistently. Both teams brought in brand new franchise QBs before these miraculous "immediate ... turnarounds." Both had GMs who'd been in place. GMs don't generally get the chance to rebuild their own squads, not unless they've won a Super Bowl or two anyway. A rebuild says the team isn't good enough and won't be. A GM saying that about his own roster is grading his own performance poorly.

 

Both teams brought in hopeful franchise QBs. Goff was not looking like the QB he is today until McVay came to town.

 

The Rams won 4 games before McVay came in and they can quickly “reload” and immediately win 11 games. However, we won 8 games the year before McD comes to town and 9 games his first year but we have to completely tear it down and start a rebuild that will take years? 

 

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

Those teams had been building for quite a while. Poor arguments that it doesn't take 4 or 5 years to build a team.

 

And what have we been doing? We’ve been a bad to mediocre team for several years now. 

 

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

As for the Chiefs didn't they nearly replace everyone very very quickly? And their turnaround was all Reid? Didn't have anything to do with replacing Matt Cassel with Alex Smith? Or with Crennel pretty much losing the locker room? I actually do think that Reid is one of the very very few coaches who actually do make a major difference. But Reid changed a lot of personnel, particularly on the offense.

 

So you disagree that teams can’t be turned around quickly and give the example of Reid who you say turned the Chiefs around quickly? Okay...

 

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

I'm looking at the offensive starters between the Crennel meltdown in 2012 and Reid's rosters and there was major turnover beyond dumping Cassel for a very capable veteran QB in Alex Smith.

 

Thanks for helping to prove my point that major turnover doesn’t require 4-5 years. 

[MAJBobby]

Old school coaches know that a tear down project will normally buy them 3 years faith in them. 

 

Just like it is here

[BigBuff423]

9 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Old school coaches know that a tear down project will normally buy them 3 years faith in them. 

 

Just like it is here

 

But to be fair - and I'm frustrated like many of us are with the current state of the Bills - if this second year looked as bad as it is, AND last year was something similar to this year, then I think you'd have a point and could make the case that McD is on the hot seat. But, by marginally making it into the playoffs with so much turnover - yes, they did it themselves but this point has been beaten to death about getting healthy under the Cap - it shows there is real potential and promise of a more permanent up-swing in the years to come. 

 

Believe me, I'm frustrated and disappointed with how hard it is to watch the putrid demonstration weekly for what used to be a proud franchise. But, constantly turning over and over isn't good either. So, at this point I think you have to give McD and Beane until this point next year to see what happens. I really hate that....it turns my stomach. But this year was all about developing the Rookie QB and MLB and building for next season. That hasn't changed even though watching it is a bit like torture. 

 

Side note: FWIW, if it were me, I'd trade for Carr and Cooper if for nothing else than to show the NFL community I want to win so when FA starts, they can look to the good, young D and the moves made to show real commitment to being better.

[SoTier]

14 hours ago, major said:

Heard today that Jon Gruden has a two year plan to completely overhaul the raiders roster to bring in his own players. Why do coaches do this (our own included)? I’ve seen this done in my profession as well and it rarely works. I know some answers will revolve around new schemes and new players. But it seems to be more of an ego trip, in my opinion. So why do you think they do this? 

 

Some of it's arrogance, especially when successful collegiate HCs like Nick Saban and Chip Kelly come to the NFL and think they can re-create their collegiate successes based on recruiting exactly the players that fit their plans.  They fail miserably because of the limitations of player contracts and the salary cap as well as the fact that NFL players are no longer green eighteen-year-olds who don't dare question "Coach".

 

Other coaches are convinced that they have the "real answer" to being a winner, and in order to do that they have to "clean house" of all the current players who don't fit their vision of how a model football player should be.  They are perfectly willing to sacrifice talent for "character" or "attitude" or "buying into the process" or whatever nonsense they want to spout to hide the fact that they are seriously lacking in personnel management skills.   Basically, these guys can't deal with disparate personalities and/or are intolerant of alternative/opposing opinions; they're "my way or the highway" guys. 

 

Both McDermott and Gruden are this type of HC IMO, and they're both going down in flames because of the limitations of the NFL salary cap.  Teams simply cannot afford to shed talented players simply because the HC can't deal with players who don't fit the HC's narrow criteria for "his kind of player".  I'm not talking about players with off-field issues that may affect their on-field play.  I'm talking about players who just have attitudes or beliefs or temperaments that the HC doesn't find acceptable. 

 

Managing disparate personalities is a fundamental part of being an NFL HC in the 21st century, and HCs who can't do it, fail miserably.  Perennial successful NFL HCs are notable for tolerating players with lots of different perspectives and molding them into winning teams.  Think Belichick, Reid, Carroll, Tomlin, and Harbaugh. 

12 hours ago, BillsEnthusiast said:

 

Ended that playoff drought. That's a big one. 

 

Whoopty - doo.  HOF credential for sure.

[SoTier]

12 hours ago, BillsEnthusiast said:

 

Well, no, but it would have helped for sure. Im not saying extend McD, but let him stay for his contract, or 3 years at minimum. 

 

Why?  So he can go 0-16 in 2019?  So he and Beane can insure that Josh Allen busts because he has crappy coaching and no offensive support????

[SoTier]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

 

The Ram and Eagles were not rebuilds. They were reloads. Snead's been the GM in L.A. since 2012, building pretty consistently. Both teams brought in brand new franchise QBs before these miraculous "immediate ... turnarounds." Both had GMs who'd been in place. GMs don't generally get the chance to rebuild their own squads, not unless they've won a Super Bowl or two anyway. A rebuild says the team isn't good enough and won't be. A GM saying that about his own roster is grading his own performance poorly.

 

Those teams had been building for quite a while. Poor arguments that it doesn't take 4 or 5 years to build a team.

 

Our roster was simply poorer and we got a new personnel team in and they decided to rebuild. That's very different from teams that have been building for ages and continue along their path and hit a tipping point.

 

As for the Chiefs didn't they nearly replace everyone very very quickly? And their turnaround was all Reid? Didn't have anything to do with replacing Matt Cassel with Alex Smith? Or with Crennel pretty much losing the locker room? I actually do think that Reid is one of the very very few coaches who actually do make a major difference. But Reid changed a lot of personnel, particularly on the offense.

 

I'm looking at the offensive starters between the Crennel meltdown in 2012 and Reid's rosters and there was major turnover beyond dumping Cassel for a very capable veteran QB in Alex Smith.

 

The GM being in charge of the personnel decisions and the HC having input on personnel but not control of who stays or gets shipped out is probably the most common organizational model in the NFL because it works better than other models.  A few successful HCs, most notably Belichick and Reid, have personnel control but they didn't get that control from the get-go.  They earned that power because of their success over their careers (Belichick relied on Scott Pioli to acquire NE talent early in his tenure in NE).  Giving neophyte HCs like McDermott or HCs with mediocre credentials like Jauron or Gruden personnel control is a prescription for failure.

[fridge]

This offseason we get to see what McBeane's idea of a rebuild looks like. They're going to spend a crapload of resources and I couldn't have less faith that they're going to screw it up.

[dpberr]

It's a phenomena of the free agency era.  Prior to free agency, coaches had to play the games with the players they had until they could draft better ones. 

 

More often than not, owners had to fit a coach to the players you had unless the team was nightmarishly terrible or you were ready for a dramatic change.  It's why Bill Walsh was succeeded by WCO coaches, Ditka was succeeded by defense in Chicago etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

12 hours ago, NewDayBills said:

If McDermott does get fired 1 1/2 years from now I'd let Leslie Frazier and the defensive staff stay on board. Same playbook for the players, no player turnover and players keep their coaches. See if we can have some stability in the coaching ranks for a change. Thing is McDermott did build a good defense, McDermott's problem is he can't build a good offense or STs, his defense is fine though.

This rarely happens. Most HC candidates want to bring in their own people. Even when they’ve done a good job. Schwartz was shown the door by Rex etc. Demanding anyone be retained severely limits the pool of candidates. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Who's had more of a Fire Sale going on

 

McDermott or Gruden ?

[BigDingus]

On 10/21/2018 at 5:26 PM, major said:

Heard today that Jon Gruden has a two year plan to completely overhaul the raiders roster to bring in his own players. Why do coaches do this (our own included)? I’ve seen this done in my profession as well and it rarely works. I know some answers will revolve around new schemes and new players. But it seems to be more of an ego trip, in my opinion. So why do you think they do this? 

 

I want to go into detail about how awful it is when coaches do this, but I'm tired. You're right though, it rarely works. It usually just causes a revolving door of creating holes, wasting drafts replacing those holes, and then getting canned when "your guys" didn't have time to grow into the players you want. Then the next coaching staff comes in, cleans house, and the cycle starts again. 

It's a good way to keep your franchise in the crapper for years.

[plenzmd1]

23 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Old school coaches know that a tear down project will normally buy them 3 years faith in them. 

 

Just like it is here

this.

 

.keep the same players and still suck..its on the new coach

 

change the players and still suck..its on the old GM

 

get new players and win..genius.

 

[stuvian]

I think new coaches overhaul rosters so as to be the boss of the locker room and to implement their vision as opposed to competing with their predecessor's. They also do it to buy themselves more time in a precarious profession.

That said, not every new coach gets to overhaul their roster depending on the team structure. I find most big market teams never really do a tear down because their fan bases won't tolerate it

[Saxum]

On 10/21/2018 at 6:26 PM, major said:

Heard today that Jon Gruden has a two year plan to completely overhaul the raiders roster to bring in his own players. Why do coaches do this (our own included)? I’ve seen this done in my profession as well and it rarely works. I know some answers will revolve around new schemes and new players. But it seems to be more of an ego trip, in my opinion. So why do you think they do this? 

 

Had a manager do that when he was hired.  He said half of us would not be working in a year and would be replaced by people working harder.   He set me up for failure paired up with bum who could basically do nothing but talk.  I was let go (company gave me two months severance with benefits while bum got two weeks notice) and was told by people remaining that after 6 months he was let go after I was let go and the remaining people were absorbed into other groups.

 

That will NOT happen with Gruden - the Raiders have almost $100M reasons not to.

[GreggTX]

They don't always "overhaul" rosters. Every roster changes from year to year. That said, new coaches are usually hired when a team hasn't been winning, so more turnover is usually justified.

[Buddo]

On 10/22/2018 at 5:47 AM, NewDayBills said:

If McDermott does get fired 1 1/2 years from now I'd let Leslie Frazier and the defensive staff stay on board. Same playbook for the players, no player turnover and players keep their coaches. See if we can have some stability in the coaching ranks for a change. Thing is McDermott did build a good defense, McDermott's problem is he can't build a good offense or STs, his defense is fine though.

 

This would make too much sense. We could have done that before hiring Ryan, if we had paired Jackson with Schwartz, as was a strongly rumoured possibility. Goodness knows how that might have worked out, but the D would have been still wicked.

 

My big problem with some of this stuff, isn't changing schemes when things aren't working, it's changing them when they are.

 

Good business isn't changing the parts that are in profit, it's changing the parts that are making losses. Except the NFL appears to have this blind approach that says if one part isn't working, you have to change the whole.

 

Irrespective of 'why' it happens, which I do understand, I believe that teams are missing a trick here, by not retaining coaches and personnel from the parts that are working. You will find a HC who is prepared to work under those conditions, because there are only 32 HC jobs in the NFL.

 

You set out the terms in the first place, and you will get candidates for the job. It could be argued that you might get better candidates, as you will get people with flexibility.

 

[Rochesterfan]

On 10/21/2018 at 6:54 PM, MAJBobby said:

 

Did a sell off occur in Rams, Chi? Philly? Colts? 

 

New adaptive coaches can perform with what is on the roster 

 

 

I totally disagree - in Chicago and LA - the GM was in place a year before the coach and started the roll over before the coach was hired.

 

In LA - the offense was totally redone with Goff, Kupp, Robert Woods, Cooks, some new o-line over the last 3 years -  at least 50 percent of the starting offense is new within the last 3 years.  This off season they remade the defense with guys like Peters, Talib, Suh,  Shields at minimum.  The difference was the rebuild started under Fisher, but the QB was already picked.  They then hired a coaching staff to fit what they had already started to build on offense.  

 

Chicago is the same - that team has totally changed under the GM that was in place a year prior to the coach.  He found his QB last year and then brought in a coach.  They got 3 brand new WRs in FA this year, they got all new lb’s via trade and draft, new TE, new DL, new DBs within the last 2 years. That roster has seen 60% turnover in the last couple of years.

 

Both places kept guys that were working and traded both players and draft picks (lots of draft picks- including several #1 picks) to get the players on the current roster.

 

Indy’s new GM immediately cut at least 4 starters from the defense to begin a rebuild on that side of the ball - the offense was never the issue - so there was minimal changes to that unit, but in 1 year nearly 50% change over on the defensive side - and my guess is if they miss the playoffs- more changes will occur on both sides.

 

The NFL is about constant change and turn-over - the difference seems to be (at least to me) when you get your QB and what you have for contracts when the guys are in place.  You can then work around and begin either building or cutting down based upon the QB position and contracts.  Once you get the QB - then you can start building a team around him because you know what you want the offense to look like.

 

Even KC (which had a Pro Bowl/MVP QB in Smith) made changes to the offense to better suit Mahomes.  The difference because they already had a QB - they were acquiring offensive talent well before Mahomes arrived and therefore had people in place when they made the decision to move forward with Mahomes.

 

Put Mahomes or Watson in Buffalo last year and both are failures - the team was no different last year to what Allen is dealing with this year - both would look like the projects they are.