Quote:That's where you're logic is flawed. You keep trying to compartemtalize these guys into categories such as elite or bad etc... None of that matters when you don't have players to execute the plays. I can call Norv Turner a bad coach because he had talent and couldn't get it done. It's impossible to judge the guy who hasn't been given talent to even start with lol.


How can we judge the offense if there is no qb that can make the throws? The line looks a lot better with Bortles back there. Now you can properly assess what needs to be added.


I'm reserving judgement on Gus but I think hes a good coach. He won more games with more rookies than Malarkey could with a 100 million dollar defense.

 

Your assertion is absurd.

 

By your logic we can never know if any coaches are good because each of them only coaches one single set of players at any given time, and the players grow and change as time goes on.

 

Like I said earlier, if Gus is what I assert, and he's not a guy that makes the team play better then the results we've seen over his 20 game tenure make sense, because the team has been absolutely awful over that stretch.

 

If he is a guy who makes a team play better, as you'd like to hope he is, then the roster is so bad that even with a coach helping them to play better it's still historically bad. I can't believe that to be the case because if that were the case the team could easily rebuild itself immediately just getting street free agents and raiding other team's practice squads.

 

No, the notion that we have a roster that is so much worse than any other roster ever assembled that even with a coach that makes them play better than their talent level they still are historically bad is ridiculous.

---