I don't think anyone has said coaching doesn't. I do think most people are saying that he doesn't have players and hasn't had enough time to acquire them.

 

Let's break this down into a simple logical operation.

 

Either Gus is an elite coach capable of helping the roster achieve above its level and the roster is so bad that even though it's been historically bad so far during his tenure he's making it better to even get to historically bad...

 

Or, Gus is just a run of the mill kind of head coach that simply only achieves at the rate a run of the mill coach would for a given roster talent level, or even possibly below that.

 

Which do you think it is? That he's got a group that's overachieving to even get to historical levels of terribleness, and he's so far doing as bad a job as Mularky, (which would mean Mularky was an elite coach, too, since he achieved similarly to Gus) or that we're really just seeing what Gus is capable of without having a very talented roster given to him?

 

Logically speaking, which of these scenarios seems closest to reality?

---

Gus Bradley has not won me over yet.. but, I like him 50 times better than Mularkey, and 49 times better than Del-sucko.


He will have to show measurable improvement over time at the kinds of things one expects from a coach. Preparedness, tackling, maintaining discipline among the players (no stupid penalties at crappy times especially)


He should have special plays predesigned and well-practiced for special moments in a game. He should have a referee's understanding of the game rules, and know how best to manipulate them to advantage. Clock management is first grade, and expected.


He should have an unflappable control of his own emotions, as well as the ability to recognize when others' emotions need curtailing (or in the case of the opponent, exploiting). He should also command the ability to recognize and exploit the emotion of group mentality on both sides. These skills are related to the undeniable impact of momentum. Something a great coach understands keenly, and does his best to manipulate to advantage.


The coach is the most important component after Qb.


There is so much more of course. We have seen some of the above, and some not.


All told, I have enough confidence in Bradley at the moment to let things play out and make a determination at the end of the season. Measurables (statistics) will be the deciding factor.


I never liked the idea of an NFL rookie coach, with NFL rookie OC and DC, and handfuls of rookie players..


The better teams, particularly the contenders it seems, very often have an experienced HC, with former (fired) head coaches at the Coordinator position(s).

---

Let's break this down into a simple logical operation.


Either Gus is an elite coach capable of helping the roster achieve above its level and the roster is so bad that even though it's been historically bad so far during his tenure he's making it better to even get to historically bad...


Or, Gus is just a run of the mill kind of head coach that simply only achieves at the rate a run of the mill coach would for a given roster talent level, or even possibly below that.


Which do you think it is? That he's got a group that's overachieving to even get to historical levels of terribleness, and he's so far doing as bad a job as Mularky, (which would mean Mularky was an elite coach, too, since he achieved similarly to Gus) or that we're really just seeing what Gus is capable of without having a very talented roster given to him?


Logically speaking, which of these scenarios seems closest to reality?

I feel you logic is flawed so I'll chose neither and use my own reasoning. I can't think of one coach that has had a bad team and won with them. I'm not talking about the team with a few players and they made plays. I'm talking about not one elite level player. Not one true probowler. If you can name that one guy who ever it is I'd still call it an outlier until you proved about 10 more.


Point is no coach in the history of all of sports has ever won and won consistently with a roster full of bad players. It's not just elite coach or nothing. I guess BB in New England is a bad coach now huh? Andy Reid got fired so he must have sucked? Guess Chip Kelly is a master since that team is winning still?

---

I don't think Gus is a bad coach, I just think he's been given sub-par talent in free agency.  I think what he has shown was that he cannot take below average players like Ziggy Hood, Dakoda Watson, and Geno Hayes and turn them into good players based on "the system".   At the end of the day, you need good players to start with then you can make them really good based on "the system"

---

I feel you logic is flawed so I'll chose neither and use my own reasoning. I can't think of one coach that has had a bad team and won with them. I'm not talking about the team with a few players and they made plays. I'm talking about not one elite level player. Not one true probowler. If you can name that one guy who ever it is I'd still call it an outlier until you proved about 10 more.


Point is no coach in the history of all of sports has ever won and won consistently with a roster full of bad players. It's not just elite coach or nothing. I guess BB in New England is a bad coach now huh? Andy Reid got fired so he must have sucked? Guess Chip Kelly is a master since that team is winning still?

 

You can't just feel logic is flawed, you have to show why logic is flawed.

 

However, that aside you're making an ignorant argument here. You can't think of a coach that won with a bad team, so therefore you still believe that Gus could be an elite coach, and that Mularky is one, too, since they had similar results?

---

You can't just feel logic is flawed, you have to show why logic is flawed.


However, that aside you're making an ignorant argument here. You can't think of a coach that won with a bad team, so therefore you still believe that Gus could be an elite coach, and that Mularky is one, too, since they had similar results?

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.


And to be honest I withheld judgement on Malarkey too because Blaine was his guy. I think it's best to give this guy some time. And see what can happen.


You must like the raiders approach? Keep changing coaches until lighting in a bottle is caught. Then go from their.

---

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.

---

Give Gus a stud at FS and two linebackers that can cover and this whole thread goes away.


The race and desire to crown or crucify on this board is absolutely laughable.

---

Let's break this down into a simple logical operation.

 

Either Gus is an elite coach capable of helping the roster achieve above its level and the roster is so bad that even though it's been historically bad so far during his tenure he's making it better to even get to historically bad...

 

Or, Gus is just a run of the mill kind of head coach that simply only achieves at the rate a run of the mill coach would for a given roster talent level, or even possibly below that.

 

Which do you think it is? That he's got a group that's overachieving to even get to historical levels of terribleness, and he's so far doing as bad a job as Mularky, (which would mean Mularky was an elite coach, too, since he achieved similarly to Gus) or that we're really just seeing what Gus is capable of without having a very talented roster given to him?

 

Logically speaking, which of these scenarios seems closest to reality?

 

If you assume the elite coach is the exception not the rule (hence the "elite" designation), then by definition, the most likely scenario is he is the the run of the mill head coach.

 

My question is how does one discern the difference at this stage?

 

Consider Bill Walsh.  http://www.pro-football-reference.com/co...alsBi0.htm

 

His first year with San Francisco (1979), he went 2-14.

 

His second year, he went 6-10.  http://www.pro-football-reference.com/te...o/1980.htm

 

After the same 20 game period Gus Bradley has had here, he was 5-15-just one game ahead of where Gus Bradley is now.

 

For the purposes of discussion, let's also consider Jimmy Johnson.

 

His first year with Dallas (1989), he went 1-15.  His second year with Dallas, he went 7-9.

 

After the same 20 game period Gus Bradley has had here, he was 2-18...or two games below what Gus Bradley has achieved here.

 

Looking solely at the W-L records after 20 games, if you had to guess, all were likely run of the mill coaches at best.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Give Gus a stud at FS and two linebackers that can cover and this whole thread goes away.


The race and desire to crown or crucify on this board is absolutely laughable.

 

People stop caring about if he's good or not because the roster gets good, but that still doesn't change that he's just a guy.

 

At some point down the road if the Jaguars are in the 3rd or 4th year of making the playoffs all the time, Bortles has developed, and the team isn't making it over the next hump to true super bowl contention, is the next point when people will start caring about if the coach is elite or just a guy.

---

Give Gus a stud at FS and two linebackers that can cover and this whole thread goes away.


The race and desire to crown or crucify on this board is absolutely laughable.

 

This, the Jaguars simply don't have the personnel (yet) to run an effective cover 3 press concept, we need more athletic quick twitch linebackers that can shrink the field and a rangy FS (Landon Collins please). The effectiveness of this defense will improve dramatically with the right personnel, Seattle jumped from like 29th to 9th in one year, Gus's defense will be fine.

---

If you assume the elite coach is the exception not the rule (hence the "elite" designation), then by definition, the most likely scenario is he is the the run of the mill head coach.

 

My question is how does one discern the difference at this stage?

 

Consider Bill Walsh.  http://www.pro-football-reference.com/co...alsBi0.htm

 

His first year with San Francisco (1979), he went 2-14.

 

His second year, he went 6-10.  http://www.pro-football-reference.com/te...o/1980.htm

 

After the same 20 game period Gus Bradley has had here, he was 5-15-just one game ahead of where Gus Bradley is now.

 

For the purposes of discussion, let's also consider Jimmy Johnson.

 

His first year with Dallas (1989), he went 1-15.  His second year with Dallas, he went 7-9.

 

After the same 20 game period Gus Bradley has had here, he was 2-18...or two games below what Gus Bradley has achieved here.

 

Looking solely at the W-L records after 20 games, if you had to guess, all were likely run of the mill coaches at best.

 

Break it down to where we can see if those games were continual blowouts and you'll have a point.

 

The references you linked aren't granular enough for this discussion.

---

Give Gus a stud at FS and two linebackers that can cover and this whole thread goes away.


The race and desire to crown or crucify on this board is absolutely laughable.

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.


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


I'm not sure there is any crowning or crucifying going on.


It's just a debate regarding the coach's progress up to this point.


This Sunday gives them another opportunity to show how much the players have progressed.


It also gives us a chance to see how the coaches have progressed.


There's no witch hunt going on here.


There's no coronation ceremony going on either.


And I think that's fair

---

Further Breakdown:
 
SEATTLE:
2008: YDS/G: 378.0 (30TH), PASS/G 259.3 (32ND), RUSH/G 118.7 (18TH), PTS/G 24.5 (25TH)

BRADLEY

2009: YDS/G: 356.4 (24TH), PASS/G 245.4 (30TH), RUSH/G 110.7 (15TH), PTS/G 24.4 (25TH)

BRADLEY+CAROL

2010: YDS/G: 371.8 (27TH), PASS/G 249.6 (27TH), RUSH/G 118.9 (21ST), PTS/G 25.4 (25TH)

2011: YDS/G: 332.2  (9TH), PASS/G 219.9 (11TH), RUSH/G 112.3 (15ST), PTS/G 19.7 (7TH)

2012: YDS/G: 306.2  (4TH), PASS/G 203.1  (6TH), RUSH/G 103.1 (10TH), PTS/G 15.3 (1ST)

CAROL

2013: YDS/G: 273.6  (1st), PASS/G 172.0  (1st), RUSH/G 101.6  (7TH), PTS/G 14.4 (1ST)

 
JAX:

<div>2012: YDS/G: 380.5 (30TH), PASS/G 239.5 (22ND), RUSH/G 141.0 (30TH), PTS/G 27.8 (29TH)

BRADLEY
2013: YDS/G: 379.4 (27TH), PASS/G 247.6 (25th), RUSH/G 131.8 (29TH), PTS/G 28.1 (28TH)

2014: YDS/G: 451.3 (32ND), PASS/G 320.8 (32ND), RUSH/G 130.5 (25TH), PTS/G 38.0 (32ND)

</div>
 
What I gather:
1. From the time Bradley arrived in Seattle it took 2 full bad seasons before the defense got good.  
2. The defense took a jump from bad to good from one season to the other
3. Jacksonville was significantly worse off than Seattle was upon his arrival.  I'm not sure what the Seattle roster situation was at the time, but Jacksonville was completely gutted when he got there on top of already being bad.
4. The defense is historically bad so far this year.  Sheesh. 38 PTS?  451 yards???
5. If we factor everything together, and are basing it off his time in Seattle, I'd say 2016 would be the year to actually expect a good defense (if it happens at all)

---

Joking aside, I think we can all expect to see the defense improve now that we can actually get 1st downs.   I personally hold Henne "partly" responsible for the 451 yards per game.

---

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.


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


I'm not sure there is any crowning or crucifying going on.


It's just a debate regarding the coach's progress up to this point.


This Sunday gives them another opportunity to show how much the players have progressed.


It also gives us a chance to see how the coaches have progressed.


There's no witch hunt going on here.


There's no coronation ceremony going on either.


And I think that's fair

 

I think it's all personnel, just look at the linebackers and secondary, how many of those guys would start for other teams? I can only think of Poz and Cyp, and Poz (at best) is a two down linebacker. Geno Hayes and Dekoda Watson are career backups, Laroy Reynolds and JT Thomas are just guys, Telvin Smith is a raw rookie. Alan Ball and Will Blackmon are career backups, both have been abused by QB's while with their former teams, Dwayne Gratz is second year 3rd round pick, our FS situation is laughable. The only area of this defense that has improved is the line play, and that's because David Caldwell invested a lot of money into it, that unit has produced 12 sacks. The linebackers and secondary are atrocious, there isn't enough talent on either of those units to compete, that has nothing to do with Gus Bradley, if we played man or cover 2 it would look just as bad.

---

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.


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


I'm not sure there is any crowning or crucifying going on.


It's just a debate regarding the coach's progress up to this point.


This Sunday gives them another opportunity to show how much the players have progressed.


It also gives us a chance to see how the coaches have progressed.


There's no witch hunt going on here.


There's no coronation ceremony going on either.


And I think that's fair

 

Exactly. Not trying to crucify Bradley, just making it clear that at this point it's obvious to me at best he's a standard run of the mill coach. He's not an exceptional one. Any success the team has will squarely be thanks to Bortles and Caldwell.

 

 

<div>Further Breakdown:
 
SEATTLE:
2008: YDS/G: 378.0 (30TH), PASS/G 259.3 (32ND), RUSH/G 118.7 (18TH), PTS/G 24.5 (25TH)

BRADLEY

2009: YDS/G: 356.4 (24TH), PASS/G 245.4 (30TH), RUSH/G 110.7 (15TH), PTS/G 24.4 (25TH)

BRADLEY+CAROL

2010: YDS/G: 371.8 (27TH), PASS/G 249.6 (27TH), RUSH/G 118.9 (21ST), PTS/G 25.4 (25TH)

2011: YDS/G: 332.2  (9TH), PASS/G 219.9 (11TH), RUSH/G 112.3 (15ST), PTS/G 19.7 (7TH)

2012: YDS/G: 306.2  (4TH), PASS/G 203.1  (6TH), RUSH/G 103.1 (10TH), PTS/G 15.3 (1ST)

CAROL

2013: YDS/G: 273.6  (1st), PASS/G 172.0  (1st), RUSH/G 101.6  (7TH), PTS/G 14.4 (1ST)

 
JAX:

<div>2012: YDS/G: 380.5 (30TH), PASS/G 239.5 (22ND), RUSH/G 141.0 (30TH), PTS/G 27.8 (29TH)

BRADLEY
2013: YDS/G: 379.4 (27TH), PASS/G 247.6 (25th), RUSH/G 131.8 (29TH), PTS/G 28.1 (28TH)

2014: YDS/G: 451.3 (32ND), PASS/G 320.8 (32ND), RUSH/G 130.5 (25TH), PTS/G 38.0 (32ND)

</div>
 
What I gather:
1. From the time Bradley arrived in Seattle it took 2 full bad seasons before the defense got good.  
2. The defense took a jump from bad to good from one season to the other
3. Jacksonville was significantly worse off than Seattle was upon his arrival.  I'm not sure what the Seattle roster situation was at the time, but Jacksonville was completely gutted when he got there on top of already being bad.
4. The defense is historically bad so far this year.  Sheesh. 38 PTS?  451 yards???
5. If we factor everything together, and are basing it off his time in Seattle, I'd say 2016 would be the year to actually expect a good defense (if it happens at all)
 

</div>

 

The bolded is the important part. This team has been historically bad, and it's not just this year. The team was historically bad last year, too, if Houston didn't go in the tank.

 

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

---

Break it down to where we can see if those games were continual blowouts and you'll have a point.

 

The references you linked aren't granular enough for this discussion.

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?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Literally, the Jaguars linebacker and secondary units might be one of the more least talented groups in the history of the NFL.

---

Break it down to where we can see if those games were continual blowouts and you'll have a point.

 

The references you linked aren't granular enough for this discussion.

 

If you click on the team name, you get the game by game breakdown. In Walsh's first year he was 2-14, five losses were within seven points. The worst loss was by 22. In the first four games of his second year, he was 3-1, with the one loss by 3 points.


 

Compare that to Gus. In his first year he went 4-12, with two losses by 7 or less. The worst was by 35, and he also had a 32 point loss. In his second season he's gone 0-4, none have been within 7, the closest was a 17 point loss.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"