Over the years I've been posting on this board, I have been known for, among other things, my staunch advocacy of stability in the coaching positions.
Undoubtedly, that has caused many here interested in dumping the coaches to roll their eyes at my admonitions against firing this guy or the next.
But the turnover may have cost us a player we wanted to keep.
WR Allen Robinson indicated he was close to re-signing with the Jaguars, but the constant turnover was a factor in his wanting to leave.
Quote:“I’m going to be honest, for me and my career, yes, [a change was needed],” Robinson said. “Based off the simple fact that it’s tough in this league to play with numerous offensive coordinators and multiple coaches and that’s how I feel about Blake. […] [The situation with the Bears] wasn’t like my rookie year [in Jacksonville] where we had a different offensive coordinator in my second year, when we had a great year with coach Olly [Greg Olson]. Then six or seven games into the next year we fire coach Olly, and now we have interim coach [Nate] Hackett, then we fire coach [Gus] Bradley, now we have coach [Doug] Marrone, then they had Hackett for all of that year and fired him this past year. So as a player it’s tough, extremely tough.”
https://jaguarswire.usatoday.com/2019/02...-bowl-lii/
I do not suggest that coaching changes are never needed. Sometimes they are warranted...desperately so in some instances.
But I submit too often fans (and more importantly owners) can allow anger and disappointment to cloud their better judgment and make mistakes regarding coaching changes that can hurt a franchise.
(02-03-2019, 03:51 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Over the years I've been posting on this board, I have been known for, among other things, my staunch advocacy of stability in the coaching positions.
Undoubtedly, that has caused many here interested in dumping the coaches to roll their eyes at my admonitions against firing this guy or the next.
But the turnover may have cost us a player we wanted to keep.
WR Allen Robinson indicated he was close to re-signing with the Jaguars, but the constant turnover was a factor in his wanting to leave.
Quote:“I’m going to be honest, for me and my career, yes, [a change was needed],” Robinson said. “Based off the simple fact that it’s tough in this league to play with numerous offensive coordinators and multiple coaches and that’s how I feel about Blake. […] [The situation with the Bears] wasn’t like my rookie year [in Jacksonville] where we had a different offensive coordinator in my second year, when we had a great year with coach Olly [Greg Olson]. Then six or seven games into the next year we fire coach Olly, and now we have interim coach [Nate] Hackett, then we fire coach [Gus] Bradley, now we have coach [Doug] Marrone, then they had Hackett for all of that year and fired him this past year. So as a player it’s tough, extremely tough.”
https://jaguarswire.usatoday.com/2019/02...-bowl-lii/
I do not suggest that coaching changes are never needed. Sometimes they are warranted...desperately so in some instances.
But I submit too often fans (and more importantly owners) can allow anger and disappointment to cloud their better judgment and make mistakes regarding coaching changes that can hurt a franchise.
Prior to this season I'm not sure I'd view Chicago as any more stable. All though for the most part I agree with the sentiment.
(02-03-2019, 03:51 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]WR Allen Robinson indicated he was close to re-signing with the Jaguars, but the constant turnover was a factor in his wanting to leave.
That quote sounds a lot like the half measure problem I talk about a lot too. Continually cutting off just one or two limbs of the diseased beast at a time isn't going to fix it. The new limb that grows back will undoubtedly be diseased too. Until we go full measure I just don't see substantial change of the teams fortunes happening.
(02-03-2019, 07:43 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2019, 03:51 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]WR Allen Robinson indicated he was close to re-signing with the Jaguars, but the constant turnover was a factor in his wanting to leave.
That quote sounds a lot like the half measure problem I talk about a lot too. Continually cutting off just one or two limbs of the diseased beast at a time isn't going to fix it. The new limb that grows back will undoubtedly be diseased too. Until we go full measure I just don't see substantial change of the teams fortunes happening.
So what, we should fire Marrone because he only went to the AFCC once in his 2 years?
(02-03-2019, 09:25 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2019, 07:43 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]That quote sounds a lot like the half measure problem I talk about a lot too. Continually cutting off just one or two limbs of the diseased beast at a time isn't going to fix it. The new limb that grows back will undoubtedly be diseased too. Until we go full measure I just don't see substantial change of the teams fortunes happening.
So what, we should fire Marrone because he only went to the AFCC once in his 2 years?
When you are shuffling deck chairs as often as the Jags have been, there is always going to be someone recent who wasn't exactly given a fair shake. So yes, Marrone would have to be part of the collateral damage to get rid of in order to get the clean slate that we so desperately need. Besides, Hackett came with Marrone so it's not like Marrone is averse to firing people quickly himself if it saves his own [BLEEP].
(02-03-2019, 03:51 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Over the years I've been posting on this board, I have been known for, among other things, my staunch advocacy of stability in the coaching positions.
Undoubtedly, that has caused many here interested in dumping the coaches to roll their eyes at my admonitions against firing this guy or the next.
But the turnover may have cost us a player we wanted to keep.
WR Allen Robinson indicated he was close to re-signing with the Jaguars, but the constant turnover was a factor in his wanting to leave.
Quote:“I’m going to be honest, for me and my career, yes, [a change was needed],” Robinson said. “Based off the simple fact that it’s tough in this league to play with numerous offensive coordinators and multiple coaches and that’s how I feel about Blake. […] [The situation with the Bears] wasn’t like my rookie year [in Jacksonville] where we had a different offensive coordinator in my second year, when we had a great year with coach Olly [Greg Olson]. Then six or seven games into the next year we fire coach Olly, and now we have interim coach [Nate] Hackett, then we fire coach [Gus] Bradley, now we have coach [Doug] Marrone, then they had Hackett for all of that year and fired him this past year. So as a player it’s tough, extremely tough.”
https://jaguarswire.usatoday.com/2019/02...-bowl-lii/
I do not suggest that coaching changes are never needed. Sometimes they are warranted...desperately so in some instances.
But I submit too often fans (and more importantly owners) can allow anger and disappointment to cloud their better judgment and make mistakes regarding coaching changes that can hurt a franchise.
I don't buy into that stuff. It's always about the money, and I don't blame him. Every player should be smart enough to go to free agency. That so many of them leave what guys like Cousins got on the table blows my mind.
Robinson wasn't even valuable enough to this front office to put a franchise tag on him. If they'd have paid him he'd be here talking about how he loves the team, thinks Bortles is his QB, and about how much he likes the new direction the next coach is taking the team in.
(02-03-2019, 09:45 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2019, 09:25 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]So what, we should fire Marrone because he only went to the AFCC once in his 2 years?
When you are shuffling deck chairs as often as the Jags have been, there is always going to be someone recent who wasn't exactly given a fair shake. So yes, Marrone would have to be part of the collateral damage to get rid of in order to get the clean slate that we so desperately need. Besides, Hackett came with Marrone so it's not like Marrone is averse to firing people quickly himself if it saves his own [BLEEP].
Lol, desperation breeds foolishness. The team doesn't share your sensitivities.
(02-03-2019, 09:46 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2019, 03:51 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Over the years I've been posting on this board, I have been known for, among other things, my staunch advocacy of stability in the coaching positions.
Undoubtedly, that has caused many here interested in dumping the coaches to roll their eyes at my admonitions against firing this guy or the next.
But the turnover may have cost us a player we wanted to keep.
WR Allen Robinson indicated he was close to re-signing with the Jaguars, but the constant turnover was a factor in his wanting to leave.
https://jaguarswire.usatoday.com/2019/02...-bowl-lii/
I do not suggest that coaching changes are never needed. Sometimes they are warranted...desperately so in some instances.
But I submit too often fans (and more importantly owners) can allow anger and disappointment to cloud their better judgment and make mistakes regarding coaching changes that can hurt a franchise.
I don't buy into that stuff. It's always about the money, and I don't blame him. Every player should be smart enough to go to free agency. That so many of them leave what guys like Cousins got on the table blows my mind.
Robinson wasn't even valuable enough to this front office to put a franchise tag on him. If they'd have paid him he'd be here talking about how he loves the team, thinks Bortles is his QB, and about how much he likes the new direction the next coach is taking the team in.
Robinson was coming off an injury, just bad timing for both sides in that deal.
coach olly was pass oriented so he was a target alot and it was a more aggressive offense. With hackett he was run oriented and AR had to block a lot. When he got to CHicago he said he waned to be with a team who had a more agressive offense not one that had a run run run mentality.
But but but Allen Robinson never wanted to be here.
People will still find a way (as stupid as it might be) to defend the FO for wasting all that money on garbage players.
(02-03-2019, 11:38 AM)iHaunting Raven Wrote: [ -> ]But but but Allen Robinson never wanted to be here.
People will still find a way (as stupid as it might be) to defend the FO for wasting all that money on garbage players.
Quote: Wrote:“I’m going to be honest, for me and my career, yes, [a change was needed],” Robinson said. “Based off the simple fact that it’s tough in this league to play with numerous offensive coordinators and multiple coaches and that’s how I feel about Blake. […] [The situation with the Bears] wasn’t like my rookie year [in Jacksonville] where we had a different offensive coordinator in my second year, when we had a great year with coach Olly [Greg Olson]. Then six or seven games into the next year we fire coach Olly, and now we have interim coach [Nate] Hackett, then we fire coach [Gus] Bradley, now we have coach [Doug] Marrone, then they had Hackett for all of that year and fired him this past year. So as a player it’s tough, extremely tough.”
I don't get the but, but, but. I think that first statement was pretty clear.
This is a case where I can understand not Robinson's point but what is the point. We fired Hackett as the fall guy why? This team is stably unstable.
You lot need to behave yourselves better.
(02-03-2019, 07:18 PM)DragonFury Wrote: [ -> ]You lot need to behave yourselves better.
That was hardly delete worthy.
(02-03-2019, 07:43 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2019, 03:51 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]WR Allen Robinson indicated he was close to re-signing with the Jaguars, but the constant turnover was a factor in his wanting to leave.
That quote sounds a lot like the half measure problem I talk about a lot too. Continually cutting off just one or two limbs of the diseased beast at a time isn't going to fix it. The new limb that grows back will undoubtedly be diseased too. Until we go full measure I just don't see substantial change of the teams fortunes happening.
So are there times where pruning a branch or two is warranted, or is burning the entire forest always preferable?
(02-03-2019, 11:54 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2019, 07:43 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]That quote sounds a lot like the half measure problem I talk about a lot too. Continually cutting off just one or two limbs of the diseased beast at a time isn't going to fix it. The new limb that grows back will undoubtedly be diseased too. Until we go full measure I just don't see substantial change of the teams fortunes happening.
So are there times where pruning a branch or two is warranted, or is burning the entire forest always preferable?
Of course there are times when pruning is...prudent.
But we've had 6 out of 7 top 10 picks and missed on four top 5 picks. The line is somewhere significantly before that IMO.
It's time to go full General Sherman on this place.
(02-04-2019, 12:03 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2019, 11:54 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]So are there times where pruning a branch or two is warranted, or is burning the entire forest always preferable?
Of course there are times when pruning is...prudent.
But we've had 6 out of 7 top 10 picks and missed on four top 5 picks. The line is somewhere significantly before that IMO.
It's time to go full General Sherman on this place.
Hypothetical:
A team has had 5 straight losing seasons of:
7-9, 7-8, 3-13, 1-15, 7-9. They had first round draft busts 4 straight years, including the first two of that streak
After the last 7-9 season, this team fires its OC.
Pruning or burning needed?
(02-04-2019, 12:23 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Hypothetical:
A team has had 5 straight losing seasons of:
7-9, 7-8, 3-13, 1-15, 7-9. They had first round draft busts 4 straight years, including the first two of that streak
After the last 7-9 season, this team fires its OC.
Pruning or burning needed?
Obviously there is no blanket answer without knowing more details, but if there's a high QB pick bust in there plus several already failed attempts at pruning...then I'm going scorched earth there too. I'm sure you have some historical outlier in mind that had those circumstances before success though.
(02-04-2019, 01:06 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2019, 12:23 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Hypothetical:
A team has had 5 straight losing seasons of:
7-9, 7-8, 3-13, 1-15, 7-9. They had first round draft busts 4 straight years, including the first two of that streak
After the last 7-9 season, this team fires its OC.
Pruning or burning needed?
Obviously there is no blanket answer without knowing more details, but if there's a high QB pick bust in there plus several already failed attempts at pruning...then I'm going scorched earth there too. I'm sure you have some historical outlier in mind that had those circumstances before success though.
Yes I do.
The actual team in this hypothetical is the Jimmy Johnson era Cowboys.
They finished 1-15 in 1989 and 7-9 in 1990 with Dave Shula as their offensive coordinator.
Their first round picks between 1984-1989 were as follows:
1984 Billy Cannon Jr, LB Texas A & M-Bust
1985 Kevin Brooks, DL, Michaigan-Bust
1986 Mike Sherrard, WR, UCLA-injury bust
1987 Danny Noonan, DT Nebraska-Bust
1988 Michael Irvin, WR, Miami-definitely NOT a bust, but unknown to the team at the time. Tore his ACL in 1989 and missed half of the 1990 season recovering from it. Jimmy Johnson entertained the thought of trading him.
1989 Troy Aikman-Went winless his first year and missed games in both of his first two years.
Considering that group did not have any success the five or so years before 1991, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that based upon the record and the draft busts, you might have advocated burning everything to the ground and starting fresh, instead of pruning the dead limb (Shula) and bringing in the new offensive coordinator (Norv Turner). This is especially plausible since this coaching staff was <5 minutes away from the Super Bowl in 2017 and you still wanted all of them canned after the down year last year.
Paying AR15 as a #1 receiver would have been a temporary band-aid, but would have only compounded this franchises' problems down the road.
(02-04-2019, 10:26 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Paying AR15 as a #1 receiver would have been a temporary band-aid, but would have only compounded this franchises' problems down the road.
I agree that retaining AR15 would not have been a panacea, but I don't see how keeping him would have compounded this team's problems down the road.
Perhaps the salary cap would have been a little worse, but other than that...I don't see it.