Quote:Long time regulars who tend to "wait and see."
Hmmmm. So - like 12 people.
I'd also point out that when you have the 2nd youngest roster in the league and you can look around the roster and see that 4 or 5 veteran starters are merely placeholders, then….. yeah, there's going to be a lot of "wait and see." Like it or not.
I agree that the reality is always somewhere between the extremes - and have stated that I understand why so many complain about seemingly everything. I just see many reasons why the "wait and see" approach makes the most sense right now.
Yeah, but those dozen regulars make up half the posts on this board and are the moderators.
I understand being annoyed by people who are just going to whine regardless of whether the team turns left or right.
At the same time, you do see why so many people, many with legitimate reasoning, would be unhappy with the hiring of someone at such an important position who has a long history of failure, right? I mean, this isn't some unknown commodity that people are complaining about.
Quote:What choice does anyone have other than to let it play out?
I dislike the hire, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that there is a possibility that Olson gets it turned around. Even if he does, my opinion would be that it was a bad hire that worked out well.
No... You would have been wrong. It's not a bad hire that worked out. It just turns into a good hire. A good hire that works out.
There's a difference between trolly posts with no substance (see: P Haze) and critical posts that actually contribute football discussion. Unfortunately, too many members of the board (especially moderators) seems to see them as the same thing and go to equal lengths to try to shut them both down. No opinions allowed unless they come from The O-Zone presented by Seabest Seafood.
Quote:There's a difference between trolly posts with no substance (see: P Haze) and critical posts that actually contribute football discussion. Unfortunately, too many members of the board (especially moderators) seems to see them as the same thing and go to equal lengths to try to shut them both down. No opinions allowed unless they come from The O-Zone presented by Seabest Seafood.
O-Zone is the most useless zone i've ever been in. I miss Vic.
Quote:No... You would have been wrong. It's not a bad hire that worked out. It just turns into a good hire. A good hire that works out.
Just because something works out, it doesn't mean it was righteous.
If we trade the #3 overall pick for a 7th rounder this year who turns into a hall of famer while Leonard Williams busts, does that justify the trade? Does that make it a practice we should regularly employ?
Quote:Just because something works out, it doesn't mean it was righteous.
If we trade the #3 overall pick for a 7th rounder this year who turns into a hall of famer while Leonard Williams busts, does that justify the trade? Does that make it a practice we should regularly employ?
Not even close to the same lol
You have no idea if it's a good hire or bad hire yet. You just don't. If it doesn't work out, it ends up being a bad hire. If it does work out, its a good hire. It can't be a bad hire that works out. That doesn't make sense.
Quote:Not even close to the same lol
You have no idea if it's a good hire or bad hire yet. You just don't. If it doesn't work out, it ends up being a bad hire. If it does work out, its a good hire. It can't be a bad hire that works out. That doesn't make sense.
It is the same.
You have no idea when you draft players If they'll work out either. Leonard Williams has a better resume than a 7th rounder. The 7th rounder ended up being better regardless. Just because you beat the odds once, doesn't make playing against the odds a smart move.
Quote:At the same time, you do see why so many people, many with legitimate reasoning, would be unhappy with the hiring of someone at such an important position who has a long history of failure, right? I mean, this isn't some unknown commodity that people are complaining about.
Oh sure, if you only go by the ranking of the offenses he's coordinated, he's a
failure I guess. I just try not to look at it that simplistically.
He's respected as a QB guru and he milked some good production out of Freeman in TB, made Harrington look almost serviceable for a year and helped Carr to the best rookie stats from a QB last season. I think Bortles has better upside than all of those guys.
If he does that with Bortles this year - it's conceivable that the team is sniffing at a .500 record. (Especially if Marrone can get that line somewhat functional and consistent.)
Quote:Oh sure, if you only go by the ranking of the offenses he's coordinated, he's a failure I guess. I just try not to look at it that simplistically.
He's respected as a QB guru and he milked some good production out of Freeman in TB, made Harrington look almost serviceable for a year and helped Carr to the best rookie stats from a QB last season. I think Bortles has better upside than all of those guys.
If he does that with Bortles this year - it's conceivable that the team is sniffing at a .500 record. (Especially if Marrone can get that line somewhat functional and consistent.)
I don't think there would have been many complaints had he been hired as QB coach. Heck, I was genuinely excited when that was the rumor. Most could look past his Blaine Gabbert job and see the track record of success he's had previously.
Unfortunatley, he was hired to be a coordinator and there's lots more that goes into it than just improved qb play. All of those improved quarterbacks he had were still part of bad offenses.
It's realistic to expect only marginal gains on offense, even with improvement from Bortles. Most defend Olson by saying he's never had talent, but this offense isn't exactly brimming with talent either.
Quote:Unfortunatley, he was hired to be a coordinator and there's lots more that goes into it than just improved qb play. All of those improved quarterbacks he had were still part of bad offenses.
Absolutely true. However - Marrone's title suggests he'll play some role in the offense - ostensibly the running game scheme - and we know Sully will get something out of a young but talented crew of receivers. So - If Olson can get Bortles on track and just be a
marginal play caller - this team could be much better.
They could have won 5 more games last year by simply scoring 24 points in each of those contests.
24 points.
That's not asking the world of Olson. If Blake gets his end together -- it'll be deemed a great hire.
Quote:I don't think there would have been many complaints had he been hired as QB coach. Heck, I was genuinely excited when that was the rumor. Most could look past his Blaine Gabbert job and see the track record of success he's had previously.
Unfortunatley, he was hired to be a coordinator and there's lots more that goes into it than just improved qb play. All of those improved quarterbacks he had were still part of bad offenses.
It's realistic to expect only marginal gains on offense, even with improvement from Bortles. Most defend Olson by saying he's never had talent, but this offense isn't exactly brimming with talent either.
Bulger wasn't part of a bad offense. He had a career year with Olson as his OC. That shows me that given the opportunity to work with quality talent, Olson can be an effective OC. The offense he'll inherit here in Jacksonville is arguably more talented, albeit much younger than any unit Olson has had to work with in recent years. It can't be denied that he's been able to develop young QBs and get the most out of them. He's at the behest of the GM when it comes to the talent he's handed. He didn't have a whole lot to work with in Oakland.
Quote:Absolutely true. However - Marrone's title suggests he'll play some role in the offense - ostensibly the running game scheme - and we know Sully will get something out of a young but talented crew of receivers. So - If Olson can get Bortles on track and just be a marginal play caller - this team could be much better.
They could have won 5 more games last year by simply scoring 24 points in each of those contests.
24 points.
That's not asking the world of Olson. If Blake gets his end together -- it'll be deemed a great hire.
Exactly. He doesn't have to run the most potent offense in the league. He just needs to make the offense we run in Jacksonville more effective than it has been the past couple of seasons.
Quote:Bulger wasn't part of a bad offense. He had a career year with Olson as his OC. That shows me that given the opportunity to work with quality talent, Olson can be an effective OC. The offense he'll inherit here in Jacksonville is arguably more talented, albeit much younger than any unit Olson has had to work with in recent years. It can't be denied that he's been able to develop young QBs and get the most out of them. He's at the behest of the GM when it comes to the talent he's handed. He didn't have a whole lot to work with in Oakland.
Bulger and Freeman both had career years under Olson.
Quote:Exactly. He doesn't have to run the most potent offense in the league. He just needs to make the offense we run in Jacksonville more effective than it has been the past couple of seasons.
While I agree that he doesn't have to run the most potent offense in order for the Jags to have success, shouldn't that be the goal?
In regards to Bulger and the Rams, he had a hall of fame offense and barely cracked the top 10, behind the Jags that year. With most of the same players, they were one of the worst offenses the following year. He didn't exactly scorch the NFL even with pieces from one of the NFLs all time greatest offenses. I'm not saying he did a bad job in 2006, but he wasn't doing anything special.
Quote:What choice does anyone have other than to let it play out?
I dislike the hire, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that there is a possibility that Olson gets it turned around. Even if he does, my opinion would be that it was a bad hire that worked out well.
I'm not really good at playing "As the MB Turns" as most, but dare I say, this is where you're going wrong...
Not liking the hire now makes sense to me, given what I've read so far. However, if Olson turns the offense around and makes it respectable, how can you still refer to him as a bad hire?
Quote:I'm not really good at playing "As the MB Turns" as most, but dare I say, this is where you're going wrong...
Not liking the hire now makes sense to me, given what I've read so far. However, if Olson turns the offense around and makes it respectable, how can you still refer to him as a bad hire?
Don't get me wrong - if he turns us into a powerhouse, I'll be happy and wouldn't wish we had hired anyone else. However, I'd still say that if you go back, it was a bad hire at the time. There are many with better resumes that are more deserving in getting the job.
Quote:Don't get me wrong - if he turns us into a powerhouse, I'll be happy and wouldn't wish we had hired anyone else. However, I'd still say that if you go back, it was a bad hire at the time. There are many with better resumes that are more deserving in getting the job.
Candidates who weren't deemed to be a good fit for this staff? Those guys?
Gus went to great lengths to be very deliberate about the search for a new OC. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it matters just as much how this guy fits in with the rest of the staff as his past track record does. I'd also contend that based on what others have said about Olson from around the league, he's the kind of candidate you want filling your OC position if you're looking beyond just the last couple of years and the trash he was working with in Oakland.
You're not happy with the hire, and you take offense to those of us who say every situation is unique, and you'd be better served to withhold your judgment until you actually see what he can do with this offense. You're unwilling to do so, deeming a knee jerk reaction to be the best approach. If he does indeed turn things around here, and get this offense out of the league cellar into more respectability, it makes all the angst you're dealing with now pointless. It makes more sense to be pragmatic, and actually allow this process to play itself out. As has been pointed out several times in this thread and others, the league is chalked full of coaches who struggled in one assignment only to thrive in another, and the only difference is the talent they were given to work with. In the end, it matters more who is executing the offense than it does who is calling the plays. All the innovative play calling on the planet is irrelevant if you can't execute the basics, which is precisely what this offense was dealing with the past couple of years.
Quote:While I agree that he doesn't have to run the most potent offense in order for the Jags to have success, shouldn't that be the goal?
In regards to Bulger and the Rams, he had a hall of fame offense and barely cracked the top 10, behind the Jags that year. With most of the same players, they were one of the worst offenses the following year. He didn't exactly scorch the NFL even with pieces from one of the NFLs all time greatest offenses. I'm not saying he did a bad job in 2006, but he wasn't doing anything special.
The goal is to get this offense better. They don't have to be a top 5 offense in order for this team to see dramatic improvement in the W-L record. With the defense as good as it is, and will be in the future, having an offense that can crack the 20 point barrier that they struggled with this year would go a long way toward changing their position in the division.
He didn't have a hall of fame offense. Bulger had one HOF receiver, a very good running back, and enough talent elsewhere to assure success. The following year they had to contend with Bulger and other key and injuries. Check the roster to see what was backing those injured players up and it's pretty easy to see why the offense fell off.
Quote:Bulger and Freeman both had career years under Olson.
And Carr had arguably the best rookie season among QBs in 2014.
Olson is a good coach when he has the talent to work with. Carr didn't light it up with YPA, but that's really irrelevant. That has more to do with the talent around him, which was horrible. Olson crafted an offense that got the most out of Carr under those circumstances. He's got a more talented QB in Bortles, better young receivers, and a solid but still developing young line to work with. Hopefully the running game will benefit from having Marrone there to deal with the line issues, and we'll see a more potent offense overall as a result.
I think folks need to at least give Olson a chance to show what he can do with the personnel he's inheriting here before we decide it's a lousy hire, but that's just me. I'm one of those folks who judges based on results in the current situation, and not what someone did elsewhere. Again, every situation is different.
Quote:The goal is to get this offense better. They don't have to be a top 5 offense in order for this team to see dramatic improvement in the W-L record. With the defense as good as it is, and will be in the future, having an offense that can crack the 20 point barrier that they struggled with this year would go a long way toward changing their position in the division.
He didn't have a hall of fame offense. Bulger had one HOF receiver, a very good running back, and enough talent elsewhere to assure success. The following year they had to contend with Bulger and other key and injuries. Check the roster to see what was backing those injured players up and it's pretty easy to see why the offense fell off.
Bulger had 3 hall of famers on his offense: Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, and Orlando Pace. Not to mention Steven Jackson in his prime. He had a very good offensive line in Pace, Steussie, Incognito, Timmerman, and Barron. You can try and sugar coat it all you want and act like he did more with less there, but that team was loaded, if aging, on offense.