I don't want the big-name, flashy hire.

[Mage_Phin]

but what do i know? ALABAMA was probably pretty ****ING DUMB for hiring Nick Saban!!! afterall a head coach in college cant win an undisputed national championship if theyve ALREADY DONE IT with another team!! ITS NEVER BEEN DONE!!!!! ******* crimson tide!!! they should have KNOWN he couldnt do it!!! after all - wheres his fire????? it HAD to disappear when he left LSU!!! the old team retains it right??

start making some sense people

Oh my, having someone disagree with you is really unsettling for you isn't it?

 

[RobertHorry]

Todd Bowles is going to be a good head coach in this league somewhere.

 

[hightempo]

BTW if 27 wins in 3 years isn't enough for you, realize that the '91 'Skins only won on account of Mark Rypien having one of the flukiest seasons in the history of fluky seasons.

fluky?? WOW thats a new one. "well im right cause u just got 'lucky' in your example" LMOA. talk to tom brady about luck and tuck. i think ud get a middle finger (and one covered with a ring)

 

[hightempo]

Oh my, having someone disagree with you is really unsettling for you isn't it?

not at all, i bring on INTELLIGENT opposition, its called sharing of ideas. its just i dont feel like i should have to educate you, but evidently u need a lot of help

 

[Mage_Phin]

fluky?? WOW thats a new one. "well im right cause u just got 'lucky' in your example" LMOA. talk to tom brady about luck and tuck. i think ud get a middle finger (and one covered with a ring)

You're seriously going to compare Tom f***ing Brady to Mark Rypien? Look at any other season Mark Rypien had in his entire career and tell me that '91 season wasn't a fluke.

 

[DuderinoN703]

The Dolphins haven't had a real coach since Shula. Saban was a name and panned out to be average...then a quitter. Cameron was ****, Sparano is now ****. To revitalize the franchise, they NEED someone who is a veteran and has experience coaching a team.

 

[Shouright]

The Dolphins haven't had a real coach since Shula. Saban was a name and panned out to be average...then a quitter. Cameron was ****, Sparano is now ****. To revitalize the franchise, they NEED someone who is a veteran and has experience coaching a team.

We also need that for the sake of invigorating the players and the fanbase with the credibility a successful coach would bring.

Don't forget that a rookie head coach would likely have much less credibility with his players than a successful one, at least initially.

Not that that makes all the difference, but it does create an important difference IMO.

This franchise needs to get back on track quickly IMO, and waiting around for players to put stock in their coach is just wasted time.

 

[hightempo]

You're seriously going to compare Tom f***ing Brady to Mark Rypien? Look at any other season Mark Rypien had in his entire career and tell me that '91 season wasn't a fluke.

lets do an excercise. in the following example what doesnt belong? joe gibbs, bill walsh, bill belicheck, tony sparano. ok lets try another one. apple, orange, banana, football.

have your answers? ill help its D in both examples - i know that was difficult for u. im sorry i wasnt more obvious in in previous example. you tried to say that washington winning a super bowl was a fluke (LMAO btw) and in my example i said "luck and tuck" sorry i know that was "kinda" clever - i can see how u missed that. ill explain it to ya.

"tuck" refers to the "tuck rule" most fans are pretty aware that tom brady doesnt win the first super bowl without the "tuck rule" play. hence, your fluke.. now do u get it?? therefore by YOUR standards since we want to rewrite history and logic to fit your original argument just so it works out for u (since fact, and reason, and logic have already won it for me). BOTH brady and rypien won a super bowl by FLUKE.

see how they are the same? lets try another example - st. louis, indianapolis, miami, new england. ill give u hint: 3 of the teams are in the luck sweepstakes and one of them is going to compete for a superbowl. think hard

 

[hightempo]

We also need that for the sake of invigorating the players and the fanbase with the credibility a successful coach would bring.

Don't forget that a rookie head coach has much less credibility with his players than a successful one.

Not that that makes all the difference, but it does create an important difference IMO.

come on man stop making sense. why the hell would we want to hire a guy that inspires some confidence in the fan base and helps buy us some time in the media? when we can hire some guy nobody has ever heard of, inspires no confidence, and guys like omar and armando can question his every move right from the start?? why hire a guy thats a proven champion, when we can PROMOTE some nobody as a great head coach??? maybe we can hire the UFC hype wagon, they know how to do it - they can help our new coach!!!!

 

[uscalum]

Holmgren won a SB in GB and went to another in Seattle...did Seattle lose to Pittsburgh because Holmgren had already won it with another team...like the NFL gods blocked it?
Dick Vermeil took Philly to a SB and then won one with STL....Good thing for Rams fans the Eagles lost in 1980 or they would have been forced to lose...Kevin Dyson would have got that 1 extra yard.

Honestly, the Super Bowl is just one game...once you get there, anything can happen...so really the fact it hasn't been done yet, is like saying a black QB has never won a SB, which they used to say. Or, a QB drafted at the #2 spot in the 1st round has never won a SB...so, if Miami gets the #2 pick, don't take a QB, because the NFL gods won't let him win. Pick #3, sure.

 

[DuderinoN703]

Cowher and Gruden were "unproven NFL head coaches" at one point. Is it so crazy to want to spend time and resources finding a young, hungry coach over throwing money at someone who has been away from football for years and may very well have lost what made him a great head coach earlier in his career?

While slightly true, do you want to wait 2-3 years with a new coach with little to no experience only to find out if he's worth a **** or not?

---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 PM ----------

We also need that for the sake of invigorating the players and the fanbase with the credibility a successful coach would bring.

Don't forget that a rookie head coach would likely have much less credibility with his players than a successful one, at least initially.

Not that that makes all the difference, but it does create an important difference IMO.

This franchise needs to get back on track quickly IMO, and waiting around for players to put stock in their coach is just wasted time.

All 100% true (which is my point)

 

[hightempo]

Holmgren won a SB in GB and went to another in Seattle...did Seattle lose to Pittsburgh because Holmgren had already won it with another team...like the NFL gods blocked it?
Dick Vermeil took Philly to a SB and then won one with STL....Good thing for Rams fans the Eagles lost in 1980 or they would have been forced to lose...Kevin Dyson would have got that 1 extra yard.

Honestly, the Super Bowl is just one game...once you get there, anything can happen...so really the fact it hasn't been done yet, is like saying a black QB has never won a SB, which they used to say. Or, a QB drafted at the #2 spot in the 1st round has never won a SB...so, if Miami gets the #2 pick, don't take a QB, because the NFL gods won't let him win. Pick #3, sure.

YES thats EXACTLY it!!! they lost BECAUSE he already won it in Green Bay. dammit seattle should have known better!!!

 

[Shouright]

While slightly true, do you want to wait 2-3 years with a new coach with little to no experience only to find out if he's worth a **** or not?

Like I said, you can take the chance that the Super Bowl winner has "lost" it, or you can take the chance that the rookie coach you hire will never have it.

I'd rather take the chance in the former.

The problem with the OP is that it neglects the percentage of rookie head coaches who ultimately fail, and espouses the doing of "homework" to solve that problem, as if it's somehow proven or known that when "homework" is done, the rate of rookie coach failure is much lower.

All that crap is speculation. What isn't speculation is the track record of a successful coach.

 

[hightempo]

We also need that for the sake of invigorating the players and the fanbase with the credibility a successful coach would bring.

Don't forget that a rookie head coach would likely have much less credibility with his players than a successful one, at least initially.

Not that that makes all the difference, but it does create an important difference IMO.

This franchise needs to get back on track quickly IMO, and waiting around for players to put stock in their coach is just wasted time.

thats not an opinion dude THATS A FACT. and what are u talking about it doesnt make all the difference? with a franchise stuck in futility as long as we have been its not an "important" difference its a CRITICAL difference, and YES it could be ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.

but we here at finheaven living in the world of madden video games, dont understand that PEOPLE, SYSTEM, and TEAM create championships and successes. we dont understand why we cant trade chad henne and a bag of chips for tom brady and a coach, whose name we pick out of a list in the phone book, and build a championship team

 

[Sundance Kid]

I see Gruden in Miami Next Year too.....just a matter of when....?????????