MartyBall4Buffalo Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Gregg Williams was given 3 years, Mike Mularkey quit after 2 years. I personally think they should be given 5 years. Anything less just seems too short to implement a system and the players you want, and then by firing said coach after 2-3 years you end up with a coach carousel making it harder it would seem to bring in their staff, their system and lure in free agents while trying to win now. Just curious what everyone else thinks is the approriate time frame a coach should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 DJ had 5 years in Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 DJ had 5 years in Chicago. 578928[/snapback] So, it'll take what? 10? 20? How old is Ralph again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I don't think there's a set in stone number. You have to take into account what you see on the field each week. That being said you generally need to give them 3-4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I'll say if there isn't a considerable amount of progress by year three (with the team we have now) then there is a problem. 3-4 years is more than sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loadofmularkey Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Gregg Williams was given 3 years, Mike Mularkey quit after 2 years. I personally think they should be given 5 years. Anything less just seems too short to implement a system and the players you want, and then by firing said coach after 2-3 years you end up with a coach carousel making it harder it would seem to bring in their staff, their system and lure in free agents while trying to win now. Just curious what everyone else thinks is the approriate time frame a coach should have. 578925[/snapback] I'll buck the TSW trend and say more than 24 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I'll say if there isn't a considerable amount of progress by year three (with the team we have now) then there is a problem. 3-4 years is more than sufficient. 578937[/snapback] On the bright side, the Bills could get some nice draft positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOOOOMED! Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I don't think there's a set in stone number. You have to take into account what you see on the field each week. That being said you generally need to give them 3-4 years. 578934[/snapback] There are folks in Seattle who are glad you are not their GM, I'm sure... I'll buck the TSW trend and say more than 24 hours. 578939[/snapback] Oh, please, if the guy actually talks to WGR-55 when he gets off the plane, it's clear that he is a complete loser and will never work as a coach. Hopefully the press conference will be to announce his resignation...otherwise we are, well, you know... What's my name, boys and girls? I can't hear you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Gregg Williams was given 3 years, Mike Mularkey quit after 2 years. I personally think they should be given 5 years. Anything less just seems too short to implement a system and the players you want, and then by firing said coach after 2-3 years you end up with a coach carousel making it harder it would seem to bring in their staff, their system and lure in free agents while trying to win now. Just curious what everyone else thinks is the approriate time frame a coach should have. 578925[/snapback] In the new NFL, just one year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 In the new NFL, just one year. 579118[/snapback] Honestly how can anyone give more than 1 week? But really what have we had to look forward to in the last 3 weeks? Dick is not something I've had on my list. Hopefully it's not another year of stojan either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 So, it'll take what? 10? 20? How old is Ralph again? 578932[/snapback] Nah...DJ had 5 years...and he got them to 13-3 in his 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Nah...DJ had 5 years...and he got them to 13-3 in his 4th. 579152[/snapback] Is that glass half full or half empty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Both. THAT'S THE POINT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Both. THAT'S THE POINT! 579155[/snapback] You're right it is both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Nah...DJ had 5 years...and he got them to 13-3 in his 4th. 579152[/snapback] Dick changed QBs 23 times in 5 years in Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 It is about progress....if each year the team improves, then you keep the coach. Look at teams like Cincy, Seattle, Chicago and Washington. In these cases in a short amount of time the team was headed in the right direction. Look at Houston, Detroit and Buffalo....not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts