Quote:You have got to be kidding me. You've acted personally offended at any comment I've made that dares question any of these moves.
You've been the kool aid man the past week or longer. It's where you're coming up with the pitchfork nonsense. That's certainly not a "no one knows" approach...
We were the laughing stock for interviewing Kelly for HC. To think it somehow makes it better by bringing him back once again for OC talks, is just... wow. We look twice as questionable.
The only people not laughing at the name Chip Kelly right now are a hand full of glib Jaguar fans who don't see the lunacy in even considering him.
Someone described the idea of bringing in Kelly as "the most Jaguar thing ever." I usually laugh along with that kind of thing because we've heard it all already. But this time it stings, because it's true.
Actually, most people are praising the potential hire. Its pretty big news. I dont know why your so against it.
Quote:The biggest concern is Blake having to learn another offense in his 4th season.
If people want to see is Blake is the real deal we need stability. We cannot go through another season of personnel changes that delays Blake's development.
Hackett ran Olson's playbook there would be a new offense no matter if its hackett.
Quote:Actually, most people are praising the potential hire. Its pretty big news. I dont know why your so against it.
Your take is not surprising. And not common outside three or four posters in this thread.
Quote:It's a misleading stat since SF was behind in all if not most of those games and kapernick had a chunk of those QB runs.
Hyde had like 980 yards rushing and only played 13 games.
Quote:You have got to be kidding me. You've acted personally offended at any comment I've made that dares question any of these moves.
You've been the kool aid man the past week or longer. It's where you're coming up with the pitchfork nonsense. That's certainly not a "no one knows" approach...
We were the laughing stock for interviewing Kelly for HC. To think it somehow makes it better by bringing him back once again for OC talks, is just... wow. We look twice as questionable.
The only people not laughing at the name Chip Kelly right now are a hand full of glib Jaguar fans who don't see the lunacy in even considering him.
Someone described the idea of bringing in Kelly as "the most Jaguar thing ever." I usually laugh along with that kind of thing because we've heard it all already. But this time it stings, because it's true.
I just went back and read my posts.
Stated what he did in PHI and SF statistically and how he had offenses that were very successful with little talent. Am I wrong there?
Said he has a great offensive mind. There's plenty of risk, but a good chance to take. This is drinking the kool-aid and going "all in".
Disagreeing with people saying otherwise and stating why I disagree with it. Again, going all-in just because I disagree with what they are saying?
Then saying we need to wait and see what this new regime does before bringing out the pitchforks as this isn't the same set of guys that made decisions/coaches this team to the terribleness that has been the Jaguars for the last decade.
Sure bud, again, grasping at straws. But go ahead, keep going.
Quote:Your take is not surprising. And not common outside three or four posters in this thread.
But im not for or against it. And I respect your opinion to not fully go on board. I dont know why our criticizing me now. Im just saying in my opinion I dont see a reason to completely bash it especially since he would not be in charge of personnel decisions.
Quote:It's a misleading stat since SF was behind in all if not most of those games and kapernick had a chunk of those QB runs.
Inflated rushing yards are a result of being behind now?
Quote:You have shared no opinion with me, just lashed out at me for daring to question Coughlin. Go ahead, let it out like a petulant child. Maybe try hitting the report button a few times if it makes you happy. You won't understand until you grow up and can handle dissenting opinions. Until then, you've got your little snipes at me and your report button. Don't strain yourself pounding the keyboard. Wouldn't want to miss your valuable insight, that's for sure...
Quote:Careful. You're swooning.
1. The first portion in bold there, just lashed out at you for questioning Coughlin? The post of yours I replied to was the one I quoted below your last post here.... "Careful. You're swooning." Nothing in there about you questioning Coughlin, Nothing of substance at all.
2. Calling someone a petulant child when you are the one on here whining about the Jags front office moves and taking childish insults at other posters. You might want to look up the definition of petulant, it fits you and your posts from this topic to a T.
3. I will keep reporting you. Don't worry about that.
Quote:But im not for or against it. And I respect your opinion to not fully go on board. I dont know why our criticizing me now. Im just saying in my opinion I dont see a reason to completely bash it especially since he would not be in charge of personnel decisions.
He's in temper tantrum mode. Everyone who posts at him that disagrees with him gets attacked.
Move along...wouldn't worry much about it.
So we'll be onto the 5th OC in 5 years after he bolts next year to take another HC job.
Quote:Never said everyone had to be. But like you said, it's a message board...where we discuss our opinions. What's wrong with me disagreeing and showing my viewpoint/why I think it could be a good hire in reply?
There's nothing wrong with it all. Just pointing out why there will be some criticism about a lot of potential hires.
Quote:I just went back and read my posts.
Stated what he did in PHI and SF statistically and how he had offenses that were very successful with little talent. Am I wrong there?
Said he has a great offensive mind. There's plenty of risk, but a good chance to take. This is drinking the kool-aid and going "all in".
Disagreeing with people saying otherwise and stating why I disagree with it. Again, going all-in just because I disagree with what they are saying?
Then saying we need to wait and see what this new regime does before bringing out the pitchforks as this isn't the same set of guys that made decisions/coaches this team to the terribleness that has been the Jaguars for the last decade.
Sure bud, again, grasping at straws. But go ahead, keep going.
Quote:There's nothing wrong with it all. Just pointing out why there will be some criticism about a lot of potential hires.
That's the beauty of having an opinion. We can all have one. And the message board gives us a place to debate our opinions. I haven't agreed with Jackcity on much lately, but the way he has sensibly and logically laid out his opinions is respectable.
I seem to have been seeing eye to eye with c dub lately. Taking the wait and see approach and appreciating the effort the jags are putting in to get big time guys to the front office and coaching staff.
Someone is going to be right and someone is going to be wrong, but we are going to have to wait and see who that is.
I think Kelly would be a good OC with the players we have.
Chip is very very good at running the hurry up, Blake is at his best in the hurry up. Give me some of that.
Quote:I just went back and read my posts.
Stated what he did in PHI and SF statistically and how he had offenses that were very successful with little talent. Am I wrong there?
Said he has a great offensive mind. There's plenty of risk, but a good chance to take. This is drinking the kool-aid and going "all in".
Disagreeing with people saying otherwise and stating why I disagree with it. Again, going all-in just because I disagree with what they are saying?
Then saying we need to wait and see what this new regime does before bringing out the pitchforks as this isn't the same set of guys that made decisions/coaches this team to the terribleness that has been the Jaguars for the last decade.
Sure bud, again, grasping at straws. But go ahead, keep going.
I was commenting on your reflexive instinct to defend every move against all criticism of them, which you've done. Slick dodge. You've trolled before, I see.
A "wait and see" person isn't one who selectively tries to shoot down every opposing opinion that isn't sold on all the latest moves (or rumors, in this case.)
An objective person wouldn't be so bent, as you appear to be, in opposing dissent toward the idea of Kelly and selling how "good" the idea is.
Most would say "fair enough" and move on.
You chose not to. And continue to choose not to.
Quote:Inflated rushing yards are a result of being behind now?
Lots of teams resort to the I formation when they are down big, right?
Quote:I was commenting on your reflexive instinct to defend every move against all criticism of them, which you've done. Slick dodge. You've trolled before, I see.
A "wait and see" person isn't one who selectively tries to shoot down every opposing opinion that isn't sold on all the latest moves (or rumors, in this case.)
An objective person wouldn't be so bent, as you appear to be, in opposing dissent toward the idea of Kelly and selling how "good" the idea is.
Most would say "fair enough" and move on.
You chose not to. And continue to choose not to.
You're right, I'm totally trolling because I'm defending an organization that just made wholesale changes until we see what happens. Instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt and seeing what happens with what they do before judging, I should instead criticize and be harsh on each and every move they make before knowing if they are the right move or not.
As for moving on instead of continuing conversation/arguments for why I feel one way, I think you need to take a look at what a message board and forum are for. Considering you are a moderator, I would think you would know this first hand.
But okay...I guess I'll continue with my butterflies and rainbow remarks. *sigh*
Quote:1. The first portion in bold there, just lashed out at you for questioning Coughlin? The post of yours I replied to was the one I quoted below your last post here.... "Careful. You're swooning." Nothing in there about you questioning Coughlin, Nothing of substance at all.
2. Calling someone a petulant child when you are the one on here whining about the Jags front office moves and taking childish insults at other posters. You might want to look up the definition of petulant, it fits you and your posts from this topic to a T.
3. I will keep reporting you. Don't worry about that.
Oh sweetie, you sniped me after a comment I made to someone else. If you'd like to discuss anything, lets. Only if you'd care to start talking substance instead of complaining about how your feelings were hurt because you didn't like Coughlin's return decisions described as a kind of "reunion." Don't feign ignorance. You've been stalking me ever since I said that, bringing it up in a thread where I didn't even say it. So, get over yourself, cupcake. If you can.
Quote:Am I the only one that cringed when I heard Chip Kelley may be the OC but in a way am excited about it. :ermm: :blink:
I like it. From a creative stand point I think it's genius. Chip would bring a wealth of creative plays to an offense that with a revamped online could be scary good. I think people are focusing on chips failures as an HC and GM but forgetting this guy is an offense guru. People are scared of an uptempo offense but it would not be that way 100% of the time. But if you were good at it and it was an identity and you used it for say 25% it could be unstoppable. I'm pretty sure his playbook would incorporate all kinds of pro style plays and a few wrinkles to keep defense honest.
No matter who gets hired as OC I will want them to succeed. I think cautious optimism is the safer bet given recent history. If Kelly comes in and stinks, then he will be gone.
Quote:Hopefully we don't see repeats of this...
<a class="bbc_url" href='https://twitter.com/dtexanz/status/810556815234764800'>https://twitter.com/dtexanz/status/810556815234764800</a>
Well, Clowney is a great player, so chances are we'll see him sack a Jaguars QB again at some point.