Scary Stat

PennSkinsFan · #1 12-01-2003, 03:28 PM

Norv Turner: 49-59-1 (.459)

Steve Spurrier: 11-17 (.393)

Spence · #2 12-01-2003, 03:30 PM

Turner took over a much worse team, too. The Redskins went 4-12 the year before Turner arrived and they were old and expensive against the cap. Don't get me wrong: I do not miss Norv Turner. I just don't see how Spurrier has done any better. [Nor how he will in the future.] Good stat, Mark.

dj_stouty · #3 12-01-2003, 04:03 PM

OK....OK...OK...how about this one?

Spurrier after 28 games: 11 - 17 (.393)
Norv T. after 28 games: 6 - 22 (.214)

Redskinmayhem · #4 12-01-2003, 04:06 PM

Exactly! Norv was given time to succeed. I know if Spurrier is given time he will also succeed.

Spence · #5 12-01-2003, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dj_stouty
OK....OK...OK...how about this one?

Spurrier after 28 games: 11 - 17 (.393)
Norv T. after 28 games: 6 - 22 (.214)

As I indicated, Turner took over a 4-12 team with a mandate to rebuild. Spurrier took over an 8-8 team and the record has gotten progressively worse under his tenure. At the beginning of the Turner era, the old and expensive Redskins cut costs to meet the new salary caps. At the beginning of the Spurrier era, the Redskins have spent more money and have invested heavily in offense [Coles, Thomas, Jansen, Morton, Jacobs], defense [Gardener, Trotter, Armstead, Bowen, Upshaw] and special teams [Morton, Hall].

What's more, the Redskins actually--gradually--improved in Turner's first three years. They went from 3-13 to 6-9 to 9-7. In Spurrier's first year, the record declined from 8-8 to 7-9 and the team will now have to win three of its last four games just to match last year's poor record.

The summary is that Spurrier took over a much better team and has had more money spent on his behalf, yet has done very little with it. It's a pretty damning indictment.

Redskinmayhem · #6 12-01-2003, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spence
As I indicated, Turner took over a 4-12 team with a mandate to rebuild. Spurrier took over an 8-8 team and the record has gotten progressively worse under his tenure. At the beginning of the Turner era, the old and expensive Redskins cut costs to meet the new salary caps. At the beginning of the Spurrier era, the Redskins have spent more money and have invested heavily in offense [Coles, Thomas, Jansen, Morton, Jacobs], defense [Gardener, Trotter, Armstead, Bowen, Upshaw] and special teams [Morton, Hall].

What's more, the Redskins actually--gradually--improved in Turner's first three years. They went from 3-13 to 6-9 to 9-7. In Spurrier's first year, the record declined from 8-8 to 7-9 and the team will now have to win three of its last four games just to match last year's poor record.

The summary is that Spurrier took over a much better team and has had more money spent on his behalf, yet has done very little with it. It's a pretty damning indictment.

Sorry but I have to Disagree here. SS's team has pretty much been rebuilt since the Norv and Marty Days. Yes he has had more money spent on his behalf but that was after the atrocity of job that Marty did here as a GM. Wether or not we reach 7-9 again is really of no consequence. The main difference between this season and last is that we've only really lost 2 games. Tampa, and buffalo. We were in all the other games untill the last minute. We can't say that about last season. or really about any of the few seasons before. Do you guys remember the beatings we took last year? How about Getting blown out at home by K.C. and G.B. when Marty was coach? I can honestly say that I feel we've gotten better. And we did it w/o Stephen Davis, Daryl Gardner or Big Daddy. Imagine what we'll be like if we fill those glaring holes. Oh one other positive for SS, HE Ended the losing streak to Dallas!!!! Something Norv, Terry, and Marty could not do.

Spence · #7 12-01-2003, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Redskinmayhem
The main difference between this season and last is that we've only really lost 2 games. Tampa, and buffalo. We were in all the other games untill the last minute.

Whew! I'm relieved to read that those other games don't count. Since our record is 10-2, I'm looking forward to home field advantage in the playoffs.

SkinsKY · #8 12-01-2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Redskinmayhem
Sorry but I have to Disagree here. SS's team has pretty much been rebuilt since the Norv and Marty Days. Yes he has had more money spent on his behalf but that was after the atrocity of job that Marty did here as a GM. Wether or not we reach 7-9 again is really of no consequence. The main difference between this season and last is that we've only really lost 2 games. Tampa, and buffalo. We were in all the other games untill the last minute. We can't say that about last season. or really about any of the few seasons before. Do you guys remember the beatings we took last year? How about Getting blown out at home by K.C. and G.B. when Marty was coach? I can honestly say that I feel we've gotten better. And we did it w/o Stephen Davis, Daryl Gardner or Big Daddy. Imagine what we'll be like if we fill those glaring holes. Oh one other positive for SS, HE Ended the losing streak to Dallas!!!! Something Norv, Terry, and Marty could not do.

I don't care if all of our losses were by a combined 10 points. If we lose 10 games, that is unacceptable. losing close or losing big is still losing. The Bears went 13-3 a couple of years ago. I think they were really a 9-7 team who found a way to win four more games. I think we are a 10-6 teams who managed to lose a lot of those. At the end of the season, it is the W's that matter. Both coaches were/are mediocre. End of story in my book.

dukeuch · #9 12-01-2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Redskinmayhem
Yes he has had more money spent on his behalf but that was after the atrocity of job that Marty did here as a GM.

Ahem, who was saddled with huge ocntracts for the likes of Deion Sanders, Mark Carrier, Jeff George, and god knows who else? How Schott could be blamed for being a bad GM is beyond me.

dj_stouty · #10 12-01-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spence
Spurrier took over an 8-8 team and the record has gotten progressively worse under his tenure.

First off, that has yet to be seen. It is too early to call that. Lets wait until week 17 before we say Spurrier's record has gotten progressively worse in his 2nd season.

Secondly, things were not hunky dory in DC when Spurrier came to town. He inherited a team that had 3 different head coaches and 2 different defensive coordinators in only 2 years. A team that had to rely on its rookie WR to be it's best WR. A team that saw the Jeff George/Tony Banks debacle. And...a team that had the leagues' 28th ranked offense. (out of 31, mind you)

Norv may have inherited a stinker from Petitbon, but Spurrier didn't get much from his predicessor either.

HollywoodKolt · #11 12-01-2003, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spence
As I indicated, Turner took over a 4-12 team with a mandate to rebuild. Spurrier took over an 8-8 team and the record has gotten progressively worse under his tenure. At the beginning of the Turner era, the old and expensive Redskins cut costs to meet the new salary caps. At the beginning of the Spurrier era, the Redskins have spent more money and have invested heavily in offense [Coles, Thomas, Jansen, Morton, Jacobs], defense [Gardener, Trotter, Armstead, Bowen, Upshaw] and special teams [Morton, Hall].

What's more, the Redskins actually--gradually--improved in Turner's first three years. They went from 3-13 to 6-9 to 9-7. In Spurrier's first year, the record declined from 8-8 to 7-9 and the team will now have to win three of its last four games just to match last year's poor record.

The summary is that Spurrier took over a much better team and has had more money spent on his behalf, yet has done very little with it. It's a pretty damning indictment.

Yes. But the team that Spurier took over was built towards marty ball. A clock milking power running game. Spurrier doesn't run that kind of offense. Spurrier runs his pass heavy offense.

Not only was he taking over a football team geared toward a different style of offense. He was coming from college. Name me one college coach who has had success coming into the NFL in his first year. I don't know what Jimmy Johnson's record was in his second year but I don't think he won the super bowl. I'm not sure where to find this information. The NFL is a very different game you've got faster players, smaller rosters. Not to mention all the offseason stuff, Money (over the counter), free agency. Spurrier can't just walk into a players house have drinks with his parents and try and get him to come to his team.

Spurrier obvoiusly didn't understand how the NFL worked when he came here he thought that the likes of Jacquez Green, Shane Mathews, and the gang of gators could get it done in the nfl. But now he knows and that shows a lot of the time. But he's still learning that shows as well. Spurrier is learning how to win. I can guarentee you that once Spurrier gets in his grove this will be one fun team to watch. You can call me on that.

This team came into the offseason with a plan last year they adressed almost all of their needs, Other than the D-line. And they got some tremendous players Matt Bowen, Randy Thomas, Laverneous Coles, John Hall, Chad Morton. I expect more of the same defensivly this year.

I believe in Spurrier, this guy can call an offensive game and I believe that year three will see some serious improvment. DON'T LOSE FAITH!

NamVet4 · #12 12-01-2003, 07:56 PM

Spurrier leaves a lot to be desired! And Spence and PSF make valid points.
I just can't see the Team going through another wholesale change in the coaching ranks.
So for an oft stated and over stated idea, how about we get a buffer between Snyder and Spurrier.

(Buffers, a buffer ?, Oh yeah, a buffer Senator, that's what we have in the Corleone family.)

This will allow Spurrier to concentrate more on the "NFL" way of doing things without the hassle of the owner and the FO.
And it will give Snyder a new person to talk to, and badger, about his grand vision of the Redskins return to glory.

JoeDaSchmoe · #13 12-01-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Exactly! Norv was given time to succeed. I know if Spurrier is given time he will also succeed.

"Also"? So one playoff appearance in seven years is success?

skins74 · #14 12-01-2003, 09:46 PM

Imagine if he didn't have Marvin Lewis's defensive coordinating last year, his winning percentage would be even worse.

Spence · #15 12-01-2003, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dj_stouty
First off, that has yet to be seen. It is too early to call that. Lets wait until week 17 before we say Spurrier's record has gotten progressively worse in his 2nd season.

Secondly, things were not hunky dory in DC when Spurrier came to town. He inherited a team that had 3 different head coaches and 2 different defensive coordinators in only 2 years. A team that had to rely on its rookie WR to be it's best WR. A team that saw the Jeff George/Tony Banks debacle. And...a team that had the leagues' 28th ranked offense. (out of 31, mind you)

Norv may have inherited a stinker from Petitbon, but Spurrier didn't get much from his predicessor either.

You're right, DJ. It is technically possible that the Redskins will win three of their last four games and finish 7-9. It's pretty optimistic to believe such a thing will actually happen, I'm sure you agree, but it is technically possible. I stand corrected on what is technically possible.

I think you are completely wrong on your second point. To suggest Spurrier inherited a team almost as bad as the one Norv did seems...well, I just don't see that at all. One team was 8-8 and the other was 4-12. One team was old and expensive. The other was relatively young and had just about mastered its cap problems, thanks to Marty's somewhat overly-aggressive salary pruning.

The only advantage Turner had over Spurrier is that Turner had an actual NFL GM helping him out. Spurrier does not. But since Spurrier knew that when he took the job, it's pretty difficult to feel sorry for him now.