You haven't addressed points 1 and 2 yet...

You're pretty much getting bitch slapped by logic in this thread.. you know that right?

Thanks for ventriloquizing me. There are exceptions to every rule, but there is a reason why most NFL coaches are done by their early 60s. It's an incredibly stressful job, and, sorry to disappoint, but as people age longer hours, little sleep, and high stress environments are more difficult to cope with. It's a natural part of the aging process. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but acting like aging doesn't take a toll on coaches is no different than thinking it doesn't take a toll on athletes, it just manifests itself through a different mechanism.

This thread makes me want to spend a couple hours in D.C. arguing with Denize.

I agree with your stance on people of age. But let's not act like NFL head coaches are out there digging ditches for 20 hours a day. They're sitting in a $10,000 chair watching film and meeting with assistants. They have an entire staff at their disposal and delegate. I agree, it is a moderate factor in the hiring process that should be discussed and a contingency plan drawn up in advance should they opt to hire RC. But it's NOT the overwhelming reason to outright dismiss his candidacy as Clay would have us believe.

I agree that age could be a factor but I also know there is a WIDE degree of variance between how individuals age and handle stress, long hours etc... If he were 70 I would agree with you but at 64 I just don't put his age at or even NEAR the top of my list of concerns.

And GoChiefs argument that he can't WIN because of his age is just moronic.

ok, yeah what Phil said.. I like his post better, I'm going with this one...

:D

I agree with both of these. It's a complex factor that has to be judged on an individual basis, but given what we do know about aging in general, at the very least, it should be taken into consideration.

With regard to the strain of the work, no it's by no means manual labor, but there is a great deal of stress as a function of the job, and much of that is internal, fear of failure and overlooking the smallest detail. That's why we hear so many stories of coaches working 18+ hour days, and also why there are so many high profile stories of coaches with family problems, Belichick, Reid, Dungy, et. al.

What has happened in the past has no bearing on what will happen in this situation. This is not the same team, the same players or the same coach. As you said, apples and oranges.

Out of all of the coaches who have ever been in the NFL, I wonder how many of them have led their team to a Super Bowl championship.

Now, I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm guessing that the ratio's percentage would be quite similar to the 3/27 that's been showcased throughout the thread.

64 isn't old these days. I guess you are just too young to understand that.

Age is part of the factor but I'd also be interested in hearing why Crennel didn't work in Cleveland?

I think Anderson and Quinn got hurt if my memory is right and it all went down hill from then.

I've just read the whole and, uh, NO!

I'll take this troll over that one any day.

Do you really think I intended to mount an argument based solely on Romeo's age this season?

That's ridiculous. No one thinks Romeo is winning it this year.

The entire line of reasoning is coaches in their 60s...hence why I brought up 24 of 27.

It's ancient for an NFL head coach. You are too ignorant to understand that.