From 2008, there was a change from Tuna to Ireland, and now Hickey. There was a change from Henning to Sherman, to Lazor. There was a change from Capers to Coyle, and there were a number of other coaching changes underneath them.
I did say playing "under the same system" to succeed, not any in particular.
The only meaningful guys we have at 30 or above are Wake and Grimes. To me that is a young team.
Oh good god, people are still doing the "Parcells fault" thing? :sidelol: Ireland was general manager since the moment he was hired, just because he had a boss doesnt change that fact. And its been well established that he and Parcells agreed on every single major decision this team made. They had similar philosophies, which is exactly why Parcells hired him in the first place. Ireland's record speaks for itself and hes been held responsible for it, let it go.
Coaches make the determination of changing their assistants. If they allow a new system to be introduced its because they think the team can handle it. If the team cant, then they should be held accountable for that mistake. As your lack of answer indicated, no system inherently guarantees success. Because of that, keeping a system in place despite it obviously failings for the sole purpose of keeping it in place is ridiculous. Or, put another way: stability for the sake of stability is absurd, its as damning as "changing for the sake of change". Except in the latter case you can occasionally stumble across a gem that instantly turns around your fortunes, if you just keep bad personnel(or a system) in place you'll most likely just keep failing in the future.
People on here get hoodwinked by terms like "system", which says nothing but promises everything. While all coaches have their preference on how they want their teams run, the good coaches will adapt the playbook to the players on their roster. The bad ones gut their roster to worship a playbook.
In any case, for the sake of this debate lets assume that "system" is the all powerful deity that demands sacrifices in the form of draft picks that people seem to suggest. Other teams have very few problems satisfying this wrathful gods hunger in a single offseason, so perhaps we should go hire their coaching staff/front office instead of keeping our current one that always seems to be a year or two too slow.
The average length of an NFL career is 3 years. Suggesting that anyone under 30 is "young" is misleading in the extreme seeing as how the vast majority of those who enter the league dont even come close to being employed at that age. As well, the players of certain positions deteriorate well before 30. Its an extreme rarity for a running back to still be competent after 28. Receivers who have certain skill sets can continue at 28, but begin to slow down then(Wallace, with his flaws, will never finish his contract with us. Just wont happen). Since the rules no longer allow quarterbacks to be tackled many can continue well into their 30's...but how many actually do so? For every Tom Brady(who's, need i remind everyone, has blown out a knee) and Peyton Manning(****ed up neck), theres a bunch of Donovan McNabb's, Daunte Culpepper's and Chad Pennington's who fall apart soon after hitting the 3rd decade mark. This fanbase was spoiled by Marino, Jason Taylor, and Zach Thomas, who all played well in their 30's(mostly, Thomas' decline was pretty dramatic). Those are exceptions involving exceptional players, they cannot be counted on as a rule.
Finally, this discussion was worth it if for no other reason than learning that Branden Albert is not considered meaningful, seeing as how he turns 30 during the season. I suspected as much myself but its good to establish that other fans feel the same way.
