He has dug himself too deep to get out with all his dumb comments, stories and antics during his pressers. He has embarrassed this team, the ownership, the city and the sport.  Hes toast. 

yeah because from the coaches that on the hot seat, they are no different than what we have right now.

On 10/25/2021 at 7:55 AM, E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles said:

I am guessing "YES",  because doing something else requires Howie and Lurie to admit that they failed with the selection.  

This perfectly sums up my rationale for voting yes on this poll.

Once he realizes games are played on the football field and not in excel spreadsheets I may begin to have small glimmer of hope in him. But that's a long shot.

He’s a rookie head coach who has done a lot of good things and a lot of bad things.

In other words, he’s done as well as you can reasonably expect a rookie head coach (with an inexperienced staff) to do.

2 minutes ago, SB52 said:

He’s a rookie head coach who has done a lot of good things and a lot of bad things.

In other words, he’s done as well as you can reasonably expect a rookie head coach (with an inexperienced staff) to do.

Such as??

IMO he has done a lot more bad than good BUT he is still as raw as they come for a HC.  Just like Hurts needs more time to get a more complete evaluation, so does Sirianni.  

Yeah, I doubt they'll cut bait after only one year especially when most knew we would be going through a rebuild-type year. 

43 minutes ago, time2rock said:

Such as??

IMO he has done a lot more bad than good BUT he is still as raw as they come for a HC.  Just like Hurts needs more time to get a more complete evaluation, so does Sirianni.  

- The scripted plays to start games have been very successful

- The young WR’s have played well for the first time in many years.

- His game management has been better than Andy Reid since Day 1, although there was an obvious blunder on Sunday.

- The two-point conversions have succeeded.

- Guys are seemingly open all day (although, I certainly don’t have the expertise to state this as a fact).

I think not having a veteran coaching presence on the defensive side of the ball has been devastating. He needed a Jim Johnson or Jim Schwartz-type guy. That being said, he was responsible for the staff.

Also, not having a competent QB has masked a lot of the offensive positives.

He will be back next season. He's only been a HC for 7 games. He needs some more time.

Now, he may need a better roster and a different Assistant Coach or two. It just feels like a 'learning and growing' football season.

We aren't going anywhere until we get a QB anyway.  Give him a 2nd year.  If it's more of the same then you cut ties.

Not saying he's gonna be great but you can name many great coaches that had awful years their first season.  Imagine if the 49ers fired Bill Walsh after his 1st year at 2-14.  Imagine if the Giants fired Bill Parcells after his 3-12-1 first year?  

1 hour ago, SB52 said:

- The scripted plays to start games have been very successful

- The young WR’s have played well for the first time in many years.

- His game management has been better than Andy Reid since Day 1, although there was an obvious blunder on Sunday.

- The two-point conversions have succeeded.

- Guys are seemingly open all day (although, I certainly don’t have the expertise to state this as a fact).

I think not having a veteran coaching presence on the defensive side of the ball has been devastating. He needed a Jim Johnson or Jim Schwartz-type guy. That being said, he was responsible for the staff.

Also, not having a competent QB has masked a lot of the offensive positives.

Winner!!

Getting a competent QB would make Sirianni look a lot better.  Sorry but Hurts is awful.

I really don’t know enough but if you’re saying he always does what the analytics says then teams know what he will do, and that can’t be good

Also the question is who would they replace him with?  I think one reason we got him was because we didn’t see anyone else who wanted this mess of a team

33 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

I really don’t know enough but if you’re saying he always does what the analytics says then teams know what he will do, and that can’t be good

Is your argument that making the correct decision is bad because, in the past, people made worse decisions?

25 minutes ago, SB52 said:

Is your argument that making the correct decision is bad because, in the past, people made worse decisions?

If analytics say you will for example get a first down on third down if you run x play 95% of the time, and if you always play the analytics, other teams have the analytics too.  So they know you will run x play.  If they know x is coming, that hurts your chances.

 

it’s a case of why past success does not mean future success

9 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

If analytics say you will for example get a first down on third down if you run x play 95% of the time, and if you always play the analytics, other teams have the analytics too.  So they know you will run x play.  If they know x is coming, that hurts your chances.

 

it’s a case of why past success does not mean future success

I hate that so much of what we do is based on analytics.  I'm sure it is a useful tool to be factored in at times ... but I'd much prefer making decisions based on years of having experienced situations and going with your gut as to what you feel is best.

I think so yes. Lurie doesn't tend to be one to panic and make snap decisions. I also think as things stand Sirianni can point to the QB as a reason to give him longer. But I think that's a mistake. Sirianni is not an NFL HC. He's bad. Really bad. But he'll get a second year probably with a young QB in place. 

17 hours ago, NOTW said:

Looks more like a zit to me than a flower. 

19 hours ago, LacesOut said:

He will be back next season. He's only been a HC for 7 games. He needs some more time.

Now, he may need a better roster and a different Assistant Coach or two. It just feels like a 'learning and growing' football season.

Just like a flower!

17 minutes ago, mihailo said:

Looks more like a zit to me than a flower. 

With a zit like that, you wouldn't get laid for years afterwards.

19 hours ago, NOTW said:

 

I voted no on this.  Where the Eagles are sitting right now, they need the right guy from college.  I'm usually against college hires, but this year's the exception.  Too much draft capital and too many needs.  Coaches fresh from college who have a say in the draft have a knack for picking the right players the first year or so after they're hired.

I don't think they will make a change after one year. I also want to believe that we haven't seen everything Sirianni has to offer. I just feel he doesn't have the players to justify opening up his playbook and showing his hand. I almost feel that his "flower" speech was a metaphor for not not getting concerned that there is nothing good to look at now but when the time is right the "pop" will be revealing the true identity he wants this team to have. You have to assume he had more than a one year plan coming in. I really can't imagine he convinced Lurie that he could turn this team around in one year. I believe Lurie even mentioned Sirianni's long term vision was a factor in hiring him.

He’s likely to have another year, not sure the same can be said about hurts unless the 2 of them can get things happening again.