Quote:It's not just a river in Egypt.
Well you've certainly convinced yourself of something. Seems incredibly convoluted to me.
You are connecting dots that don't exist.
Whatever. Gus has plenty to prove whether you make your weird assumptions or not. I think that's the point here anyway...
Quote:It's not just a river in Egypt.
Exactly. Applies to you as well. Heed your own words.
Quote:Well you've certainly convinced yourself of something. Seems incredibly convoluted to me.
You are connecting dots that don't exist.
Whatever. Gus has plenty to prove whether you make your weird assumptions or not. I think that's the point here anyway...
Quote:Exactly. Applies to you as well. Heed your own words.
My argument: "Gus has shown that he can't scheme a defense better than the great Mike Mularky could. Thus he's on the Mike Mularky level."
Your argument: "Gus has shown that he can't scheme a defense better than the great Mike Mularky could. Thus we can draw no conclusions about Gus's ability to scheme a defense compared with Mike Mularky."
Okay then.
https://twitter.com/BBortles5/status/735236734196305920
Quote:My argument: "Gus has shown that he can't scheme a defense better than the great Mike Mularky could. Thus he's on the Mike Mularky level."
Your argument: "Gus has shown that he can't scheme a defense better than the great Mike Mularky could. Thus we can draw no conclusions about Gus's ability to scheme a defense compared with Mike Mularky."
Okay then. <a class="bbc_url" href='https://twitter.com/BBortles5/status/735236734196305920'>https://twitter.com/BBortles5/status/735236734196305920</a>
Still wrong.
I refuse to draw any conclusion about any coach's ability to scheme with that crap-fest of a roster.
You want to compare rotten apples to rotten apples?
Have fun with that, but it's pointless.
Quote:Still wrong.
I refuse to draw any conclusion about any coach's ability to scheme with that crap-fest of a roster.
You want to compare rotten apples to rotten apples?
Have fun with that, but it's pointless.
Lol! You just agreed with what I said.
Quote:Lol! You just agreed with what I said.
You are delusional.
Quote:You are delusional.
No, just rational. You're being emotional, just like almost everyone is when it comes to talking about football almost all of the time.
Quote:No, just rational. You're being emotional, just like almost everyone is when it comes to talking about football almost all of the time.
Yeah.... OK.
Seeing the flaw in your twisted sense of logic isn't "being emotional"
If I were emotional I wouldn't be so bored with your inability to see (admit) your mistake.
But I am.
Quote:Yeah.... OK.
Seeing the flaw in your twisted sense of logic isn't "being emotional"
If I were emotional I wouldn't be so bored with your inability to see (admit) your mistake.
But I am.
The problem you're having is your emotion is stopping you from admitting that the statement I made earlier is correct.
My argument: "Gus has shown that he can't scheme a defense better than the great Mike Mularky could. Thus he's on the Mike Mularky level."
Your argument: "Gus has shown that he can't scheme a defense better than the great Mike Mularky could. Thus we can draw no conclusions about Gus's ability to scheme a defense compared with Mike Mularky."
You're asserting that the first part of the statement is wrong, while it's already proven through simple statistics. Your emotional desire to hang on to what you want to be the case is what's causing your second statement (we can't draw conclusions from the concrete results) and also causing you to cling to it instead of accepting you're wrong.
The coach has done nothing to improve the performance of the squad. The output for three years was the equivilant of Mularkey's one for which he was fired. No one can realistically say that Bradley has been any better than MM when dealt the same cards, probably you can say worse, because MM's was just as good as Bradley's and he's not the one touted to be a defensive guru with a super scheme.
Quote:The problem you're having is your emotion is stopping you from admitting that the statement I made earlier is correct.
My argument: "Gus has shown that he can't scheme a defense better than the great Mike Mularky could. Thus he's on the Mike Mularky level."
Your argument: "Gus has shown that he can't scheme a defense better than the great Mike Mularky could. Thus we can draw no conclusions about Gus's ability to scheme a defense compared with Mike Mularky."
You're asserting that the first part of the statement is wrong, while it's already proven through simple statistics. Your emotional desire to hang on to what you want to be the case is what's causing your second statement (we can't draw conclusions from the concrete results) and also causing you to cling to it instead of accepting you're wrong.
Lol. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You're way off base.
I'll try to dumb this down for you one last time.
My argument is not what you stated it is this:
Nothing can be learned from the comparison you are trying to make.
Any differential is so negligible that it's rendered useless and the variables affecting the two sets being compared have already made the comparison moot.
Quote:Lol. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You're way off base.
I'll try to dumb this down for you one last time.
My argument is not what you stated it is this:
Nothing can be learned from the comparison you are trying to make.
Any differential is so negligible that it's rendered useless and the variables affecting the two sets being compared have already made the comparison moot.
Please, just stop, you're making a fool of yourself to anyone who isn't already emotionally invested in your chosen position.
I hope Dave can fill the roster with enough talent to make it work this year, and I'll leave it at that.
Bradley and Mularkey got similar results with similar talent.
If Bradley were a better coach then better results would emerge, especially after several years.
If the talent level has to be above average to produce average results the the coach has a negative impact on overall performance.
The case against Bradley is that his efforts didn't appear to have any more impact on the results than Mularkey's did given more time to implement his system or to modify his system to the talent he had. Everyone keeps saying "roster, players, roster, players", but there's no more reason to believe that Gus will achieve greater results relative to the talent than MM would have with the same benefit.
Other teams had worse defensive personel (Bears) and did better than the Jags did. To be that poor on defense, in a division with Hasselbeck, Mariota, Hoyer, Yates and Mallet... I mean come on. I get the pass rush thing but this defense was historically bad.
It's all water under the bridge now I guess. We got the players. Pass rush will be greatly improved. Gipson is the FS we needed. So no more excuses
Quote:...We got the players. Pass rush will be greatly improved. Gipson is the FS we needed. So no more excuses
Truth. ^
I'm obviously not as quick to judge Bradley's year one as some, but with the FS and pass rush talent insurgence, there is no longer any reason not to judge him accordingly.
Quote:Truth. ^
I'm obviously not as quick to judge Bradley's year one as some, but with the FS and pass rush talent insurgence, there is no longer any reason not to judge him accordingly.
So, what's your expectation for the upcoming season? With pro bowl level impact players at every level of the defense and three elite level young talents coming into the lineup what level of performance should a great coach be able to get from such a group?
Quote:Truth. ^
I'm obviously not as quick to judge Bradley's year one as some, but with the FS and pass rush talent insurgence, there is no longer any reason not to judge him accordingly.
Maybe you should have a look at years 2 and 3 as well? Might have some impact on your opinion.
Quote:So, what's your expectation for the upcoming season? With pro bowl level impact players at every level of the defense and three elite level young talents coming into the lineup what level of performance should a great coach be able to get from such a group?
They'll be a top 30 squad for sure!
Quote:They'll be a top 30 squad for sure!
On a serious note I just really want to know what NYC really feels like regarding Gus and his ability to coach a defense. If it was always about talent then what kind of a difference will the massive talent infusion the team will get make? Marks will return, and unless he's seriously declined then he's at least going to be a strong contributor, and the team added prior pro bowler Gipson, elite talent at tackle Jackson, and Amukamura who has had injury issues but always played well when he's been on the field. Plus the big three "rookies" if you could Fowler as one who all were top five pick level talents.
With a great defensive mind like Gus at the helm, what is the expectation for the defense? Here are the defensive statistics from 2015:
http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?s...fied=false
The Seahawks were the best defense only allowing 277 points, The cowboys were in the middle with 374 points, and the Jaguars were second to last with 448 points allowed.
So what's your expectation in 2016, NYC, for points allowed, or just your general feeling of where the defense will rank in the order is fine, too.
To answer both posts above regarding my opinions on the defense under Gus since the first that season I've excused him of:
I've not been exactly kind to him with my posting here on the topic - especially last season.
More could have been done with the meager talent in place even though very key positions were barren of skilled players. there's no disputing that. I'm well on record with numerous posts saying as much. I'm glad there was a DC change and an influx of talent. I hope he can do something with it. I'd like to see points allowed drop by 4 per game, but it hinges on rookies performing and vets staying healthy. I think a ranking around 18-20 is achievable and 12-15 is what I'm cautiously optimistic of.