Have you ever been to a practice and seen Sullivan coaching the WRs?   It's pretty interesting.   He's very very detailed, and gives them each exact step in whatever route he is coaching.   He doesn't like "sloppy."   One of them will run a route, and he will call the guy back over and go over each step. 

Yeah, he's good about coaching out the mistakes as they're happening.  He was following Robinson and Lee around quite a bit during OTAs as they were working on their route running.  He's a quiet teacher, but the one thing you see when he's out there is that he's ALWAYS teaching.  He wants these guys to be perfect, right down to how they cross over on cuts, how they adjust their hips and upper body, and how they catch the ball.  It was fun to watch. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

TMD, who would you rather have, Doss or Jacoby Ford?  Honest question.  I don't think either would make it here, but who do you think is better?

 

I'd rather have Doss, and I think he will make the team. Doss is the better returner, and I think higher upside at receiver. 

 

Have you ever been to a practice and seen Sullivan coaching the WRs?   It's pretty interesting.   He's very very detailed, and gives them each exact step in whatever route he is coaching.   He doesn't like "sloppy."   One of them will run a route, and he will call the guy back over and go over each step. 

 

Sullivan is the perfect exhibit A when you want to disprove the notion of "players not plays". He simply makes what you have better - or at least makes you realize every bit of potential in your players. 

---

I'd rather have Doss, and I think he will make the team. Doss is the better returner, and I think higher upside at receiver. 

 

 

Sullivan is the perfect exhibit A when you want to disprove the notion of "players not plays". He simply makes what you have better - or at least makes you realize every bit of potential in your players. 

But by your own estimation, he's done little to nothing to make Shorts anything more than a mediocre receiver. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Sullivan is the perfect exhibit A when you want to disprove the notion of "players not plays". He simply makes what you have better - or at least makes you realize every bit of potential in your players. 

More proves the notion than disproves.

---

But by your own estimation, he's done little to nothing to make Shorts anything more than a mediocre receiver. 

 

Wut?

 

The fact that he's gotten 800 yeard seasons out of that stiff is no short (NPI) of amazing!

---

I want to see him at WR too in addition to PR. Just to stick it in the faces of all the people that acted like he would be a "nothing" here at WR. He's better than they alluded to.


Doss was impressive in his start last year subbing for the injured incumbent. Had 100 yards and a score, IIRC. Plus his YPC has been high the past 2 years.


Sullivan will work his magic again.

If I'm wrong its a win/win so..... Cool.


Regardless I am sticking with the guess that his value as a WR to the jaguars is minimal at best.


Players not plays is incorrect but Sullivan is so great and him getting 800 yards out of him is a miracle?


So that means it is players, not plays, in your estimation that shorts is not good, its the players fault.


So you contradict your own theory. Congrats on not even being intelligent enough to know what you're saying.

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Wut?

 

The fact that he's gotten 800 yeard seasons out of that stiff is no short (NPI) of amazing!

Stop making every flippin thread your own little "bash Shorts rant."  It's petty, lame, and tiresome. Just stop. 

---

ON TOPIC:

 

http://www.jaguars.com/media-gallery/vid...8c33704934

---

If I'm wrong its a win/win so..... Cool.


Regardless I am sticking with the guess that his value as a WR to the jaguars is minimal at best.


Players not plays is incorrect but Sullivan is so great and him getting 800 yards out of him is a miracle?


So that means it is players, not plays, in your estimation that shorts is not good, its the players fault.


So you contradict your own theory. Congrats on not even being intelligent enough to know what you're saying.

Now you've just gone and confused the diva. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

ON TOPIC:

 

http://www.jaguars.com/media-gallery/vid...8c33704934

 

Let's hope he proves to be a good addition as a returner, and then we'll see what he can bring to the table as a receiver.  The return game hasn't been anything special of late, so any boost he can provide would be welcome. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Players not plays is incorrect but Sullivan is so great and him getting 800 yards out of him is a miracle?


So that means it is players, not plays, in your estimation that shorts is not good, its the players fault.

 

 

It's not either/or, it's both. A good coach can make a player better, but he can do more with a player who's potential is high to begin with.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

It's not either/or, it's both. A good coach can make a player better, but he can do more with a player who's potential is high to begin with.

 

that's all fine and dandy, but i am not the one that specifically stated that players not plays is incorrect. it was TMD. i was just simply stating that he contradicted himself.

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

It's not either/or, it's both. A good coach can make a player better, but he can do more with a player who's potential is high to begin with.

 

ok, to be accurate yes you need both talent and coaching for a player to reach the potential. 

 

In my argument I am not arguing "plays, not players", For years I have always said this: "players AND plays". But there are horses [BLEEP] that have their heels in the ground and still believe its "players, not plays" i.e. meaning coaching isn't that important. 

 

that's all fine and dandy, but i am not the one that specifically stated that players not plays is incorrect. it was TMD. i was just simply stating that he contradicted himself.

 

Nothing was contradicted, clown. 

---

Are you on the bandwagon for Doss because he has potential? Or is it to further your sanders midget/bust agenda since draft day?

---

Are you on the bandwagon for Doss because he has potential? Or is it to further your sanders midget/bust agenda since draft day?

I'll give you one guess

---

;

;

ok, to be accurate yes you need both talent and coaching for a player to reach the potential.


In my argument I am not arguing "plays, not players", For years I have always said this: "players AND plays". But there are horses [BAD WORD REMOVED] that have their heels in the ground and still believe its "players, not plays" i.e. meaning coaching isn't that important.



Nothing was contradicted, clown.

You literally aren't even smart enough yo realize. Congratulations. I suppose that explains quite a bit.


And yes, its because he didn't want sanders. Notice every player he roots for is either someone that takes the place of someone he never wanted or someone that he wanted. 90% of the time anyway.


Transparent troll is transparent.

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."