You know what was tough and difficult having to watch the last few years under HC Gus Bradley having the worst pass defense in Franchise History when we all expected Seattle's awesome Defense!

 

We?

 

Well there's your first mistake.

---

The best bosses let their people do their jobs.

 

If they can't, you move on and find someone who can.  You don't do it for them.  That's the opposite of management.

 

Careful, you're about to a'splode the schoolyard understanding that being the boss just means that you tell people what to do.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

She is the one trying to call people out.

 

It's not bullying. It's called putting someone in their place.

 

It doesn't make you look good.  FWIW.  

 

Also, you don't know who you're dealing with.   She has some legitimate issues.   Let it go.   

---

Gus is definitely using a lot more common sense in his firings that he did in his original hirings.

---

The relationship between Khan and Gus is real world management. It's just at an organizational level that is well above your understanding.

 

The only fantasy here is people like you who think they know how to manage a major overhaul multi-million dollar enterprise.

 

Real world management understands that when major drastic changes are made to an organization that mistakes will invariably be made and unforeseen difficulties will be encountered, and if you don't allow for the people implementing the change to learn from those mistakes and give them the opportunity to overcome the pitfalls, even if it means you have to extend the projected time frame, then you will never realize the change you were wanting to implement in the first place. All you would be doing is creating an organization destined to implode and be right back at square one as soon as it faces adversity.

 

Gus may not turn out to be the right guy for the job, but to imply that Khan, who managed the building of multi-billion dollar company, isn't using real world management is laughable. It just shows how ignorant you are to actual real world management.

No one would invest in your terrible company. You do understand that 3 years of the worst performance in history would result in the shareholders revolting and forcing a change or possibly a hostile takeover. Plans in companies have targets that are published and if not met, then there are consequences. I guess you've never dealt with stockholders because you don't get 3 years and after saying it's built then your performance is the same or worse against weaker competition.

---

It doesn't make you look good. FWIW.


Also, you don't know who you're dealing with. She has some legitimate issues. Let it go.

That's a debatable topic. In the mean time, you can believe whatever you want, but if someone wants to come on a message board to where they're going to be exposed to people of varying attitudes and opinions, its her choice and she should be accepting of the pros and cons that come with it.

---

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."

That's a debatable topic. In the mean time, you can believe whatever you want, but if someone wants to come on a message board to where they're going to be exposed to people of varying attitudes and opinions, its her choice and she should be accepting of the pros and cons that come with it.

 

Sure.   If you come on a message board, you should be prepared to deal with [BLEEP].   That doesn't mean you need to be an [BLEEP].  

---

That name needs to be removed from the bad word filter.

 

What is that name?

---

I survived the Gus Bradley Error.

Yes in the real world, but Gus would have been replaced if he was in the real world. It doesn't sound like Gus was doing much of anything. If he was heavily involved then 2016 will be the same. If he wasn't involved, then he should have been fired for not getting involved to fix the issues.

 

He can't win, he just can't win.

---

I survived the Gus Bradley Error.

Tough and difficult - that's the toughest situation. And most difficult.

---

Tough and difficult - that's the toughest situation. And most difficult.

 

Kinda reminds me of the announcement at my bowling league every week:

 

"This is your last and final call to purchase 50/50 tickets."

---

This. Basing his decisions on emotions he wouldne have fired Babich. Of course it was a hard one to make, Babich pretty much paved Gus' path to NFL coaching.

 

It was an emotional decision to wait this long to fix the problem.


 

Also, in spite of what the article says, I have to think that Gus was pressured into this decision.

---

                                                                          

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

The first poster and the second poster are the same person.

 

Are you really that dumb?

 

Personally, I think the 1st and 2nd posters are just identical twins.

---

No one would invest in your terrible company. You do understand that 3 years of the worst performance in history would result in the shareholders revolting and forcing a change or possibly a hostile takeover. Plans in companies have targets that are published and if not met, then there are consequences. I guess you've never dealt with stockholders because you don't get 3 years and after saying it's built then your performance is the same or worse against weaker competition.

You obviously are ignorant towards how business works. Bowing it up and reorganizing is the forced change by the shareholders. We have already gone through that process. It often takes years for a company that reorganizes to start showing a profit again. You can't bail on the process if it doesn't meet your ideal time frame. If companies decided to bail on the process as soon as they faced adversity, they won't need to worry about attracting new shareholders because they would have run themselves right out of business.

---

Sure.   If you come on a message board, you should be prepared to deal with [BAD WORD REMOVED].   That doesn't mean you need to be an [BAD WORD REMOVED].  

And not being a [BLEEP] is exactly what she needs to learn.

 

If she is going to come on this message board and throw out these random, nonsensical, condescending remarks at people then she needs to be prepared for the backlash.

 

If her "issue" prevents her from realizing what is an acceptable way to act, then she needs to be put in her place. Obviously, people trying to get the point across to her in somewhat of a nice way is getting ignored because she is making these types of comments all over the message board and in an ever increasing amount.

 

If being mean and condescending right back at her shuts her up then so be it. If she doesn't like it, she can either drop the attitude and not have to worry about the backlash or not post anymore.

 

Regardless of what people might think of me on a message board, I am done tolerating her acting like a [BLEEP].

---

He can't win, he just can't win.

This is true. Paul Casey Beer Belly Bradley can not win. 12-36 as a head coach.

---

Make the Jags Great Again
Blake Bortles......YOU'RE FIRED!
Dave Caldwell.....YOU'RE FIRED!

No one would invest in your terrible company. You do understand that 3 years of the worst performance in history would result in the shareholders revolting and forcing a change or possibly a hostile takeover. Plans in companies have targets that are published and if not met, then there are consequences. I guess you've never dealt with stockholders because you don't get 3 years and after saying it's built then your performance is the same or worse against weaker competition.

And just to further elaborate, companies often bring in a CEO to just oversee the reorganization process and once that is over, they bring in a different CEO to run the now healthy company.

 

Gus may not be the be the best option in the long run, but he may be the best option for the now while the franchise is still trying to put everything together.

---

And just to further elaborate, companies often bring in a CEO to just oversee the reorganization process and once that is over, they bring in a different CEO to run the now healthy company.

 

Gus may not be the be the best option in the long run, but he may be the best option for the now while the franchise is still trying to put everything together.

 

Yes I know companies do that and I'm starting to think that is what is happening with Gus. The problem is Gus isn't the type to turn around the franchise, he is just there to keep the players happy while they lose. You can't have a tough coach riding the players while losing all these games. I expect that he knows he is done and is just going to ride out his contract. The next guy should have an offense ready to lead and 2 years of picks for the defense. Fans all complain about Gus, Gus' contract ends, and then they bring in a coach they really want who hasn't had to go through some bad years and have fans hating them.

---