Andy Reid

[SWC75]

ESPN OTL did a piece on Andy Reid, talking about how Eagles fans have grwon tire dof him. He's won a lot of games but always fallen short. This year he had a "Dream Team" but they've performed poorly. On top of that when he talks to the press, (which means he's tlaking to the public), he gives nothing but boilerplate answers such as "That's on me. As a coach I've got to do a better job of putting our players in positon to win the game. " Where have we heard that before?

The repost also said that people close to Andy have had many occasisons to see that he's a passion, caring guy and not the grumpy, mechanical coach we see at press conferences. And players love it when the coach publically blames himself rather than "throwing them under the bus". But the press and fans want explanations for disappointing play and resentment is rising.

We've been all through this. We got rid of a coach who gave cliched expanations for disappoitning losses and went downhill from there. Doug Marrone isn't Coach P but his responses after the Lousiville game sound a lot like the clips they showed of Reid. Some coaches, like Coach Mac or Lou Hotlz know how to entertain the press at news conferences and get people to love them to help them ride out slumsp and disappointments. But not everyone has a knack for that.

Reid had some great opportunties to win a Super Bowl. In 2002 they played a Tampa Bay team they had owned in the NFC championship game. They got a kick-off return for a score to open the game and then played very conservatively, seeming to assume that everything would go their way as it had in prior games. It didn't and they had to watch the Bucs crush the Raiders in the Super Bowl. They lost to the Panthers- the Panthers - the next year. Then they finally amde the Super Bowl and the clock amangement at the end was brutal as they lost by a field goal. Maybe if they'd won one of them, things would be different. Or maybe not.

 

[cmr27]

Reid is getting blamed but that team has been run by a bunch of acturial geeks trying to bring "Moneyball" concepts to the NFL for a decade (essentially, everything Asante Samuel said last week was correct). It's a good recipe for 9-7/10-6 but sometimes you have to max out the credit cards to win big. Reid didn't close the deal in 2001, 2002 or 2003 but, correct me if I'm wrong, they were well below the cap all three seasons. Philly's front office didn't find God and start spending until 2004 (TO and Jevon Kearse). It worked. And if McNabb was a little better at the 2-minute drill, we might not be having this conversation.

I do fault Reid for one thing in particular: He's the single worst clock manager I've ever seen at any level - professional, college or high school.

Re The "Dream Team": Yeah, this is the one year they spent big on personnel and it's blowing up on them. I blame Vick, not Reid. Vick gets a free pass from way too many people. For all the hype, he's mostly produced a lot of injury-plagued mediocrity that always seems to promise more than it actually is.

 

[Cusefan95]

Re The "Dream Team": Yeah, this is the one year they spent big on personnel and it's blowing up on them. I blame Vick, not Reid. Vick gets a free pass from way too many people. For all the hype, he's mostly produced a lot of injury-plagued mediocrity that always seems to promise more than it actually is.

Vick's career QB rating is around 80, last year it was 100. This year its back around 80. Last year was the best year Vick will ever have, and it was fool's gold - this year he's regressed to the mean. And it will probably cost Reid his job.

 

[OrangePA]

ESPN OTL did a piece on Andy Reid, talking about how Eagles fans have grwon tire dof him. He's won a lot of games but always fallen short. This year he had a "Dream Team" but they've performed poorly. On top of that when he talks to the press, (which means he's tlaking to the public), he gives nothing but boilerplate answers such as "That's on me. As a coach I've got to do a better job of putting our players in positon to win the game. " Where have we heard that before?

The repost also said that people close to Andy have had many occasisons to see that he's a passion, caring guy and not the grumpy, mechanical coach we see at press conferences. And players love it when the coach publically blames himself rather than "throwing them under the bus". But the press and fans want explanations for disappointing play and resentment is rising.

We've been all through this. We got rid of a coach who gave cliched expanations for disappoitning losses and went downhill from there. Doug Marrone isn't Coach P but his responses after the Lousiville game sound a lot like the clips they showed of Reid. Some coaches, like Coach Mac or Lou Hotlz know how to entertain the press at news conferences and get people to love them to help them ride out slumsp and disappointments. But not everyone has a knack for that.

Reid had some great opportunties to win a Super Bowl. In 2002 they played a Tampa Bay team they had owned in the NFC championship game. They got a kick-off return for a score to open the game and then played very conservatively, seeming to assume that everything would go their way as it had in prior games. It didn't and they had to watch the Bucs crush the Raiders in the Super Bowl. They lost to the Panthers- the Panthers - the next year. Then they finally amde the Super Bowl and the clock amangement at the end was brutal as they lost by a field goal. Maybe if they'd won one of them, things would be different. Or maybe not.

Good one - we got rid of a coach because of his answers durng press conferences? How one answers a question posed by a guy like Bud Poliquin - who is a nice guy but who knows nothing about football - is a way to guage coaching ability? It was Mac's ability during press conferences that made a difference? Coach Mac was a wise man and a very good coach but his press conferences were often indecipherable and certainly did nothing to quell the "Sac Mac Pac" that was in full force right before the 1987 season.

Assessing Coach Marrone on the basis of answers following a game is for media types who are trying to fill dead air - the calculation is an utter waste of time. Press conference performance is the least of our problems at this point.

I remain surprised that so many still don't seem to understand what happened during Pasqualoni's last five or so years - you still think it was his schemes and press relations were his downfall. The fact is that his downfall was a function of precisely what your post embodies - it was a bunch of amateurs who had great financial influence at the University acting upon their own presumed nderstanding of our talent level and our structural ability to compete. With delusions firmly in place, they became convinced that all we needed was a good coach and all would be well - that our talent and infrastructure were just fine.

Coachng was not the problem then and not the problem now.

We have a very good coach who is making progress - we are 5-3 with a very good chance to get back to a bowl with four games to go - with more money and better resources, but who still needs better financial support and who also acknowledges, if you listen to him, just how hard it is to succeed at Syracuse University.

And, the notion that Pasqualoni's experience at SU and Reid's experience in Philly are even remotely comparable is without merit.

Andy Reid, however you feel about him - I for one feel that he is a very solid coach - has never had the kind of financial disadvantages that confronted Pasqualoni. Have you ever visited the NovaCare Center in South Philly. It is probably the best of its kind in the NFL. And, the living experience in Philly for professional football players is very positive and very attractive.

The fact that the Eagles signed a great CB, a good DE and a decent back-up QB got far more attention than was deserved. The Eagles have trouble because they can't block plays and can't stop the run. The lock-out and some bad luck - the injury to Ryan Harris - hurt the team as it tried to cover those problems.

I am pretty sure that Jeff Lurie and Joe Banner are quite happy with Andy Reid. I am also very aware of how Philly fans react to coaches - many wanted Charlie Manuel fired a few years ago.

Andy Reid's experience is not all that unusual in the NFL. Bill Cowher had many more close misses than Reid - he finally one won and shed the image of a guy who couldn't win the big one - but it took a lot of time. The same thing happened to Tom Landry in Dallas - he lost many big games before he finally won one. Marty Schottenheimer lost many big ones - and the teams that fired him soon regretted their decisions - he was a great coach.

I think all of us have to focus on the big issues - infrastructure, money, time - and not the kind of "issues" that talk radio tries to create - such as press conference performance or "clock managment" or "playcalling"

 

[SWC75]

I wasn't saying that a coaches responses to questions should determine if he retains his job. The fact is, they do matter in people's perception of him and if it creates a negative perception, that can make his situaiton more difficult. When I, in a earlier post, said that Syracuse fans just "got tired" of Coach P, that produced several responses in agreemnt and the same phrase was used to describe Reid's situaiton in Philly. It made it harder for P to ride out the slump at the end of his career. It shouldn't have, but it did. The report indicated it was a problem for Reid and the situation seemed familar.

P's demise had more to do with naitonal TV blow-outs and the failure to take full advatange of the talent he had on his roster in the '90s. SU's upgrade of facilities was necessary in light of what other schools were doing but it wasn't the reason for multiple losses to Temple and Rutgers or 0-62, 0-59, 0-51 type blow-outs. That's been discussed in a hundred previous posts and isn't what I'm talking about here.

I agree that Andy Reid has been a very good coach for the Eagles, arguably the best they've had, at least since Greasy Neale back in the 40's. The whole point of the OTL report was that his stolid demeanor and cliched answers in press conferences weren't helping him and if he'd let his natural personality come out and showed more candor, the press and fans would have a more positive image of him and that could help him. That's what I was talking about.

I think Doug Marrone is a fine coach and will have alot of success here and have said so in multiple posts. I've urged patience because the rebuilding period can be difficult and frustrating. I found it interesting that in his post game press conference after Louisville, he used some of the same phrases I'd heard Reid use in various clips from the OTL report so I thought I'd bring the subject up.

 

[cmr27]

I think all of us have to focus on the big issues - infrastructure, money, time - and not the kind of "issues" that talk radio tries to create - such as press conference performance or "clock managment" or "playcalling"

I'm pretty sure focus on clock management at the end of the first half of the Buffalo game - and at countless other times in his tenure - would have served Reid well.

 

[Cusefan95]

I wasn't saying that a coaches responses to questions should determine if he retains his job. The fact is, they do matter in people's perception of him and if it creates a negative perception, that can make his situaiton more difficult.

The idea that a coach's personality can create a negative impression is talk radio nonsense. Ya know what creates a negative perception? Losing. Ya know what creates a positive impression? Winning. It really is that simple. A guy that's funny with the press when he's losing isn't serious enough. A guy that gives bland press conferences after a loss isn't interesting enough. It's all crap journalists make up because the simple truth that people hate losing and want to blame something doesn't sound nearly sophisticated enough.

Not a coach, but illustrates the point - Eli Manning's first few years all we heard about was how quiet and reserved he was, didn't get emotional, wasn't ever going to be a good "leader". Dude wins a Super Bowl and now the same traits showed that he was calm, steady, reliable...all excellent leadership qualities. It's all just crap, whatever you do when you're winning will be praised, whatever you do when you're losing will be seen as character flaws.

 

[OrangePA]

I wasn't saying that a coaches responses to questions should determine if he retains his job. The fact is, they do matter in people's perception of him and if it creates a negative perception, that can make his situaiton more difficult. When I, in a earlier post, said that Syracuse fans just "got tired" of Coach P, that produced several responses in agreemnt and the same phrase was used to describe Reid's situaiton in Philly. It made it harder for P to ride out the slump at the end of his career. It shouldn't have, but it did. The report indicated it was a problem for Reid and the situation seemed familar.

P's demise had more to do with naitonal TV blow-outs and the failure to take full advatange of the talent he had on his roster in the '90s. SU's upgrade of facilities was necessary in light of what other schools were doing but it wasn't the reason for multiple losses to Temple and Rutgers or 0-62, 0-59, 0-51 type blow-outs. That's been discussed in a hundred previous posts and isn't what I'm talking about here.

I agree that Andy Reid has been a very good coach for the Eagles, arguably the best they've had, at least since Greasy Neale back in the 40's. The whole point of the OTL report was that his stolid demeanor and cliched answers in press conferences weren't helping him and if he'd let his natural personality come out and showed more candor, the press and fans would have a more positive image of him and that could help him. That's what I was talking about.

I think Doug Marrone is a fine coach and will have alot of success here and have said so in multiple posts. I've urged patience because the rebuilding period can be difficult and frustrating. I found it interesting that in his post game press conference after Louisville, he used some of the same phrases I'd heard Reid use in various clips from the OTL report so I thought I'd bring the subject up.

Your paragraph, quoted below, is not accurate, but does admittedly reflect, in part, the thinking of some important alums at the time and it is precisely what my post attempts to address - an an amateur's insistence on attempting to critique the ability of a major college coaching staff. There is no doubt that some folks who know as much about football and college football organization and operation as you do, made the decision to fire Coach Pasqualoni on the basis of the emotion of a single game - Ga Tech - and the presumptions you have consistently made regarding the talent level of the team.

I know that because I was there while the discussion took place in the Citrus Bowl at the half of that game. I can tell you that nobody even suggested that Pasqualoni should be fired because he supposedly underachieved in the 1990s - that was not an issue. The concern expressed at the time was the blow-out loss to Ga Tech - the belief that there was sufficient talent for the team to be successful - that major doners would no support the program if a change were not made.

The decision was made in the heat of the moment - just a few weeks after the Chancellor announced that the staff would be retained, and of course after the great win at BC. I think the decision also reflected what some have described as Mr. Burton's reaction to Pasqualoni. The coach never allowed outside factors decide internal football matters.

Here is what you have concluded: "P's demise had more to do with naitonal TV blow-outs and the failure to take full advatange of the talent he had on his roster in the '90s. SU's upgrade of facilities was necessary in light of what other schools were doing but it wasn't the reason for multiple losses to Temple and Rutgers or 0-62, 0-59, 0-51 type blow-outs. That's been discussed in a hundred previous posts and isn't what I'm talking about here. (emphasis supplied).

Your presumption that Syracuse did not take advantage of its talent in the 1990s is inaccurate - SU did not have the kind of talent that so many assumed it had - SU never had NC talent - it had some great individuals but never the bulk of talent that the major programs had and still have on a yearly basis.

And, as noted above, the coach's performance during the 1990s had nothing to do with the decision to fire him. That has been your presumption but it's not accurate.

That some others on this board might agree with you is certainly not surprising - many have repeatedly issued what has become the conventional wisdom on this board. Many have presumed that we should have won a NC under Coach P. I understand that.

As far as candor is concerned, I never recall Pasqualoni approaching press conferences the way Reid does - Pasqualoni answered questions very directly unless the question dealt with strategy for the upcoming game - he always made it clear that he would not answer those kinds of questions. Was he as fun as Coach Mac or Lou Holtz or some others? Clearly not. He was total football - very serious. Could he have been more outgoing or more fun during press conferences? I guess so. Would that have had any impact on the halftime coaching decision in Tampa? I don't think so.

Reid assumes full responsibility when the team loses and gives credit to the players and staff when the team wins. I agree that Marrone has patterned his approach after Reid's approach.

I don't think it makes any difference in how either the administration or the owners of the Eagles assess their coaches. And I do not think that either of the two coaches is exhibiting a lack of candor.

I think that "press conference demeanor" is pretty irrelevant and interests only radio talk show hosts and some listeners. I think its a non-issue.

 

[Chip]

Wow, a lot of typing in this thread, which ended up looking like a lot of running in place.

Belechick's pressers are sleepy, his sideline demeanor is sleepy. His teams win games and championships. So the fans love him.

 

[orangenirvana]

There is no doubt that some folks who know as much about football and college football organization and operation as you do, made the decision to fire Coach Pasqualoni on the basis of the emotion of a single game - Ga Tech.

I know that because I was there while the discussion took place in the Citrus Bowl at the half of that game. I can tell you that nobody even suggested that Pasqualoni should be fired because he supposedly underachieved in the 1990s - that was not an issue. The concern expressed at the time was the blow-out loss to Ga Tech - the belief that there was sufficient talent for the team to be successful - that major doners would no support the program if a change were not made.

The decision was made in the heat of the moment - just a few weeks after the Chancellor announced that the staff would be retained, and of course after the great win at BC.
Here is what you have concluded: "P's demise had more to do with naitonal TV blow-outs and the failure to take full advatange of the talent he had on his roster in the '90s. SU's upgrade of facilities was necessary in light of what other schools were doing but it wasn't the reason for multiple losses to Temple and Rutgers or 0-62, 0-59, 0-51 type blow-outs. That's been discussed in a hundred previous posts and isn't what I'm talking about here. (emphasis supplied).

Your presumption that Syracuse did not take advantage of its talent in the 1990s is inaccurate - SU did not have the kind of talent that so many assumed it had - SU never had NC talent - it had some great individuals but never the bulk of talent that the major programs had and still have on a yearly basis.

And, as noted above, the coach's performance during the 1990s had nothing to do with the decision to fire him. That has been your presumption but it's not accurate.

That some others on this board might agree with you is certainly not surprising - many have repeatedly issued what has become the conventional wisdom on this board. Many have presumed that we should have won a NC under Coach P. I understand that.

As far as candor is concerned, I never recall Pasqualoni approaching press conferences the way Reid does - Pasqualoni answered questions very directly unless the question dealt with strategy for the upcoming game - he always made it clear that he would not answer those kinds of questions. Was he as fun as Coach Mac or Lou Holtz or some others? Clearly not. He was total football - very serious. Could he have been more outgoing or more fun during press conferences? I guess so. Would that have had any impact on the halftime coaching decision in Tampa? I don't think so.

Reid assumes full responsibility when the team loses and gives credit to the players and staff when the team wins. I agree that Marrone has patterned his approach after Reid's approach.

I don't think it makes any difference in how either the administration or the owners of the Eagles assess their coaches. And I do not think that either of the two coaches is exhibiting a lack of candor.

I think that "press conference demeanor" is pretty irrelevant and interests only radio talk show hosts and some listeners. I think its a non-issue.

You really think that Coach P's firing was all about the Georgia Tech bowl game and that other factors were not taken into consideration? Wow, that's crazy.

Pasqualoni had a very good coaching tenure at Syracuse, one to be very proud of. He inherited a program on the rise, a program that was as talented as it had ever been sans the late-50's - early-60's. Did a great job maximizing results his first two years. And he did a solid job for prolonging that momentum for as long as he could. But eventually he couldn't, and therefore it was time to go. The bowl game in 2004 was the final straw...not the only straw.

The bottom line - Pasqualoni is a good football coach, but not nearly the untouchable Paterno-like legend you perceive him to be.

One thing I do agree with you re: Pasqualoni is that Pasqualoni's press conferences differed from Reid's and Marrone's. Unlike Reid and Marrone, Coach P never took blame after losses. It was always about lack of execution from the players and "hindsight is 20-20."

 

[Symphony Steve]

Here is the one part where I believe the analogy between P and Reid is apt: Both fan bases have seen what they each had to offer, and they've grown tired of what they had to offer.

One key difference is that, in the last few years of Coach P, the product was boring in addition to the coach. The Iggles largely play exciting, if ultimately, 'just-good-enough-to-lose-in-the-big-games' football. Reid's a very good coach who ultimately will likely end up with the Chuck Knoxes and Bud Grants of the world--close enough to see the Promised Land, but doomed never to enter it.

 

[cmr27]

The idea that a coach's personality can create a negative impression is talk radio nonsense. Ya know what creates a negative perception? Losing. Ya know what creates a positive impression? Winning. It really is that simple. A guy that's funny with the press when he's losing isn't serious enough. A guy that gives bland press conferences after a loss isn't interesting enough. It's all crap journalists make up because the simple truth that people hate losing and want to blame something doesn't sound nearly sophisticated enough.

Not a coach, but illustrates the point - Eli Manning's first few years all we heard about was how quiet and reserved he was, didn't get emotional, wasn't ever going to be a good "leader". Dude wins a Super Bowl and now the same traits showed that he was calm, steady, reliable...all excellent leadership qualities. It's all just crap, whatever you do when you're winning will be praised, whatever you do when you're losing will be seen as character flaws.

Funny, I always thought one of the downsides of college coaching was having to do all the glad-handling with alumni who think they know more than they do. I've heard people in the business say that it is (somewhat needlessly) important. But you are saying that football coaching is a total meritocracy since everyone will bend to the coach's personality if he is successful. Interesting. I don't find that there are many jobs where personality doesn't matter. I wouldn't have guessed that coaching would be one.

 

[SWC75]

Your paragraph, quoted below, is not accurate, but does admittedly reflect, in part, the thinking of some important alums at the time and it is precisely what my post attempts to address - an an amateur's insistence on attempting to critique the ability of a major college coaching staff. There is no doubt that some folks who know as much about football and college football organization and operation as you do, made the decision to fire Coach Pasqualoni on the basis of the emotion of a single game - Ga Tech - and the presumptions you have consistently made regarding the talent level of the team.

I know that because I was there while the discussion took place in the Citrus Bowl at the half of that game. I can tell you that nobody even suggested that Pasqualoni should be fired because he supposedly underachieved in the 1990s - that was not an issue. The concern expressed at the time was the blow-out loss to Ga Tech - the belief that there was sufficient talent for the team to be successful - that major doners would no support the program if a change were not made.

The decision was made in the heat of the moment - just a few weeks after the Chancellor announced that the staff would be retained, and of course after the great win at BC. I think the decision also reflected what some have described as Mr. Burton's reaction to Pasqualoni. The coach never allowed outside factors decide internal football matters.

Here is what you have concluded: "P's demise had more to do with naitonal TV blow-outs and the failure to take full advatange of the talent he had on his roster in the '90s. SU's upgrade of facilities was necessary in light of what other schools were doing but it wasn't the reason for multiple losses to Temple and Rutgers or 0-62, 0-59, 0-51 type blow-outs. That's been discussed in a hundred previous posts and isn't what I'm talking about here. (emphasis supplied).

Your presumption that Syracuse did not take advantage of its talent in the 1990s is inaccurate - SU did not have the kind of talent that so many assumed it had - SU never had NC talent - it had some great individuals but never the bulk of talent that the major programs had and still have on a yearly basis.

And, as noted above, the coach's performance during the 1990s had nothing to do with the decision to fire him. That has been your presumption but it's not accurate.

That some others on this board might agree with you is certainly not surprising - many have repeatedly issued what has become the conventional wisdom on this board. Many have presumed that we should have won a NC under Coach P. I understand that.

As far as candor is concerned, I never recall Pasqualoni approaching press conferences the way Reid does - Pasqualoni answered questions very directly unless the question dealt with strategy for the upcoming game - he always made it clear that he would not answer those kinds of questions. Was he as fun as Coach Mac or Lou Holtz or some others? Clearly not. He was total football - very serious. Could he have been more outgoing or more fun during press conferences? I guess so. Would that have had any impact on the halftime coaching decision in Tampa? I don't think so.

Reid assumes full responsibility when the team loses and gives credit to the players and staff when the team wins. I agree that Marrone has patterned his approach after Reid's approach.

I don't think it makes any difference in how either the administration or the owners of the Eagles assess their coaches. And I do not think that either of the two coaches is exhibiting a lack of candor.

I think that "press conference demeanor" is pretty irrelevant and interests only radio talk show hosts and some listeners. I think its a non-issue.

Again, we rehashed the Coach P era a hundred times. I think that if we'd had the sort of success in the McNabb Era Virginia Tech had with Vick and if we'd avoided the 0-62, 0-59, 0-51, 0-49, 0-43 type games and the losses to the dregs of the cofnerence he would certainly have survied the Georgia Tech game. The 1988 and 1999 Virginia Tech teams played competitively in national title games and did not have more talent than we did in the McNabb Era. If we'd had that type of success then recruiting would never have fallen off as it did. The Georgia Tech game was the last straw, not the whole problem.

The OTL segment strongly suggested that Reid's public demeanor was a disadvantage to him when the team was disappointing. I agree that if you are winning it doesn't matter. I doubt there are complaints about it after last night's game. The original intent of my hijacked post was to bemoan the fact that such things could matter.

 

[OrangePA]

Again, we rehashed the Coach P era a hundred times. I think that if we'd had the sort of success in the McNabb Era Virginia Tech had with Vick and if we'd avoided the 0-62, 0-59, 0-51, 0-49, 0-43 type games and the losses to the dregs of the cofnerence he would certainly have survied the Georgia Tech game. The 1988 and 1999 Virginia Tech teams played competitively in national title games and did not have more talent than we did in the McNabb Era. If we'd had that type of success then recruiting would never have fallen off as it did. The Georgia Tech game was the last straw, not the whole problem.

The OTL segment strongly suggested that Reid's public demeanor was a disadvantage to him when the team was disappointing. I agree that if you are winning it doesn't matter. I doubt there are complaints about it after last night's game. The original intent of my hijacked post was to bemoan the fact that such things could matter.

Yeah, Pasqualoni was fired because he lost a game to WVU ten years earlier in 1994.

Are you suggesting that he got a reprieve when he beat Clemson one year later 41-0 or when he opened against Wisconsin at 34-o or when he defeated Va Tech in 1998 or 2002 or beat K-State in the Insight Bowl?

You really believe that the McNabb era was a failure, with the Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Gator Bowl and Liberty Bowl?

You're a loyal fan and alum but you just don't get it.

You listen to programs like OTL or PTI or talk radio where the only goal is to fill time with speculation and conjecture about anything that can stir conversation - and you take way too much of it to heart.

I can assure you that Pasqualoni was not fired because of his press conference demeanor or because he lost to Miami or Va Tech or WVU years earlier.

And I can assure you that Jeff Lurie and Joe Banner laugh at the Andy Reid press conference nonsense.

 

[SmilinBob]

Another reason I despise labels, dream team. 1 guy said something stupid and the press runs with it.

 

[SWC75]

Yeah, Pasqualoni was fired because he lost a game to WVU ten years earlier in 1994.

Are you suggesting that he got a reprieve when he beat Clemson one year later 41-0 or when he opened against Wisconsin at 34-o or when he defeated Va Tech in 1998 or 2002 or beat K-State in the Insight Bowl?

You really believe that the McNabb era was a failure, with the Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Gator Bowl and Liberty Bowl?

You're a loyal fan and alum but you just don't get it.

You listen to programs like OTL or PTI or talk radio where the only goal is to fill time with speculation and conjecture about anything that can stir conversation - and you take way too much of it to heart.

I can assure you that Pasqualoni was not fired because of his press conference demeanor or because he lost to Miami or Va Tech or WVU years earlier.

And I can assure you that Jeff Lurie and Joe Banner laugh at the Andy Reid press conference nonsense.

The McNabb era was not a "failure" but it was a missed opportunity. We should had at least one year in four that was as good as either of the Vick years at Virginia Tech and it would have helped Pasqualoni if we did. The good performances only made the bad ones more disappointing. They didn't make the "OK". 0-62 and 0-59 losses were totally unacceptable by any measure. Job retention was a very public issue for Pasqualoni for at least two years before whe was finally fired. It's the biggest reason his recruiting declined so much in his final years.

 

[OttoMets]

Yeah, Pasqualoni was fired because he lost a game to WVU ten years earlier in 1994.

Are you suggesting that he got a reprieve when he beat Clemson one year later 41-0 or when he opened against Wisconsin at 34-o or when he defeated Va Tech in 1998 or 2002 or beat K-State in the Insight Bowl?

You really believe that the McNabb era was a failure, with the Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Gator Bowl and Liberty Bowl?

You're a loyal fan and alum but you just don't get it.

You listen to programs like OTL or PTI or talk radio where the only goal is to fill time with speculation and conjecture about anything that can stir conversation - and you take way too much of it to heart.

I can assure you that Pasqualoni was not fired because of his press conference demeanor or because he lost to Miami or Va Tech or WVU years earlier.

And I can assure you that Jeff Lurie and Joe Banner laugh at the Andy Reid press conference nonsense.

You're deliberately misconstruing the point.

I'm a Pasqualoni supporter also, but you're running the risk of making this into more petty bickering. A decade of 40+ -point losses combined with managing to lose 14 games with McNabb's loaded teams (yes, they were every bit as talented as SWC and others claim) to put Pasqualoni on very thin ice in 2003. He got a one-year reprieve, found himself with another reprieve after the odd tie for the Big East title in 2004, then got it yanked away during another ugly rout in the bowl game.

Anyone who thinks that the headline-making blowouts and the failure to fully capitalize on great talent didn't lead to his demise is not being honest. And while I won't impugn Pasqualoni's personality, it's no secret that his demeanor with the press did not win him any extra support.