This was Bradley's first HC job and with some hindsight I think everyone can agree that JDR was a vastly better HC than Bradley.  JDR was just stuck with the Harris/Clean Gene train wreck providing him talent and eventually even he failed to be able to get anything done with those players.  When JDR left here I felt he would be a HC somewhere else soon even though I agreed with the team letting him go when they did.

 

I do not feel that Bradley will be a successful head coach in the NFL.  I think that he will be a successful coordinator somewhere though.  The guy who Bradley reminds me of in some ways is Dom Capers.  He is a guy who always successful as a coordinator but who also failed every time he was given a HC opportunity.

 

Since we are talking about Bradley and his "process", I guess I would say that he does not have a process to manage the big picture as a head coach but he does have the fire and zeal to run one part of a team.  Guys like Pete Carroll and Bill Belichick have a process to run the whole show.

 

  There's no question that some coaches are better suited to be Assistants Coaches than HCs because of the big picture aspect of being a HC.   I think many young college coaches should follow the path of what Jim Caldwell did when he was in the early years of his coaching career:  seek a coaching job on the other side of the ball.   Having a broad coaching background helps with seeing the big picture.

 

  If opportunities in the Seattle, Jacksonville,  Atlanta Defensive schedule are present,  Gus Bradley probably will get another DC opportunity in the NFL,   A problem for Bradley to overcome is he seems stereotyped in terms of his association with the Jaguars Defensive Scheme.   What team would hire Bradley to run a different Defensive scheme on the NFL level?

---

If your process is flawed, then you (or someone above you) needs to change it. However, the better AND real questions that needs to be asked are:

 

Is it flawed?

 

Because before you decide WHAT to do, you need to decide IF its broken. 

 

Once you've determined that the process did not work, you need to determine WHY it didn't work. If you fail to do this step, then you are bound to make the same mistakes again or end up with the incorrect response. Far too often, we as a society like to jump into a conclusion and then create our arguments based on that conclusion. That should not be the case. Take a look back at the history of the Jaguars and you'll see far too many pendulum swings.

 

Coughlin was a disciplinarian. He was hard nosed, perhaps too tough on his players. Some players hated him, some loved him, some hated him then but love him now. We replaced him with a "player's coach" in JDR. But was too much discipline the problem? TC also had too much power, especially at the end. So instead of "one" person, we decided to go with a trio of decision makers: Shack, Jack, and I can't remember his name now (he was a financial guy). The buzz word back then was how every decision with the Jaguars must go through those three people.

 

Again, it failed. So when we decided to restart again, we went with a "strict, no-nonsense" guy in Mularkey (see stories of him getting the team to line-up helmets). The "trio" didn't work, and the Jaguars went back to the common hierarchy of the GM (Gene) being the decision maker. Comments after Mularkey left seem to indicate that MM and Gene didn't see eye-to-eye on personnel moves. Remember the coaching staff that Mularkey brought over? It was supposed to be an "all-star" of assistant coaches. Long-time NFL assistants that was supposed to turn this franchise around. By the end of his tenure, the common theme we heard was "too many chefs in the kitchen".

 

So what happens?

 

We went from a bland, no-nonsense guys in Mularkey and Gene to outspoken and vibrant personalities in Gus (Do your job!) and Dave (Not even if he's released). We also went from that veteran assistant staff (too many chefs in the kitchen" to a incredibly young and inexperienced staff.

 

Listen to what is being said now.

 

"We need a disciplinarian!"

 

"We need veteran coordinators!"

 

"We need an offensive mind!"

 

"We need a President of Football Operations!"

 

Are these clear fixes for what is ailing the Jaguars?

 

Nope, just another pendulum swing to the other side.

 

     What you mentioned with the Jaguars is something that most NFL teams go through.   For some franchises,  the cycles can be many decades long before big time success is achieved. 

 

    Much like with players making coaching schemes work if the talent is present,   you need the right people to make an overall NFL organization work.   Including,  people being a cohesive unit.  

---

I don't disagree that Gus are lesser coaches than any of these guys you mentioned. I don't think there's a question that he's gone after this season. But that's not really what you asked, is it? 

 

Everyone talks about this process as if Gus is the only person in the world who embraces this philosophy. He's not. 

 

The problem and the question is when do you pull the plug on a process that is failing.  You are correct that many use that terminology.  As the article pointed out Detroit spent far too many years on Matt Millen and his process as GM up there.  I was one of the folks who supported Gus coming into this season since prior to this year I felt he had under-performed but I did not necessarily thing he was working with a functional roster either.

 

This year the roster is functional on an NFL level and yet we have shown glaring lack of focus and discipline.  We don't make effective adjustments at the half and in general have trouble getting out of our own way.  So, even though I supported keeping Gus as the HC last year I felt we had seen enough to know he was not the guy when the bye week came around.

 

Gus may have a process but his simply does not work on the HC level.  Now, I am not a football executive.  Therefor, I should have less understanding of the situation than folks like Dave and Khan..  If it was painfully obvious to me that Gus was not the guy early in this season don't we need to ask why a football professional did not come to that conclusion last season or before?

---

The problem and the question is when do you pull the plug on a process that is failing.  ou are correct that many use that terminology.  As the article pointed out Detroit spent far too many years on Matt Millen and his process as GM up there.  I was one of the folks who supported Gus coming into this season since prior to this year I felt he had under-performed but I did not necessarily thing he was working with a functional roster either.

 

This year the roster is functional on an NFL level and yet we have shown glaring lack of focus and discipline.  We don't make effective adjustments at the half and in general have trouble getting out of our own way.  So, even though I supported keeping Gus as the HC last year I felt we had seen enough to know he was not the guy when the bye week came around.

 

Gus may have a process but his simply does not work on the HC level.  Now, I am not a football executive.  Therefor, I should have less understanding of the situation than folks like Dave and Khan..  If it was painfully obvious to me that Gus was not the guy early in this season don't we need to ask why a football professional did not come to that conclusion last season or before?

 

Let me get this clear, you felt the team under-performed in years past but that it was due to roster issues, which you feel has now been rectified. This is a common sentiment in and out of Jaguar circles (both fans and media). If this is the common belief, and it really was for most, then why would you expect them to make a move at the conclusion of last season or before? When the 1st two years were "throwaways" and last year the team improved and competed more? This does not make sense. Keep in mind that there were MANY outside of the organization who really liked this team to improve this season. 

 

You ask why did the team not fire him at the conclusion of last season. Well, didn't you practically answer that already?

 

They wanted to see what Gus can do with a legitimate roster. It takes more than 4 games to know that (especially when one of them was a close-should have been a win vs Packers at home). The only realistic timeline was the TNF especially after that performance.

 

But then you also have to ask. Let's assume that you have made the determination that Gus *IS* the problem and you wanted to remove him. 

 

Who do you replace him with and what will doing that fix? There's really only one somewhat of a candidate to replace him midseason (Marrone), and many here (myself included) don't think the franchise really viewed him as a legitimate candidate.

 

This kind of goes back to what I said of knowing why the process is failing (or failed) before knowing what to do about it.  

 

Change for the sake of change does not always equals progress.

---

IS it flawed?  hahaha..  hahahahaha

---

IS it flawed?  hahaha..  hahahahaha

 

Go ask the Seahawks, Spurs, Hawks, and many other franchises if the concept/process of player development is flawed. 

---