I think it's fair to say this coaching staff is at least better than the Cowboys. You aren't goin to find a fairer case to judge upon considering the factors.

---

jaguarmvp when he drives by a Dairy Queen

Is that Kevin Hart?

---

You Gotta Be Able To Run Da' Rock~

I think it's fair to say this coaching staff is at least better than the Cowboys. You aren't goin to find a fairer case to judge upon considering the factors.

It is interesting isn't it. They had a lot of good defensive players and hmmmm, they won! They won pretty easily too. I guess it didn't matter how "crisp" the practices were after all. 

---

I think it's fair to say this coaching staff is at least better than the Cowboys. You aren't goin to find a fairer case to judge upon considering the factors.

Yea you can.... It's called the actual NFL games.

 

Cowboys coaches over Jags coaches.... Not even close really.

---

Yea you can.... It's called the actual NFL games.

 

Cowboys coaches over Jags coaches.... Not even close really.

 

 

Really? Because the Dallas squad was 31st in Turnovers allowed and 32nd in Turnovers forced. Both were worse figures than Jacksonville. Even the  Jacksonville Staff got the team to win five games last season, Dallas' could only must four. Dallas went through a seven game losing streak. Jacksonville didn't do that.

 

I have to tell you, I really think it's kinda silly to compare the two because how do you really know which Coaching Staff is better? I mean, I threw some numbers out there, but are they really indicative of the quality of the Staff? I kinda think that they aren't, but how to answer that?

 

All in all, I think it's just a dumb argument to even start.

---

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!

Really? Because the Dallas squad was 31st in Turnovers allowed and 32nd in Turnovers first. Both were worse figures than Jacksonville. Even the Jacksonville Staff got the team to win five games last season, Dallas' could only must four. Dallas went through a seven game losing streak. Jacksonville didn't do that.


I have to tell you, I really think it's kinda silly to compare the two because how do you really know which Coaching Staff is better? I mean, I threw some numbers out there, but are they really indicative of the quality of the Staff? I kinda think that they aren't, but how to answer that?


All in all, I think it's just a dumb argument to even start.

In terms of roster and time frame, there isn't a fairer test of two coaching systems. The players all come from the same pool and they have the same time to work with them. It mitigates the extenuating circumstances that come with the NFL.

---

In terms of roster and time frame, there isn't a fairer test of two coaching systems. The players all come from the same pool and they have the same time to work with them. It mitigates the extenuating circumstances that come with the NFL.

It's kind of a catch 22 for those that loathe Gus. 

 

Haters can argue Gus' squad won because he had better players, but then you're admitting that it's players over plays. 

---

In terms of roster and time frame, there isn't a fairer test of two coaching systems. The players all come from the same pool and they have the same time to work with them. It mitigates the extenuating circumstances that come with the NFL.

 

Maybe, but is giving a Staff a pre-packaged plan for practice and really only four days to work with the roster a true evaluation of their abilities? I mean, I get what you're saying about how both Staffs have the same challenge, but I really wonder if it gives a realistic image.

---

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!

Maybe, but is giving a Staff a pre-packaged plan for practice and really only four days to work with the roster a true evaluation of their abilities? I mean, I get what you're saying about how both Staffs have the same challenge, but I really wonder if it gives a realistic image.

Well, there were certainly reports about the different approaches the two coaching staffs took if that means anything.

---

And I think that the different approaches do mean something. And for me, I like the Bradley approach. It's something that I hope starts yielding more Wins because I think it does a great job of building a team out of individuals. Thing is, unless wins start coming the Staff may not be around.

 

Also, keep in mind that I'm one of those types that thinks that overall wins is not the end-all, be-all for measuring a Coach.

---

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!

And I think that the different approaches do mean something. And for me, I like the Bradley approach. It's something that I hope starts yielding more Wins because I think it does a great job of building a team out of individuals. Thing is, unless wins start coming the Staff may not be around.

 

Also, keep in mind that I'm one of those types that thinks that overall wins is not the end-all, be-all for measuring a Coach.

lol 

 

Then how come they keep records in the NFL? Might as well just let everyone play for fun!

 

Cowboys played most of the year without Romo and Dez. What would our record have been without Blake and ARob?

---

lol 

 

Then how come they keep records in the NFL? Might as well just let everyone play for fun!

 

Cowboys played most of the year without Romo and Dez. What would our record have been without Blake and ARob?

 

I also do not subscribe to the "play for fun" line of thinking. For a good idea of what some other goals are for a coaching staff, go and look up Coughlin's farewell speech from his last day as a New York Giant. There were a lot more things listed than just Wins and Losses.

 

And the Jags Coaching Staff spent an entire season without a productive pass rusher. What would Dallas' record be without Hardy's and Lawrence's combined 14 sacks?

---

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!

I also do not subscribe to the "play for fun" line of thinking. For a good idea of what some other goals are for a coaching staff, go and look up Coughlin's farewell speech from his last day as a New York Giant. There were a lot more things listed than just Wins and Losses.

 

And the Jags Coaching Staff spent an entire season without a productive pass rusher. What would Dallas' record be without Hardy's and Lawrence's combined 14 sacks?

Whoa now! 14 sacks?! Killin it

 

And I bet their record will still be terrible. If we didn't have Blake and ARob, I doubt we win a single game. Maybe 1.

 

And Coughlin can have a speech like that because he won 2 Championships. If they didn't win 2 SB's, I doubt it would have gone that well. He most likely would have been fired long ago.

 

The only thing that matters in the NFL are wins. If you don't win, you are a failure. Does that make you a bad person? Absolutely not. It makes you a bad coach.

---

The only thing that matters in the NFL are wins. If you don't win, you are failure. Does that make you a bad person? Absolutely not. It makes you a bad coach.

Never understood this logic. Is Bortles a bad qb because his record is 8-21 in career starts?


It's a team game, bro. The roster matters. A lot.

---

Never understood this logic. Is Bortles a bad qb because his record is 8-21 in career starts?


It's a team game, bro. The roster matters. A lot.

Can he turn it around? Absolutely. But there is a reason they only keep W/L records for teams, coaches and QBs. It's because they are judged almost solely on winning and losing.

 

If Bortles continues to lose more than he wins, then he is not a great QB. It's pretty simple. If Gus has a losing season, do you think he will be retained? Of course not because again... WINNING IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.

 

Winning is good. Losing is bad. Shocker I know.

---

Can he turn it around? Absolutely. But there is a reason they only keep W/L records for teams, coaches and QBs. It's because they are judged almost solely on winning and losing.

 

If Bortles continues to lose more than he wins, then he is not a great QB. It's pretty simple. If Gus has a losing season, do you think he will be retained? Of course not because again... WINNING IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.

 

Winning is good. Losing is bad. Shocker I know.

Of course, this is absolutely true. However, you qualified Dallas' coaching staff losing more games than the Jags because they were without Dez and Romo. Based on your criteria that "Winning good. Losing bad", there is no other qualifiers. They all stink and should go.

 

So, when someone brings up to you that we had zero pash rush and a really bad defense, this doesn't count as contributing to the win/loss record? It's only the coach? But, with Dallas it's different?

---

lol 

 

Then how come they keep records in the NFL? Might as well just let everyone play for fun!

 

Cowboys played most of the year without Romo and Dez. What would our record have been without Blake and ARob?

We won 4 games was it in 2013 without Blake or Arob. In fact, we won 4 games with what's being hailed as a historically bad roster. So......

---

I'm not a Gus LOVER, however, some of you don't have any perspective on anything. It's year 4. The expectations are the team has a winning record or the coaching staff will be fired. So win or lose, it's a win win for most of us. 

---

Of course, this is absolutely true. However, you qualified Dallas' coaching staff losing more games than the Jags because they were without Dez and Romo. Based on your criteria that "Winning good. Losing bad", there is no other qualifiers. They all stink and should go.

 

So, when someone brings up to you that we had zero pash rush and a really bad defense, this doesn't count as contributing to the win/loss record? It's only the coach? But, with Dallas it's different?

A great QB covers up a lot of holes. This team should have won more games than they did this year. We had the easiest schedule in the league and still managed 5 wins. 

 

The Dallas coaching staff proved it can win games. Gus hasn't proved anything. So yes, the Dallas team lost more than us but they also lost their 2 best players for about 10 games. One of which is the most important position on the field. If they had gone, 4-12 with Romo and Dez healthy, you think they bring that staff back? Doubt it.

 

I get the pass rush part but how come it can't even be mediocre? How come Gus (who is a defensive minded coach) can't even make this decent average. I'm not saying very good... I'm saying just average. Doesn't seem like a tall order to be the 16th best defense in the league. 

---

Of course, this is absolutely true. However, you qualified Dallas' coaching staff losing more games than the Jags because they were without Dez and Romo. Based on your criteria that "Winning good. Losing bad", there is no other qualifiers. They all stink and should go.

 

So, when someone brings up to you that we had zero pash rush and a really bad defense, this doesn't count as contributing to the win/loss record? It's only the coach? But, with Dallas it's different?

 

 

Careful, your "perspective" is starting to show. Wouldn't want that getting out.

---

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!