Quote:Dallas being last in offense then does not equate to Jacksonville being last in offense now.  As I pointed out, you can make a much stronger case for coaching being the problem with the Dallas offense of that time considering by 1990, Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin, Novacek, Stepnoski, Johnston, Newton, Tuinei (that's 8 out of the 11 offensive starters in Super Bowl XXVII) were already on the roster and experienced. 

 

This don't flush. 
How do any of us know right now that Joeckel, Linder, Pasztor, Lee, Robinson, Hurns, Bortles or Storm Johnson aren't also future studs?? At that time none of the players you cite were guarantees to be great players, let alone HOF'ers. 
 Dallas' coaching and player development deserves credit here in helping those guys attain their peak potential. 


 

 

By the end of 1990 (they won 4 straight games to reach 7-7 until Aikman got hurt against Philly and they lost the last 2), they were a much more efficient offense even with Shula being there weighing them down. 

 

LOL, if that was Jaguar-land in that same situation, the fans here would be arguing to KEEP Shula since there was tangible (but very little) "impwovement" haaha. Jimmy Johnson, OTOH, was SMART enough to realize that Shula wasn't good enough, and wasn't duped by tiny improvement that late in the process, and made the necessary upgrade to Norv Turner that next offseason. And the rest was history. 


 

 

 

Bortles is in his first year, as is Lee, A. Robinson and Hurns.  Those guys may become the nucleus of a big time team in the future, but at this point they are all rookies and will have their struggles with consistency.

 

...and as said, at that point those same players were young in Dallas and were guaranteed nothing in terms of becoming the players they eventually did. 


 

 

Furthermore, keep in  mind, the rules actually allowed teams to play defense then.  It's much harder-especially for a team that lacks talent-to play defense now.

 

Regarding impatience...yes you are being impatient.  We've already discussed Jimmy Johnson.  Remember Bill Walsh?  Know what his record was after 21 games with San Francisco?

 

5-16, and arguably with no improvement on the defensive side of the ball.

 

 

Oh, so you just mention that back then the landscape was different (in an attempt to excuse Bradleys [BAD WORD REMOVED] poor defense), so now you go back another DECADE, to try and look for another relevant example to help your argument. 


 

Bill Walsh was also a highly respected offensive mind. He developed a whole new revolutionary offense to fit the talent he had in San Fran. Our coaches are still the opposite "YOU WILL FIT OUR SYSTEM" type inflexible dinosaurs. 


 

 

Jimmy Johnson had a worse record than Bradley at a similar point, while Walsh was one game better.

 

Following your rationale and timetable, your conclusion would be that both Johnson and Walsh were also in over their heads.

 

 

Yes, I was the one that mentioned that Jimmy started 4-22. He also was in a MUCH more difficult situation to rebuild given the environment of the division at that time (NFC East was light years ahead of the current AFC South in terms of competition), there also was no salary cap and very little free agency at that point. I think they had Plan B types at that point which were for the most part fringe players at best. 


 

LOL, Walsh was even before that.....


 

Any comparable examples in the current generation?


 

 

 

My point is that given the massive rebuilding job the team had to endure, these results were not totally unexpected.

 

It isn't my point that Bradley is beyond reproach under any and all circumstances.  But let's face it, when have you EVER seen ANY team with SIX (6) rookie starters on one side of the ball?

 

If experience can turn a guy you hated in Cecil Shorts into a productive (even if not dominant or special) WR, what can it do for Bortles, Lee, A. Robinson, Hurns, Linder, Bowanko and Joeckel?

 

Fisch IMO is as big a problem to us as David Shula was to the Cowboys. Jimmy Johnson had enough sense to jettison Shula at seasons end in 1990 and wasn't duped by "modest" improvement in the 2nd half of that season. I'd bet you people will gush at the slightest bit of hope shown by this offense, as will Gus, and Fisch will remain, and be defended by this peanut gallery. 


 

 

 

What would that accumulation of combined experience do for offensive production overall?

 

Would it be safe to assume the team would play with more leads?  Wouldn't that put the defense in more predictable situations?

 

By the end of this year first part of this year, I'd say any failures of the team to show any signs of improvement should be met with some criticism.