The discussions regarding Bradley make me question what makes our fan base tick.
One of the biggest criticisms our current coach receives from fans is that he is too soft on his players. References to ice cream and sprinkles (still not sure from whence that originated) are commonplace here. The prevailing sentiment among his detractors is that he does not push his players hard enough to excel and avoid errors.
However, I recall the early days of our franchise when we had Tom Coughlin. He was derisively called Sgt. Coughlin by many here in town because he was known as a strict disciplinarian. Some of his rules were rigid to the point of ridiculousness to some. Players had to sit up straight in meetings. Being on time to practice or meetings meant you were actually late. Being 5-10 minutes early was actually on time for TC. Nobody, not even reporters, could wear shades at practice. There was one famous incident that still makes me cringe. Tavian Banks and another player were on their way to an evening meeting when their car overturned on the Main Street Bridge. Fortunately they weren't injured (neither was anyone else, IIRC), but I'm sure the accident was unnerving and the damage to the car had to be substantial. Coughlin fined them anyway. While Coughlin won with those practices, it turned many fans off for him, and when the team fell off, his detractors cited those rigid ways as reason to fire him.
JDR seemed in many ways to be the anti Coughlin. His mantra was to treat the players like men, and at the surface, didn't seem as rigid as TC. But there was no abiding sense he was overly soft on the players the way Bradley is viewed. Nevertheless, the fans grew dissatisfied with him, too.
My question to the board is what is the ideal balance a coach should have in terms of dealings with players? If you were hiring the next Jaguars coach, would you err more towards the disciplinarian or the more relaxed approach? Why?
Wins. Either extreme can work. They can look like genius or idiocy depending on success. I don't care if we have a drill sergeant or a hippie if they win. I don't have a problem with Bradley because of his player-friendly approach I have a problem with his record. Ray Schiano and his ilk get just as much flak as Bradley does.
Quote:Wins. Either extreme can work. They can look like genius or idiocy depending on success. I don't care if we have a drill sergeant or a hippie if they win. I don't have a problem with Bradley because of his player-friendly approach I have a problem with his record. Ray Schiano and his ilk get just as much flak as Bradley does.
I completely understand this response.
I get it.
But if this is true (and I don't doubt that it is), why is so much emphasis placed on the coaches' dealings with the players, when so much of it is beyond the eyes and ears of the fans anyway?
Win the superbowl every year by 14 points or more.
They wanted saban to step down after ole miss. They wanted belly to step down a after kc last year.
Full consistency or fans will find a reason to hate.
Last time I checked, we're all human so we just complain to complain. I legit think the only way we could have someone not complain is win 10 years in a row 16-0 with the super bowl and even then someone will complain that winning gets old at that point...
The organizational message has taken all of the wrongs and directed them towards the single person that is the head coach. The blueprint as delivered to the fans, the trust the process that appears to be marginal improvement and the overall votes of confidence all work against the scapegoat that is our head coach.
Here is an example to illustrate the current frustration
When the team has had an extra week of practice with a bye week, the team has come out unprepared and glacier slow with a faulty game plan. It just seems like they prepare against themselves and the game plan is the same no matter who we play.
You do make a good point on coaching and the history of the Jaguars. This will all play out in 2016. Gus feels like a place holder. The second Colts game this year is one game I can think of that he showed coaching potential. It didn't have anything to do with the score and winning, it had to do with the way they used the clock and possessions.
I would lean more towards the Bradley type, but I am a bit biased in this as I'm actively learning how to better manage people and develop teams.
To me, the underlying concept of the "Coughlin Approach" if I can name it that, is that the Player does not want to get better. Coughlin made those rules and treated the players as if all they were at the Practice Facility to do was to screw around and get paid. To me, coaches like that try to develop behaviors via rules and this is very much an Old School type of thought. I've always thought of it as "I'm going to punish you for doing what I don't want until you learn to do what I want." I feel like this is an inefficient way of working as the player spends more time figuring out what not to do rather than learning what to do. This is similar to the NFL's policy in general regarding On Field behavior; we're going to fine you until you do what we want. Well, why not teach them how to do what you want first?!
All of that being said, one thing that Coughlin pushed to his coaches and the players was that it was perfectly clear that he was interested in what they were doing. Whether it be good or bad, you knew that the Head Coach was concerned about how you acted pretty much every minute of your life. There is something to be said for that as I feel like Del Rio did not have this sentiment. He was happy just as long as you returned the results he wanted. Once you stopped doing that, he wasn't there to support you.
I view the "Bradley Approach" in that the Staff is focused more on developing and maintaining an environment where the player can grow on a consistent basis and learn how to self-judge their own performance. The "just get better" statement that gets thrown around a lot is a tool which is aimed at getting the player to evaluate himself consistently and to take ownership of his performance. In other words, it's not "I better not do that because Coach will be mad and I'll get in trouble", it's "I see what I need to get better and if I want to be a better player, this is what I have to do." As a staff, you aren't focusing on stopping bad behavior you are focusing on promoting good behavior. "This is what you need to do in order to improve."
The thing to me about the latter approach is that you are putting trust in a player that he wants to be great. And you are working towards giving him the tools to do just that. You aren't trying to stop them from doing bad things, you are encouraging them to do good things. That approach appeals to me.
Quote:Win the superbowl every year by 14 points or more.
They wanted saban to step down after ole miss. They wanted belly to step down a after kc last year.
Full consistency or fans will find a reason to hate.
Quote:Last time I checked, we're all human so we just complain to complain. I legit think the only way we could have someone not complain is win 10 years in a row 16-0 with the super bowl and even then someone will complain that winning gets old at that point...
So do you think it's a matter of people being natural malcontents, or because this is an activity with so many moving parts involving people, there will naturally be reason to complain?
But my question wasn't so much geared to complaining per se. Just want to know as a fan, is there a preferred method of coaching between the disciplinarian and the relaxed approach? Why is one approach better or worse than the other?
Quote:The organizational message has taken all of the wrongs and directed them towards the single person that is the head coach. The blueprint as delivered to the fans, the trust the process that appears to be marginal improvement and the overall votes of confidence all work against the scapegoat that is our head coach.
Here is an example to illustrate the current frustration
When the team has had an extra week of practice with a bye week, the team has come out unprepared and glacier slow with a faulty game plan. It just seems like they prepare against themselves and the game plan is the same no matter who we play.
You do make a good point on coaching and the history of the Jaguars. This will all play out in 2016. Gus feels like a place holder. The second Colts game this year is one game I can think of that he showed coaching potential. It didn't have anything to do with the score and winning, it had to do with the way they used the clock and possessions.
So you think the very nature of the position makes the coach the recipient of the criticism of the organization as a whole, irrespective of his approach?
Quote:I would lean more towards the Bradley type, but I am a bit biased in this as I'm actively learning how to better manage people and develop teams.
To me, the underlying concept of the "Coughlin Approach" if I can name it that, is that the Player does not want to get better. Coughlin made those rules and treated the players as if all they were at the Practice Facility to do was to screw around and get paid. To me, coaches like that try to develop behaviors via rules and this is very much an Old School type of thought. I've always thought of it as "I'm going to punish you for doing what I don't want until you learn to do what I want." I feel like this is an inefficient way of working as the player spends more time figuring out what not to do rather than learning what to do. This is similar to the NFL's policy in general regarding On Field behavior; we're going to fine you until you do what we want. Well, why not teach them how to do what you want first?!
All of that being said, one thing that Coughlin pushed to his coaches and the players was that it was perfectly clear that he was interested in what they were doing. Whether it be good or bad, you knew that the Head Coach was concerned about how you acted pretty much every minute of your life. There is something to be said for that as I feel like Del Rio did not have this sentiment. He was happy just as long as you returned the results he wanted. Once you stopped doing that, he wasn't there to support you.
I view the "Bradley Approach" in that the Staff is focused more on developing and maintaining an environment where the player can grow on a consistent basis and learn how to self-judge their own performance. The "just get better" statement that gets thrown around a lot is a tool which is aimed at getting the player to evaluate himself consistently and to take ownership of his performance. In other words, it's not "I better not do that because Coach will be mad and I'll get in trouble", it's "I see what I need to get better and if I want to be a better player, this is what I have to do." As a staff, you aren't focusing on stopping bad behavior you are focusing on promoting good behavior. "This is what you need to do in order to improve."
The thing to me about the latter approach is that you are putting trust in a player that he wants to be great. And you are working towards giving him the tools to do just that. You aren't trying to stop them from doing bad things, you are encouraging them to do good things. That approach appeals to me.
So fear is not a legitimate motivational/instructional tool for a coach?
Quote:So fear is not a legitimate motivational/instructional tool for a coach?
Never stated that. And whose to say that fear is not a tool in all three of the approaches that I listed? For Coughlin, fear of the coaches ire was his tool. For Del Rio, fear of the coach losing interest in you and even abandoning you was his. For Bradley, fear of not improving and being overtaken by someone who is improving can be a tool.
Fear absolutely can be a tool, but anxiety should not. Anxiety is different than fear because anxiety can be a distraction. Fear can be countered and overcome with courage, whereas anxiety can only be removed.
Quote:The discussions regarding Bradley make me question what makes our fan base tick.
One of the biggest criticisms our current coach receives from fans is that he is too soft on his players. References to ice cream and sprinkles (still not sure from whence that originated) are commonplace here. The prevailing sentiment among his detractors is that he does not push his players hard enough to excel and avoid errors.
However, I recall the early days of our franchise when we had Tom Coughlin. He was derisively called Sgt. Coughlin by many here in town because he was known as a strict disciplinarian. Some of his rules were rigid to the point of ridiculousness to some. Players had to sit up straight in meetings. Being on time to practice or meetings meant you were actually late. Being 5-10 minutes early was actually on time for TC. Nobody, not even reporters, could wear shades at practice. There was one famous incident that still makes me cringe. Tavian Banks and another player were on their way to an evening meeting when their car overturned on the Main Street Bridge. Fortunately they weren't injured (neither was anyone else, IIRC), but I'm sure the accident was unnerving and the damage to the car had to be substantial. Coughlin fined them anyway. While Coughlin won with those practices, it turned many fans off for him, and when the team fell off, his detractors cited those rigid ways as reason to fire him.
JDR seemed in many ways to be the anti Coughlin. His mantra was to treat the players like men, and at the surface, didn't seem as rigid as TC. But there was no abiding sense he was overly soft on the players the way Bradley is viewed. Nevertheless, the fans grew dissatisfied with him, too.
My question to the board is what is the ideal balance a coach should have in terms of dealings with players? If you were hiring the next Jaguars coach, would you err more towards the disciplinarian or the more relaxed approach? Why?
I for one, was a fan of Tom Coughlin. I never met a fan, personally, who didn't admire him as a HC. I know that the media hated him and did a lot to discredit him in the eyes of Weaver. It was perhaps the biggest mistake ever made by this franchise to fire him as he went on to win two super bowls with the giants. JDR had some early success with this team essentially riding on the coattails of Coughlins ground work.
If there is one thing that most of us can point to on a game by game basis, it's mistakes made due to lack of discipline. Discipline is a life style... it has to be lived to be consistently exercised on the playing field. That was what Coughlin brought to this team and a big part of why this team was so good... and why they are now so bad.
Quote:So you think the very nature of the position makes the coach the recipient of the criticism of the organization as a whole, irrespective of his approach?
In most ways the buck does stop with the Head coach but in this case it seems like the organization has no problem with making sure the focus is even more heavy on his door steps. Gus is a paid cheerleader in so many ways. He is suppose to rah rah for the players and the fans. Buddy Coach and your friend needs you to want to save his job and rally around him. Can these players do that? That remains to be seen. This staff was gifted a patty cake schedule and every team had handicaps heading to matches with us. And yet we have 5 wins.
So you can go with we don't have enough talent. And if that is the case then the three year plan was dishonest and a half truth and the head coach had to sell it this year.
We can go with the coach is in over his head. And if that is the case then next year we need a roster that is coaching proof.
Fans are fans and not always reasonable. For me this is the first year of watchable football in about 9 years of agony. Can this staff move us forward? We will see. I think there are some really talented coaches on this staff being lead by a head that is in over his head.
More important than simply a coaches demeanor is their ability to develop. Style does play a part. All people are different in what works for them and inspires them. I can only go off of what we hear from the players, they love him! They play hard and honestly, yes, they're developing.
Dave Caldwell made a statement when Gus was originally hired - he wanted a good teacher and developer of men, which was why he chose Gus. We don't know if this supposed "ice cream/sprinkle" approach will work long term, but so far the development part seems to be working. It seems like they're trying to get all the plates spinning at the same time, but so far they've only been able to get a couple going. The goal this year should be to get all those plates spinning which should equal wins.
I think the folks here, the ice cream/sprinkles crowd wants to see fire out of the coach. Slamming his fist down in anger, throwing a clip board. They want to have their own anger towards this team reflected from their coach, but he will not do that. What he does in the locker room with his players or in meetings is a mystery. Do I think he's serving soft serve? No, absolutely not. I think he puts on a happy positive face for post game interviews because that's who he is, but I doubt he's as soft as most here perceive him to be.
I hoenstly think the fans will just complain just to complain. Like Deacon stated Bradley is focused on personal development and growth as a motivation. That is somewhat of a new concept to others. This is much different from the macho man up or get out think our society has instilled. To me this approach is smart because it challenges the players to try and grow based on how they view their stregths and weaknesses. This is why I can see players like Sherman excelling with this method. He is smart, has the ability and has the will to want to be great. He just needs the ambient environment to grow in.
I think fans do not like this think because it poopoos on all the instilled thinking for previous generation had on them. To go slightly "psychoanalytic" think of how many people you know that say "if so and so would have done things different I would have done so and so different". Those people are like Reggie Nelson who had the ability and will just was never put in a situation to succeed. Whereas Bradley is trying to build up a bunch of Shermans and trying to instill confidence and build the environment to succeed. I think on some level people just don't like this approach because they haven't experienced it and won't. The issue is to me this is the best way to build a person in any circumstance. Protecting a person and instilling confidence is how you make people succeed. Few people will survive if you just "throw them to the wolves"
Quote:I for one, was a fan of Tom Coughlin. I never met a fan, personally, who didn't admire him as a HC. I know that the media hated him and did a lot to discredit him in the eyes of Weaver. It was perhaps the biggest mistake ever made by this franchise to fire him as he went on to win two super bowls with the giants. JDR had some early success with this team essentially riding on the coattails of Coughlins ground work.
If there is one thing that most of us can point to on a game by game basis, it's mistakes made due to lack of discipline. Discipline is a life style... it has to be lived to be consistently exercised on the playing field. That was what Coughlin brought to this team and a big part of why this team was so good... and why they are now so bad.
Does the fact TC toned down his "rigidity" in New York before winning the two Super Bowls change the analysis any for you?
Quote:More important than simply a coaches demeanor is their ability to develop. Style does play a part. All people are different in what works for them and inspires them. I can only go off of what we hear from the players, they love him! They play hard and honestly, yes, they're developing.
Dave Caldwell made a statement when Gus was originally hired - he wanted a good teacher and developer of men, which was why he chose Gus. We don't know if this supposed "ice cream/sprinkle" approach will work long term, but so far the development part seems to be working. It seems like they're trying to get all the plates spinning at the same time, but so far they've only been able to get a couple going. The goal this year should be to get all those plates spinning which should equal wins.
I think the folks here, the ice cream/sprinkles crowd wants to see fire out of the coach. Slamming his fist down in anger, throwing a clip board. They want to have their own anger towards this team reflected from their coach, but he will not do that. What he does in the locker room with his players or in meetings is a mystery. Do I think he's serving soft serve? No, absolutely not. I think he puts on a happy positive face for post game interviews because that's who he is, but I doubt he's as soft as most here perceive him to be.
So you think the head coach is a conduit of fan angst towards players performing poorly, which is why the "hard nosed approach" is preferred by some?
Quote:So you think the head coach is a conduit of fan angst towards players performing poorly, which is why the "hard nosed approach" is preferred by some?
I do. I think it's satisfying to see a player who just screwed up getting his face mask pulled in by someone and berated. We want to know these players are being admonished! It doesn't appear that way, so he's a softy and thus, this is the problem. This is pretty evident by the fact that there's perceived ice cream parties happening at any given moment.
Quote:I do. I think it's satisfying to see a player who just screwed up getting his face mask pulled in by someone and berated. We want to know these players are being admonished! It doesn't appear that way, so he's a softy and thus, this is the problem. This is pretty evident by the fact that there's perceived ice cream parties happening at any given moment.
I think that makes a ton of sense, along with Et Davis' paradigm analysis.
When teams lose, things that were once thought of as positive traits become negative.
The team basically quit in the final 2 games (vs Saints & Texans), yet Bradley continues to give the public audience the same speech he gave in Year 1. The Process is Old. The learning curve is over. We don't what to hear that you now realize you should have added additional protection, you should have blitzed more, you should have done this, you should have done that. Figure it out in your game plan or figure it out at halftime. Based on that alone, Bradley has come across as soft in the public eye. Regarding Coughlin, his message was not getting through during the final 2 years. The players stopped listening.
There's no 1-recipe that needs to be followed to be a good coach. Good talent, good game planning, attention to detail, and great effort and execution solves everything.
** At this point, I'm concerned with all of the above.**