Unless something crazy happens I think McAdoo is the next Giants HC. No word likely to come down before Monday and things could change...
Pretty sure Francessa said McAdoo as well, and he has usually has decent sources inside the organization (he broke Tom leaving and meeting with the coaches a fair bit before Schefter tweeted it).Unless something crazy happens I think McAdoo is the next Giants HC. No word likely to come down before Monday and things could change...
I'm interested by what you think would change between this year and next, and why McDaniels stock will go down. You don't think the Patriots will score lots of points and be good again in 2016?You only get a few bites at the apple, if you get one at all. McDaniels was a stupendous failure not only in Denver, but also as OC in St. Louis so he really only has his NE resume as positives. If some team wants to hire him as their Head Coach this year, I think he'd be crazy to say no.
I still wish I knew what the issue is that makes it so I can't see your twitter links. It's just a blank post to me.
I know there isn't any real speculation of BB leaving for the Giants. But nonetheless, here's a cautionary tale of the last time the GOAT coach bolted from a dynasty he had built to another club in what is now the NFC East. Spoiler alert: he was dead of colon cancer within 2 years.What the hell is this CBS?
What assistant would go there now? Who wants to be the fall guy for fucking Pagano, Grigson, and Irsay?Phew---the special teams coach is safe!
Not to derail the thread, but Banks is a radio guy for the Giants and he's great. Football on the radio is blah, but he does an excellent job with technical analysis. Wish he'd get a good TV gig.Carl Banks on WFAN (a few minutes ago) was pushing the idea of Josh (rhymes with SoSH) McDaniels would be a very good fit with the NYFG.
If you are running an ad blocker. Try whitelisting SOSH. I had the same issue and finally figured it out.I still wish I knew what the issue is that makes it so I can't see your twitter links. It's just a blank post to me.
Reported that he is interviewing there. Will be awesome if Eagles make him an offer. "classinesss" would be tested.I really think Coughlin is going to Philly.
Marrone's exit is the best thing about him. He was never impressive in Buffalo, often screwing up basic gameday management stuff (clock, timeouts, challenges, etc.). He didn't seem to be very special in the locker room, though that might just the absence of data. And he either signed off on, or recommended, EJ Manuel as his QB.I think Marrone will turn out to be good. It's easy to think highly of a guy who trusted himself enough to walk away from a bad situation in Buffalo.
As a pats fan I couldn't be more happy they hired Rex. Unfortunately, next year will be his last.Marrone's exit is the best thing about him. He was never impressive in Buffalo, often screwing up basic gameday management stuff (clock, timeouts, challenges, etc.). He didn't seem to be very special in the locker room, though that might just the absence of data. And he either signed off on, or recommended, EJ Manuel as his QB.
As a Pats fan, I hoped Marrone was the coach in Buffalo for a decade.
RE: your first sentence, it's not necessarily easier to get a HC job once you've already been a HC. You have to have at least a modicum of success in your first stop, typically. I'm working on a piece for ITP on coaching hires so I have this data handy: 37/110 permanent hires since 2000 have had at least 1 year of head coaching experience, and 27 of those 37 had 5 years or more. So the guys who coach for two or three years and then get fired (Marty Mornhinweg, Bill Callahan, Scott Linehan, Jim Zorn, Gregg Williams), etc., don't typically get another shot. All of which points to care with the kind of job they should accept.Re: few jobs and coaches taking opportunities where they come-
Arguing for accepting any offer, I think it's a lot easier to get an HC job once you have already been a HC. Arguing for waiting for the right offer, I think the main reason to turn down an offer is a bad organization or ownership. Guys who would take a HC job can mostly adapt to a lot of situations with players and rosters and conferences but a bad owner can sink you. I'd argue that happened with Chip Kelly.
I don't think any of the BB proteges will go to a bad ownership situation, especially McDaniels (who has a HC line on his resume already), but also not Patricia or Kelly. So I'd rule them all out for the SF job.
Interesting. Spagnuolo is another in that camp.RE: your first sentence, it's not necessarily easier to get a HC job once you've already been a HC. You have to have at least a modicum of success in your first stop, typically. I'm working on a piece for ITP on coaching hires so I have this data handy: 37/110 permanent hires since 2000 have had at least 1 year of head coaching experience, and 27 of those 37 had 5 years or more. So the guys who coach for two or three years and then get fired (Marty Mornhinweg, Bill Callahan, Scott Linehan, Jim Zorn, Gregg Williams), etc., don't typically get another shot. All of which points to care with the kind of job they should accept.
That's a great point, and one that's difficult to study. My educated guess is that guys are better off staying a coordinator than trying and failing as head coaches, just based on how the list of hot coaching candidates doesn't seem to change much year-to-year. Gase was a hot property last year and already has a job this year. If McDaniels or Patricia don't take jobs this year, their names will still come up next year. There are probably cases where a hotshot coordinator misses his window - Rob Ryan might be an example, as he looked like a miracle worker after 2013 and now looks like a bum.Interesting. Spagnuolo is another in that camp.
Another factor is that any given coordinator may be very unlikely to get an offer (which would still argue against my point, to be fair). Under that assumption, mornhinweg for example would be very unlikely to get a HC offer at any point in his life. So he still should have taken the Lions job offer because he was unlikely to get another shot, and any shot is better than none.
A partial window into this could be obtained by looking at how often offers are refused. Which is usually pretty public knowledge. You'd also want to know who declined interviews though, and that's harder to obtain.
This is the reality: most head coaching hires run up losing records and then are fired. League-wide, of the 110 non-interim hires since 2000, only 37 (34%) have winning records, with another six (5%) exactly at .500. Slightly more than half (56) never make the playoffs.
D'oh! Thanks, fixed.Lastly, I thought it was Brian Billick, not Bill Billick.
He ain't going there without full control and they just hired the GM 2 years ago.TB is interested in Nick Saban.
Conditional on team quality? Or talent? Or neither?reaching the playoffs is a skill (despite the small sample size), whereas success within the playoffs is basically all noise.
Pretty sure every owner knows that if you approach Saban's agent you're offering everything short of a majority ownership share to even have the possibility of a meeting with him. Who is in place---at GM, team president, etc.---at the moment is irrelevant. At least, if you're serious about actually getting the meeting with SabanHe ain't going there without full control and they just hired the GM 2 years ago.
A fair and complex question, to be sure.Conditional on team quality? Or talent? Or neither?
In baseball what you say about the playoffs is almost true unconditionally, because even the best teams aren't terribly much more likely than 50/50 to win.
In football, teams are often 80:20 favorites, sometimes even in the playoffs. So I wouldn't expect it to be true unconditionally. But the small number of games makes it hard (though my guess is that it's probably not impossible) to estimate team quality or talent level (team quality conditional on coaching).
I like this approach. There is a plot floating around using lowess-like regression to estimate win probability from Vegas line.translated the Vegas line into the equivalent historical % likelihood
Well, but your initial question was "Once you get to the playoffs, is the rest random?"Because if outcomes pretty well cluster around expected %s, we can be pretty sure the whole "can't perform in the playoffs!" mantra we sometimes hear
Yeah, I'm not sure it addresses it either. There's probably half a dozen ways you could choose to frame that question, and I'm willing to bet most of them would show something interesting. How would you suggest approaching it?Well, but your initial question was "Once you get to the playoffs, is the rest random?"
I am not sure the above addresses that question. Indeed I think the hardest part is framing the question precisely.
This makes perfect sense. If the Giants have another disappointing season, Reese will be out after next season. The new GM comes in in 2017 and takes a year to evaluate things and then flushes McAdoo, Spags, and company (and probably trades away Eli) in 2018 if there is no improvement by then.McAdoo reportedly hired by Giants. Supposedly Philbon in as OC and Spags staying at DC.
With Reese staying the only change is Coughlin out. Ouch.
I think footballoutsiders did almost exactly this a couple years back, and determined that real football game odds almost never go past about 70% in the regular season, and are lower in the playoffs because there are no genuinely bad teams.Well, but your initial question was "Once you get to the playoffs, is the rest random?"
I am not sure the above addresses that question. Indeed I think the hardest part is framing the question precisely.
I guess this means Mara thought this team was good and the strategic lapses in the games against Dallas, NE, Atlanta, Jets etc... were on Coughlin. My untrained eye is besides Eli and Odell and a few slightly better than average players this roster blows. Perhaps if the OL could stay healthy they would have been better but I think Coughlin did a good job with a lousy team. Look at the defense they were horrible, last in yards allowed, third to last in points allowed. Spagnola is horrific.McAdoo reportedly hired by Giants. Supposedly Philbon in as OC and Spags staying at DC.
With Reese staying the only change is Coughlin out. Ouch.
So, wait - the roster sucked and was lacking in talent, but Coughlin gets credit while Spags is horrific? I don't get it. The defense had serious talent deficiencies and injury issues, to the point where it's very difficult to fairly judge how Spags did. As a Giants fan, I'm satisfied with this. For all the talk about discipline, attention to detail, etc, Coughlin's teams seemed to make a lot of bone-headed mistakes and were maddeningly inconsistent.I guess this means Mara thought this team was good and the strategic lapses in the games against Dallas, NE, Atlanta, Jets etc... were on Coughlin. My untrained eye is besides Eli and Odell and a few slightly better than average players this roster blows. Perhaps if the OL could stay healthy they would have been better but I think Coughlin did a good job with a lousy team. Look at the defense they were horrible, last in yards allowed, third to last in points allowed. Spagnola is horrific.
My point is I think he is a good coach and the team was inconsistent because the talent blows and that is more on Reese.So, wait - the roster sucked and was lacking in talent, but Coughlin gets credit while Spags is horrific? I don't get it. The defense had serious talent deficiencies and injury issues, to the point where it's very difficult to fairly judge how Spags did. As a Giants fan, I'm satisfied with this. For all the talk about discipline, attention to detail, etc, Coughlin's teams seemed to make a lot of bone-headed mistakes and were maddeningly inconsistent.
My point is I think he is a good coach and the team was inconsistent because the talent blows and that is more on Reese.