Yeah, probably - I certainly think if they win 7 or fewer games, he'll be shown the door no matter what. The problem is that, whatever you think of Kubiak, 1/3 of this team is working really, really well right now - among the best in football. A regime change could - *could* - jeopardize that progress, and that troubles me a bit. When you combine that with his guaranteed extension and looming lockout, firing him becomes complicated, and potentially cost-prohibitive (you don't want to pay two guys to not coach your football team after all). So stripping him of power/responsibility is a way to shake it up without having to possibly start over. In other words, would you rather add Bill Cowher and a whole new staff and possible philosophy, or would you rather add Dick LaBeau* and fix the one part of this team that is definitively not working? Honestly, you know - I want to see how the season plays out (see if this team quits on him, etc.) - but I have no feeling either way. I'm just reacting to what could be a dicey situation. (* I recognize we're not getting Dick LaBeau; I'm just using him as an example of how you can change things up without tipping over the entire apple cart.)
I think most here would far rather can Kubiak and his entire staff and take our chances that Gruden/Cowher/more likely replacement will be able to use a good QB, elite WR, elite RB, and a couple strong TEs. What you're suggesting is probably the best we can hope for in terms of McNair enacting change. He held on to Capers a year too many, Casserly two years too many, and he was determined to hold on to Carr for life. He did, however put his foot down and forced offensive staff changes on Capers and Richard Smith's firing on Kubiak. I think the best possible scenario that is also within the realm of possibility: luring Parcells to run our front office.
Sure, and understandable. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right decision. If it were up to the people here, we would have signed no fewer than 931 released veterans in the past 12 months and have a payroll north of $2B. Patience, however, can be a virtue. Contrast McNair’s more… cautious approach to McLane’s hair-trigger, “I’m going to impulsively sign a big-name free agent, come hell or high water!” approach – which do you prefer? And I disagree on the C&C and the Trainwreck Factory timeline. You’re suggesting Capers should have been fired after his third season when they posted a then-best 7-9 record? I thought that ’04 season was a misrepresentation of where they truly were as a franchise, and that the entire organization was in deep denial about it – but even I couldn’t predict the 2-14 follow-up. I think Capers was nixed exactly on schedule. I caught wind of Casserly’s stench pretty early but again: It wasn’t after year 2. (Though using a third pick in your inaugural draft on a guy who couldn’t make your expansion roster is damn-near a fireable offense.) (Hunkers down) As for Carr… I still maintain giving him a second chance under Kubiak was defensible. You don’t toss out a top pick who had progressed for 3 years before falling into a (as it turns out: endless) tunnel at that point. You just don’t. It didn’t cost them any long-term growth and he was given a chance to mentor with a legitimate offensive mind who didn’t think ladders were an important training regimen. I think a more grounded, practical approach from McNair is maybe being filtered through some revisionism. And I also think McLane has conditioned too many here to expect more immediate accountability that it’s made McNair seem overly patient. But the reality, IMO, is slightly different: Capers was given 4 years, only one of which, the last, did the team’s record regress; Casserly was given 5 – but by all accounts, his last year was to transition power to Kubiak - so he basically left with Capers. Carr was shown the door after a single year with Kubiak on the backside of three on-schedule development years, off-set by a single disastrous year in which the entire franchise fell off a cliff. I think (hope) McNair, if there is house-cleaning, understands the value of a splashy (but smart) overhaul.
