Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Quote:Truth hurts?
Must hurt to know you're a simple minded fool, child-like in nature.
I call it the "21st century can't beat sense into your kids anymore" flaw.
You keep talking about whatever you want dude. Eventually I'll get tired of it enough and you'll all just be blocked.
Ain't nobody got time for ya'lls nonsense. Especially with the offseason coming up. It'll get worse once you kids are out of school.
Oi... I might just take a 4 month vacation until draft time.
Lol whats really wrong with you? Come on tell us? Did you lose your job? If this is really about Gus then your attitude is warranted... Just look for the positives Kane! Lol..
Quote:They say the truth hurts.. See heres the thing.. Being positive is why there is still a losing culture around here, people accept everything. I call it "the Gus mentality".No one wants to hear or talk about the negatives on this team.. It kills them to hear the truth! But im that guy thats gonna cut the [BAD WORD REMOVED] and talk about it whether you like it or not.. I dont care about your feelings or your friend admin... If you want someone to cater to your feelings and agree with everything you post then go to your momma house!
That's the thing. I think you have vastly oversimplified the reluctance of posters to just dump Bradley.
I am one of those posters reluctant to dump him. Not because it is wholly unjustified. Not because I don't like talking about the negatives on this team.
On the contrary, no amount of pollyanna thinking will change the fact we have nothing resembling a pass rush.
No amount of pie in the sky thinking will change the fact our team allowed 30 ppg 8 times.
No amount of teal glasses wearing can change the fact our team turned the ball over too many times, and too often they directly resulted in points for the opposition.
No amount of Norman Vincent Peale positive thinking will change the fact Bortles was sacked over 50 times again.
I think everyone acknowledges the shortcomings of this team.
We just question the wisdom of firing the coach, giving our young QB and receivers the 4th offense in as many years (going back to his last year of college).
We just realize that teams don't set out to hire bad coaches. Every firing is invariably the reflection of some fan dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire to improve the team. Many times, it isn't the answer. At one point, most on these boards thought JDR was the answer to TC. Then it was "anyone but JDR" only to find we got Mularkey. Bradley was the answer to Mularkey and you see where we are now.
We just realize perpetual turnover in the coaching ranks leads to perpetual franchise instability. After a while, teams end up hiring and firing, and drafting and playing on a treadmill.
We realize that talent has a direct bearing on coaching, and unlike the typical fast food restaurant, it takes a long time to accumulate talent.
Bradley may not be the answer at coach. By this time next year (or sooner) we may be talking about a new Jaguars head coach. If so, it'll be deserved.
Quote:It's the false narrative that bothers me. The fact that house got benched while he was playing at the highest level of any cb the entire season, and then when Gus, who clearly had no idea what he was doing but was trying to get some spark out of his lack luster defense threw a dart at the wall and then randomly selects his best cb to be benched is not something that is praise worthy of the coach.
And on top of that, the benching was stupid in terms of sitting your best corner based on a game that he actually played pretty well in. Even the announcers in that game were giving house credit for almost the entire game. There were three catches Hopkins made that really solidified that game for the tin horns.
Only one of those three catches could be blamed on house.
And you're right as well, only a manager that is in over his head would reprimand his best employee while allowing low performers to stay off the hook.
It's mind boggling to consider that some folks are not seeing this incompetence.
It's about accountability. It doesn't matter who it is. Look at Manziel in CLE, plenty of folks including the head coach would have liked to play him in good conscience. But they couldn't. Because his actions didn't warrant it. He was held accountable.
You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. That was between the player and coach. House was punished and he rebounded nicely. The numbers don't lie about that. It could have been a simple a message as "you are better than that." The anti-Gus brigade idiotically assumed Gus benched his best corner cause #dumbness. And the fact that Gratz saw so much playing time is more an indictment of the roster.
Quote:That's the thing. I think you have vastly oversimplified the reluctance of posters to just dump Bradley.
I am one of those posters reluctant to dump him. Not because it is wholly unjustified. Not because I don't like talking about the negatives on this team.
On the contrary, no amount of pollyanna thinking will change the fact we have nothing resembling a pass rush.
No amount of pie in the sky thinking will change the fact our team allowed 30 ppg 8 times.
No amount of teal glasses wearing can change the fact our team turned the ball over too many times, and too often they directly resulted in points for the opposition.
No amount of Norman Vincent Peale positive thinking will change the fact Bortles was sacked over 50 times again.
I think everyone acknowledges the shortcomings of this team.
We just question the wisdom of firing the coach, giving our young QB and receivers the 4th offense in as many years (going back to his last year of college).
We just realize that teams don't set out to hire bad coaches. Every firing is invariably the reflection of some fan dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire to improve the team. Many times, it isn't the answer. At one point, most on these boards thought JDR was the answer to TC. Then it was "anyone but JDR" only to find we got Mularkey. Bradley was the answer to Mularkey and you see where we are now.
We just realize perpetual turnover in the coaching ranks leads to perpetual franchise instability. After a while, teams end of hiring and firing, and drafting and playing on a treadmill.
We realize that talent has a direct bearing on coaching, and unlike the typical fast food restaurant, it takes a long time to accumulate talent.
Bradley may not be the answer at coach. By this time next year (or sooner) we may be talking about a new Jaguars head coach. If so, it'll be deserved.
I can agree with this and understand this viewpoint... The question is if we fail, again for the fourth year in a row was it a good idea to keep Gus that long? If you look around the league other nfl organizations dont have a long lease with their coaches like the jags.. Ultimately if we dont win next year then it was a bad decision to keep him and all they fans who were clammering and fussing for Gus to be gone were right!
Quote:I can agree with this and understand this viewpoint... The question is if we fail, again for the fourth year in a row was it a good idea to keep Gus that long? If you look around the league other nfl organizations dont have a long lease with their coaches like the jags.. Ultimately if we dont win next year then it was a bad decision to keep him and all they fans who were clammering and fussing for Gus to be gone were right.
To what other organizations do you refer?
Cleveland? They have had eight (8) coaches since returning in 1999. Going backwards...
Pettine
Chudzinski
Shurmur
Mangini
Crennel
Robiskie
Davis
Palmer
That averages out to one new coach every two seasons.
How have they thrived with such turnover?
They haven't. The Browns have had all of TWO (2) winning seasons since returning in 1999, only one of which was a playoff season, and they lost that playoff appearance. Their best players currently on the roster, including All Pro LT Joe Thomas, want out because of the constant coaching change.
Buffalo?
They've had the same number of coaches Cleveland has had in the same time frame. Counting backwards...
Ryan
Marrone
Gailey
Fewell
Jauron
Mularkey
Williams
Phillips
They have only been marginally more successful than Cleveland, with only five (5) .500 or better seasons since 2000, only two of those were actually winning seasons (both 9-7), and has not made the playoffs since 1999.
Oakland? They've had nine (9) coaches since 2003.
JDR
Sparano
Allen
Jackson
Cable
Kiffin
Shell
Turner
Callahan
Nary a winning season since then.
I know things haven't gone well. But changing coaches every other year isn't the answer. You have to give coaches the time to get the talent to fit their schemes.
Quote:To what other organizations do you refer?
Cleveland? They have had eight (8) coaches since returning in 1999. Going backwards...
Pettine
Chudzinski
Shurmur
Mangini
Crennel
Robiskie
Davis
Palmer
That averages out to one new coach every two seasons.
How have they thrived with such turnover?
They haven't. The Browns have had all of TWO (2) winning seasons since returning in 1999, only one of which was a playoff season, and they lost that playoff appearance. Their best players currently on the roster, including All Pro LT Joe Thomas, want out because of the constant coaching change.
Buffalo?
They've had the same number of coaches Cleveland has had in the same time frame. Counting backwards...
Ryan
Marrone
Gailey
Fewell
Jauron
Mularkey
Williams
Phillips
They have only been marginally more successful than Cleveland, with only five (5) .500 or better seasons since 2000, only two of those were actually winning seasons (both 9-7), and has not made the playoffs since 1999.
Oakland? They've had nine (9) coaches since 2003.
JDR
Sparano
Allen
Jackson
Cable
Kiffin
Shell
Turner
Callahan
Nary a winning season since then.
I know things haven't gone well. But changing coaches every other year isn't the answer. You have to give coaches the time to get the talent to fit their schemes.
Bazinga.
Quote:It's about accountability. It doesn't matter who it is. Look at Manziel in CLE, plenty of folks including the head coach would have liked to play him in good conscience. But they couldn't. Because his actions didn't warrant it. He was held accountable.
You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. That was between the player and coach. House was punished and he rebounded nicely. The numbers don't lie about that. It could have been a simple a message as "you are better than that." The anti-Gus brigade idiotically assumed Gus benched his best corner cause #dumbness. And the fact that Gratz saw so much playing time is more an indictment of the roster.
While I appreciate your position, I think you are giving to much credit to "what happened in the locker room".
For all you may say regarding the fact that we don't know exactly what happened, which I concede to you, the reason for the benching was based on performance.
That reason rings hollow based on the performance house had up to and including the tin horn game--especially when compared to the rest of the secondary, in my opinion.
Quote:To what other organizations do you refer?
Cleveland? They have had eight (8) coaches since returning in 1999. Going backwards...
Pettine
Chudzinski
Shurmur
Mangini
Crennel
Robiskie
Davis
Palmer
That averages out to one new coach every two seasons.
How have they thrived with such turnover?
They haven't. The Browns have had all of TWO (2) winning seasons since returning in 1999, only one of which was a playoff season, and they lost that playoff appearance. Their best players currently on the roster, including All Pro LT Joe Thomas, want out because of the constant coaching change.
Buffalo?
They've had the same number of coaches Cleveland has had in the same time frame. Counting backwards...
Ryan
Marrone
Gailey
Fewell
Jauron
Mularkey
Williams
Phillips
They have only been marginally more successful than Cleveland, with only five (5) .500 or better seasons since 2000, only two of those were actually winning seasons (both 9-7), and has not made the playoffs since 1999.
Oakland? They've had nine (9) coaches since 2003.
JDR
Sparano
Allen
Jackson
Cable
Kiffin
Shell
Turner
Callahan
Nary a winning season since then.
I know things haven't gone well. But changing coaches every other year isn't the answer. You have to give coaches the time to get the talent to fit their schemes.
And we've had 3 coaches since 2003 and 3 winning seasons, all under Del Rio, with only 1 playoff appearance, so you can't argue that keeping a guy who's proven nothing is better than trying to find a better option.
Regards.....................the Chiefjag
Excellent point, Chief.
Keeping a bad coach is almost as bad as giving up too soon on a good coach.
But there are three counter arguments I would offer.
1. In the absence of hiring an obviously superior coach (Payton), I would maintain offensive continuity for our still developing young QB is a huge consideration in favor of keeping Bradley another year. If offensive continuity enables Bortles to make better, faster reads and better decisions overall, that will lead to fewer turnovers, fewer sacks, more consistency, that will inevitably result in more wins, which is what you want from the team.
2. I maintain there is still an argument that the current approach Caldwell took with the team is working. No, the W-L-T record has not been good. But the talent level overall is increasing. He proceeded under the idea it would take longer to build the offense. It's taken two years, and clearly it isn't fully where we want it to be, but it is beyond dispute the nucleus of an explosive and contending offense is there with Bortles, AR15, Hurns, and Thomas Thomas has already made a Pro Bowl. AR15 is making his first this year. Bortles was 2nd in the league in TDs. Hurns had 10 TDs and 1000 yards on his own. What we haven't seen is a requisite investment of high draft picks on the defensive side of the ball. I think with another year in the offense as described above, with better talent overall on the defense, combined this team will win more games, which is, again, the whole point. Yes, we've only had 3 coaches since 2003 (4 if you count Mel Tucker), and ALL have been hamstrung by a pronounced lack of talent. That has finally turned around on offense. Give it a chance to turn it around on defense as well. At the very least, with something close to a complete team, we will know once and for all if the coaching is good or not. With something close to a complete team, we will have a better idea how to proceed if we decide Bradley isn't the guy.
3. As I indicated before, firing the current coach, assuming that is the preferred solution, is actually only half of the solution. The other part is to find a suitable replacement. That is far from guaranteed. What would be worse than sticking with Bradley if he were not the guy is dumping Bradley, sacrificing the development of Bortles and the rest of the offense, never developing the defense and still ultimately ending up with a substandard coach. If Bradley isn't the guy and he is fired at some point next year, at least Bortles would have seen enough defenses, enough fronts, enough coverages to be able to transition into almost any offense, and have enough of a frame of reference to be good for the new coach.
Wow, dropping in and expected a dumpster fire of a thread.
I'm impressed at the real discussion going on, in spite of a few usual flames flaring against it.
Well join in, Pirkster. On what side of the fence do you sit?
Bullseye- you are a master debater. Excellent points, all.
Quote:Well join in, Pirkster. On what side of the fence do you sit?
I've said so in other threads, but I'm more than happy to oblige.
I honestly don't know how good Gus is. I have no reason to believe he can't be a quality HC in the NFL. At the same time, he's still got a long way to go to earn it. He's a reflection of where the club stands right now. I see good things, but probably not enough fast enough.
There are many paths that lead to the same destination.
Coughlin was rightly fired for his salary cap sins and unwillingness to give up his GM duties. He was also on the hot seat at his next destination until he retooled himself, then won a couple Super Bowl rings.
Del Rio was thrown under the bus (after throwing his own staff under the bus at times,) but we can look back and see now it wasn't Jack, but the jack squat that was on the roster Gene destroyed.
Caldwell's hand can't be ignored when looking at what's going on with this club. He's found a few gems, but has it been enough to work with? Gus was Caldwell's hire. The one he trusted, his judgement. His build, that was said to be "built."
Is he buying the right groceries for the wrong meal? Or buying the the wrong groceries for the right meal? Are chef and manager really in agreement on the menu?
I'm all for keeping Gus and letting him prove it this year, but wouldn't be upset to see him earn a bus ticket before the season is done.
I also want to see more from Caldwell. Seal a bold offseason deal or two that works in free agency. The money is there. Fowler turning into a superstar would help him, it's something I hope for but not something I can expect. He needs to do for the defense this year what he did for the offense. VERY quickly. Big steps in bringing in defensive talent that makes an impact this season.
If we're losing similar to last season and no big strides with defense as with offense - I see no reason to keep either of them.
But you know, I don't worry a bit about it. None at all. What will happen will happen, and no amount of despair or cheer will make a bit of difference in the fate of the team. I don't post as much anymore because I don't feel like flooding the board with my opinion. I share it if enticed by a good opportunity (thank you for asking btw,) but don't feel like the board needs it. If what I post is heard and respected, that's cool. If not, no sweat. I know repetition won't change it either way.
I almost avoided your post altogether due to interesting wording, but thank you, Minorcan.
Pirkster, you and I are in complete lockstep agreement here. Thing is, in this discussion/ debate, I can't definitively state the other side is wrong.
Quote:I almost avoided your post altogether due to interesting wording, but thank you, Minorcan.
Pirkster, you and I are in complete lockstep agreement here. Thing is, in this discussion/ debate, I can't definitively state the other side is wrong.
Sometimes I like to see who is paying attention. Although the working may have been close to off color the sentiment was genuine.
I sensed you were genuine, which is why I chose not to go juvenile-at least on the board.
Mentally though....Beavis and Butthead here.
Anyway, thanks again for the praise.
Another thing about talent...
Does Caldwell have a blind spot for defense? Is he more confident making the offensive picks, and is letting Gus have a bigger role in influencing defensive picks?
Caldwell was there when ATL bet the farm on Julio Jones. He got a great player. Bortles was his guy. He got him. I don't see a Julio Jones or Blake Bortles pick on the defensive side of the ball. Fowler seems more like a Bradley influenced pick, one that fits the unicorn "LEO" role.
I may be wrong, but it sure did seem like Caldwell did the gushing about Bortles, and Gus about Fowler.
Quote:Another thing about talent...
Does Caldwell have a blind spot for defense? Is he more confident making the offensive picks, and is letting Gus have a bigger role in influencing defensive picks?
Caldwell was there when ATL bet the farm on Julio Jones. He got a great player. Bortles was his guy. He got him. I don't see a Julio Jones or Blake Bortles pick on the defensive side of the ball. Fowler seems more like a Bradley influenced pick, one that fits the unicorn "LEO" role.
I may be wrong, but it sure did seem like Caldwell did the gushing about Bortles, and Gus about Fowler.
An interesting inquiry...not one to which I have given much thought.
I guess there are arguments supporting either side.
In the affirmative, the defensive draft picks he has spent, as a general rule, have not panned out as hoped. Telvin Smith is the one defensive draft pick who looks like he could be a star. Colvin is probably the next best defensive pick. The others have either been too injured to really contribute (Fowler, Sample), or too inconsistent to be reliable (Cyprien, Gratz).
Negatively, there is the argument the team really hasn't invested too much in terms of draft choices to adequately evaluate. The overwhelming majority of his draft picks-especially the high picks-have been offensive players. You could also argue he hs had some pretty good defensive free agent signings. Though the bulk of his defensive FA signings designed in large part to be stop gap, he has gotten a Pro Bowl out of Senderrick Marks, he got an 8 sack season out of a clearly declining Chris Clemons, and the signing of House has given the Jaguars perhaps their best CB since Rashean Mathis (though Mathis in his prime is clearly better than House).
I think ultimately-and unfairly-the one way he can put that to rest once and for all is to have a defensive offseason equivalent to the 2014 class. Some top tier free agency signings plus a stellar defensive draft that provides the same kind of immediate impact and longer term potential the draft of 2014 did for the offense would provide a definitive answer to that question and ultimately answer the question whether his longer term theory about being easier to build a defense is correct.
To clarify my position, let me state that I do not profess blind faith and allegiance to Bradley. As I have indicated, I cannot definitively state those who want Bradley gone are wrong, though he was hamstrung by a lack of talent. The circumstances under which I would fire Bradley are as follows:
1. If a proven, Super Bowl winning coach were available-preferably one with a history of developing QBs (my choice Sean Payton), then I would be willing to sacrifice continuity and hire the new coach.
2. Absent that, I would fire Bradley if Marrone would be named his successor. He has proven he can win in a difficult situation. Besides that, he is familiar with Bortles and the rest of the offensive personnel. He knows their strengths and weaknesses, and he knows what the team needs. He would be the ideal balance between competence and continuity.
3. If the first two circumstances are not met, then let Bradley play out this last year. If the team gets off to another bad start despite the offense being experienced and the defensive infusion of talent, then maybe can him before the end of the season. Otherwise, if the team falls short of expectations, then fire him.
I'll counter a few of your overall points Bullseye with an idea that may not be so popular.
I am of the belief that a Head Coach should not be hired based on his football knowledge, although a certain level is required. Nor should he be hired based on his "developmental" prowess, even though some examples of such are a requirement as well. What you hire a Head Coach to do is to set a tone and lead an organization. While I am no Pittsburgh fan, look at how they have hired their past two coaches, Cowher and Tomlin; Cowher's was the Defensive Coordinator for Kansas City for three seasons and Tomlin only had one year of Defensive Coordinator experience yet both men went on to win Super Bowls.
I state all of this to point out that while Payton has certainly had success, I would not hire him as a Head Coach just to develop the QB. If I hire a Head Coach, his absolute number one priority will be the overall progress of the team, including his staff. He needs to have a crystal clear vision of the kind of environment that he will develop and maintain within the building. He can hire guys to come up with X's and O's.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11