Quote: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="dobie" data-cid="424800" data-time="1421856917">
<div>
Are we admitting that we're not just young, as the party line seemed to indicate last season, but fundamentally bad? No. Statistically and otherwise, our offense was bad last year. How does hiring any OC, regardless of who it is, indicate that the young players are fundamentally bad instead of just young? That's a pretty significant leap in logic. If we were admitting that our players are fundamentally bad, wouldn't Caldwell and Bradley be looking for new jobs? - 
I was reacting to all the comments lauding Olson for working with bad teams. The logic, as I read it, was coordinators for good teams have it easy because their teams are good, but it takes something special to be able to squeeze a little improvement out of teams that are bad. This seemed to contradict the idea that good coordinators produce good teams, and bad coordinators produce bad teams.


 

I also don't get the notion that Gase is a whiff because he had Manning to work with. Then perhaps it's because he has no OC experience apart from Manning. And the fact that every team who interviewed him hired someone else. Maybe those things are giving people reason to believe Gase is a whiff? - 
 I wanted an OC who has some experience with winning, because they have seen something that worked for them, not a guy who potentially can get an extra 5 MPH out of a jalopy, (and I resented the idea that we're a jalopy.) If you believe that Blake and all our rookies are the winners of the future, then hire the guys who know how to coach winners.


 

Are we admitting that Bortles is not a good QB, who just needed a year to 'mature', as the party line seemed to indicate last season? What kind of logic is this? Gus hired a guy with experience developing young QBs both in college and the NFL, yet somehow this means Blake is bad QB?
- I don't think Blake's a bad QB, but looking at the development of Gabbert and Carr as a goal for Bortles is selling him short imho.


 

What part of Olson's complete inability to produce production out of Gabbert indicates that he's good at working with bad QBs? Gabbert had his best year under Olson, including his time in SF. So I would guess it would be that.

Couldn't we just as easily say that Olson was a major contributor to Gabbert's collapse from potential to the worst QB in the league? Logically, no. Because Gabbert had his highest QB rating under Olson. To say Olson was a major contributor to Gabbert's collapse would be to completely ignore facts and logic. - 
 Claiming Gabbert looked his best under Olson is not very comforting, and I wouldn't want to have Gabbert's best stats on my resume as a QB coach, let alone OC.

 

I don't know what will happen if this rebuild fails. We clean house and start again. Is there another option? - I know, I meant I don't know what will happen with me as a fan. There's only so much abuse a man can take.


 

Sorry for being Eyeore here, and thanks for taking the time to reply. It's cathartic for me really.