First!!

Wow crazy news, might as well just blow the whole thing up!!

yeah, my first thought too was WOW! This smacks of, 'we don't have any idea what we're doing.' Though when the dust settles, it will be interesting to see if the Chargers already have their man, and if Schottenheimer resurfaces in '07.

Reading Spanos' remarks, it seems as if the hiring of new assistant coaches brought to the forefront the extreme bitterness between Schottenheimer and Smith, and Spanos decided that he had had enough. I think the guy at PFT may be right in this instance that once free agency and the draft are over, Smith will be gone as well.

I've long wondered why Schottenheimer and Smith have such contempt for each other.

I sure as hell dont understand, my only guess is someone they had their eye on opened up. You just dont go changing your mind like that

They said it was because the whole coaching staff left, but it made me first wonder if they just kept him around until all the other good jobs are taken, so he was screwed. I'd like to think not, but he turned down the guaranteed million from another contract, so it seems like he deserves to not be fired.

Browns should hire him, that's just what we need

Yahoos story is linked on my name, "dysfunctional situation" between GM A.J. Smith and Marty.

The Charger's web site's links to the statements just give me 404s...link is to nfl.com's story. Says that it was due to conflict between AJ Smith and Schottenheimer.
It says something about who the Charger's think is more responsible for their current success that they canned Marty rather than Smith.

if this is for real this is crazy. How many teams will jump at the chance to hire Marty? I can't think of any head coach openings, but I have to imagine that teams like the Giants, Browns, and Jaguars would have to think about trying to get Marty. He could also get a one-year consultant position with a team...maybe the Dolphins since he's worked with Cameron or the Steelers? It really seems like he could have his pick of a number of offers.

Oy, make so many great moves and get such a wonderful set of talent talent together all at one time... and then ruin it all by de-stabilizing everything and firing a coach who's been doing nothing but winning. *Sigh*

Can you imagine what kind of heat the new guy is going to feel if the Chargers have some bad luck (injuries, poor fumble recovery percentage, etc.) and struggle to make the playoffs? There ain't going to be any honeymoon period in San Diego! In fact, the expectations may be so high that it is not an ideal job to take, especially for a big-name coach.

Maybe they'll follow the Denver example and spite the Raiders by hiring their castoff coach.

More seriously, it'd probably be worth taking the odds you could get that the next coach would have the intials RR (Ron Rivera or either of the Ryans.)

But who is left on the market for the Chargers to pick up? Big name wise

Marty oughta' lay low for a year, maybe take some consulting or t.v. work, wait to see if Cowher will come back next year and set the market at, say, 7 million per, and then get a fat contract at a little less than Cowher-cash.

Do you think Parcells would consider SD? He said he could Physically coach again.

My first reaction was also that maybe they let Marty go AFTER all the jobs were taken because Smith has contempt for him.

How great would it to see Parcells vs BB in the AFC championship next year? OK, I'll won't get ahead of myself.

as an aside, don't you love that this is the first place we come on hearing breaking news. Makes me feel warm all over.

8: All he did was win? By my count, he was 0-2. I personally thought they should have fired when he elected not to take the extension. It's hard to hire quality assistants with a lame duck head coach. This had to happen. Hopefully the Chargers have someone lined up.

15: Should have fired "him..." Even with the preview I missed it.

They should hire Peyton Manning as the head coach and then we can all see how good Tony Dungy and his defense are. ( from other thread)

3: Ownership would have to be pretty stupid to get rid of A.J. Smith.

This, folks, is how you detonate a franchise that was on its way to becoming one of the best of its era.

Whew! And here I was, thinking that there was another stable franchise being built.

19: Can you really say the franchise is being detonated? They had their top four assistants hired out from under them and a head coach that refused an extension making it difficult to hire new assistants. What should they have done in your opinion?

I wonder how many people grasp how impressive it is to have a winning percentage (yes, including playoffs) of .600-plus over 21 NFL seasons. And keep in mind that Dungy's playoff record was only 5-8 prior to this season.

This is stupid.

I could say more about this, but I think I've summed it up pretty well.

22: No, please give a reason for saying that.

Pete Carroll. Norv Turner. Ron Rivera. The Ryans. Parcells. Bill Cowher. Has Lovie Smith signed a new contract? Mike Mularkey. Ross Grimm. Jim Fassel. Just off the top of my head, names that have been around this year plus some other retreads, some less probable than others. Jerry Jones said 2 top 10 college coaches called him, they're still out there.

Does Rivera cover the Rooney Rule?

Statement from Spanos at my name. Excerpt:

Our fans deserve to know what changed for me over the last month. When I decided to move ahead with Marty Schottenheimer in mid-January, I did so with the expectation that the core of his fine coaching staff would remain intact. Unfortunately, that did not prove to be the case, and the process of dealing with these coaching changes convinced me that we simply could not move forward with such dysfunction between our head coach and general manager. In short, this entire process over the last month convinced me beyond any doubt that I had to act to change this untenable situation and create an environment where everyone at Charger Park would be pulling in the same direction and working at a championship level. I expect exactly that from our entire Charger organization in 2007."

#20, offer him a better extension?

They were pretty stupid to get rid of Schottenheimer, so I wouldn't put anything past them.

Andy Reid takes leave and Marty gets fired . . . I doubt there is a connection but if I spot that fat man anywhere near the airport there will be hell to pay.

"#8: All he did was win? By my count, he was 0-2."

Funny, the official standings have him at 14-2 this season (14-3 if you include the postseason). The last two Super Bowls were won by coaches who "couldn't win the big one" after they had the best regular season W-L record in the NFL the previous year. Would you have fired Cowher after the 2004 season? Dungy after the 2005 season? If nothing else, the last two years have absolutely proven that the coach who "can't win the big one" can.

RE:19

I think that doing this would give the Chargers a greater chance of becoming a stable franchise. You can only last so long with a GM and a coach who don't see eye to eye. Whoever they hire would probably have to be someone who would work better with Smith. I disagree that Smith will probably be gone before long. If anything this stabilizes Smiths position(unless they flame out next year, then his ass could very well be on the line).

Prediction: Parcells.

Here's what you do if you were a non-stupid owner. You make Schottenheimer one of the higher paid coaches, without the silly extension offer, and tell him he can hire whatever coaches he wants. You also tel him that Smith has draft day and free agent signing final authority. You tell Smith that Schottenheimer has coaching hire authority and final roster cut auhtority. You tell them both that they are getting paid a lot of money to maintain a professional working relationship, and that you damned well expect as much. Then you tell them to shut up.

Now, Spanos may have done as much, but the nature of the extension offered Schottenheimer indicates otherwise. Watch the next guy come in, have some bad luck, go 9-7, miss the playoffs, while the fans scream bloody murder.

31: Spanos wasn't terribly pleased with not winning a single playoff game either.

19: Can you really say the franchise is being detonated? They had their top four assistants hired out from under them and a head coach that refused an extension making it difficult to hire new assistants. What should they have done in your opinion?

Not let it get to that point.

Basically, what you're saying is "the entire coaching staff detonated, most likely because of strife between the GM and head coach." Stability of the coaching staff is probably the most important thing that a team needs to win. Choose between the coaching staff detonating and the GM? Yeah. Fire the GM.

They made a mistake not letting him go after the season. It was essentially a one-year contract so of course assistants are going to look around (they know they don't have a job in 2008). Smith and Schottenheimer have always been at odds and finally Smith got his way. I'd be curious if Smith already had someone available in mind or not.

Owners who make coaching decisions based on a two close playoff losses are by definiton stupid. The Chargers won 23 games in the five years prior to Schottenheimer's arrival, and 47 games in five years with Schottenheimer. Yes, the players got much better, but chances are the coaching did to. Maybe this works out, but there's a pretty good chance it doesn't.

In 10 seasons, Schottenheimer took the Chiefs to the playoffs seven times. By the end, a lot of people weren't happy about not winning the SB, blowing the #1 seed etc. Eight years, and two playoff losses later, Marty looks a lot better. Before you fire a guy, you should know you can do better and unless Spanos already has a deal in place with Parcells or Cowher, he doesn't KNOW he can do better. Because no one will get his team to the playoffs more than Marty. The only question is can someone else win it all where Marty couldn't.

I respectfully disagree Pat. Smith has done a fantastic job in the draft the last few years for the Chargers. This franchise was left for dead about five years ago. Now they have the best talent in the league. I think Spanos kept the right guy.

#29: Yeah. In about 5-10 years. Maybe. Assuming they don't go through the Coaching Carousel looking for a quick fix because of all the talent they've got on their roster.

Whoever they hire would probably have to be someone who would work better with Smith.

What makes you think anyone can work with him?

I respectfully disagree Pat. Smith has done a fantastic job in the draft the last few years for the Chargers.

So what? Owens did a great job for the Eagles in 2004, too. Doesn't mean he didn't do more harm than good overall.

Given a choice between an existing competent coaching staff, and a new scouting/GM, I'd take the scouting/GM any day of the week. Those effects won't be felt for years. The coaching effects will be felt now. And then you start slipping into the Loser's Curse.

er, that made no sense. Choice between losing a coaching staff or losing a scouting office/GM. I'd lose the GM any day.

That's what gets me; the shocking degree of unprofessional behavior displayed here. Now, I don't know who to blame more for sure, but given that Schottenheimer worked well with Carl Peterson for many years, and with the Modell in Cleveland, and even stuck it out with the nutjob in D.C. for a year, I'd wager that Smith was most responsible.

Phillips and Cameron didn't leave because of Marty's lame duck status. If anything, they had incentive to suck up to Smith and Spanos and undermine Marty. They left because a bird in the hand...

When Marty hired those two as coordinators, did anyone say, ah, look they'll succeed in SD and get HC gigs? Or were they thought of as re-cycled old white guys? So Marty has turned two coordinators into HC and three assistants into coordinators (Manusky, Chudzinski, and Kurt Schottenheimer) in the last two years. It looks to me like Marty knows a lot about building a staff. We'll see if Spanos, Smith, and their new guy can do as much.

I would bet the farm on Pete Carroll. With all of that controversy at USC he needs to get out, and this is both a close and talented team that will allow him to choose his whole staff.

Holy crap. I figured Marty would make it through the year. This is probably *good* for him, because if the team slipped some, he would lose some luster and be fired anyways. After sitting out a year while collecting his severance pay, he should be in high demand.

As for the Chargers, here's why I think it's a bad move. How many coaches are better than Marty? Five? I better guess is probably around three.

How many of those known quantities can the Chargers hire? The answer to that one is zero. PFT speculates they would go after Pete Carroll. While I don't think Carroll is quite as bad as some NE fans make him out to be, he's definitely not as good of a coach as Marty is. So basically the Chargers are downgrading their coaching staff, which is probably the most important part of a team, besides having a good owner.

40: I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I really believe that Smith is the biggest reason for the turnaround in San Diego. I think it's easier to find coaches than players and so I'm inclined toward retaining the proven GM.

42: The belief around here was that Phillips was A.J.'s guy and that he was brought in to hopefully replace Marty. But then Spanos decided not to fire Marty until Phillips had been hired away from us.

Who else think Marty Schottenheimer takes what's left of his staff and heads east to run the offense in Pittsburgh? Cowher was originally an assistant to Marty.

Also, I'd say the most intriguing possibility for a HC in San Diego is Mike Martz, except his offense doesn't use the tight end. Failing that, if Mike Heimerdinger was brought in, imagine what his long-ball offense could do if he was sending Antonio Gates into the level of the safeties.

I think the Chargers bring in an offensive-centric coach and promote from within the remaining defensive staff to get a DC. That is unless they can get one of the Ryan's to come in and adapt the 46 to a 3-4, or they can get the Steelers defensive coordinator, whose name currently escapes me.

#41: Yup, that's my thoughts, too.

#45: You're missing the point. If you can't work with the guy, it doesn't matter if he's the biggest genius this side of the Atlantic. If he forced one coach out, good chance he'll force another one out.

Yeah, if Carroll now fears NCAA sanctions on the horizon, he'd probably welcome the Chargers job. He better not screw it up. Did he ever coach a 3-4 defense in New England? I'm pretty sure he never did in his other stops, so that might be a bit of a change for him. I don't think the criticism he received in the pros was entirely warranted, but this job has very, very, little margin for error.

In my opinion, this whole chain of events would seem to indicate that the power struggle between the GM, Smith, and Schottenheimer became more than they could deal with and still co-exist. I guess we'll learn from the Chargers performance next year how much of their success can be linked to Marty.

Also, I find it interesting to see that after Cameron's hiring was ripped by many (not saying it shouldn't have been), that now Cameron leaving is being lumped in with the Chargers' coaching turnover. Um...raise your hand if you think that any coordinator who had Tomlinson, Gates, Rivers, and solid receivers could do well.

I've never been a Marty fan, but I do think that this news has to do with Schottenheimer's problems with Smith, the specifics of which I'm now curious about.

#49: Why, exactly, would Carroll be a good NFL head coach?

Seriously. The guy has an abso-freaking-lutely loaded roster. Near the top in draft classes each year, consistently. His skills are clearly recruiting. How in the world would that transfer into a good NFL head coach?

Oh, god, no, please don't let Martz come in and prove what a passing genius he is, with Tomlinson in the backfield. Belichik wouldn't be able to fall asleep when he heard the news, he'd be laughing so hysterically.

I give Smith credit for some good moves, but let's not forget that John Butler was the GM in 2001-2002 who began the Chargers turnaround with the Vick-Tomlinson/Brees draft pick deal.

And Rivers may be a stellar NFL qb, but Brees is already. How much better would the Chargers be if they had not taken Rivers, but Sean Taylor or Roy Williams, and still had Brees. Not every Smith move has been stellar.

Let all your viable internal candidates leave, and then fire the head coach. Makes sense. I'm with those above who have stated that either, A) they have someone specific in mind, or B) they're idiots. If it's Carroll, then A and B might both be true.

15:

You can't count.

53: Did you watch Sean Taylor play this year? His "highlight" was popping a punter. The punter, quite frankly, came off as the tougher guy.

Oh, Pat, I'm not saying he would, it's just more that people talk about Carroll as if he went 4-12 every year as an NFL coach. I'd say he was about average, and given that roster and some above-average luck, the Chargers might squeak by for a year.

Can anyone work with Smith is now a huge question. What coach worth anything will put himself in a position where going 14-2 does not equal sucess. Obviously Smith is really into his power. What good coach will put himself in a position in which he has no input over personnel because their GM thinks he's a genius. Its not just picking good players. It's picking good players for the coaches system.

I really see this as the president's fault. He couldn't get two people working for him to work professionally together. Perhaps he is the one who needs firing.

#48

Marty is NOT the guy I would fire AJ over. Belichick, maybe. But let AJ pick his own coach (he did not hire Marty) and see how it works out before saying he can't work with anyone. I know there are people that I would not like to be forced to work with, like Hitler for instance. I can honestly say that I don't think Hitler and I would get along if forced to work together. I would therefore ask my boss to please fire Hitler.

Note to NFL Teams: Pats/Colts generally better than the rest of you largely due to possession of common sense.

Is niiicccceee.

Now Dan Reeves can coach team and finally win Super Bowl. Unless Chargers play Eags. Then I want Eags to win. Wowie we wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And although I'm a big Marty fan, I think he does have a track record of falling out with management. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that in CLE. A long-time Browns fan probably could help out here.

He did work well with Peterson for a long time in KC, but in the end one of the rumors for why he left was that he wanted Gannon, Peterson wanted Grbac, and Peterson won. Souns similar to the Brees/Rivers situation with Smith.

In WAS, he wouldn't share with Snyder or give back any control to a GM after having both HC/GM jobs for a year. Also, he played Snyder's favorite qb toy Boy George for a couple terrible games, then cut him. This probably didn't endear him to the Illustrious Leader.

Will, Martz had no problems utilizing Marshall Faulk when he was healthy, I have no doubt he could do fantastic things with the SD offense. Just got to steal him as an OC.

NFLN mentions Marriucci as a target, do you think they do that just because he works for them and they want to be nice? :)

Re #56 - I'm not saying Taylor is great - although he was a coach's selection (not a voted in popularity/reputation pick) as a replacement Pro Bowler, so he's a decent safety. I am saying that Taylor was available at #4 in that draft, was highly regarded regardless of how he's actually performed, and that a team with Brees plus Taylor is better than one with just Rivers (and I confess to no knowledge about the quality of the current SD safeties).

#59, nice to know you have standards. Personally, I put my over/under for working with genocidal murderers at roughly 3 million deaths, give or take a few hundred thousand bodies, so I'd take the offer to work with Pol Pot, but Hitler or Stalin? No way!

I actually found #17 really funny, but then again I was just an observer on the other thread.

Re 64

I confess to no knowledge about the quality of the current SD safeties

They weren't in the Pro Bowl, and they smuggle cough syrup. Oh, and Marlon McCree could learn something from Marlin Jackson. That about covers it.

The man can't make a victory speech for beans, but I'm starting to have a man crush on Jim Irsay. The man may have a temper, but I'm digging Bill Polian. The only one who loves Tony Dungy more than Jesus is me.

A patient owner, a GM with a plan, some good drafts, a seasoned staff, and a coach who doesn't panic. A month ago, it seemed like SD had these, plus more talent across the board than Indy. Now maybe they have none of that. Not sure, but it will be an interesting year coming up.

Let's hear it for staff continuity and stability. Pitt had it in 2005, NE had it in 03/04, Indy's had it for a while. And my 2007 pick for the SB (along with Balt) is suddenly looking lost at sea. Development of a new QB? Young and exciting core players? Good luck.

In Indy, and Boston and Baltimore, and Denver, people are liking the looks of 2007 a bit more tonight. (No, I am not trying to insult Cinn/Pitt or Oakland, just not enough room. Okay, the Oakland thing WAS an insult.)

Who do I want to see walk the sidelines in SD.... Spurrier, Joe Walton, (you Jets fans would get a good laugh, no? He of the famous on-screen nose-picking.), Bill Callahan, Art Shell. I wonder how many USC assistants will turn down THIS job!

64: Well, McCree was pretty good, but we're probably going to cut Kiel.

Yeah, Mike J., Martz was able to get good production out of Faulk, until somebody dared ol' Martzie to just run, run, run, and Remarkable Mike just couldn't pull the trigger, so enamored he was with proving himself to be a passing game genius.

Martz is very talented, but he's always seemed to me to be too interested in being the star.

As an aside, I'm still upset with Marty for starting Brees against Denver in pursuit of a bonus he would have gotten for a tenth win.

#58: Ding ding, you're the winner. Spot freaking on.

#69: Philly! C'mon! I know everyone loves the AFC, but 50+ win teams over the past 5 years? IND/DEN/NE/PIT/PHI.

I think that's my new criterion for "successful franchise."

Isn't it about time Norm Chow got a head coaching job? He could re-unite with Rivers and work his magic with a very talented offense.

Also, keep in mind, the Chargers need a 3-4 coach or defensive coordinator. That eliminates guys like Ron Rivera. I think Rex Ryan (Bal D-coordinator) or Dean Pees (NE D-coordinator) might be good fits for the San Diego job.

Re 72

Why? It's the same as with players -- if you put milestone incentives in a contract, you should expect them to try to reach those milestones. That's why you put them in.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb!

One of the Ryan brothers, possibly? Norm Chow?

I think the Eagles have just supplanted the Chargers as my early favorites for XLII.

Bill Cowher can't win the big one, it's been proven.
Tony Dungy can't win the big one, it's been proven.
Marty Schottenheimer can't win the big on--oh, wait, what?

Whoops. SD is going to regress big time next year and nowhere near all of it will be do to Shotty leaving, but it'll all get blamed on that. Couldn't happen to a better run, classier organization.

What's shocking is the timing: they should have fired Marty back in January, when they had the option of promoting either Wade or Cam and keeping continuity.

There are likely dozens of coaches out there who could take this team and win it all next season. Coach "scarcity" is as absurd a notion as the supposed CEO scarcity is.

That's not to say it's easy to identify the right next coach, but AJ Smith deserves the benefit of the doubt, not the non-analytical rush to judgment we're seeing on this site.

He's tanned, rested, and ready.

VERMEIL! VERMEIL! VERMEIL!

carlos, where's the rush to judgement in noting how unlikely it is to get a better coach than a guy who has a .600 winning percenatge over 21 NFL seasons, with four diferent franchises?

I don't really see how the drafting of Rivers was a bad choice. At the time, Brees was considered a bust, and the Chargers needed a quarterback. Even when Brees got it together, it still had the Chargers in a good situation, as Brees suffered his shoulder injury. Sure, he recovered, but no one knew that at the time; remember, Phil Simms' career was ended by a torn labrum. And it's not like Rivers is bad, he did well in his first-year as a starter, and he will only get better.

I don't know what to say about this. The Chargers have a ton of talent, but quite honestly, I don't know if I personally would want this job. I mean, putting myself in the shoes of a top-notch coach, why would I go to a job where I can go 14-2, have one of the best three year records in the NFL, and get fired because the GM doesn't like me? That's not a situation I would want to go into.

I honestly think that Carroll will be the guy they will pursue, and I'm thinking it's going to be a tough sell. Carroll has probably at least another national championship, and perhaps another Heisman Trophy winner, on the horizon at USC, why would he leave that to go to a job in which he has no say-so in the decision-making process? After all, this is a guy who was already fired twice before, so he knows the NFL stands for Not For Long.

Sure, you can say USC may have NCAA problems, but that is all pure speculation. Sure, USC seems that they may have violated the rules, but so what? Many programs have violated the rules in the past and then had nothing happen to them. The NCAA is very inconsistent with the application of the rules. While USC may get in trouble, they may easily walk-off clean as a whistle too. It's certainly not an inevitability by any stretch of the imagination that they are going to get in trouble, much less serious trouble.

78: coach scarcity is absurd.
Good coach scarcity is not. While bad coaches can win the Super Bowl, and good coaches can repeatedly come short, having a good coach raises your chances of winning a Superbowl. That, to me, is all there is to it. Yeah, Smith might be able to find a good coach from among the second-tier candidates that are left over, but I think it's equally likely he finds someone who wrecks the Charger's chances of winning a Superbowl for the foreseeable future.

There are likely dozens of coaches out there who could take this team and win it all next season.

So... how many teams have won the Super Bowl the year after changing their head coach when they've not faced their old team in the Super Bowl?

(Seriously, can 2002 just go away? It's so inconvenient.)

I don't think it's 'coaching scarcity'. It's just that changing coaches is bad.

I don't remember exactly how things went down, because I was maybe 12, but Marty left Cleveland over some disagreements with management. After Lindy Infante left his OC job to take a head coaching position (Green Bay?), Marty took over the offense the next year, and they regressed a bit. Management wanted to make certain changes, Marty disagreed, and while that may not have been the ultimate reason for him leaving, it certainly contributed. But then again, I was 12 and might be mis-remembering as usual.

It’s just that changing coaches is bad.

you forget that they were already changing offensive and defensive coordinators. Look, I'm not defending the move as smart. Like I said, I would have canned him in January after his team looked nervous and played stupid in their playoff game. Sometimes perception becomes reality.

And, Will, it's pretty funny how much love there is on this site for Marty now, when up until 4 months ago there were nonstop complaints about Martyball. Suddenly he's irreplaceably good.

Like I said, stupid timing, but a completely defensible decision.

The meltdown hasn't taken place. I am referring specifically to the meltdown that will take place this afternoon.

Well, carlos, none of that was coming from me. I'll say it again; people don't grasp how hard it is to have a .600 winning percentage in the NFL over 21 seasons, with 4 different franchises, don't know squat.

Wow. He had my vote for Coach Of The Year, seeing as how he had TWO of his QBs in the Pro Bowl...

Make that "people who don't grasp how hard.....". Sheesh, I don't know squat about typing.

Why do you guys get so fixated on the 4-3 and 3-4 defenses and who coaches them.

Do you really think BB couldn't coach a 4-3 because right now he's running a 3-4?

Do you really think Dick Lebeau would be lost if he added another D-Lineman and subtracted a linebacker?

A good coach is a good coach. Look at on offense as well, Bill Parcells LIKES to run a ball control offense, but if he has the personell he has no problem having his QB throw 400 plus passes in a season.

You guys get so damn fixated on Ohhh so and so can't be the chargers coach because he runs a 4-3. All it is is a damn FRONT. Do you think a good coach can only run a 4-3 front OR a 3-4 front? Do you think Marty Kiffen wouldn't know what to do with Demarcus Ware/Shawn Merriman type player?

There's an interesting article on Yahoo by Jason Cole, (click my name) that suggests that the short list of possible new head coaches is Ted Cottrell and... hold your breath... Jimmy Johnson. Seriously. Because he is friends with Spanos or something.

There are two camps here. One believes it is easier to replace a coach, the other believes it is easier to replace a GM. I think it is much harder to evaluate personnel than to coach it.

"And, Will, it’s pretty funny how much love there is on this site for Marty now, when up until 4 months ago there were nonstop complaints about Martyball. Suddenly he’s irreplaceably good."

Well, part of it is that Martyball is gone, and has been replaced by decisions like going for it on 4th and 11.

Honestly, you don't fire the head coach that gets you the best record in the NFL unless you are unbelievably stupid. Considering this is the franchise that drafted Ryan Leaf, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I just thought they had gotten smarter in recent years.

Ok - this is perfect. Now, the Giants just need to fire Coughlin, then hire Marty.

Wheeeee!

I gotta say, any coach who thinks twice about taking this job because they're worried about the heightened expectations is ludicrously risk-averse. Even if they lose Dielman and fail to sign anyone useful in free agency--and remember, everyone knows how good these guys are now, so San Diego becomes attractive to the guys who want to win as much as it is to the guys who like the weather--they've got a great deep young roster to command.

More help is coming in the draft, where AJ Smith has done an astounding job over his tenure. Anyone who thinks Smith should have lost a power struggle with Schottenheimer, take a look at the organization's drafts over the last few years. If Schottenheimer had won the Super Bowl this year, the power structure in the organization would still have been a lot closer to Billick-Newsome then Belicheck-Pioli (in that I don't think Ozzie Newsome is losing any power struggles to Brian Billick).

This isn't the Raiders job, people, for God's sake. A little luck and you win two of the next five Super Bowls with this roster and front office and you take your pick of work if you get tired of dealing with Smith.

That said, I don't get the impression this decision was real well thought out on the Chargers' part. That they ought to have fired Marty weeks ago if they were going to do it really should go without saying. Me, I don't think they should have done it, but I'm not all that worried about it. There are a lot of ways this looks like the Dungy-Gruden Bucs.

If the Bolts put the effort into managing the hiring process they failed to in managing their offseason so far, they'll be fine.

Uh, Chris, there's a little bit of a difference between saying that "this guy can't coach a 3-4" and saying, "there's a bit of an adjustment to make, given that this guy has never coached a 3-4."

92: I think that's basically the disagreement. Will & Pat, would you agree with that?

If this roster is given to Ted Cottrell, Anna Nicole Smith might be inducted into Canton next year. The world will have officially gone insane. Ted Cottrell, when he was with the Vikings, could not get the linebackers to line up in the right spot half the time, mostly the same linebackers who played just fine the next year under Mike Tomlin. Ted Cottrell?!

#83
"So… how many teams have won the Super Bowl the year after changing their head coach when they’ve not faced their old team in the Super Bowl?"

San Fransico won the Super Bowl in Siefert's first season (1989) and the Colts won it in McCafferty's first year (1970). Those situations were actually somewhat similar to what will happen to whoever takes over the Chargers (i.e. the new coach will inherit a loaded team assembled by a legendary coach.) The difference is the 49rs and Colts promoted from within which isn't really and option for the Chargers.

The real story here is that the Raiders front office now has somebody to look down on during the offseason. Good for them!

98: I haven't heard Cottrell's name locally, but I keep hearing Mariucci.

Re 95

There are a lot of ways this looks like the Dungy-Gruden Bucs.

Who's the Gruden? That's kind of an important cog in the machine.

100: Now, that's just crazy talk.

#97, nope. I concede that evaluating talent is exceedingly difficult, and, in fact, it is the most important job. However, once a roster is well stocked, it is exceedingly important to maintain stability in coaching; it cannot be undertstated what an outlier the 2002 Bucs are. By Smith (my guess) being unable to be a profesional, the Chargers may have blown the best chance to win a Super Bowl that they might have for the next three decades.

Re: 59. Godwined.
Re: 61. I hate you.
Re: 81. It's easy to seem like a bust after only 2 seasons.

104: I'd argue that in the NFL teams are constantly restocking.

Yeah, keep in mind that Gruden kept the entire Bucs defensive staff, and Siefert taking over really didn't involve a ton of change.

Yes, Richard, but perhaps, say, I dunno, maybe the Lions have a bit more merchandise to bring in than the Chargers? I don't mean to slight Smith, but if he is the major instigator in this feud, it really is unconcionable.

102: I have no idea who the Gruden is. However, whoever he is, I'd argue he's inheriting a better team here than those Bucs, so maybe he doesn't have to be as good as Gruden to get the job done.

108: Fair point. Also, we don't know who the instigator is, so the same could be said of Marty. I suppose part of the reason I'm such a big Smith fan is having to put up with Beathard for years.

Apparently, Smith didn't want to let Chudzinski and Manusky interview for coordinator jobs and Marty let them anyway. That ended up hurting because they would have been at the top of the list to replace Cameron and Phillips.

Aside: boy, am I glad I checked the site before bed!

92: "There are two camps here. One believes it is easier to replace a coach, the other believes it is easier to replace a GM. I think it is much harder to evaluate personnel than to coach it."

Maybe, but I think the point that some people have been making is that it's not easier to replace a coach like Marty. Replacing some coaches might be easier, but not him. Marty has the highest single season win total for three of the four teams he's coached: He won 12 games in '86 in Cleveland, 13 games in '95 and '97 in Kansas City (he's tied with Vermeil in '03), and 14 games in San Diego this year. He's got a track record of winning, and he's done it in places with far less talent than San Diego. While Smith has done a fantastic job with the drafts in recent years, I just don't think that he's as crucial to their success as Marty is.

#113: Well, I guess we'll find out.

One thing that I think might play a subconcious role in this thing is that these two guys were brought together by John Butler, who then died. So both of these guys felt like they had the mandate to do their thing, and no real higher authority to appeal to to settle disputes, which will naturally come up in the course of working together.

The real issue isn't just ditching Marty, it's ditching Marty this late in a season where there has already been a lot more coaching turnover than anticipated. The cupboard is totally bare. Who the hell are the Chargers going to get? Barring people unlikely to want the job (Carroll) the only real "name" left is Ron Rivera, who's a lot less lustrous after the Super Bowl. Being stuck with Marty for one more year would have allowed them to get first choice of whoever's available next year, instead they're getting the Raiders' leftovers and will be stuck with them for at least 2-3 years. They would have had a decent chance at picking up Cowher next year but there's absolutely 0 chance he'll go to a team that jobbed his mentor. This is just an utterly bizarre move unless they feel they've got a lock on Carroll or someone (which would also be bizarre).

Makes me oh so giddy that I'm a Broncos fan. But like it's been said, the timing is just awful. Are they too hoping to get in the Cowher sweepstakes?

116: They basically just stabbed Schottenheimer in the back. Do you really think Cowher, who has his pick of any coaching job in the NFL practically, would take such a job? Now factor in that Schottenheimer gave Cowher his first coaching job and is his primary mentor. Yeah, I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing Cowher on a plane to SD any time soon.

I just read the yahoo sports article by Jason Cole, and if this is true....

"The root of the change came after Smith advised Schottenheimer on Monday to consider hiring Ted Cottrell to be the next defensive coordinator, according to a source close to the situation."

.......then Smith might be able to evaluate players, but when it comes to hiring coaches, he is completely out of his effing mind. I watched Cottrell's work in Minnesota, and he was HORRIBLE! I've never seen a defense so poorly coached. When Tomlin came in this season, and worked with essentially the same players, there was immediate improvement, because Tomlin could communicate with players. When Cottrell ran things, the only constant was confusion and disorganization.

Having Cottrell be the source of Schottenheimer's firing is like a record label losing U2 because it wanted to sign an American Idol runner-up.

They maybe hope to follow the pattern made by the bucs :
a strong D underachievbing in play-offs, so change the coach, win the SB the next year and enter in Hell...

"Having Cottrell be the source of Schottenheimer’s firing is like a record label losing U2 because it wanted to sign an American Idol runner-up."

I don't know, Will, an American Idol runner-up has to at least prove some level of competency in order to qualify. I mean, if coaching football were singing, and Cottrell tried out for American Idol, how long do you think it would take for Simon Cowell to stop him and say something like, "That's your defense? Paula Abdul could get 100 yards rushing on them! You're gone."?

As a Steeler fan who lived through the Bill Cowher/Tom Donahoe feud, I say go with the coach every time, especially a coach with the track record of Marty

as a niner fan who witnessed donahoe's magic, i agree with 121

I love the fact that on Football Outsiders, statements that Schottenheimer (a 3-time CoY) is one of the top 5 coaches in the league are greeted, not with skepticism, but with widespread agreement. Three cheers for rational football fandom!

Also, it bears repeating... Schottenheimer is a 3-time Coach of the Year- the most honored coach in the history of the NFL. More impressively still, he won those three awards with *THREE DIFFERENT FRANCHISES*. In 21 seasons, he has finished with a losing record TWICE (one of those two times he was 7-9). Despite taking on 4 different reclamation projects, he has made the playoffs in 13 of his 21 seasons. It might be easier to replace a Coach then a GM, but I'd say it's easier to find a GM the quality of Smith than it is to find a coach the quality of Schottenheimer.

This just reminds me of those idiots who were calling for Cowher's head after his few bad seasons, or the morons who a couple of years ago were saying that Denver needed to let Shanahan go. Hell, Shula once went EIGHT YEARS without a playoff victory ('74-'81), does anyone think the Dolphins should have fired him and hired someone else instead during that time?

Re #91: There’s an interesting article on Yahoo by Jason Cole, that suggests that the short list of possible new head coaches is Ted Cottrell and… hold your breath… Jimmy Johnson. Seriously. Because he is friends with Spanos or something.

Weird. I hadn't even read that article, and I was about to come here and post that the only way I see this turning out any way other than horribly for the Chargers was if they somehow managed to convince Jimmy Johnson that retirement in Florida wasn't all that it's cracked up to be. I honestly think he's the only proven good coach available on the market who actually has a chance of signing with a team this year- however slim that chance might be. Cowher's sitting out a year, Vermeil's enjoying retirement, Parcells is a headache waiting to happen, and Levy is, like, a million years old.

This move makes me think of two things. First, it reminds me of how stupid I thought San Francisco was for firing Marriucci in a year they had double-digit wins and made the playoffs (and won a game, to boot!). In hindsight, that move was every bit as stupid as it looked at the time- sure, part of their struggles have been cap-based, but does anyone have *ANY* fond memories of the Erikson era? Second, it reinforces just how poorly this situation was handled. You're firing your HC because you're mad that your OC and DC are leaving... why not fire him early and give the job to one of those two fellows? You're mad that a bunch of your assistants are becoming coordinators, but why not promote them to coordinators on your own team when your own coordinators left? If San Diego really wanted, they could have come through this with their entire coaching staff intact except for HC and DC simply by firing Schotty and promoting Cameron and whichever assistants got targeted by other teams.

I was gonna say that if Smith gets fired after the draft, the Vikings should jump on him faster than Paris Hilton on an athlete with a nightvision camera. But if it's true that he suggested Ted Cotrell... Well they should stay away from him like he has the plague. The level of suckitude of Ted Cotrell's defense is indescribable, you really had to be there as a Vikings fan to see just how our LBs played, they had no idea what they were doing or were supposed to do.

Oh boy, what a clusterf**k! Without knowing the ins-and-outs it's difficult to assign blame, but AJ Smith better be sure the Chargers can get an adequate replacement or he'll be next.

The issue isn't neccesarily firing Marty (a mistake IMHO), but doing it now. Both coordinators gone, and the best candidates hired. The timing stinks.

If I'm Alex Spanos I have a short list of 2 (both mentioned here already), Dick Vermeil and Bill Parcells. Quite how these guys put a staff together, I don't know, but they strike me as the best candidates. Whether either would work with AJ Smith is another matter.

I don't know if this was by design or not, but the Chargers have really hosed Marty by waiting until all the other HC jobs have been filled before they canned him. There has been speculation that he might resurface this year as a HC anyway, but given that all the other teams have already put together the rest of their staffs I don't think it's likely. But if Marty is still interested in coaching in 2008, he'll be back somewhere.

Without the Rooney Rule, I'm sure we'd be waking up to headlines screaming Chargers hire Pete Carroll. Guess we have to wait a few days or so. Ted Cottrell or Jimmy Johnson... I don't know why tht sounds so wrong, but I guess Cottrell has links to AJ Smith, right?

Add my voice to the growing chorus of "WTF?" that has risen to greet this move. Are you serious, Chargers?

Something to consider about the whole Schottenheimer/Smith argument - Marty is a great "fundamentals" coach and has always stressed this aspect of coaching; this has to improve the hit rate on draft picks as they're going to come into an almost ideal learning environment.

In addition, we're working on a pretty small sample size here - we've only got two drafts in the books from Smith. Sure, they've been pretty good ones, but when you have the Giants forcing draft picks on you for Eli Manning that becomes much easier.

A few extra comments:
1) Tom Coughlin and Romeo Crennel's jobs just became a lot less secure. How is Marty thought of in Cleveland these days, Browns fans?

2) Schottenheimer's Wikipedia page currently includes "Upon hearing the news, Chargers fans nationwide danced a merry jig.". This is unlikely to remain there very long.

I'll say it again: Pete Carroll is a lead-pipe lock to take this job.

Bill Parcells, Dick Vermiel, Jimmy Johnson, Pete Caroll, Steve Mariucci, Ron Rivera, Rob Ryan, Norm Chow, Ted Cotrell.

I wonder who the 2 top 10 college coaching candidates would be? Caroll and Bob Stoops?

I think if Dick Vermiel were the coach he would fall in love with LT and cry about his play in every press conference.

We keep talking about who the Chargers hire, but what happens to Marty?

New York Giants next year?

In fact, it's so easy to write this story. They hire Pete Carroll, which brings the story of the unethical goings-on at USC to the national stage. Then, LT winds up on the cover of Madden '08. The team starts out with some infighting because of the new coaching staff that boils to a head when LT goes down because his ACL "simply vanished." Philip Rivers is then forced to throw 30+ times a game because Michael Turner is too busy putting up 2000 yards for the Eagles and the team regresses horribly. They become next year's "shoulda woulda coulda" story, like Pittsburgh or Cincinnatti this year.

31 Will, I couldn't have said it any better. I'm sure there will be a lot of claim and counter-claim in the coming weeks but this quote from ESPN's story is odd :

"As for Schottenheimer's relationship with Smith, Schottenheimer said: "I don't know why it was so bad. Everytime I tried to get an explanation of why there was such a bad reaction, he always had the same rebuttal ... he didn't want to talk about it."

As far as replacements are concerned, you could argue that none of the new coaches would have been certainties for the job even if the decision to fire Schottenheimer had been made earlier. In ESPN's "Expert Reaction", Sean Salisbury suggests that Dennis Green is the perfect candidate. Can anybody think of a more inappropriate title for that section?

#133 "Gentlemanly Co-worker Reaction"?

Does this in any way make Eli/Archie's decision to stay the hell away from the San Diego franchise look any better? (I really don't know...just asking.)

It's difficult for me to see how the Chargers are going to get Pete Carrol. He supposedly won't come back to the NFL unless he gets GM powers, and it's patently obvious that Smith won't concede *any* such power. Personally, I'd like to see them go with one of Rivera, Chow, or Russ Grimm. Don't know that any of them would make a great HC, but IMO they deserve a shot...

Re 133 : I agree. Don't see how anyone in their right mind would want to hire Dennis Green.

All of these Marty supporters, I haven't heard one mention of his playoff record. The idea is to win a ring, not finish with the best record in the AFC.

Oh, and this may not be the correct forum, but I'd like to point out that Don Banks is a total idiot.

Less than a week after predicting the Chargers were going to win Superbowl XLII (following the somewhat spurious pattern of the 15-1 -> SB XL Steelers and the 14-2 -> SB XLI Colts) he pens an article saying they should have fired their coach earlier.

Because that's the sort of thing all SB champion teams do, of course.

#92: "it's harder to evaluate personnel"

Is it hard? I'm sure. There's one problem - it gets much, much harder when you start losing. Your draft position starts working against you (see The Loser's Curse), it's harder to judge your own players (falling behind makes you one-dimensional), and the fans aren't supportive either.

Drafting's a lot easier from the bottom of the first round. So long as you're winning, you can get buy with a relatively mediocre GM for a few years. Just a few years, though.

#85: you forget that they were already changing offensive and defensive coordinators.

Not really. I was more describing the entire offseason, not just this move. Going 14-2, and then letting uncertainty about your head coach/front office rip apart the coaching staff. Yeah. That's how you implode a team.

Still, I think they should've kept Schottenheimer. Finding a new offensive/defensive coordinator was going to set them back a bit, but Schottenheimer has a pretty good eye for coordinators. I don't think Smith does.

IIRC, Marty was opposed to the Rivers pick, and wanted to stand by Brees. Can't really fault him there. FWIW, recall that Brees and Tomlinson came in before Smith.

Just trying to provide some insight into the conflict with these two gentlemen.

Why would you go with a guy because he "deserves a shot". Everybody is so brainwashed to think that anybody that had medicore success on their first go-around is old trash that doesn't deserve another chance.

They are coined the negative term " the old boy network". People threw up when Wade Phillips was hired as if they just hired some old bum off the street.

Now teams are going for younger and younger guys with with less and less experience and that seen as GOOD, but to take a guy that has been there before like Wade Phillips is BAD.

Oh and now WR wants them to hire some guys because " they deserve it". Do Pete Carrol and Jimmy Johnson deserve it also, or are they just guys that were mediocre in their last NFL jobs that are a part of this negative " old boy" network.

One of Dennis Green's biggest faults is that he cannot colaborate with other front office executives. Denny actually would be a good head coach if he could work well with competent front office people. At Minnesota, he got worse as he consolidated more power, with the exception of getting Moss after so many teams passed on him. If some team had drafted Moss before the Vikings had a shot, there's a good chance Denny would have been fired after the 1998 season.

All of these Marty supporters, I haven’t heard one mention of his playoff record. The idea is to win a ring, not finish with the best record in the AFC.

It has been mentioned in the past that making a playoff run actually costs the owner money. If this is true and your owner is interested in the bottom line, the idea is not to win Championships, it is to be successful each and every regular season.

Hope is what fills the stands and sells the merchandise.

Hey, Green doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me. I mean, the Chargers had the best record in the NFL. Who better than Denny Green to crown their asses?

I'm available.

RE: Jimmy Johnson

Hiring JJ would be an even worse move than hiring Pete Carroll. First of all, Johnson is L-A-Z-Y, and I'm sure spending 8 years fishing off Miami and checking in to the Fox studios once a week haven't helped that. Second, JJ left the Cowboys because... he had problems with someone who wanted to take excessive control of the personnel/GM side of things. Given that the Chargers have a GM who has power-struggle issues and is arguably difficult for a coach to work with, is that a good move? Also, hiring a coach who has been out of the game for an extended stretch isn't usually a good move (Vermeil excepted), and JJ's resume was somewhat tarnished by the Miami experience.

#136, that is because using playoff records to evaluate coaches is a pretty silly thing to do.

forget polian, a.j. smith is easily the most imperious and arrogant personality in football right now. i can't even imagine what it must be like to work for the guy.

RE:#47
Who else think Marty Schottenheimer takes what’s left of his staff and heads east to run the offense in Pittsburgh? Cowher was originally an assistant to Marty.

Not a chance. The Steelers' coaching staff is pretty much set. They aren't going to undermine their new head coach by bringing in Marty as... what, exactly? A consultant?

Not going to happen.

or they can get the Steelers defensive coordinator, whose name currently escapes me.

Dick LeBeau. And, again, extremely unlikely.

#142:

i completely agree. i truly believe that all a team can do is set itself up for to win as many regular season games as possible. there's just no way of predicting short-term playoff success. build a team designed to go 10-6 every year and you're pretty much where you want to be when you're playing in a league where only 12 of 32 teams even have a chance of playing for a championship.

I will reiterate. If Smith was pushing Schottenheimer to hire Ted Cottrell as defensive coordinator for this roster, it may be the worst case of management malpractice that the NFL has seen in decades, and if Smith has a heavy hand in selecting the new coaching staff, Chargers fans are likely looking into the abyss. Really stunning, if true.

I will reiterate. If Smith was pushing Schottenheimer to hire Ted Cottrell as defensive coordinator for this roster, it may be the worst case of management malpractice that the NFL has seen in decades, and if Smith has a heavy hand in selecting the new coaching staff, Chargers fans are likely looking into the abyss. Really stunning, if true.

Re 147:
Yes, shady rumors and asides make me understand who these people are and allow me evaluate their worth as human beings...

Not only will Will reiterate, but he also iterated his reiteration!

Ahem.

I will reserve judgement on Smith's coach-selection abilities until he actually selects a coach. Then I will point and laugh.

The SD U-T cites unnamed "sources" as stating that the blow-up came when Marty wanted to hire his brother Kurt for the DC position, and Smith just out refused. Given Marty's responses to the press--he's falling all over himself to praise Dean Spanos--he must feel he's in the catbird seat and at the end of next year will look very attractive to another team.

That being said: Marty has made many a dumb move on the sidelines. In the end, maybe he's a good enough motivator and teacher that his players are generally (Drayton Florence aside) disciplined enough to overcome a 15-yard penalty here, and a wasted TO there. My memories of the two Bolts playoff losses were of teams that were clearly better than their opponents but could not score points to put the games away in the 2nd and 3rd quarters, and my (admittedly irrational) sense in both games was that the team as a whole lacked a sense of urgency when I thought they needed to score. Maybe the things that Schottenheimer is good at (or outstanding at) aren't things which win playoff games?

Fictionnal quote :
"I'll never coach the Chargers." Nick Saban.

He may qualify as one of the two top ten college coaches who called JJones...

What if the Chargers hire Weis ?
BB vs Weis...

155 - if they do, anybody care to set the o/u on "Chargers make Weis move" headlines?

FWIW, I don't think Weis would be interested in coming into his first NFL job with expectations set as high as they are in SD. But what do I know?

This, the battle between the GM and the coach, is really becoming typical and it is hard to predict the outcome but a look a recent history indicates this could work out, kind of. Jerry Angelo came into Chicago and began to immediately undercut Jaron who was expected to be fired but instead went 13-3. The following year he had no chance with the team relocated and Angelo released (Big Cat Williams) or traded (Booker) the team's most established leaders. Angelo tried to hire Sabin at that point but (fortunately, as it turns out) ended up "stuck" with Lovie Smith. Oddly, despite winning the division twice, Smith's contract has still not been extended and he remains the lowest paid head coach in the NFL.

We saw a similar situation developing in Tennessee this season but Fisher won (rightly so). This one Marty was doomed to lose but this may turn out to be best for him. What hasn't been really mentioned here is the problems this change is going to make in continuity for the Chargers in the upcoming season. New coaches will likely bring new terminology and changes in how specific plays are run even when they are essentially the same plays they ran before. This is confusing and can be particularly difficult for a younger quarterback.

Some of the issues above would happen because of the changes in coordinators but this complicates matters to a much greater degree. It will be interesting to see who they bring in. Anybody they do hire is likely to want to have their own staff choices and at this point, the choices are limited to non-existent. If there are problems when the GM and head coach are not in agreement how do think it will play out when the head coach and one of his coordinators start feuding. This has a lot of potential to turn into even more of a soap opera than it already is. This could turn out well but the chances aren’t good and the stakes are so high for this franchise that this is looking like a really bad idea. The only way to make this look good is for San Diego to win the Super Bowl next season, anything less and this will be seen as the stupid move it probably is. If for any reason the Chargers fail to make the playoffs the Smith seems likely to be the next person looking for work.

Actually, Mike Sherman would be an ideal choice for the Chargers.

Sherman is highly organized, he is disciplined, he outlines clear expectations for players/coaches, and there are consequences if those expectations aren't met.

Sherman's biggest flaws are that these rules don't apply to guys with initials B.F. and that he is a horrible judge of talent "on the hoof". Meaning that once a guy gets in training camp Sherman can tell who can play and who cannot. But as a GM he is a train wreck.

So given that the Chargers are highly loaded with talent and have worked under a guy with a similar M.O. to Sherman it might be a relatively painless transition.

Better than most of the schmoes out there.

Fom the San Diego Union-Tribune(click my name)

But, according to sources, the final straw occurred yesterday when Schottenheimer wanted to interview his brother Kurt for the defensive coordinator position. Spanos and Smith did not approve, but Schottenheimer held firm in asserting that he had the right to hire his own staff.

As a Packer fan, I don't blame 'em. I wouldn't want Kurt Schottenheimer either. Oh wait, he's a Packer coach. Crap! This was our shot to be rid of him.

This feud has been going on for awhile, and something like Marty trying to bring his brother on staff makes a lot of sense as to why it would tick off AJ Smith, or even disagreements over who should be brought in.

One of the reasons Marty was fired from Washington was due to wanting more control. I hope they bring in Singletary to be Defensive Coordinator.

Re 157:
Well, let's not put all the blame on Lovie's situation on Angelo. Ted Philips and the McCaskeys have a lot more to do with that kind of money than Angelo.

Badger-

144 is me.

I agree with his biggest flaws.

Note that it got to the point where Sherman's offense got predictable and he was unable to make adequate in-game adjustments. I stand by my previous assertion that I was able to predict his plays based on down-and-distance, personnel and formation. If I (an indifferent X's and O's guy) could do it, what were DC's doing?

Also, he fell in love with his own gameplan. He would continue to run plays even though they had been proven unsuccessful.

Even with all that, I believe he deserves another shot though.

Who has a better track record of hiring coaching staffs, Schottenheimer or Smith?

#154: It's just too small a sample size. Really, it is. You're judging him by two games. Parcells is 0-2 recently in the playoffs, too.

Difference is that Parcells has postseason equity. Marty doesn't.

Re: 128

Too many years picking near the top of the draft have improved Browns fans perception of Marty considerably. That said, I don't think they will pull a Millen and fire Romeo at this point. It just wouldn't be right to can the guy after allowing him to remake his coaching staff. He deserves one more year and I think he'll get it.

Now if the Browns are in the tank halfway through the 2007 season, I could see Romeo axed and Marty brought in (on an interim basis - wink/nod).

Let's see
Cowboys lose turner
Wanstedt
Fire johnson
Hire a coach out of football for 5 years
Who did NOT run a bed and breakfast
And win a super bowl
Talent wins
Oh and jerry jones was the gm
Marty had to go
He sucked in the playoffs

I'm not totally sure on the timing, but I wouldn't be shocked if one of the Dallas college coaches was Bobby Petrino. Louisville did finish in the Top 10 this year.

I am impressed with the specificity of the Viking fans' complaints about Ted Cottrell. I know the Jet fans weren't happy with him either, but I don't remember it being so well though out. Then again, we were trying to get rid of Paul Hackett at the same time as well.

How about Dan Reeves?

The next couple of days will be interesting, either the Chargers hire some big name quickly and we all realize there was an actual plan here, or they start to fly in guys to interview and we know for sure that Dean Spanos is one dumb f***.

I don't think AJ Smith's job will be in jeopardy any time soon. Dean Spanos just hitched his wagon to Smith's star. Firing AJ would be an admission that Spanos was wrong and made a really stupid decision. Given how elegantly things have been handled so far, I see little reason for Chargers fans to hope that if things go sideways Spanos will be willing to take the ego hit and say my bad and fire Smith. I think he's much more likely to stand by his man and hope he makes Spanos look good in the long run.

79: I say this as a fan of Vermeil: please, let the man do his part-time football commentary in peace. The man is 70!

67: From the linked article article: "Identify good coaches and hire them. Simple."

Consider that three divisions in the NFL have just one team whose current head coach was the head coach as recently as the start of the 2005 season.

AFC East:
Remaining coach - Belichick (NE)
-Mike Mularkey (BUF): Quit
-Nick Saban (MIA): Quit
-Herm Edwards (NYJ): Quit/traded

AFC West:
Remaining coach - Mike Shanahan (DEN)
-Dick Vermeil (KAN): Retired
-Norv Turner (OAK): Fired
-Marty Schottenheimer: Fired

NFC North:
Remaining coach - Lovie Smith (CHI)
Steve Mariucci (DET): Fired
Mike Sherman (GB): Fired
Mike Tice (MIN): Fired

In that time span, 4 other coaches have also been fired, and 2 coaches have retired. That is a total of 15 head coach positions that have turned over in the last two years, and that's not counting the one-year job of Art Shell. If good coaches were easy to find, nearly half the league's teams wouldn't have had to find a new one in the last two years.

Consider this: you have two main candidates for a coaching job. Coach A went 30-34 with an expansion team, going 7-9 his first year, and nearly reaching the Super Bowl in the second year, and was fired after two losing seasons in which the star QB had struggles with alcoholism, and the team reverted to 7-9 and then fell to 4-12, the coach was fired. Previous to being the head coach of the expansion team, he had been defensive coordinator for 3 years, directing a defense that was #2 in points allowed twice, and once #8. As head coach, his team's defense had defensive scoring rank of #8, #2, #13, and #28. Prior to coaching in the NFL, the coach had 12 years of assistant coaching in college football previous to entering the NFL, as well as two years as an assistant for a USFL team.

Coach B took over a team 1 year removed from 5 straight playoff appearances, and went 36-44 with just one playoff appearance in which the team was one and done, and with only one year with a winning record. Before taking that position, Coach B was a defensive coordinator for 7 years, having the #1 scoring defense once and the #2 scoring defense twice. After his stint as head coach, he returned to being DC for 4 years, in which his defenses had a scoring defense rank ranging from #14 to #2.

I think many people would regard Coach B as a highly experienced coach, a very good defensive coordinator, who may lack the management skills to be head coach. Still, someone will hire him, as per the Peter Principle. Coach A appears to be an up-and-coming coach, someone who excels at making something out of nothing and a defensive genius, able to put together a good or great defense regardless of the talent at hand, and whose failings and firing in his las season a result of bad luck and unrealistic expectations. In any event, even coach B may have learned something from his previous tenure, so either one will be a good choice.

Except Coach A is Dom Capers, the wrong choice entirely, and Coach B is Bill Belichick, a sure Hall of Fame coach. To be fair, I did not mention the New York Giants Super Bowl defensive gameplan that kept the Super Bowl close enough for the famous missed kick. Nor did I mention that Belichick's first team was being packed up to leave the state in his final year. But still, Dom Capers didn't look like that bad a coach at first glance before his tenure with the Texans.

"All of these Marty supporters, I haven’t heard one mention of his playoff record. The idea is to win a ring, not finish with the best record in the AFC."

Well, that argument would seem a bit more compelling if the last two Super Bowls hadn't been won by coaches with bad playoff records that supposedly, "couldn't win the big one". There's just no reason to think that a coach with a great regular season record and a bad playoff record won't win the Super Bowl. That theory has been disproven two years in a row, so excuse us if we don't bother wasting our time with it. Last year, it would have given us gems like this:

"All of these Dungy supporters, I haven’t heard one mention of his playoff record. The idea is to win a ring, not finish with the best record in the AFC."

And the year before last, it would have given us this classic:

"All of these Cowher supporters, I haven’t heard one mention of his playoff record. The idea is to win a ring, not finish with the best record in the AFC."

Will, it's not like Marty hasn't coached in a lot of playoff games. It's not an enormous sample size, but he's 5-13 in these games. That's over a full season's worth of games. It's not like he's getting poor teams into the wild card round and then losing. I believe he's been the top seed four times. There's an enormous gap between his regular season and post-season results and I think it's more than just luck and bad breaks.

Will, it's not like Marty hasn't coached in a lot of playoff games. It's not an enormous sample size, but he's 5-13 in these games. That's over a full season's worth of games. It's not like he's getting poor teams into the wild card round and then losing. I believe he's been the top seed four times. There's an enormous gap between his regular season and post-season results and I think it's more than just luck and bad breaks.

It might be worth noting that Schottenheimer's immediate successors at Cleveland (Carson), Kansas City (Cunningham) and Washington(Spurrier)didn't last too long. What are the playoff records of these teams since Marty left?

Alex,

We're not talking about the "big one". We're talking about winning some playoff games. Dungy was 6-8 before his playoff run. Cowher was 8-9 before his. Marty's 5-13. Are you telling me it's all bad luck or misfortune? We're talking over a full season's body of work.

167: He was already in Atlanta.

No, doubleb, it's not an enormous sample size. It's a tiny sample size, and making calculated decisions based on tiny sample sizes is another phrase for self-deception. If having John Elway pull a rabbit out of a hat, Ernest Byner drop the ball, and a defensive back fumble after making an interception, to pick three unlikely happenstances, is enough to make a guy with a .613 winning percentage over 21 NFL regular seasons an insufficient coach, well, you and I simply are not watching the same game.

Sometimes, tiny sample sizes are all there is to work with, so one must go with one's impressions. That's why I wouldn't favor Martz taking over this team. With Schottenheimer, there is a truly enormous body of evidence to suggest that he is a top-flight coach. The Chargers will be EXTREMELY lucky to replace him with somebody better.

Dungy was 5-8, I believe, prior to this year. A sample size of 18 is extremely small.

"It might be worth noting that Schottenheimer’s immediate successors at Cleveland (Carson), Kansas City (Cunningham) and Washington(Spurrier)didn’t last too long. What are the playoff records of these teams since Marty left?"

Good point. I think it's interesting (although perhaps not very enlightening) to note that in five seasons with the Browns, Marty won two playoff games, while Bill Belichick won 1 playoff game with the Browns in his five seasons coaching them.

I'd be curious to see an FO article about different coaching and front office positions and the skills/talents necessary to succeed in them and whether NFL teams make intelligent decisions in hiring/promoting.

What I mean is that everyone seems willing to concede that being a good OC/DC doesn't mean you will be a good head coach. Why ? What exactly is different ? And why, isn't the inverse also possible ? Could someone be top notch head coach material but horrible as a coordinator ? I'm looking at you Ted Cottrell.

It seems to me that the coordinators would have to be more detail oriented than a head coach who probably has to be more of a big picture guy. It could be part of the reason some guys struggle as head coaches, they remain too mired in the details. I could also see how a bigger picture guy wouldn't get involved in the details enough to be an effective coordinator.

It also seems to me that the skills that make someone a top GM or talent evaluator might interfere with your ability to actually coach the talent. I'm assuming a sense of detachment is important in talent evaluation and GM type decisions and if you let the personal interfere you are probably not going to make the best decision for the team. But as a coach, you are probably dealing with the players on a very personal level. It seems like it would be the rare person who would have the personal skills to be a head coach, yet still be able to detach themselves to make difficult decisions.

If the above is true, a big if, then if I am building an organization the last thing I want is a coach who also wants to be GM, because it is either going to cause tension with my GM, or if I make the coach my GM I end up with a less than optimal solution at GM. Neither result is good.

In short, this model of the GM/Head Coach seems destined to fail. How many times has it really worked ? What are the odds of finding a guy who is detail oriented enough to be a good coordinator, so that he can become a head coach, who also possesses the skill set to be a good head coach, and oh by the way in addition to having the ability to sustain the close personal relationships that good coaching requires, also has the ability to detach completely and make objective personnel decisions best for the team ?

It seems to me it would be much easier to find a good personnel guy, and find a good head coach without GM aspirations than to hope lighting strikes and you find the exceedingly rare guy who can do it all.

I think Schottenheimer (and, yes Dungy) have an approach that, for whatever reason, doesn't translate well into the playoffs. That doesn't mean they can't win (obviously).

Still, the biggest challenge is to get to the playoffs consistently.

#167, in Minnesota, Cottrell literally could not get his linebackers to line up correctly about 50% of the time. Defensive signal calling was a three ring circus. It was high school level execution, and that is only being slightly hyperbolic. Tomlin then comes in, with pretty much the same personnel, and all those problems go away.

A few thoughts:

As a Pats fan, I'll say that Carroll isn't as bad an NFL coach as some people made him out to be. A good part of his struggles in NE came from having one of the WORST GM's in my memory as a football fan (Bobby Grier, who apparently helped drive Parcells away as well), combined with Parcells in New York systematically trying to dismantle the Patriots team that he had built and that Carroll had inherited.

That being said, he's not exactly a good coach, either. Someone commented about his strength being in recruiting, which is meaningless in the NFL. This is probably true. During his tenure with the Patriots, I came to the conclusion that he was basically what we now think of as Herm Edwards--an average coach with a decent knowledge of X's and O's, but absolutely horrible in-game decision making and clock management, and too much of a "nice guy" to properly motivate his players.

Regarding Schottenheimer:
I wonder if any of the teams that just hired a new coach could change their minds--or have they all signed contracts? I seem to recall one or two teams hiring someone "to perform in an as yet undesignated role", that was expected to be their HC, but is that all locked up yet? I don't remember which teams...

Regarding choosing between the GM and the Coach:

The question is not whether it's easier to replace the GM or coach. It's whether it's easier to replace Schottenheimer or AJ Smith. Both seem to be competent, and it probably comes down to (1) which you think is better at what they do, and (2) which you think is more important to the way the Chargers specifically are organized and built (because every team structure is different--some teams probably rely on the GM more than the coach, and others not). I tend to think Schottenheimer was a better coach, and more important to the Chargers' success, than Smith. But that's my opinion.

But there's also a time factor. Replacing your GM will have isgnificant reprecussions, at the earliest, a year down the road, and probably not really for at least 2 to 3 years. Replacing the Coach will have reprecussions immediately. That being said, the Chargers (being a young team with a lot of young talent) need to think about both the short term and the long term...they have a window now, but that window is pretty wide and will only close slowly, to if they think AJ Smith is their GM forever, finding a coach he works well with may be open (e.g. they shouldn't be throwing away their future to try to win next year). However, as Will and Pat and others have pointed out, there was a right way of doing that, and this wasn't it. This is bad for the Chargers and bad for Schottenheimer (but probably good for the Colts and Patriots and Broncos and Chiefs...as long as their coordinators don't get raided).

Regarding coordinator raiding:

I don't think many coordinators would leave their current organizations to be coordinators in the chargers. I think most coordinators like to stay where they are unless there's a promotion in the works.

Regarding the 3-4 and 4-3:

The only difference between the two, at least the way the Patriots run them, is whether one of the OLB's/OE's puts their hand down before the snap. The more crucial key is whether the coach favors a predominantly two-gap or one-gap approach. Changing from a 3-4 to a 4-3 involves re-coaching or replacing one player. Changing from the 2-gap or the 1-gap involves re-coaching your entire front 7. I would imagine the Chargers play a 2-gap system, correct?

Oops, sorry, I really should have broken that into four different comments. That's the problem with coming into the discussion late...

Re: 175

If the Chargers were gonna fire Marty for failing to advance further in the playoffs, it would be understandable. I still think it would be a mistake but I would understand the rationale - Marty's taken us as far as he can, to get over the next hurdle we need somebody else. But the way this has happened doesn't really support that position.

Marty lost a power struggle. John Clayton is reporting that the clincher was Marty allowing his lower level assistants to interview for coordinator jobs (that they received). If so, good for Marty.

"We’re not talking about the “big one�. We’re talking about winning some playoff games. Dungy was 6-8 before his playoff run."

Dungy was actually 5-8, and he had never gotten any farther in the playoffs than Marty had (Conference Championship loss). And Marty had gotten that far three times, to Dungy's two.

"Marty’s 5-13. Are you telling me it’s all bad luck or misfortune? We’re talking over a full season’s body of work."

It's possible for great coaches to have bad seasons, and if you evaluate them based on their first 18 or so games, you're going to get rid of a lot of people that you might wish you'd kept. Tom Landry started his career 4-20-2, and ended with a record of 250-162-6. Bill Walsh started his career 8-24, and ended it with a record of 92-59-1. So small sample size really does matter. A lot. You're basically trusting an 18 game sample more than a 327 game sample, in Marty's case. That's not sound reasoning.

Dungy was 6-8 before his playoff run. Cowher was 8-9 before his. Marty’s 5-13. Are you telling me it’s all bad luck or misfortune? We’re talking over a full season’s body of work.

Over twenty one seasons. Marty was coaching before a salary cap, before multiple rules changes, etc. You're glomming vastly different samples together into one sample, getting you one big incoherent blob.

Oh, and that "top seed, four times" thing? 2006, 1997, 1995, and 1986. Losses by 3, 4, 3, and 3 points.

If anything, I'd say the main thing that says is Marty needs a better field goal kicker.

It looks Eli Manning was correct in not wanting to play in San Diego.

175 - OK, I'll play you at your game.

Marty's teams scored 338 points in those 18 playoff games and conceded 396. That's a Pythagorean win percentage of 0.421, or something like an 8-10 record (full disclosure: I rounded 7.59 up).

Schottenheimer has been unfortunate in the playoffs - he's lost a lot of close games, ones that could have easily gone the other way (this year's divisional round, for a start). He also won several squeakers, including a double-overtime FG victory when he had the Browns, so it isn't as if he can't win close games.

Also, you know the other thing about a 5-13 playoff record? It means you got into the playoffs 13 times. There aren't many coaches who can say that.

#188:

As a Chargers fan, I agree and thank Eli for not coming to San Diego.

The problem with playoff records (and someone has probably written this before better than I can) is not just that they have small sample sizes, but they're inherently skewed.

12 teams make the NFL postseason. Eleven of them get at least one loss; depending on how the brackets play out, anywhere from four to eight teams will end up with postseason records of 0-1. And it is mathematically impossible for more than four teams to end up with a winning postseason record.

So consider two hypothetical coaches. One makes the playoffs 13 times in 15 years. Nine times his team loses its first game (Wild Card or Division round); twice it wins the WC round but loses the Division; once it wins the Division round as a top seed but loses the Conference championship; once it loses the Super Bowl.

The other makes the playoff twice in 15 years, both times as a Wild Card team. Both times it wins its WC and Division round games but loses the Conference Championship.

Coach A has Schottenheimer's 5-13 postseason record. Coach B has a 4-2 postseason record. Neither has ever "won the big one". But personally, I'd much rather have the coach who's gotten his team to the playoffs 13 times in 15 years than the one who's done it twice.

5-13 is a small sample size? Compared to what? If we were counting stars or grains of sand, then that's an extremely small sample size. But we are counting play off games, here.

How many coaches get to play in 18 play off games or more? How many failed miserably in their first 18 play off games and went on to have a sizable winning play off record?

I am not saying that Marty is a horrible coach (he's not) or that SD was right in firing him. I'm just making a point that the perceived size of a sample has to be taken within a context.

re. 186

I don't understand how you can use that comarison. You're comparing the start of a career with the overall career record (Landry and Walsh). Others are comparing the regular season record with the post season record for Marty. The two are not the same thing.

I'm not sure if I agree, but it has been said that players win the regular season, coaches win in the playoffs.

By the way, I still believe that Shottenheimer does the most important task. Gets his team healthy and ready for the playoffs. When the playoffs come, if things fall together, he has a good opportunity to win.

I use the 2006 Colts as an example. Not the best of the recent Colts teams. However, they are the one that won the Super Bowl. Consistent regular season success allowed them to maximize their opportunities. Then, they finally caught some breaks in the post-season. The result was a Super Bowl Victory.

#183 According to an interview with Wade Phillips after he left the Chargers, the Chargers 3-4 is a one-gap system. It's not the usual 3-4 2-gap.

183d (the bit about the 3-4): Spoken like a true Patriots fan. The Schottenheimer/Cowher 3-4 has relatively little in common with the Parcells/Belichick 3-4. Sure, the Chargers do occasionally line Merriman up at DE (and the Steelers did with Porter) but the basis of the system is the 2-gap NT - I've never seen a Patriots fan discuss how crucial Wilfork is to New England, but Steelers/Chargers fans give thanks every day for Hampton and Williams.

The basis of Belichick's system, in particular, seems to be that the fewer linemen he has on the field, the more flexibility his defense has in gameplanning to stop whatever it is the opposition does well, whereas the basis of the PIT/SD system seems to be to keep the opposing O-line off balance by sending pass rushers from all angles.

5-13 is a small sample size?

Absolutely.

The probability that Marty actually had a 50% chance to win all of those games and still ended up 5-13 is 5%. There are way, way more than 20 coaches in the NFL. Chances are you're going to get a 5% result. (*)

Compared to what? If we were counting stars or grains of sand, then that’s an extremely small sample size. But we are counting play off games, here.

It's an extremely small sample size for flipping coins, f'crying out loud.

You're presuming that any sample of playoff games would ever be sufficient. It wouldn't.

(*: that's using binomial math. You can't really do that for playoff records, hence why Bill Belichick looks like a SUPER MEGA coach. Reason? Violation of independence of the trials. *cough* In Marty's case, though, not that inaccurate).

#194 - that's interesting. Watching the Chargers this year I tended to get the impression that at very least the NT (Williams) was playing 2-gap.

Why do I feel that Charger's fans are going to regret this firing?

I know that it sounds stupid, but it is really hard to win a SuperBowl if your team doesn't make the play-offs.

I would rather have Marty as my coach and have a chance to win in the play-offs than be thinking about if my team should draft Brady Quinn or Jamarcus Russell in early December.

Re: 192

Sample size is absolutely not relative. Just because Marty's playoff sample size isn't as minuscule as most coaches doesn't mean that it's sufficiently large enough for any meaningful analysis.

187 Pat, Marty was coaching the top-seeded Chiefs in 1995 when their kicker missed 4 FGs and Indy beat them in a low-scoring squeaker (score about 13-10 or 10-7). You may be right.

Schottenheimer and the Playoffs:

Very few coaches have anything approaching 13 playoff losses because relatively few have been in the playoffs anything approaching 13 times.

Those who come to mind in the modern era:

Bill Parcells - 11-8 (10 appearances)
Bill Cowher - 12-9 (10 appearances)
Mike Holmgren - 12-10 (11 appearances)
Chuck Knox - 7-11 (11 appearances)
Bud Grant - 10-12 (12 appearances)
Chuck Noll - 16-8 (12 appearances)
Tom Landry - 20-16 (18 appearances)
Don Shula - 19-17 (19 appearances)

The main difference between these men and Schottenheimer in record is that Schottenheimer has never won or been in a Super Bowl, so he hasn't had many games to rack up wins. If he went on to win two Super Bowls in his next two playoff appearances, his record could suddenly become 11-13 or even 13-13 and he would suddenly be "respectable".

More interestingly, Schottenheimer has made the playoffs just under 2/3 of the year's he's coached (13 of 22).

Shula made 17 of 33, Reeves 9 of 23, Parcells 10 of 19, Noll 12 of 23, Levy 8 of 17, Landy 18 of 29, Knox 11 of 22, Holmgren 11 of 15, Grant 12 of 19, Cowher 10 of 15, Gibbs 9 of 15.

Looking over the list, it seems more common to make the playoffs about 50% of the time instead of 66%. So maybe what Schottenheimer has done is get more marginal teams into the playoffs than other coaches have done, where they then go on to lose in the first round - like the 85 and 88 Browns, and 90, 92, and 94 Chiefs. If he had just been good enough to win one less game in each of those seasons, his playoff record would be 5-8, and wouldn't "look" so bad, even though it really is worse to not make the playoffs at all then to lose in the 1st round.

No, bobman, it just is proof that Marty doesn't know how to coach field goal attempts in the post season. He's really good at sending out the field goal unit during the regular season, but in January, he just seizes up.

"5-13 is a small sample size? Compared to what? If we were counting stars or grains of sand, then that’s an extremely small sample size. But we are counting play off games, here....the perceived size of a sample has to be taken within a context. "

It doesn't matter what we're counting, small sample size is small sample size. It's a measure of the statistical reliability of the data. Just because all the samples you can find are very small, doesn't make any of them statistically significant.

For instance, if everyone flips a coin 6 times, except for Marty, who flips a coin 18 times, then Marty's sample size is three times larger than anyone else's. But Marty's sample size is still not large enough to be statistically significant. In other words, just because Marty has a relatively larger sample size than most other coaches doesn't make it a large sample size. 18 is a very small sample size, regardless of what you are counting.

"How many failed miserably in their first 18 play off games and went on to have a sizable winning play off record?"

That argument can go either way. How many coaches have won 200 games over their careers and not eventually won at least two Super Bowls? The list is pretty short: George Halas and Curly Lambeau, and they both have a good excuse - the Super Bowl didn't exist for most of their careers, and they each won multiple NFL Championships.

Also, consider this: if he got a first round bye and then won the Super Bowl, in each of the next two years, he would only have a playoff record of 11-13. But I still think most people would be happy with that performance. He doesn't need to have a sizable winning playoff record at this point.

"I don’t understand how you can use that comarison. You’re comparing the start of a career with the overall career record (Landry and Walsh). Others are comparing the regular season record with the post season record for Marty. The two are not the same thing."

I was just trying to point out the folly of using a small sample of games to predict future results, it wasn't supposed to be a direct comparison. I agree with the rest of your post.

Re 187, 200

Damn! Beaten to the punch. I believe the KC kicker, Elliott, went 0-3 that day on FGs. The Colts kicker (Blanchard) went 1-3, and the final score was 10-7. IIRC the weather was not good that day -- proof that Marty sucks at choosing the weather in playoff games.

Should also be noted that you need a larger sample size for the playoffs than you would for the regular season!

Why? In the regular season, you play teams which average 8 Pythagorean wins or so. If you're team is "really" a 10-Pyth. win team, the chance you'll beat an 8 Pyth. win team is probably like 60-65% or so. So you're really trying to detect a 10-15% effect.

In the postseason, teams average more like 9 to 10 Pyth. wins. Your chance to win is much closer to 50%, which means you're trying to detect a few percent effect. Which means you need a larger sample size.

Regarding Jamal Williams 2-gap. I suspect that occurs not by defensive design but because Williams is such a beast inside that it's a requirement that you have two guys block him. If you only block Jamal with one player, he'll disrupt everything.

196 and 199:
I had a feeling Pat, and a few others, might beat me to the punch on this one.

Just so I'm understanding the Marty backers, it's bad fortune and luck and has NOTHING to do with his coaching that he has a post season record of 5-13.

Alex, we're not talking about Marty taking over an expansion team or a downtrodden franchise. This is the playoffs. He's got a good team. Comparing his playoff stats to Landry and Walsh's coaching beginnings seems like comparing apples and oranges.

Will, what sample size do you need? I'm not a statistician, nor did I stay at Holiday Inn Express last night. If he was 0-18 in the playoffs, would that be enough for you? 30 games, 50 games? Can I say with 95% statistical confidence that his post-season record isn't random--probably not. But I have a body of work that isn't insignificant with which to make some inferences.

Pat, maybe if he didn't have his kicker line up for a 54 yard FG attempt with time left for another play they'd make a few more. Or he might have a time out left if he hadn't wasted it on the worst challenge in the history of the league.

I acknowledge that he's gotten some bad breaks along the way, but his post-season record isn't solely a function of that. He's been his own worse enemy at times.

#160 - Why Singletary? I've been hearing that a lot and it just confuses me. He doesn't seem to have enough experience. Far as I know he wasn't the defensive coordinator of the Niners. I don't even know what his title was. Maybe "VP of Being A Bears Legend"?

Regarding the Indy/KC game of a few years back that was played on a sheet of ice. What's its proof of is that Marty shouldn't have settled for FG attempts when conditions didn't make it probable for those to be successful. Why would you put your players in a position to not be successful? It's very similar to the Kaeding FG at the end of the Patriot game.

Maybe we'll see a Ryan finally hired so we can all stop pimping them to everyone who'll lsiten.

Just so I’m understanding the Marty backers, it’s bad fortune and luck and has NOTHING to do with his coaching that he has a post season record of 5-13.

Yes. Really, it only looks bad because of his career length. But you're going to get one or two coaches like him from pure and random chance.

Will, what sample size do you need?

I'm not Will, but I can play him on TV.

It's big. Very big. In the neighborhood of "500 games" big. Look up the Chernoff bound on Wikipedia.

DoubleB, the point is that a sample size of 18 does not provide nearly enough data to make any empirical conclusions as to whether Schottenheimer (playoff coach) is any different that Schottenheimer (regular season coach). In fact, as Pat notes, one would need a BIGGER sample size of playoff games, compared to regular season games, to make any sensible statistical conclusions along those lines, thus proving the utter futility of trying to use playoff records as a statistical measure of coaching skill.

If you want to draw ananlogy with another sport, in terms of meaningful sample sizes, how many at bats would you give a hitter, in the post season, before concluding he isn't one of the all time greats? Be careful to not exclude Ted Williams from the Hall of Fame!

Will,

I presume that you are assuming that Schottenheimer coaches exactly the same way and would make the exact same decisions in the same situations in the playoffs as he does in the regular season?

Wow it's a little late in the game to rebuild your coaching staff AND replace your head coach. I mean it was bad enough to find good assistance to replace those lost. Now they have to do so, under a head coach that might not have the attraction working for Marty had.

Nope.

If Marty makes more suboptimal decisions in the playoffs than he does in the regular season then he's not the same coach that won 200 regular season games. He morphs into Rich Kotite.

Well, the balance of power in the league is shifting from AFC to NFC as we speak...will anyone be left to challenge the Colts for the AFC title next year???

DoubleB, let me clarify. If you want to examine individual decisions Schottenheimer has made in playoff games, and from them make an impressionistic conclusion that he isn't a good playoff coach, fine. I pretty much do the same when saying that Mike Martz shouldn't be given the reigns of the Chargers. I do this because there is such a very small sample size of Martz as head coach in ANY GAMES, much less postseason games, that all I'm left with is very impressionistic choices.

That is far different, however, than saying a 5-13 postseason record is statistically strongly indicative of Schottenheimer being a below-average postseason coach, or even more outlandishly, that his coaching performance in the postseason is worse than the regular season.

"Just so I’m understanding the Marty backers, it’s bad fortune and luck and has NOTHING to do with his coaching that he has a post season record of 5-13."

Maybe it's not entirely bad luck, but I don't think that he's doomed to fail in the post season, either. I think it's interesting that two of the coaches in Marty's coaching tree, Cowher and Dungy (sort of), were also plagued by post season woes, despite regular season excellence. So maybe there's something about the way they coach that lends itself toward overacheiving in the regular season/underacheiving in the playoffs, but whatever it is, it didn't stop Cowher or Dungy from winning the Super Bowl, and I see no reason to believe that it would stop Marty.

"Alex, we’re not talking about Marty taking over an expansion team or a downtrodden franchise. This is the playoffs. He’s got a good team."

Maybe the only reason they are in the playoffs is that Marty is that good a coach. Maybe some other coach wouldn't have gotten to the playoffs at all. I mean, he got the Cleveland Browns to the playoffs four years in a row! The only other coach to ever do that was Paul Brown.

"Will, what sample size do you need? I’m not a statistician, nor did I stay at Holiday Inn Express last night. If he was 0-18 in the playoffs, would that be enough for you? 30 games, 50 games? Can I say with 95% statistical confidence that his post-season record isn’t random–probably not. But I have a body of work that isn’t insignificant with which to make some inferences."

And we have a body of work that is far, far more significant, and it is leading to the opposite conclusion. Sorry if I trust the results of 327 games more than the results of 18 games. It's not like football is a different sport in the post season.

If Ted Williams had more suboptimal at bats in a World Series game than he had in a regular season game, then he isn't the same hitter with the stratospheric slugging percentage over 20-plus seasons. He morphs into Mario Mendoza.

Anyway, looking at playoff record is silly. If playoffs were handled that each team that made the playoffs played six games, and the trophy was given to whichever team won the most--well, then playoff record might make some sense (not much, because of small sample size, but more). But that's not how they work. You lose one and you're done. So a coach that consistently gets a weak team to the playoffs, or that plays in a weak division, will have a horrible record.

What maybe makes more sense is to look how far a coach brings his team in each playoff--i.e. how close to a SB victory--on a per year of coaching basis. So to see what those numbers looked like, I arbitrarily decided to assign a coach one point for each playoff appearance, one for each time he progressed to at least the divisional round, one for progressing to the championship, one for making the SB, and one for winning it. Winning the SB gives 5 points. Then I added up a coaches total points over the year and divided by the number of years he coached, to see what the "excpected value" of his progress in the playoffs over his career was like. A value of 5.0 means he won the SB every year he coached, while a value of 1.0 means (on average) he made the playoffs every year but never won a single playoff game. Sub 1.0 values mean he made the playoffs inconsistently--over 1.00 means that, on average, he tended to make the playoffs most of the time, or at least made them a lot of the time and went far when he did.

Here's the numbers for a few coaches that are considered "very good", ranked from top to bottom:

Cowher: 1.87
Belichick: 1.83
Dungy: 1.82
Parcells: 1.37 (changing teams and rebuilding so often hurt him)
Marty: 1.20
Vermiel: 0.93

Granted, this a just a small sampling, but it seems like the "elite" coaches run around 1.8, meaning that on average they bring their team to or close to the divisional round every year, but I don't think a rating of ~1.2 is anything to put down too much--it means that on average Marty has made the playoffs and done a little better than losing in the Wildcard round almost every year of his career. That's better than Vermiel, who has a SB, and almost as good as Parcells, who has 2, plus Marty's coached longer than either of them.

If you run the numbers on some other coach who hasn't consistently gone to the playoffs (say, Jim Mora or Mike Sherman), you'll see even lower numbers.

So this confirmed my opinion of Marty: while not an "elite" coach, he is definitely one of the best of the "very good" coaches.

Hmmm, now I want to calculate this for every coach in the league, but that's a lot of effort and I'm at work. Is there a website somewhere that has lists head coaches' season-by-season results in some sort of tabular form? Wikipedia has it for some but not all...

But I have a body of work that isn’t insignificant with which to make some inferences.

Yes, it is. It really is insignificant. The RMS point differential in the playoffs is ~7 points (it's 15 points in the regular season). Postseason games are more random than regular season games.

I don't know how you think you can conclude anything from a bunch of 3 point losses. You can show, statistically, that 3 point losses are just stupid dumb luck. And Schottenheimer hasn't been so bad in the playoffs that it can't be explained by dumb luck.

I mean, c'mon. If the guy lost every playoff game 41-0, you might have something.

MJK: pro-football-reference.

222. Barry Switzer has a 2.5 average. (yes, I know, small sample size...)

Question - would Eric Mangini be a better coach if the Jets had gone 7-9 and missed the playoffs this year? It's absurd, but that's the conclusion someone could draw in a few years when looking at his playoff record, and seeing that extra loss thrown in there.

For the most part, we agree that the Jets overachieved this year in making the playoffs. Yet because they played better than anyone thought possible (and were rewarded with a trip to New England to get beaten by a clearly superior team), it will count as a strike against the coach. If that isn't a reason to tread carefully when using playoff records to evaluate coaches, I dunno what is.

First confirmed interviewee: Ron Rivera.

222:
-Bill Walsh has a 2.3
-Andy Reid has a 2.125
-Chuck Noll has a 1.65

Who would've thought Andy Reid would be higher than Bill Belichick? Interesting.

It's redundant, but I think important to point out that getting your team to the playoffs on a regular basis is the most important job of a coach. Most Super Bowls are won by teams that get hot in January and have a few breaks go their way. That can't happen if you don't make the playoffs. Marty consistently has his teams battling for the playoffs.

On top of that, as a fan, I would much rather have my team consistently in the playoff hunt, then to be the Tampa Bay Buccanneers (1 Super Bowl win and a lot of misery).

Pat,

He has been that bad. That challenge flag was an absolutely ludicrous decision. Putting Kaeding out there for a 54-yard game winning kick was a terrible decision, especially with time left.

You're comparing regular season Marty with playoff Marty and concluding it's the EXACT same thing (your coin analogy and Chernoff information). I don't think they are. I believe he's conservative by nature, but even more so in the playoffs and by doing so he's making decisions that have affected his teams fortunes. Could he have lost those games had he made more optimal decisions? Certainly, but that doesn't excuse the decision.

Also, I love that FO has so many people who can see that Schottenheimer is probably a very good coach. The average sports talk show does not see it.

DoubleB, what if Marty had tried to run another play at the end of the NE game and the result was either an interception (because NE absolutely would have know it was going to be a pass). Would that have made you feel better about his playoff decision making?

...the result was either an interception...

"Question - would Eric Mangini be a better coach if the Jets had gone 7-9 and missed the playoffs this year? It’s absurd, but that’s the conclusion someone could draw in a few years when looking at his playoff record, and seeing that extra loss thrown in there."

That's why I like MJK's idea. It rewards coaches for getting to the playoffs, and then rewards them more for getting closer to the Super Bowl, which is what it should do. So, a coach that loses in the wildcard game gets 1 point, while a coach that doesn't make the playoffs gets zero, which makes sense.

Fired the right guy for the wrong reason.

People who defend Marty don't understand that the NFL is set up for good teams to beat weak teams.

The playoffs are the only real coaching games because teams generally will beat you in the playoffs even if you are good; talent alone won't win.

That being said, Dennis Green, Mike Sherman, Steve Mariucci, Schottenheimer, and yes DUNGY and COWHER are timid passive coaches who's talent inertia wins regular season games they should win, and don't seize playoff victories when they are available.

Yeah Cowher won a Super Bowl, but no real fan feels that game was contested fairly. Yeah Dungy won a Super Bowl, but any attacking coach coaching the Bears could have stole that game; Lovie basically gave the game to his big brother.

As an aside and apropos of nothing, wasn't A.J. Smith the GM who crowed about two years ago about giving a previous year's holdout "the double whammy"? I remember thinking at the time that GMs should carry themselves with more dignity to avoid insulting past, present and future players.

He has been that bad. That challenge flag was an absolutely ludicrous decision. Putting Kaeding out there for a 54-yard game winning kick was a terrible decision, especially with time left.

No! He hasn't! You can't lose a game by three points and be awful! It's just monday morning quarterbacking, period. Kaeding nails it, they win in overtime, and he looks brilliant. If by some freakish reason, they overturn the interception, he looks brilliant.

You know what a bad postseason coach does? A stupid postseason coach doesn't change their audibles when coming up against the former coach from the team.

You know what happens to bad postseason coaches? They lose by 27 points, not three.

Other coaches that the Chargers have allegedly asked permission to interview: Gary Gibbs & Rex Ryan.

Re 225 and 228:

You have to be careful about sample size, just like you can't really credit a backup RB's 5 ypc average, or a pinch hitter's 0.400 average when he has 20 AB's in a year (until he started playing in the NL, Roger Clemmens had a perfect 1.000 BA -- he had one AB and got a single). Switzer only coached 4 seasons. Reid has only coached 8. Everyone on my list had coached at least 11 (Dungy: 11, Belichick: 12, Cowher and Vermiel: 15, Parcells: 19, and Marty: 20). If you only look at the first 8 years of Parcells' career, he's well over 2.0--it was all the losing seasons he spent rebuilding the Pats, Jets, and Cowboys that bring his average down.

Anwyay, I'm not arguing that this is the be-all end-all of rating coaches postseason performances. I just think its a fun stat to look at. It's saying that, on average, teams coached by Marty are expected to make the playoffs every year, which is nothing to sneeze at (obviously, not really, though... small sample size really does bite you even with a coach who has coached for 20 years).

Maybe I just like it because it says Belichick is (barely) a better coach than Dungy... ;-) Come to think of it, you could use the same technique to compare QB's... hmm... I sense an irrational argument coming on...

"I believe he’s conservative by nature, but even more so in the playoffs and by doing so he’s making decisions that have affected his teams fortunes."

Maybe he used to be, but he's learning fast. How is going for it on 4th and 11 too conservative? Yes, the challenge flag was bad, and maybe running another play before the field goal would've helped, but still, at least his conservative attitude in the playoffs is going away.

How do you put Kaeding in a situation HE'S NEVER BEEN IN BEFORE? How do you continue to kick and play for field goals on a field of ice when your FG kicker can't make the kick (Indy/KC)? How do you throw a challenge flag on a play that has ZERO chance of being overturned? Those are head coaching decisions.

So if you're USC and lose to SDSU, Pete Carroll was unlucky? Score is irrelevant to the decision itself. If he was 5-13 in the post-season and was the exact same coach who made the exact same decisions, you've made your point. But he's not. He's noticeably more conservative. And against better teams that's not the right strategy. There is no way in hell he throws that challenge flag in a regular season game.

vikinghooper,

You have a point, but your own final point works against it. By arguing that Dungy only won the SB because Lovie gave him the game (not intentionally, but because of his playcalling), doesn't that imply that Dungy is the better coach because it was Lovie that gave it to Dungy and not vice versa? (Or are you implying that Lovie intentionally lost because he is friends with Dungy? Because that's just silly).

The coaches you mention have been beaten in the playoffs by playing conservative on occasion, but because of their conservativism they rarely give away games--the force the other team to beat them.

You win in the NFL by being conservative at the right time and agressive at the right time. Every coach tries to find the right balance. When a coach loses a game, even if its by 3 points, everyone points to his balance and blames that.

There are plenty of games that have been lost by bad coaching. Dungy never getting his players to adjust to the physicality of the 2003 AFC Championship game. Belichick calling a quick out against Champ Bailey on the Denver goal line when down by 4 in 2004. The aforementioned lack of signal changes by the Raiders. But there are also plenty that have been lost by luck or slightly better play by one team or the other.

You have to be careful about sample size, just like you can’t really credit a backup RB’s 5 ypc average, or a pinch hitter’s 0.400 average when he has 20 AB’s in a year (until he started playing in the NL, Roger Clemmens had a perfect 1.000 BA — he had one AB and got a single). Switzer only coached 4 seasons. Reid has only coached 8. Everyone on my list had coached at least 11

Even if you assume Andy Reid doesn't even make the playoffs for the next 3 years (giving him 11 total) he still comes out with 1.54.

Alex,

That would have been a 47-yard field goal for Kaeding. He eschewed it and instead went for it on 4th and long. Then at the end of the game, he relies on Kaeding for a 54-yard kick (that was short by the way). The more I remember that game the worse he gets.

"But he’s not. He’s noticeably more conservative".

Please prove this.

Looking over the list, it seems more common to make the playoffs about 50% of the time instead of 66%. So maybe what Schottenheimer has done is get more marginal teams into the playoffs than other coaches have done, where they then go on to lose in the first round - like the 85 and 88 Browns, and 90, 92, and 94 Chiefs. If he had just been good enough to win one less game in each of those seasons, his playoff record would be 5-8, and wouldn’t “look� so bad, even though it really is worse to not make the playoffs at all then to lose in the 1st round.

I think the main mark against Marty isn't what his marginal teams did, it's four #1 seeds and no Super Bowl appearances. I think it is mostly luck, partly Marty, but it does make it hard on the fans.

Re243,

Yes, and I would count Reid as one of the better coaches of recent times, the Philly sportsradio talk notwithstanding.

Basically, there's a few coaches that consistently make the playoffs. Probably about 5-8 of them. If you have one of them, why do you fire him? And especially, why do you fire him after all other possible good coaches have already been hired?

Re: 246

I think the point is that if it wasn't for Marty, those #1 seeded teams may not have been so highly seeded and therefore the loses wouldn't seem so bad.

So 2 things are clear:
1. Marty cannot live or coach long enough to generate an adequate sample size.
2. Due to #1, the best statistics can do is tell us that we can't tell anything about Marty's playoff performance using statistics.
What doesn't make sense to me is the implication that since statistics can't tell us anything meaningful about play off's coaching performance, therefore, play off coaching performance doesn't exist. That is just dandy: if we can't get an answer through statistics, the answer doesn't exist. Or better yet, the problem doesn't exist.
Fans need to pass judgement and owners and presidents need to make decissions. I don't think we can hide behind statistics' inability to make sense of small sample sizes and claim that the best thing to do is nothing.

#244-

There were 8 seconds left in the game. I think kicking there is prudent. They had no TOs left. They had to kick there to give themselves a chance to tie it, rather than risk blowing their chance for a slight increase in the odds of Kaeding hitting the field goal.

How do you put Kaeding in a situation HE’S NEVER BEEN IN BEFORE?

I guarantee you that Kaeding made a 54-yard field goal in practice at some point. Guarantee. I would bet ludicrous sums of money on that. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean he hasn't.

How do you continue to kick and play for field goals on a field of ice when your FG kicker can’t make the kick (Indy/KC)?

As opposed to what? Going for it on fourth down and constantly missing it?

I'm not going to mention the last one, as it's just your opinion. But in the first two, you're criticizing Marty for choosing to do something that has little chance of success and not doing something that also has little chance of success. The marginal difference between those two choices is irrelevant.

That phenomenon has a name. We call it "hindsight is 20/20."

There seems to be 2 ways of looking at Marty. Either you believe that he's a great regular season coach that has squandered a bunch of great teams by pulling a 180 in the postseason by suddenly beginning to suck. Or you believe that Marty has consistently helped his teams overachieve in the regular season and then his teams are exposed under the stronger competition of the postseason.

Personally, I find the former alot more probable than the latter.

Fans need to pass judgement and owners and presidents need to make decissions. I don’t think we can hide behind statistics’ inability to make sense of small sample sizes and claim that the best thing to do is nothing.

That's fine. But there's no clear example of any failure. All of the examples given only look poor in hindsight, because they failed. They're textbook logical fallacies.

Again - if the guy had lost 41-0 in each of his games, yeah, you'd have a point. But he didn't. And I guarantee that the owners and GMs know this. The only ones who judge Marty like this are the fans. Period.

I mean, do you know why it looks like there's one or two stupid coaching decisions in Marty's losses? Because they were close. No one ever mentions the blowout losses, even though they would be a better indicator of coaching failure.

And I guarantee that the owners and GMs know this. The only ones who judge Marty like this are the fans. Period.

You can apparently add AJ Smith and Dean Spanos to that list.

"If he was 5-13 in the post-season and was the exact same coach who made the exact same decisions, you’ve made your point. But he’s not. He’s noticeably more conservative."

There are two problems with what you are saying:

1) There is simply not enough evidence to conclude that he's not the same coach. When it could've happened just as easily due to random chance, there's no reason to think that his ability to coach suddenly changes dramatically in the post season. Maybe he is worse in the playoffs, but his record doesn't prove that.

2) The claim that he's more conservative in the playoffs is completely inconsistent with one of the most notable decisions he made in that game: going for it on 4th and 11. That is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination. That is probably one of the most aggressive play calling decisions made in this entire post season by any coach.

If Marty was so confident in his kicker's ability why didn't he try it in the 1st quarter (with minimal pressure) from 47 yards out? You don't put your kicker out there when he has a minimal chance of success when you have the ability to make it easier for him (the 8 seconds).

You also have no idea if he can kick from 54 yards on grass. The fact he doesn't try it in games tells me that it's probably beyond his range.

If Marty was so confident in his kicker's ability why didn't he try it in the 1st quarter (with minimal pressure) from 47 yards out? You don't put your kicker out there when he has a minimal chance of success when you have the ability to make it easier for him (the 8 seconds).

You also have no idea if he can kick from 54 yards on grass. The fact he doesn't try it in games tells me that it's probably beyond his range.

Re: Marty and being conservative.

Jim Armstrong ran the numbers regarding which coaches go for it the most on 4th down for PFP 2006. Ranking by "aggressiveness index", which is how much more likely a coach is to go for it in a given situation than league average, this is an excerpt of what he game up with (data goes back to 1997):
Rank (most aggressive first) Coach AI
1 Belichick 1.69
2 Cowher 1.68
3 Parcells 1.68
...
9 Schottenheimer 1.35
...
12 Vermeil 1.27
...
20 Dungy 1.14
21 Fisher 1.12
...
24 Shanahan 1.09
...
35 Martz 0.97
...
49 Holmgren 0.69
...
52 Reid 0.63

Just a few of the better-known coaches the "too conservative" Schottenheimer is more aggressive than in at least this area.

I dunno, Wanker. I just look at him as a guy that has accomplished an extraordinary feat over 21 NFL regular seasons, strongly indicating that he is a top flight coach during the course of 300-plus games. This is offset by 5% of that total in the playoffs, which really doesn't strongly indicate anything, compared to what is strongly indicated by the much large sample size.

Alex,

Do you think he makes that 4th and 11 call during the season? Do you think he challenges that fumble during the season?

Pats,
I don't think fans are the only ones passing judgement on Marty given the fact that SD let him go.
For the record, I think this is a terrible decission because even though Marty is a bad playoff coach, he is very good at getting the team there, which in and of itself, enhances their chances of going to the SB.
Marty is a blind squirrel in search of the playoff-win nut. But he is good at surrounding himself with them.

261, you just made the assumption that Marty's firing was based on his performance, which even the Chargers haven't tried to claim. At least not officially.

If Marty was so confident in his kicker’s ability why didn’t he try it in the 1st quarter (with minimal pressure) from 47 yards out?

Where did I say he was confident? I doubt he was. I'm sure he knew it was a crapshoot. So was running a play. Doesn't matter. They're both "you're very likely going to lose" scenarios. Choosing between them isn't that big a deal.

You also have no idea if he can kick from 54 yards on grass. The fact he doesn’t try it in games tells me that it’s probably beyond his range.

It tells me that it's probably maybe a 1-in-10 shot. You'd never go for a 1-in-10 shot normally. When you're out of options? Last play of the game? What the hell.

Matt Bryant. Tampa Bay.

#262: Yup, I agree. I highly, highly doubt that the firing had anything to do with Marty's postseason performance.

"Yeah Cowher won a Super Bowl, but no real fan feels that game was contested fairly. Yeah Dungy won a Super Bowl, but any attacking coach coaching the Bears could have stole that game; Lovie basically gave the game to his big brother."

OK, I'll bite. I'm a real fan, one who despises the Steelers as intensely as anyone possibly can, and I believe the game was generally fair, and the Seahawks just got flat-out beat. A few calls were iffy. So what? I can't believe people are still whining about this. The Steelers won, plain and simple.

As to the second part, feel free to substitute "Bears" with any of "Chiefs", "Ravens", or "Patriots", and people were saying the exact same thing after those games as well. You know the old saying. Once is luck, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern, and four times is shut up and stop whining you freaking whining whiner. Or something similar - I don't remember Chinese ancient proverbs very well.

You don’t put your kicker out there when he has a minimal chance of success when you have the ability to make it easier for him (the 8 seconds).

You can't compare the two attempts. You're right--Marty probably didn't have a whole lot of confidence that his kicker could make it--from 54 or from 47. Hence why he went for it on 4th and 11 (although I'll agree that was an odd call). But the game wasn't on the line there, and he was trying to establish a solid lead, where a TD helps you more than a FG. In the earlier case, Marty must have decided that the probability of converting the 4th and 11, combined with the rewards of a TD or an easier FG, was high enough to offset the probability of hitting a 47 yard FG, combined with the reward of just 3 points (remember, at that point it was not known that the final score would be so close).

At the end of the game, whatever you did to get there is completely irrelevant to your decision making. The only decision, when you need the FG or you lose, is whether the probability of making the 54 yarder is greater than the proability of gaining some yards in less than 8 seconds AND getting the ball out of bounds, AND then making the slightly shorter FG. Actually, the fact that he obviously didn't like his odds at 47 yards re-inforces his decision to kick with 8 seconds at 54 yards--if your odds are bad at 47, then they can't be that much worse at 54, so you would need almost certainty of gaining the seven yards in 8 seconds to be worth contemplating.

Also keep in mind that the Patriots' defensive weakness, which the Chargers had been exploiting and which became painfully exposed against the Colts, were the LB's. In other words, they were soft over the center (which is how the Chargers got in range for the 54 yard attempt). The Patriots CB's were actually pretty good. Meanwhile, the Chargers best weapons were LT and Gates, both of whom mainly pick up yards in the middle of the field. I'm sure Marty knew all this. So for that particular matchup, in that particular situation (where you HAVE to throw to the sideline or its game over), the decision not to risk it, especially when you think the return is small, makes more sense.

DoubleB, you are asking the wrong question. If you are going to empirically establish, that Schottenhiemer is different in the playoffs than regular season, you need to ask whether it can be proven that Schottenheimer would make those calls differently in the regular season. If we're just asking what people think, divorced from sufficient data which strongly indicates a likelihood, well, anything's possible.

Again, I have no objection to somebody making an impressionistic judgement that Schottenheimer is a poor playoff coach. I've done the same with Martz, or to use Pat's example, Bill Callahan. It simply is inaccurate, however, to say a sample size of 18 games can be used to support this impressionistic judgement in a statistical manner, and one should not be surprised if people who lend less weight to impressionistic judgements see the total sample size of 300 plus games as being a better indicator of coaching quality.

Local radio jut had Ron Rivera on. He said that were he to get the job he wouldn't be looking to change the defense to 4-3. That was a concern of some.

264: The biggest reason is most likely that he let three top assistants leave.

If Schottenheimer was getting fired for his playoff performances, it would have happened a month ago. He got fired because the G.M. hates him, and the owner would not give Schottenheimer complete authority to rebuild his staff, leading to a conflict which was not resolvable.

How do you put Kaeding in a situation HE’S NEVER BEEN IN BEFORE?

So when are you supposed to give Kaeding the opportunity to kick a long game-tying FG with time running out at the end of a playoff game?

Also, didn't Kaeding miss a similar pressured kick 2 years earlier against the Jets?

264: The biggest reason is most likely that he let three top assistants leave.

Which is a stupid reason to fire the HC. If I was an aspiring coach and had the chance to be on Marty's staff, I'd jump at it knowing that Marty is very willing to let you move up the ranks, even if that means leaving the organization. Now, do prospective hires in San Diego worry that they aren't going to get the opportunity to look at promotions with other teams?

#267: See, now, you don't see me trying to defend Bill Callahan!

"I don’t think we can hide behind statistics’ inability to make sense of small sample sizes and claim that the best thing to do is nothing."

Nobody is suggesting that. What we're saying is that if you only have a small sample size of games, you can't use a coach's W-L record in the post season alone as proof that the coach is bad in the playoffs. You would need to propose some hypothesis that explains why he is worse in the playoffs, that hypothesis would have to be consistent with the actual results of the games, and it would have to be a better explanation than the alternative hypothesis, that it was just random chance. The burden of proof is pretty high, especially when the coach in question has a regular season record as great as Marty's.

Saying that: "he's too conservative, and that means he can win in the regular season with just talent, but then when the post season comes around, he loses because coaching matters in the playoffs" doesn't count, because nowhere was any evidence given for why we should believe that coaching is unnecessary for winning in the regular season, or for why we should believe that coaching is suddenly important in the playoffs.

If you want to say that Marty is worse in the playoffs than he is in the regular season, fine, prove it. But relying on a small sample size, cherry-picking bad decisions (or decisions that look bad in hindsight), and then proposing a hypothesis without giving any evidence for it does not prove anything.

"If you want to say that Marty is worse in the playoffs than he is in the regular season, fine, prove it."

The problem is that you can't because of small sample size.

In one breath you guys rip someone for saying he's a bad playoff coach because of his record, small sample size etc., and in the next you say prove it. Well you can't. No one can, on either side. Small sample size. You guys who say Marty's playoff record is just bad luck. Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. The sample is too small isn't it.

Schottenheimer is about reducing possessions and doesn't that make him more susceptible to losing via bad luck?

#275:

In one breath you guys rip someone for saying he’s a bad playoff coach because of his record, small sample size etc., and in the next you say prove it. Well you can’t. No one can, on either side.

Point 1: Can you prove any coach is a bad postseason coach?

Yes. I can easily imagine a version of Schottenheimer that is a 'bad postseason coach'. Said coach would lose games by significantly more than 3 points, and he'd have a postseason record noticeably worse.

Point 2: Can you prove Schottenheimer's a good/bad playoff coach? I highly, highly doubt it. He's not flagrantly bad, he hasn't done something monumentally stupid (like Callahan), and there aren't really any arguments against him that aren't just Monday morning quarterbacking.

You guys who say Marty’s playoff record is just bad luck. Prove it. Oh wait, you can’t.

Occam's Razor. If it's consistent with random chance (which it is), chance is the most likely explanation.

277:
Given the small sample sizes of playoff coaching records, I doubt you could ever find a coach that you could prove was a bad playoff coach. Yes it is easy to imagine someone who loses a playoff game 41-0 because of bonehead decisions. But how many would he have to lose like that till you could really prove a difference between his regular season coaching and playoff coaching ? And this is using robo-idiot coach which isn't exactly a real life example. Real life is a little more nuanced and thus even harder to prove conclusively that someone is better/worse in the playoffs than regular season.

Occam's razor doesn't prove anything. It says choose the simpler explanation. Is luck simpler than Marty's brain cramps under pressure ? They are both pretty damn simple explanations for the phenomena.

The problem is that given the sample size we could only rule out luck if Marty was say 0-18 or 1-17 in the playoffs. But just because we can't rule out luck doesn't make it luck.

If I roll a pair of dice 10 times and it comes up 12 five times, we can't rule out luck, but you also can't rule out that I have loaded dice.

Proving anything is pretty much impossible with statistics, right? It is all in terms of probability. The problem is not that it is unprovable, one way or the other, the problem is that the side which says that Marty is a poor postseason coach has so far been unable to marshal any respectable arguments (one or two maybe bad decisions in a very close game? psshh.) As someone suggested above, you could, for instance, argue that Marty's game is particularly reliant on low numbers of drives, and that such games are more decided by luck when competition is equal, then you might have a good argument. Or, you could argue the existence of Martyball--i.e., extremely conservative postseason play relying almost totally on talent differential, and how this fails in the playoffs. But come on. We non-Marty-haters have this one, great, amazing argument, and it goes like this: his overall record, defined by W-L numbers, even defined by DVOA, is very, very good. Until you can give some reasons other than vaguely generalized 'hes too conservative!'-ness, that argument stands unanswered.

"The problem is that you can’t because of small sample size."

Yes, you can, just not by relying only on his W-L record in the playoffs. For the record, I gave a detailed description of exactly what would have to be done to prove that Marty is bad in the playoffs, even with the small sample size. If you want to say he's a bad playoff coach, follow the procedure that I described, and then maybe I'll believe you. But if you won't go to the trouble of providing solid evidence for your hypothesis, then I don't see why I should believe it. I already have a plausible hypothesis that adequately explains the results (random chance), so unless someone can provide a good alternative hypothesis, and support it with evidence, then I don't see why I should change my mind.

But how many would he have to lose like that till you could really prove a difference between his regular season coaching and playoff coaching ?

Not a ton, actually! The problem with Marty is that most of his losses have been close. ROBO-IDIOTCOACH, who loses all playoff games by 41-0, and wins at a 66% clip in the regular season (i.e. ~10.5 Pyth. wins).

Let's see. We'll be generous, and say a 41-0 rematch has a 10% chance of the loser winning.

Assume the playoffs look like so (this is more or less average):
Seeds 1, 2: 11.5 pyth. wins
Seeds 3, 4: 10.5 pyth. wins
Seeds 5, 6: 9.5 pyth. wins
So we're putting ROBO-IDIOTCOACH at Seeds 3,4. Ignore HFA.

Here's the results of the playoffs: 0-1: 44%, 1-1: 25%, 2-1: 17%, 3-1: 9%, 4-0: 8%.

A perfectly consistent coach should go 0-1 44% of the time. ROBO-IDIOTCOACH is going 0-1 at a 90% pace. How many games would you need to tell the difference between the two? Eh. About 6.

Re 272

I've often thought the same thing about teams blocking assistants from leaving to take a promotion. Blocking a lateral move might make sense in some cases, but blocking someone from advancing seems like a pyrrhic victory to me. Sure, you retain the services of a (presumably) good assistant for another year or two before he bolts. But down the road, you get a reputation that might make promising up-and-comers afraid to join your organization.

Occam’s razor doesn’t prove anything.

Do not let this devolve into an idiotic "what does prove mean" argument.

The bar that I set above for "how many games do you need" is 50% : as in, you're right more often than you are wrong. That's the same level that Occam's Razor gives.

This isn't quantum physics. "Likely" is good enough.

I went back and looked at the box scores for the Charger games to find another example of where Marty may have gone for it on fourth down in the first half of a close game from about the same place on the field. I found two right on point: 4&12 from the 29 and he kicked both times. I found another 3 that were in the neighborhood. He went for the FG each time. Anything beyond about the 35, he punted. In fact, Marty went for it on 4th down in the first half exactly one time--a fake punt in the 2nd KC game.

I understand this isn't proof, but I would say that the decision to go for it on 4th and 11 from his own 30 wasn't typical for him this season.

279: Your amazing argument is really nothing more than an implicit assumption: coaching in the playoffs is the same as coaching in the regular season.

Perhaps it is, but maybe the higher quality talent you face on the field and on the opposing sidelines make playoff coaching much more difficult. Maybe the intense scrutiny and pressure of the playoffs make coaching in them much different. Perhaps the higher frequency of really bad weather alters coaching in the playoffs.

Do you have any evidence that coaching in the playoffs is the same as coaching in the regular season ? If so, please present it. If not, recognize, that your position is just as unprovable as those who say Marty is a terrible playoff coach.

"Occam’s razor doesn’t prove anything. It says choose the simpler explanation. Is luck simpler than Marty’s brain cramps under pressure ? They are both pretty damn simple explanations for the phenomena."

Ockham's razor doesn't say choose the simpler explanation per se, it says that you shouldn't, "multiply entities beyond necessity", in other words, if adding an assumption (like "Marty is bad in the playoffs") to your hypothesis isn't necessary to explain all of the data, then you shouldn't add that assumption to your hypothesis. So, for instance, if adding the assumption that "Marty is bad in the playoffs" to your hypothesis isn't necessary to explain the results of his playoff games, then you shouldn't assume that "Marty is bad in the playoffs".

We already have a hypothesis, random chance, that explains why his playoff record is what it is. Adding an assumption that he is bad in the playoffs isn't necessary to explain his record. If you showed that random chance wasn't sufficient to explain some more specific causes of his bad playoff record, then you would be able to prove that he's a bad playoff coach. But nobody has done that.

I'm going to stick with my initial thought when seeing this in passing on ESPN: "F***ing idiots."

Ugh. Well, for that, I have evidence. Let's see: it's the same game, played under the same rules, with the same players, coaches, and teams which play in the regular season. Given that, it would seem pretty much like the burden of proof falls on you--it is the null hypothesis to assume it stays the same.

I understand this isn’t proof, but I would say that the decision to go for it on 4th and 11 from his own 30 wasn’t typical for him this season.

Wasn't it an aggressive decision? I thought the previous knock on Marty was conservatism in the playoffs. This year he makes an aggresive decision and it is used as evidence that he's a bad playoff coach?

I think the point is that if it wasn’t for Marty, those #1 seeded teams may not have been so highly seeded and therefore the loses wouldn’t seem so bad.

Granted that they may not have been #1 seeds w/o Marty, they were #1 seeds with Marty. You don't become a #1 seed through smoke and mirrors. You are, almost by definition, a good team worthy of the Super Bowl.

"Do you have any evidence that coaching in the playoffs is the same as coaching in the regular season ?"

The rules of the game of football are virtually identical during the post season, except for the lack of tie games. The coach is in charge of the same team, playing the same sport, on the same fields, against some of the same opponents that they face in the regular season. It's not like they go from playing football in the regular season to playing basketball in the playoffs. It's the same sport, for crying out loud!

The hypothesis that playoff games are just like regular season games is sufficient to explain all the data we have about the results of playoff games, so adding the assumption that there's some significant difference between them isn't necessary.

If you want to say that we should believe that there is some relevant distinction between regular season games and playoff games, then the burden is on you to prove that. We don't need that distinction to explain all the data that we have about the results of playoff games, so you need to show us what data we can't explain without adding that distinction. Otherwise, we have no reason to change our minds.

Richie, maybe I should have used the term "poor" as opposed to conservative. I also should have wrote 4th and 11 from his OPPONENT'S 30.

(my previous post was in response to 285)
Before someone nitpicks me, it is not the same teams as a whole--however, the teams which qualify for the playoffs in the regular season are in most respects the same teams which play in the playoffs (likewise for players and coaches). Finally, if my reasons for assuming playoff and regular season play are similar are not scientific enough for you, I could (but do not have the time to) do a regression analysis on regular vs. post-season W-L for coaches. Based on a cursory glance at the coaches page at profootball reference, there is a strong relationship.

One should note that it is not legal, under NFL rules, for a team to "block" a member of their coaching staff from interviewing for a promotion with another team.

Furthermore, any sort of provision in a coach's contract that forbids them from doing so is invalid under NFL rules. There is nothing the Chargers could have done to prevent Cameron and Phillips from leaving, as a move from coordinator to head coach is an obvious promotion. No contract provision of any sort could keep them there if they wanted to leave.

Now, I believe teams can prevent coaches from moving laterally, but save for the rules about when a team can interview certain coaches of playoff teams, and other such restrictions, they can't prevent coaches from leaving for promotions as long as the interviews etc. are done according to NFL rules.

Note that I believe that this is one reason why some teams are giving a lot of titles like "QB coach/assistant head coach", to try and make the question of "lateral move vs. promotion" nebulous.

281: So it would take 6 years to prove ROBO-IDIOTCOACH was a moron. That sort of proves my 2nd point, that in real life you could never prove it. No one would get that many chances. The closest I can think of was Buddy Ryan who got bounced after going 0-3 with the Eagles in the playoffs and none were 41-0. I don't believe any coach would ever be given enough chances to proves with say 95% certainty that he is an idiot when it comes to playoff coaching. You are asking the Marty haters to prove something that is inherently unproveable, and then saying well by default it must be luck.

Here's my argument that Marty is a crappy playoff coach. He has lost his last four games as a #1 seed. 3 of those were in the divisional round(let's say 67% chance of winning for the #1 seed) and 1 was in the AFC Championship let's say 50% chance of winning. The odds of losing all 4 are: .33^3 * .5 = 1.8% So, we are left to believe that we have witnessed a once in a lifetime or several lifetimes random event, or we can choose to believe that Marty is an idiot come playoff time and as a result his teams have a much lower chance of success than you would otherwise expect from a team with their record.

The postseason is a crapshoot. Good coaches with good teams against other good coaches with good teams. Every random aspect of the game is multiplied incredibly. The fact that we're even having this discussion is because people want to place more important on a few games with precious little justification to do so because they happen to be "more important" than the other games. That's terrible analysis.

I hope San Diego crashes and burns. They deserve to after this stupid a move.

293: I thought we had established that playoff records were meaningless because of sample size. A regression won't tell you much because of that.

The thing that has amused me the most about this is how everyone is so sure that playoff games are just like regular season games, and that's not something that needs to be proven, that's a given.

If it's a given, why did FO do their little article, like Baseball Prospectus did, about what wins in the playoffs ? The playoffs are different. The quality of the opposition is higher, the pressure is higher. Just the fact that you have to win or you go home changes how you play the game. If you fall behind in a playoff game you are probably quicker to take chances because "what the hell" if I don't win I go home. Who knows what type of coaches are best able to adapt to this very different type of situation and pressure. To just blithely say it's not at all different and the burden is entirely on the Marty haters to prove you wrong is ridiculous.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this before, but I'll go ahead and bring it up. Some have mentioned that playoff records may not be the greatest thing to judge, since most teams in the playoffs will end up 0-1 or 1-1. But I have a different complaint -- the way we calculate playoff records.

If a team gets a first-round bye and then loses, it's record is 0-1. If a team wins a wildcard game, and then loses the second game, it's record is 1-1. The wildcard winner gets to say it won a playoff game, while the bye team gets slammed for being one-and-done. Why? The same thing has been accomplished in both cases -- a loss in the divisional round.

In my opinion, the team with the bye did something more impressive than the wildcard team did. It advanced to the next round without a contest. Sun Tzu would be pleased.

"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

286: I think you are staking out a position that is a little out there. Is anybody really saying that the ONLY reason for Marty's playoff record is luck ? If that is the case then yes, I suppose we would be adding Marty is a bad coach to the hypothesis. I think most people feel luck is a primary reason, but not the sole reason for his playoff record, other factors like coaching ability might come into play. I'm just suggesting that perhaps the primary reason is not luck but rather coaching ability. I'm not adding a new variable, I'm just weighing them differently.