If context matters for one coach it matters for the other.S197 wrote:The problem is even in a tough year, Zimmer fielded a good defense. Frazier's defense was almost dead last in YPG in his final season. 31st in the league. His secondary holds the NFL record for longest streak without an interception. If he's a victim of circumstance, he wouldn't have failed in Tampa and demoted once again to a positions coach.
What you posted above isn't an arc. It's a pair of W/L totals. The similar arcs are: losing first season—significant improvement and a playoff appearance in season 2— disappointing drop-off in the third year. Note that they are similar, not identical. There are differences and good reasons for those differences which, again, reinforces the importance of context. Simply pointing to W/L totals is the antithesis of providing that context.Zimmer is 26-22 as a HC. Frazier was 18-29. How is that even close to the same arc?
Again, you're ignoring the context you say is necessary. He wasn't "demoted" in Tampa Bay. He remained defensive coordinator. Lovie Smith took over the play calling in year 2 which he is notorious for doing. He did it repeatedly in Chicago and to more than one DC, including Ron Rivera (and we all know he can't coach). Frazier spent one season doing a good job as a position coach in Baltimore and he's already a defensive coordinator again. There's no shame in that. After all, there are only so many DC and HC jobs out there at any given time. The man has been steadily employed as an NFL coach for 19 years now. He's obviously respected by his peers.There is no double standard. As his record shows, Frazier was not a very good HC. His further demotions since leaving the Vikings provides further evidence he's not a very good DC either. His association with Childress may not have helped but he was let go on his own lack of merit.
But now you have me defending Frazier's merits and that's not the point.
You're shooting the messenger and I don't think I'm the one demonstrating bias here. There are clear correlations between the two coaches. There are clear differences too but either context matters or doesn't matter. It can't simply be applied where it's convenient and ignored when it's not. Pointing to how injuries impacted one coach but ignoring how they affected the other is unfair. Trashing one coach's team for poor defenses or late game collapses and ignoring similarly significant shortcomings on the other's team is also unfair. Sure, it's terrible that Frazier's defense was 31st in the league in his final season but where's the harsh criticism for Zimmer's offenses finishing #27, #29 and #28 the last 3 years? That's so much better? Does he get a pass because he just wanted to focus on defense? What about last year's running game, which was dead last in the league?As I've already pointed out, there's absolutely no correlation between the trajectories of the two coaches. Believing there is only confirms your own bias.