(03-11-2020, 03:32 PM)JagJohn Wrote:

(03-10-2020, 06:54 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: One of the most clueless takes I've ever read. No shock it would be from that guy.

It just doesn't work because he's literally not comparing apples to apples. If the intention is to make a good meal, and he comes back with a rake, then they have completely different objectives.

A better metaphor would be the wife (the coach in this metaphor) sends him (the GM) with a shopping list and a budget. They both have the same objective: make a good meal (team). The wife wants to make a roast chicken, so everything on the shopping list is for that. However, at the store, the husband sees that the last good chickens have just been bought by someone else, and the only ones left are small and don't look so great. So, knowing there is more than one way to make a good meal, he instead uses his budget on the steak that has just been put on offer. Maybe the wife would have preferred chicken, but, unless she's completely irrational, she would understand you can't make a good meal if you don't have good ingredients, and you can just as easily put together a great meal with other ingredients as long as they are good.

Mmmmm steak.

Which comes back to another problem the Jaguars have, their wife (coach) only knows how to cook chicken (run one scheme). When you're hiring coaches that don't understand how to fit scheme to player and only know how to run one scheme it's very difficult for a GM to be successful, because even if he takes talented players a bad coach wastes that talent.

---