I don't think anyone with even a remote clue would argue that the expectations this year are that the team has to show marked improvement, and that wins and losses are going to matter.  They have to.  Even Shad Khan is not going to sit on his hands if we see more of the same as what we've seen over the past couple of seasons, especially with the losing streaks to begin the year. 

 

The first season, everyone expected the team to struggle.  They'd just gutted the roster.  The second year, most with a clue figured the team would struggle as they put together a very young, inexperienced roster.  To think it was going to be a team any better than it was taking that approach was pure delusion on those who set the expectations any higher than what we ultimately wound up with.

 

Year 3 should mark the beginning of that significant improvement.  Caldwell has said more than once that once the team starts to show improvement, it's going to happen very quickly.  It'll be difficult to miss.  With free agency and another draft, the team should be able to adequately address most of the roster issues and start to show the kind of improvement that leads not just to moral victories, but actual wins on the field.  If it doesn't, I don't think the organization will remain with the status quo for 2016.  Khan is being tremendously patient.  That won't last forever. 

Great point. Anyone thinking that wins and losses won't matter this year are oblivious. The first 2 years were very different. This team has to show improvement and the only way to do that now is to win more games.

---

And this is likely to be a pointer to how the team's progressing. Saying that the team must be 6-10 is ludicrous. If they scrape six wins and are blown out ten times, that's a bad result - we should be expecting better. If they win 5 games well, and lose 11 games by close margins, that's a better sign of improvement.


Which is why Khan isn't willing to put a required number of wins on the team this season; it's about the nature of the wins and losses more than their number (within reason).


Last year felt a lot better than the year before from that perspective; the team was in games most or all the way through a lot of the time (even in some cases where the final score suggested otherwise), whereas the year before a lot of the games had been lost before the half. Obviously eventually improvement in that respect will and must result in more wins, but as long as things are on an upward trend in that respect it's a good plan to stay the course.


It seems stunningly obvious to me that there are some win/loss records where Bradley could either be safe or on a very hot seat depending on how the wins were won, and how the losses were lost. Which is why although I have expectations for the team this year, I'm not going to go crying that everyone should be fired if they don't meet them.

Your opinions are your own and of course you're entitled to them... however, having a minimum expectation of 'at least' a 6-10 record is not ludicrous;

 

At the end of the season the only thing that counts in determining if a team is 'good or bad' is the record. I've no doubt that there have been SB winners who got there with plenty of 'ugly'... 'close'... 'skin of their teeth' wins. On the other hand, I guarantee that no one gets to the SB with a bunch of losses... even while looking good and 'keeping it close'. So suggesting that a 5-11 record while 'keeping it close' is better when compared to a 6-10 record with 'ugly' wins really is a ludicrous notion. Straight up 'luck' is a part of the game. The bottom line is this; winners win while losers rationalize that they are better than their record indicates. In the NFL, you are what your record says you are, period.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

I don't think anyone with even a remote clue would argue that the expectations this year are that the team has to show marked improvement, and that wins and losses are going to matter.  They have to.  Even Shad Khan is not going to sit on his hands if we see more of the same as what we've seen over the past couple of seasons, especially with the losing streaks to begin the year. 

 

The first season, everyone expected the team to struggle.  They'd just gutted the roster.  The second year, most with a clue figured the team would struggle as they put together a very young, inexperienced roster.  To think it was going to be a team any better than it was taking that approach was pure delusion on those who set the expectations any higher than what we ultimately wound up with.

 

Year 3 should mark the beginning of that significant improvement.  Caldwell has said more than once that once the team starts to show improvement, it's going to happen very quickly.  It'll be difficult to miss.  With free agency and another draft, the team should be able to adequately address most of the roster issues and start to show the kind of improvement that leads not just to moral victories, but actual wins on the field.  If it doesn't, I don't think the organization will remain with the status quo for 2016.  Khan is being tremendously patient.  That won't last forever. 

 

couldn't have said it better myself.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

 

There are a few good things going on. Hopefully we will/have acquired enough talent this off-season to get to that 7-9 win mark. 

 

And if we don't, I hope Khan shows Bradley the door that Monday after our last game.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

People are still satisfied with going 5-11 after 3 years of free agency and drafting. Unbelievable. How's improving only one win from last year after spending the most money in the off season a reason to keep your job? Go root for the Browns if you want to suck for the rest of your fan life. And even they've been better than this team recently.

---

The point isn't that we shouldn't expect the coach to be performing. It's that your way of evaluating that performance is simplistic and inept.

Then I suppose that if you are to be consistent with your logic, you would also have to say that the NFL in general is simplistic and inept in it's method of determining who goes to the championship game and who doesn't. I guess you would also have to say that determining who the winner of a race is by who crossed the finish line first is simplistic and inept; because after all, there may have been competitors who really were trying harder to win, who had better 'form', who were more popular, who had better style... but didn't cross the line first.

 

You may not like how teams are evaluated for who will proceed to the play off's and ultimately the SB, but that's the way it is. Your assertion that the methodology of relying on the end of season record as a means of evaluation as 'simplistic and inept' only suggest that you are idealistic to the point of losing touch with reality. I would suggest that you check the contents of that cup of tea that you're sipping cause what you're saying is l u d i c r o u s !

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

People are still satisfied with going 5-11 after 3 years of free agency and drafting.

 

Did anyone actually say that?  Lord, I hope not.  I'm sure no one would be satisfied with that record. 

 

Heck,  I haven't been satisfied with the Jags record for several years. 5-11 would probably put me in a catatonic state until the next draft. 

---

couldn't have said it better myself.

Well, we're on the same page on this one.  It's a shame some folks here don't seem to get it.

---

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

Your opinions are your own and of course you're entitled to them... however, having a minimum expectation of 'at least' a 6-10 record is not ludicrous;

 

At the end of the season the only thing that counts in determining if a team is 'good or bad' is the record. I've no doubt that there have been SB winners who got there with plenty of 'ugly'... 'close'... 'skin of their teeth' wins. On the other hand, I guarantee that no one gets to the SB with a bunch of losses... even while looking good and 'keeping it close'. So suggesting that a 5-11 record while 'keeping it close' is better when compared to a 6-10 record with 'ugly' wins really is a ludicrous notion. Straight up 'luck' is a part of the game. The bottom line is this; winners win while losers rationalize that they are better than their record indicates. In the NFL, you are what your record says you are, period.

While the number of wins  has to improve over the past 2 seasons, I think it's subjective.  I don't think there's a specific number Khan is expecting or he'll clean house.  I think realistically, it's just as much about how the team is performing as anything else.  If we have an extended losing streak with a bunch of ugly losses like we've seen the past couple of years, that will have an impact on the job security of the head coach at the very least.  But, if the team is clearly improved, but the win tally is still sub .500, then he may be reluctant to change horses. 

 

Nobody knows what is going on in Khan's mind, but we do know that he is a guy who sets a pretty high bar for performance, and expects that bar to be met.  I think that coming into year 3 of this process, and year 4 for him as the owner, his expectations are that the product on the field starts to match the performance they've seen in other areas of the organization (ticket sales, sponsorships, etc).  That's not unrealistic, and I'm sure that both Gus and Dave are keenly aware of this.

 

The team will get better.  As it does, the win tally will improve.  As long as that is the trend, I'm pretty sure Gus will keep his job.  If the team comes out of the gate with the kind of performances we've seen the past 2 seasons, he's got cause for concern about his job security.

---

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

Forget 7-9,  how about 2-2?  Or even simply 1-0..   We have got to stop being out of the playoffs by week 3.

Spoken like a HOF'r.

---

I ain't no monkey... I'm an ape.

While the number of wins  has to improve over the past 2 seasons, I think it's subjective.  I don't think there's a specific number Khan is expecting or he'll clean house.  I think realistically, it's just as much about how the team is performing as anything else.  If we have an extended losing streak with a bunch of ugly losses like we've seen the past couple of years, that will have an impact on the job security of the head coach at the very least.  But, if the team is clearly improved, but the win tally is still sub .500, then he may be reluctant to change horses. 

 

Nobody knows what is going on in Khan's mind, but we do know that he is a guy who sets a pretty high bar for performance, and expects that bar to be met.  I think that coming into year 3 of this process, and year 4 for him as the owner, his expectations are that the product on the field starts to match the performance they've seen in other areas of the organization (ticket sales, sponsorships, etc).  That's not unrealistic, and I'm sure that both Gus and Dave are keenly aware of this.

 

The team will get better.  As it does, the win tally will improve.  As long as that is the trend, I'm pretty sure Gus will keep his job.  If the team comes out of the gate with the kind of performances we've seen the past 2 seasons, he's got cause for concern about his job security.

Fair enough. The 6-10 number I was suggesting really is only my subjective opinion; it obviously is of no consequence in the thinking of Khan. Still, Khan lives in the real world like the rest of us (at least as much as a billionaire can, I suppose...) and he has to live with those real numbers at the end of the season. It's been a long time since the Jags have done much to make this fan base proud of...and Khan knows this. He is a lot of things to different people; but, he is also a proud man who owns a professional football team that has been awful for years. He isn't going to stomach that much longer, and has as much indicated so by his comments.

 

All that 6-10 number is is an attempt to quantify what might pass as proof of objective, demonstrable improvement. What I said to 'iapetus' in my initial post along these lines also applies to me; it's just my opinion.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

And if we don't, I hope Khan shows Bradley the door that Monday after our last game.

He might if we stink out loud again this season; but I just can't see us doing worse than we did last season. The question is... will we show enough improvement to justify keeping Gus around here? I generally don't think Dave's job is in jeopardy; overall, I think he's done a fairly decent job as a GM. If you keep in mind that this was his first 'gig' as a GM, then he looks that much more impressive. Still, Gus has had to work with a high percentage of rookies the last two years; between that and the injury bug, achieving a lot of wins has been an unrealistic expectation. 

 

This, however, will be the third year of a rebuild; and while no one realistically has expectations of this team being play off caliber, it shouldn't be out of the question to hope for at least a semblance of an improved end of season record. I myself had some while back suggested that 6-10 might be reasonable. Others have argued persuasively on here for higher and lower figures. Whatever number you pick is purely subjective since in the end the only person who's opinion matters is Khan's, and none of us know what he has in mind, if he as a number in mind at all.

 

Whatever happens, I don't think Khan is going to show Gus the highway unless this team just implodes and there is no explanation for it except straight up bad game planning/coaching.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

Then I suppose that if you are to be consistent with your logic, you would also have to say that the NFL in general is simplistic and inept in it's method of determining who goes to the championship game and who doesn't. I guess you would also have to say that determining who the winner of a race is by who crossed the finish line first is simplistic and inept; because after all, there may have been competitors who really were trying harder to win, who had better 'form', who were more popular, who had better style... but didn't cross the line first.
 
You may not like how teams are evaluated for who will proceed to the play off's and ultimately the SB, but that's the way it is. Your assertion that the methodology of relying on the end of season record as a means of evaluation as 'simplistic and inept' only suggest that you are idealistic to the point of losing touch with reality. I would suggest that you check the contents of that cup of tea that you're sipping cause what you're saying is l u d i c r o u s !

Let me describe a simple two-player gambling game. Each player takes turn to roll a die. Each round, whoever rolls the lowest number gives $5 to whoever rolls the highest number. One die has six sides numbered 1-6. The other has twenty sides, numbered 3-22. To demonstrate the game, the two dice are rolled. The six-sided die comes up 5. The twenty-sided die comes up 4.

You would grab the six-sided die and start planning how to spend the money. I'd take the twenty-sided die and would actually win the money.

Does this help you understand why what you just posted is garbage?

---

I wasn't whining, but, thanks. I'm glad you consider the post "classic."   Sounds very distinguished.  

I guess you're not being defensive about whining either, but that's okay; anybody who is in NY and a Jags fan is 'sierra hotel' in my opinion. (that's a compliment, if you don't know)

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

Straight up 'luck' is a part of the game.

Of course it is. And it's generally not repeatable. Learn what 'regression to the mean' means.

---

Let me describe a simple two-player gambling game. Each player takes turn to roll a die. Each round, whoever rolls the lowest number gives $5 to whoever rolls the highest number. One die has six sides numbered 1-6. The other has twenty sides, numbered 3-22. To demonstrate the game, the two dice are rolled. The six-sided die comes up 5. The twenty-sided die comes up 4.


You would grab the six-sided die and start planning how to spend the money. I'd take the twenty-sided die and would actually win the money.


Does this help you understand why what you just posted is garbage?

... no. But then again, I don't understand your point of view either. I will agree to disagree with you since you seem to lack the cognitive ability to grasp the apparent.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

My theory is, it's kind of a combination of numbers of wins/losses, how those wins/losses occur and who those wins/losses are against.

 

Losing a tight game against say the Patriots isn't quite as bad as getting blown out.  By the same token, winning a tight game against the Patriots would be pretty good and blowing them out would be much better.

 

Yes, the win/loss columns are important at the end of the season, but I think that the "quality" of the wins/losses matters as well as who the wins/losses were against.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

... no. But then again, I don't understand your point of view either. I will agree to disagree with you since you seem to lack the cognitive ability to grasp the apparent.

You don't understand the argument that record is not the ultimate indicator of how good a team is and whether they're trending up or down. You don't understand that teams can (and do) overperform and underperform. You don't understand that a team that lucks its way to 7 wins can be worse than a team that was unlucky to win 5 and would be the better team to back the following year - and that therefore setting hard win targets is a ridiculously simplistic approach, and that this is why our team's owner is unwilling to do that.

And you think I'm the one lacking in cognitive ability?

<shrug>

---

You don't understand the argument that record is not the ultimate indicator of how good a team is and whether they're trending up or down. You don't understand that teams can (and do) overperform and underperform. You don't understand that a team that lucks its way to 7 wins can be worse than a team that was unlucky to win 5 and would be the better team to back the following year - and that therefore setting hard win targets is a ridiculously simplistic approach, and that this is why our team's owner is unwilling to do that.


And you think I'm the one lacking in cognitive ability?


<shrug>

I understand your point and what you trying to prove. I just feel that,that excuse kind of played out already last year. When we should have beat the Steelers,Ravens,Eagles,Titans,Bengals, and Houston last year! All these games jags had lead and or tied in the games. The "close games" as you would call it!If we won these games jags would be 9-7. So all that close game theory is out the window in my opinion! Gus and the staff got that pass last season! The jags have to win now.

---

I understand your point and what you trying to prove. I just feel that,that excuse kind of played out already last year. When we should have beat the Steelers,Ravens,Eagles,Titans,Bengals, and Houston last year! All these games jags had lead and or tied in the games. The "close games" as you would call it!If we won these games jags would be 9-7 So all that close game theory is out the window in my opinion! Gus and the staff got that pass last season! The jags have to win now.

 

Valid points on both sides of this issue. This ^ one included.  

 

I recall there were at least 4 games last season that the Jags would have won easily with even an average offensive performance, but it didn't happen. 

If the defense maintains it's trajectory from last season and the offense improves only by a small margin  --  it's quite easy for me to see this team winning more games.  And it's time for that to happen. 

 

On the flip side -- of course when evaluating a purge/rebuild the competitive losses have to be considered when looking back on the record.

 But in year three of the process -  converting (at least half of) those close losses into wins should be the priority and expectation.  Just my opinion. 

 

Picking a number of requisite wins is still silly to me because we have no idea who our competition truly is at this stage. There's a very likely possibility that at least four teams on that schedule will be very different for the better or worse come October.  It happens every year.  Injuries, coaching changes, big contracts, players performance falling off a cliff  -- you never know which team might catch this bug. Others may be propelled into the playoffs by the performance of rising-star youth that no one predicted.  Bound to be a couple of those teams too. 

---