Blowouts are immaterial and, standing alone, mean nothing.  A loss is a loss is a loss in the final standings.

 

They could be a reflection of poor matchups.  They could be a reflection of little talent.  They could be a reflection of poor coaching.

 

Similarly, the lack of blowouts could be a reflection of more favorable matchups, talent, or marginally better coaching, or some combination of all of the above.

 

But to humor you, Johnson's 1989 team had SIX (6) losses of 17 or more points (defining "blowout" as a loss of 17 points or more), and there was a 7th in the first four games of 1990.

 

Walsh's 1979 team had ONE (1) loss of 17 points or more, and his 1980 team had THREE (3) losses of 17 points or more, including a 59-14 loss to Dallas.

 

So what wins out, Walsh's one loss of 17 points or more in 1979 with two wins,  or Walsh's six wins with 3 blowout losses?  Do you suggest that somehow Walsh's 1980 team that won three times as many games as the 1979 team was somehow inferior?

 

Bradley had SIX (6) losses last year of 17 points or more and four wins, and has four thus far this season with no wins.

 

What wins, Bradley's 4 wins with 6 blowout losses or Walsh's 2 wins and 1 blowout loss?  Is Bradley's 4 wins with 6 blowout losses somehow equal to Jimmy Johnson's 1 win season with the same 6 blowout losses?

 

Johnson wasn't an elite coach. He showed that in Miami. He won with talent in Dallas, talent so strong it could carry Switzer.

 

Bradley has had 10 blowout losses in 20 games so far. You can say it's about talent, but then all you're really saying is that Gus isn't an elite coach, which is what I've been saying.

---

So, all jokes aside. Does anybody on here now wish this team would have landed Greg Roman as the HC last year over Greg Bradley?

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

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.

You do realize that's what we had starting last year right? Street free agents and other teams practice squad memebers. Where have you been?

---

So, all jokes aside. Does anybody on here now wish this team would have landed Greg Roman as the HC last year over Greg Bradley?

 

I'm not worried about who the team didn't get. The team will go through a few years with Gus and unless Bortles develops to a point where he can carry Gus to a Superbowl his time here will eventually pass, and then we'll see if we can get a Sean Payton in here or if we'll get a marginal guy because the GM thinks he has a good personality.

---

Johnson wasn't an elite coach. He showed that in Miami. He won with talent in Dallas, talent so strong it could carry Switzer.

 

Bradley has had 10 blowout losses in 20 games so far. You can say it's about talent, but then all you're really saying is that Gus isn't an elite coach, which is what I've been saying.

But nobody could tell based upon the results from the first 20 games, which is my point.

 

Bradley may well be a run of the mill coach.

 

My point is when you are facing a rebuild of this magnitude, you can't readily discern the run of the mill coaches from the good not great coaches from the great coaches.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

This is a question for anyone

 

Considering how bad are linebackers and secondary are, what defense do you play? There is literally no defensive concept that would be effective due the liabilities on the second level of this defense.

---

But nobody could tell based upon the results from the first 20 games, which is my point.

 

Bradley may well be a run of the mill coach.

 

My point is when you are facing a rebuild of this magnitude, you can't readily discern the run of the mill coaches from the good not great coaches from the great coaches.

 

So you're in the "Gus is great, and this roster is so bad that even with him making them better they're still historically bad," camp? If so then okay, but I find it a difficult position to support.

 

If what you're really saying is "he'll be as great as his players" then you're just saying what I'm saying.

 

So far it sure looks like I'm right, it'll be Caldwell that determines Bradley's "level" as a coach.

---

I'm not worried about who the team didn't get. The team will go through a few years with Gus and unless Bortles develops to a point where he can carry Gus to a Superbowl his time here will eventually pass, and then we'll see if we can get a Sean Payton in here or if we'll get a marginal guy because the GM thinks he has a good personality.

 

True. Bortles will either make or break Gus and Dave. Which is obvious. That's how it goes in this leauge. With that said. I think they'll be safe honestly. I see the kid getting better and better. It's just a matter of improving the defense and protection and running game on offense.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

It's players and plays...


While talent will help, the concern about adjustments at half and why we seem to get out played in the 2nd half will remain until it's addressed.

------------

^ Youth, inexperience and marginal talent at so many places doesn't give a coach a wealth of options for "adjustment"

They are having to dumb down the scheme on both sides of the ball already. When your weaknesses are exposed and you don't have the personnel to stop the leak, there isn't always some magical adjustment to be made.

-----------------


I think it's a valid concern to question the coaching at this point.

---------------

^

Fine to question. Wrong to judge. Fisch might not be the guy, but I'm gonna wait till the oline isn't the worst in the league before I decide. Gus may be more talk than walk, but I'm gonna wait till his scheme isn't missing vital components before I call him out. That's just my perspective and how I choose to view the current staff. You are all free to lambaste these guys to your heart's content.

-------------------------

---

So you're in the "Gus is great, and this roster is so bad that even with him making them better they're still historically bad," camp? If so then okay, but I find it a difficult position to support.

 

If what you're really saying is "he'll be as great as his players" then you're just saying what I'm saying.

 

So far it sure looks like I'm right, it'll be Caldwell that determines Bradley's "level" as a coach.

I don't know.

 

Is Belicheck a great coach?

 

Yes, he won Super Bowls (won 2 as a defensive coordinator under Parcells, won 3 as head coach of the Pats and went to two more).

 

But he WAS fired from Cleveland after producing a losing record, and right now his team is struggling? 

 

What about Mike Shanahan?  Lost in Oakland and got fired...won two Super Bowls in Denver with Elway, won nothing after Elway retired, and just got fired from Washington?

 

What about Rich Kotite?  Rich Kotite's record after his first 20 games as head coach was better than Walsh's or Johnson's and had only one loss in his first two seasons of 17 points or more.

 

Is he better than Walsh?  Is the fact that Walsh produced more blowouot losses in his first two seasons as head coach than Kotite determinative of whether he was a lesser coach than Kotite?  If a roster comparison shows disparate talent levels between Kotite's 1991-1992 Eagles teams and Walsh's 1979-1980 49ers teams, can one conclude that Walsh was only as good as his talent and was therefore a run of the mill coach...like Bradley?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I don't know.

 

Is Belicheck a great coach?

 

Yes, he won Super Bowls (won 2 as a defensive coordinator under Parcells, won 3 as head coach of the Pats and went to two more).

 

But he WAS fired from Cleveland after producing a losing record, and right now his team is struggling? 

 

What about Mike Shanahan?  Lost in Oakland and got fired...won two Super Bowls in Denver with Elway, won nothing after Elway retired, and just got fired from Washington?

 

What about Rich Kotite?  Rich Kotite's record after his first 20 games as head coach was better than Walsh's or Johnson's and had only one loss in his first two seasons of 17 points or more.

 

Is he better than Walsh?  Is the fact that Walsh produced more blowouot losses in his first two seasons as head coach than Kotite determinative of whether he was a lesser coach than Kotite?  If a roster comparison shows disparate talent levels between Kotite's 1991-1992 Eagles teams and Walsh's 1979-1980 49ers teams, can one conclude that Walsh was only as good as his talent and was therefore a run of the mill coach...like Bradley?

 

No.

 

No.

 

No.

 

None of those three are great coaches.

 

They were successful, but it takes more than just having success with elite players to be a great coach.

 

Walsh was great because he was innovative and he developed two hall of fame QBs.

 

Belicheck was just a guy before Brady came in.

 

Shanahan got to coach a team with multiple hall of famers in Denver (Elway, Sharpe, Davis if he doesn't get injured) and a boatload of probowlers, too, and the Jaguars still beat them in the playoffs.

---

No.


No.


No.


None of those three are great coaches.


They were successful, but it takes more than just having success with elite players to be a great coach.


Walsh was great because he was innovative and he developed two hall of fame QBs.


Belicheck was just a guy before Brady came in.


Shanahan got to coach a team with multiple hall of famers in Denver (Elway, Sharpe, Davis if he doesn't get injured) and a boatload of probowlers, too, and the Jaguars still beat them in the playoffs.

So Walsh was great because he sucked early, was given time to get players and develop them? I'm not sure you would have made the distinction 20 games into his first season.


If Gus goes on to produce two hall of fame qbs does he become great? Again nobody is say ney or yay, we are saying let the process play out.

---

So Walsh was great because he sucked early, was given time to get players and develop them? I'm not sure you would have made the distinction 20 games into his first season.


If Gus goes on to produce two hall of fame qbs does he become great? Again nobody is say ney or yay, we are saying let the process play out.

 

If Gus comes up with something as innovative as the west coast offense then he'll become a hall of famer, and considered a great coach too.

---

Elite coaches just don't have teams flailing this badly for this long.

 

Maybe I'm missing some context here, but how is it fair or rational to expect Bradley to be an elite coach in only his second season?

---

<i>Behold man's final mad disgrace.</i>

<i>He chops his nose to spite his face.</i>

 

-Etrigan the Demon

 

Maybe I'm missing some context here, but how is it fair or rational to expect Bradley to be an elite coach in only his second season?

 

An elite head coach doesn't start being elite only after being a coach for a while. Either they have that makeup, or they don't.

 

In his case it appears he doesn't, but fortunately for him it appears that Bortles does have the makeup of an elite QB, so he might do Bradley's job for him and make the team overall better.

---

If Gus comes up with something as innovative as the west coast offense then he'll become a hall of famer, and considered a great coach too.

So basically you have to create the 43 defense or something similar to the forward pass to be considered great?


Just so we are clear Coughlin and Bill Parcels wouldn't be considered great?

---

So basically you have to create the 43 defense or something similar to the forward pass to be considered great?


Just so we are clear Coughlin and Bill Parcels wouldn't be considered great?

 

I'd consider Coughlin great. He made the Jaguars successful as a GM and coach without having an elite QB, and he won SBs with the Giants without an elite QB, too. Against Brady, no less.

 

Coughlin is definitely an elite, and I already talked about him earlier in this thread if you were bothering to read what I've posted.

 

Same with Parcells.

 

They showed they were great by showing they could be successful at multiple stops and even without elite QBs.

---

So basically you have to create the 43 defense or something similar to the forward pass to be considered great?

Just so we are clear Coughlin and Bill Parcels wouldn't be considered great?

Don Shula did not innovate anything.


Was he not great?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I'd consider Coughlin great. He made the Jaguars successful as a GM and coach without having an elite QB, and he won SBs with the Giants without an elite QB, too. Against Brady, no less.

 

Coughlin is definitely an elite, and I already talked about him earlier in this thread if you were bothering to read what I've posted.

 

Same with Parcells.

 

They showed they were great by showing they could be successful at multiple stops and even without elite QBs.

 

Agreed. I think those are great examples.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

An elite head coach doesn't start being elite only after being a coach for a while. Either they have that makeup, or they don't.

 

In his case it appears he doesn't, but fortunately for him it appears that Bortles does have the makeup of an elite QB, so he might do Bradley's job for him and make the team overall better.

You base your opinions off of a whopping 20 games? Who do you consider to be elite coaches so I can gain some perspective on your opinions of Bradley's ceiling.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.