Quote:How many practices have you attended to form this opinion?
How many practices did I need to attend of Ray Handley or Rich Kotite to come to the same conclusion??
You don't need a bucket of water dumped on you to know that its wet.
Ray Handley? You need to update your references.
Quote:How many practices did I need to attend of Ray Handley or Rich Kotite to come to the same conclusion??
You don't need a bucket of water dumped on you to know that its wet.
So in other words, you have no idea. Thanks a bunch. Bad coaching is the only explanation possible. It couldn't be bad players, or missed assignments, or dumb players.
Quote:Can you move from one to the other seamlessly?
I don't know enough to answer that. I would assume the better you know the guy next to you, the easier any transition can be. So if we had started in man to man blocking this year, keep the same Oline players all year (tough due to injuries) then over the summer try out the ZBS and see if it works, you might be able to have a good line.
Quote:When I say that I am referring to only getting players that fit the systems our Coordinators are married to, not building/ tweaking the systems around talent - which IMO, is what good coaches do. As examples to what I am talking about, look at our offense - any RB/ OL we target must be ZBS compatible. On defense the DB's have to fit the "profile" of a "Gus" CB....based on the defense they ran in Seattle. I'm just saying they should get the best player regardless, and then worry about the best way to scheme around that talent at that point.
I posted this in another thread, but I can't remember which one so I will rehash here for the purposes of this discussion.
Would you say Bryce Paup was a good signing?
If you followed the rationale stated above, the answer might be yes.
To clarify for those of you who didn't see my earlier post and/or were not following football during this time, Bryce Paup rose to prominence in the 1990s as a 3-4 OLB with the Green Bay Packers and then later the Buffalo Bills before coming to Jacksonville in 1998. At the time, Jacksonville ran a 4-3 defense, and the thought amongst many fans (including myself) is that Bryce Paup would be utilized as another pass rusher. As it turned out, Coughlin and then defensive coordinator Dick Jauron routinely dropped him in coverage and rarely utilized him rushing the passer. He was ill equipped for the task. In 1999, Dom Capers became defensive coordinator after stints as Steelers' defensive coordinator in 1995 (the year they went to the Super Bowl) and Carolina Panthers' head coach. The hope was then the team would run a 4-3 with some of the Steelers' zone blitz principles to make Paup more productive. But as it turns out, they continued to drop him into coverage.
I get your overall point here. But I'd say they have been willing to deviate from the paradigms you mentioned on several instances. Dwayne Gratz was not the stereotypical Seattle 6-3 CB. He's 5-11 with long arms, but shorter than Brandon Browner and Richard Sherman. He has been starting until now. Last year, they also drafted "RB" Denard Robinson, who was a college option QB that did not run in a ZBS. Finally this year they drafted Aaron Colvin, who, like Gratz, did not meet the 6-3 or taller CB mold like they did in Seattle.
I'd say there is little to no basis for the charge that Bradley is inflexible in terms of adapting his system to personnel and vice versa. I'd also say there is risk involved in doing just that, as epitomized by the Bryce Paup example.
Quote:I posted this in another thread, but I can't remember which one so I will rehash here for the purposes of this discussion.
Would you say Bryce Paup was a good signing?
If you followed the rationale stated above, the answer might be yes.
To clarify for those of you who didn't see my earlier post and/or were not following football during this time, Bryce Paup rose to prominence in the 1990s as a 3-4 OLB with the Green Bay Packers and then later the Buffalo Bills before coming to Jacksonville in 1998. At the time, Jacksonville ran a 4-3 defense, and the thought amongst many fans (including myself) is that Bryce Paup would be utilized as another pass rusher. As it turned out, Coughlin and then defensive coordinator Dick Jauron routinely dropped him in coverage and rarely utilized him rushing the passer. He was ill equipped for the task. In 1999, Dom Capers became defensive coordinator after stints as Steelers' defensive coordinator in 1995 (the year they went to the Super Bowl) and Carolina Panthers' head coach. The hope was then the team would run a 4-3 with some of the Steelers' zone blitz principles to make Paup more productive. But as it turns out, they continued to drop him into coverage.
I get your overall point here. But I'd say they have been willing to deviate from the paradigms you mentioned on several instances. Dwayne Gratz was not the stereotypical Seattle 6-3 CB. He's 5-11 with long arms, but shorter than Brandon Browner and Richard Sherman. He has been starting until now. Last year, they also drafted "RB" Denard Robinson, who was a college option QB that did not run in a ZBS. Finally this year they drafted Aaron Colvin, who, like Gratz, did not meet the 6-3 or taller CB mold like they did in Seattle.
I'd say there is little to no basis for the charge that Bradley is inflexible in terms of adapting his system to personnel and vice versa. I'd also say there is risk involved in doing just that, as epitomized byt he Bryce Paup example.
I never agreed with the move of bringing in Paup as a cover LB. Made no sense. As much as Coughlin was a good head coach, he occasionally mis-utilized personnel. Meester at Guard instead of Center was another example.
I need to make a correction to my earlier post comparing the 1990 Cowboys vs. the 2014 Jaguars in terms of rookies, 2nd and 3rd year players.
profootballreference lists Tommie Agee as the starting FB that year.
That is false.
Darryl Johnston-then in his second year with Aikman and Stepnoski-was the starting FB. Tommie Agee was a plan B free agent signing, but was not the starter at FB over Moose Johnston.
However, my larger point about the Jaguars being younger/more inexperienced than that 1990 Dallas team remains intact.
Quote:I never agreed with the move of bringing in Paup as a cover LB. Made no sense. As much as Coughlin was a good head coach, he occasionally mis-utilized personnel. Meester at Guard instead of Center was another example.
Agreed here.
In retrospect, the Paup signing would have made more sense had they kept Eddie Robinson, continued to utilize him the way they did before/the way they used Paup, and used Paup strictly as a situational rusher.
But using Paup the way they used Robinson made zero sense.
Quote:Agreed here.
In retrospect, the Paup signing would have made more sense had they kept Eddie Robinson, continued to utilize him the way they did before/the way they used Paup, and used Paup strictly as a situational rusher.
But using Paup the way they used Robinson made zero sense.
I liked Eddie Robinson. Why'd he fall out of favor? I don't remember.
Quote:I liked Eddie Robinson. Why'd he fall out of favor? I don't remember.
Could be Capers didn't think he fit in his defense.
Quote:Could be Capers didn't think he fit in his defense.
Perhaps, but Paup didn't fit in the defense given the way they used him.
I think they would have been better served keeping Robinson in that scheme.
Didn't Robinson also go on to play well in Tennessee after we let him walk??
Quote:Didn't Robinson also go on to play well in Tennessee after we let him walk??
Yep.
I seem to remember reading on this very board that he was so irritated by his release he gave the playbook to the tacks.
Quote:Yep.
I seem to remember reading on this very board that he was so irritated by his release he gave the playbook to the tacks.
The Jags should have kept him IMO, (on merit not because of that). I thought he played well here.
Quote:The Jags should have kept him IMO, (on merit not because of that). I thought he played well here.
I agree completely here.
I thought he was one of the better free agent signings.
He didn't make a bunch of big plays, but he was steady. He was fast and athletic enough to play good defense.
Quote:Sorry, but it's players, not plays.
I'm amazed that people don't actually believe this. But swapping out coaches is a lot easier than swapping out an entire roster, so complaints about coaching are always prevalent because it is perceived as a faster remedy for what ails a team. Coping with the reality that the roster is well below inferior is much harder. In regards to the Jags, one only needs to look as the miserable job it has done in player acquisition, particularly the horrible mistakes made in the first round, to understand the lack of competitiveness of this roster.
Quote:I'm amazed that people don't actually believe this. But swapping out coaches is a lot easier than swapping out an entire roster, so complaints about coaching are always prevalent because it is perceived as a faster remedy for what ails a team. Coping with the reality that the roster is well below inferior is much harder. In regards to the Jags, one only needs to look as the miserable job it has done in player acquisition, particularly the horrible mistakes made in the first round, to understand the lack of competitiveness of this roster.
If coaching wasn't important Jim Harbaugh wouldn't be paid 6 MIL per.
Every team would just hire the cheapest coaches they could to fill it out........or better yet, since these people obviously aren't needed according to people like you and pirk, teams should just go without them. The players will develop by themselves based on talent, right?
"Players, not plays"....lol.....what a crock.
.gif "Laughing")
Players AND Plays (coaching). :yes: Quality in both are equally important.
Quote:I never agreed with the move of bringing in Paup as a cover LB. Made no sense. As much as Coughlin was a good head coach, he occasionally mis-utilized personnel. Meester at Guard instead of Center was another example.
Oh. YOU never agreed. No wonder I was fired.
Signed,
TC
Quote:If coaching wasn't important Jim Harbaugh wouldn't be paid 6 MIL per.
Every team would just hire the cheapest coaches they could to fill it out........or better yet, since these people obviously aren't needed according to people like you and pirk, teams should just go without them. The players will develop by themselves based on talent, right?
"Players, not plays"....lol.....what a crock.
Players AND Plays (coaching). :yes: Quality in both are equally important.
Sorry, but you seemingly do not understand the point. My assertion is not that coaching is unimportant. My point is that there are only 32 head coaching positions available in the entire world. Knowing that as fact, it's not likely you'll see a person who is completely inept. In fact, you're most likely to see people who are the best in the world at what they do. So, in the grand scheme of 32 teams competing against each other, coaching makes a much smaller difference than the players on the field.
This is so for a myriad of reasons. One is simply numbers. Each team has a 53 man roster. 53 x 32 = 1,696. That's compared to 1 x 32 = 32. Considering those numbers, it's more than likely a team, or teams, will manage to garner a greater number of better players than another team, or teams. Coaching, not so much.
One other obvious reason is that the coaches don't play the game. It's a physical game, as we know. The better player is going to going to come out on top of a confrontation with an inferior player more often than not, regardless of any coaching. And that's a huge part of the game. More so than any play call.
Quote:I'm with you but you gave a very bad example.
9 times out of 10 skip is a complete moron and talks out of his rear
Sounds like a spot on example to me when you put it that way...