Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: Khan says "jag fans have suffered long enough!"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Quote:And the defense was still gutted. And I don't see how anyone can realistically look at that defense and call them competitive. They had fill-ins...quick fix bandaids...playing at most positions and they finally turned their efforts to the defensive side of the ball this off-season. I just can't comprehend how people can't see that. I'm not even defending Bradley, but how someone cannot see that the talent on the defensive side of the ball was seriously lacking, really confuses me. Obviously the GM saw it, and that's all that matters to me.


Gutted? Or poorly coached?


We were within 7 points of 6 of our losses. Our defense was terrible, but the fact that no adjustments were made and o'Brian punked Bradley by exposing how ridiculously predictable our defensive tendencies are kinda renders this argument of a gutted defense as rather weak.


I'm not saying the defence was built, but keeping us within 7 means they weren't gutted...


You asked further up the thread how many more wins would a good coach have brought in... there were several games that we left on the table.


Not only that, but it's a team game, with multiple aspects, offense, defense and special teams.

While the defence was clearly weak, there were 6 games where we weren't being blown out and within striking distance. Good coaching makes the difference -- public service announcement--- this is my opinion.
Seemed pretty gutted to me.  But then, I didn't formulate my opinion against the coach before gathering all facts.  Like, the fact our personnel on defense has been sub par and behind the talent of the offense for a couple years running.

If it's playoffs or bust, then Gus is gone, I believe. IF it's playoffs or bust. They're predicted to finish 3rd in the division.

I don't see why this team can't take first. The Texans and Colts don't strike fear into me.

But not being in the playoff hunt will be a disappointment.
Quote:Really you dont believe coaching played a role in our record last year?
Substantially? No.

 

His slight mis-managements of the clock and his reluctance to step in and make a real change on D when we desperately needed one were learning points in a very young career.

 

If we see the same mishaps this year and we lose then it's an issue.

But patience is a virtue.

 

I believe the bar should be set higher for Gus this season. We expect him to grow as we expect players to.

I don't think Gus was the difference in a 5 win and a, say, 8 win team last season.
Quote:Gutted? Or poorly coached?


We were within 7 points of 6 of our losses. Our defense was terrible, but the fact that no adjustments were made and o'Brian punked Bradley by exposing how ridiculously predictable our defensive tendencies are kinda renders this argument of a gutted defense as rather weak.


I'm not saying the defence was built, but keeping us within 7 means they weren't gutted...


You asked further up the thread how many more wins would a good coach have brought in... there were several games that we left on the table.


Not only that, but it's a team game, with multiple aspects, offense, defense and special teams.

While the defence was clearly weak, there were 6 games where we weren't being blown out and within striking distance. Good coaching makes the difference -- public service announcement--- this is my opinion.

 

 
 

I respect your opinion, though with last year's defense consisting of several players that may not be starters on most other teams in the league, players playing out of position and a number of starters on IR thus creating our inability to stop the opposing offfenses, would it not be safe to say that Bradley coached them to outperform well enough to keep us within 7 points in those games you mentioned? 

Quote:Gutted? Or poorly coached?


We were within 7 points of 6 of our losses. Our defense was terrible, but the fact that no adjustments were made and o'Brian punked Bradley by exposing how ridiculously predictable our defensive tendencies are kinda renders this argument of a gutted defense as rather weak.


I'm not saying the defence was built, but keeping us within 7 means they weren't gutted...


You asked further up the thread how many more wins would a good coach have brought in... there were several games that we left on the table.


Not only that, but it's a team game, with multiple aspects, offense, defense and special teams.

While the defence was clearly weak, there were 6 games where we weren't being blown out and within striking distance. Good coaching makes the difference -- public service announcement--- this is my opinion.
So who's to say they wouldn't have lost by MORE with a different coach?


Of course, I know your answer so you can save the keystrokes.
Quote:So who's to say they wouldn't have lost by MORE with a different coach?


Of course, I know your answer so you can save the keystrokes.
 

I think we're wasting our time.....
Quote:I think we're wasting our time.....


I'm not even defending Bradley, but if you couldn't see that defense was anything more than patchwork...damn.
Quote:No i never mentioned draft picks! Or backups.. Gus and Dave select the players .. Gus sets the lineups .. This aint logic... This is fact...Thats his job.. People need to stop giving him excuses..
But if he's setting the lineups with bad options all around then...nevermind.
Gus can't have another losing season
Quote:Gutted? Or poorly coached?


We were within 7 points of 6 of our losses. Our defense was terrible, but the fact that no adjustments were made and o'Brian punked Bradley by exposing how ridiculously predictable our defensive tendencies are kinda renders this argument of a gutted defense as rather weak.

I'm not saying the defence was built, but keeping us within 7 means they weren't gutted...


You asked further up the thread how many more wins would a good coach have brought in... there were several games that we left on the table.


Not only that, but it's a team game, with multiple aspects, offense, defense and special teams.

While the defence was clearly weak, there were 6 games where we weren't being blown out and within striking distance. Good coaching makes the difference -- public service announcement--- this is my opinion.
Not necessarily.  It could mean the offense performed well enough to keep us within that frame.

 

Your closing statements about the 6 games that weren't blowouts and within striking distance are interesting.  Good coaching can make a difference, I concede that.

 

But arguably two of those games were decided by bad shotgun snaps.  Did Bradley and company coach Wiz to mess up those snaps?  If so, why weren't the snaps bad until late in the year?  If something were wrong with the coaching in the close games that made the difference, and the plays that made a difference in those games were caused by bad coaching, then consider the following theories:

 

1) The coaching was consistently bad all year on the C snaps from shotgun, which means the bad techniques, etc., were being taught all year, which means the same mistakes should have been seen all year.  Yet we didn't see the bad snaps until the end of the year.  Why not?

 

2)  The coaching on the C snaps from shotgun were usually pretty good, as evidenced from the lack of bad shotgun snaps until the end of the year.  If this is the case, why would the coaches deviate from a technique that worked all year to an untested technique?  For that matter, after the second botched snap, Wiz did not have a bad shotgun snap the rest of the year, which means assuming the coaches saw the link between the change to bad technique and the bad result and returned to the good technique previously taught, wouldn't that mean they were capable of making the adjustments so many assert are not being made?

 

3)  The coaching was consistently bad all year on the C snaps from shotgun, but it took Wizniewski, an experienced player, most of the season to absorb that bad coaching.  If it is possible that it takes a while for coached techniques (good or bad) to set in, and that transition period had an effect on field performance, then is it reasonable to assume that Bradley and his staff could coach young players properly and it take a while for his coaching to take hold, which means they may perform better later rather than sooner?

 

4)  Maybe the negative plays had nothing to do with coaching.  Perhaps Wiz botched those snaps on his own, whether due to injury that impacted his performance, or due to a lack of concentration, or some other error.  In this case, why does Bradley get the blame for this?
Quote:So who's to say they wouldn't have lost by MORE with a different coach?


Of course, I know your answer so you can save the keystrokes.


Ohhh, now I'm curious--- what do you think my answer would be?
Quote:I respect your opinion, though with last year's defense consisting of several players that may not be starters on most other teams in the league, players playing out of position and a number of starters on IR thus creating our inability to stop the opposing offfenses, would it not be safe to say that Bradley coached them to outperform well enough to keep us within 7 points in those games you mentioned?
Lol, well, I can't argue with that. The season seems so long ago that arguing line item by line item seems futile.


Perhaps I have a more negative view of the situation. Or...


Perhaps you have too positive a view.


The cool thing about this debate is one that, in a couple months, we may get the answer.


You would agree that Bradley's seat has warmed drastically, would you not? Can we at least agree on that?
Quote:Lol, well, I can't argue with that. The season seems so long ago that arguing line item by line item seems futile.


Perhaps I have a more negative view of the situation. Or...


Perhaps you have too positive a view.


The cool thing about this debate is one that, in a couple months, we may get the answer.

You would agree that Bradley's seat has warmed drastically, would you not? Can we at least agree on that?
You did not ask me, but yes, there is a higher team performance expectation for Bradley.
Lack of depth was another serious issue for the defense last year. There are no "halftime adjustments" that can make up for that.

 

In the second half you are forced to play a tired starter or rest him by replacing him with a player that is completely outmatched. Either way, it's a pick your poison situation.

Quote:Not necessarily. It could mean the offense performed well enough to keep us within that frame.


Your closing statements about the 6 games that weren't blowouts and within striking distance are interesting. Good coaching can make a difference, I concede that.


But arguably two of those games were decided by bad shotgun snaps. Did Bradley and company coach Wiz to mess up those snaps? If so, why weren't the snaps bad until late in the year? If something were wrong with the coaching in the close games that made the difference, and the plays that made a difference in those games were caused by bad coaching, then consider the following theories:


1) The coaching was consistently bad all year on the C snaps from shotgun, which means the bad techniques, etc., were being taught all year, which means the same mistakes should have been seen all year. Yet we didn't see the bad snaps until the end of the year. Why not?


2) The coaching on the C snaps from shotgun were usually pretty good, as evidenced from the lack of bad shotgun snaps until the end of the year. If this is the case, why would the coaches deviate from a technique that worked all year to an untested technique? For that matter, after the second botched snap, Wiz did not have a bad shotgun snap the rest of the year, which means assuming the coaches saw the link between the change to bad technique and the bad result and returned to the good technique previously taught, wouldn't that mean they were capable of making the adjustments so many assert are not being made?


3) The coaching was consistently bad all year on the C snaps from shotgun, but it took Wizniewski, an experienced player, most of the season to absorb that bad coaching. If it is possible that it takes a while for coached techniques (good or bad) to set in, and that transition period had an effect on field performance, then is it reasonable to assume that Bradley and his staff could coach young players properly and it take a while for his coaching to take hold, which means they may perform better later rather than sooner?


4) Maybe the negative plays had nothing to do with coaching. Perhaps Wiz botched those snaps on his own, whether due to injury that impacted his performance, or due to a lack of concentration, or some other error. In this case, why does Bradley get the blame for this?
It's funny that you bring up the botched snaps because I distinctly remember critiquing the coaching staff regarding these shot gun snaps right at the end of the season.


If my memory serves, Wiz botched the shot gun snap three games in a row. I remember thinking after the first game, "hey, stuff happens". After the second game, I got kinda concerned. By the third game, I was pretty peeved by the whole thing.

As a manager, I know that skills need to be constantly reinforced. If one of my top personnel makes a mistake, generally I would address my concern and make sure that person knew the expectations. If the mistake happened again in a relatively short period of time, I'd have had a much more in depth conversation and would have coached and observered him performing the action to ensure proper execution and that a third mistake would not happen.


Now, I know we are not at the practices to see whether Gus was properly managing the situation--- however, I guarantee that in the real world, if my employee made the same mistake 3 times in a row in a short period of time, my abilities as a supervisor would be called into question by my director above me. And I would expect that my director would call into question what I was doing, and whether my coaching and supervisory skills and actions were effective.


Now, Gus isn't the o line coach that teaches shot gun technique, but my analogy for management still applies.


1st botch, pull the o line coach and make sure he's aware that Wiz has an area of opportunity to focus on for the week.


2nd botch, in as many weeks-- you make sure the o line coach understands you are not happy, and you watch the coach and Wiz execute in practice.


3rd time in as many weeks, you make sure accountability actions are I implemented... maybe bench wiz for bo


To me, this is a major concern. But like I said, 2015 was a long time ago and I'm not sure how beneficial it is to litigate this, unless you'd just like to pass some time.


I'm willing to let this season play out
Quote:I'm not even defending Bradley, but if you couldn't see that defense was anything more than patchwork...damn.
 

Yeah, but we all know patchwork can be "coached up."

 

A team full of high production players, not even stars... sure, they can stand to lose a player or two.

 

But our ragtag outfit loses one or two key contributors... night and day.  It's what's so promising about the new blood on defense this season.  There's a lot more talent now.
Quote:You would agree that Bradley's seat has warmed drastically, would you not? Can we at least agree on that?
 

I don't think it's all that much different than last season.  Warmed?  Sure.  But it's arguably not that much more than last season.  Nothing is indicating a "drastic" change.
Quote:I don't think it's all that much different than last season. Warmed? Sure. But it's arguably not that much more than last season. Nothing is indicating a "drastic" change.


So do you think if we only win somewhere between 5-7 wins will be sufficient retain Bradley?


Cuz, to me, we've suffered long enough means Khan is looking for a winning season, meaning 9 wins minimum.


I think his quote that, "we're not looking at the standings" is implying that he's not thinking playoffs or bust.



But suffering means a losing season, and, "we've suffered long enough"...


Khan seems like the type of man that would make this kind of implied ultimatum.


8-8 puts Gus on the bubble

7 or less and Gus is gone

9 or more gives Gus another year
Quote:I doubt you're going to sway his flawed thought process..... It's all Bredley's fault in his mind and no logic and/or fact is going to change that.



How is might thought process flawed... By your logic the jags wouldnt have lost 6 games by within 7 points because the talent was bad...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8