Mine for one. You just about had a heart attack once trying to comprehend that I could yearn for organizational stability and accountability at all levels, while also painting a theme in many of my posts that there was an overall disconnect between the all time high levels of fan discontent and the mediocre results the current regime had lifted us to. They aren’t mutually exclusive, which I have a feeling we will be visiting shortly here.
LOL when I read that you actually took it seriously and made it a theme throughout the rest of your post (shocker I kept reading) I just about gave your post the laugh and not actually respond. But then I realized that it’s time to swap my butter knife out and let you know how ridiculous you sound. You (falsely) assumed in your first post to me that I probably wouldn’t read something, so I made a smart ass comment back in my post as a play on that. That’s all it was. Trust me when I’m debating someone, I don’t skim it with a preconceived answer already in mind. You’ve pegged me wrong, I don’t even have a Twitter
I was engaging because I think minimizing the nature of NFL coaching is crazy talk. It’s you that brings the level of discourse down with stupid comments like this.
Think we covered this.
You’ve had a healthy exchange of posts on the matter, all I meant by that. As for the second part, I’d probably re read what I said. I said you are engaging in heated debates about how woefully wrong other posters are for believing coaches truly impact the game at the pro level. That comes off very dismissive of the value of coaches. So when you later on say something like “they do matter but not as much” it’s kind of funny. Especially since in the past you have accused me of this very thing. Try and keep up.
No, I think you actually misinterpreted most of my post, starting with the “I don’t read anything” in response to your jab in your first post, and now with this.
My overall point is that your overall tone in your posts paints a picture that the opposing party is “in the clouds” or whatever smart way you like to put it when discussing the importance and value that coaches bring to the table at the pro level. I don’t read that and think “TSO thinks coaches are important but not as important,” I read it as “TSO doesn’t think coaches are all that important in the NFL.” It’s not a balanced take. That’s kind of my point, that you aren’t talking about it at an all encompassing level. You are honing in on only the nuances of the FO job (which believe it or not, I really do agree with the nuances you are speaking to), yet completely leaving out of the equation the nuances that an NFL head coach has to deal with. These two sides of the house need to work in harmony to achieve desired results, but both are extremely instrumental to get to the peak. That is not at all the picture you paint when you huff and puff about how lost an individual is for thinking NFL coaching is important.
Sure all of that’s true. But it’s a pretty well known fact that the disparity in talent level throughout the NFL is not as great as you may think. There’s so much more to being successful than talent, which you’ve touched on plenty I’ll grant you, but you’re losing sight of the fact that at the end of the day, the NFL system is set up in a way that there aren’t wild talent fluctuations throughout the league or super teams like in the NBA. Schematics, tailoring systems to the players strengths, adjustments, getting players to buy in, motivating grown men who are millionaires to achieve one common goal, preparedness from tempo and physicality in training camp practices to attention to detail while implementing game plans, these are are reasons that help to separate the good teams from the bad teams. As are the nuances to building a diverse roster capable of succeeding with injuries. They both matter a great deal, but once again your dismissive posting style comes off as if people are blind for not understanding your premise that NFL coaches aren’t as influential as we think. That doesn’t exactly scream you acknowledge the nuances on the coaching side of the house, even if you claim to.
And your reading joke miss one more time for good measure!
I did read that, and again, I agree with a lot of what you say when it comes to the nuances of roster construction.
I’ll leave you with this. I vividly remember last year you came out of hiding when we acquired HaHa Clinton Dix. We were building on our strength at the time (defense) and added a pro bowl rangy free safety to put us over the top. I was just as excited as you. The dude came in and sucked. That’s coaching, plain and simple. Unless you are going to argue that he was a repetitive skill set and was a horrible fit from a roster construction standpoint, there is no ground to stand on to dismiss that ultimately his lackluster time here was plain and simple a coaching failure. I guess you could make the argument that from a roster construction stand point we never should have to turn to a bum like Sanchez off the street and the locker room was deflated even before kickoff leading to poor results in the field for everyone, but still, at the end of the day coaching needs to own the fact that they didn’t coach that guy up or put him in position to succeed like he did in Green Bay and now Chicago. Preston Smith is a league leader in sacks, and I’m not going to attribute his lack of success here to the fact he wasn’t the right skilled player to fit in here and play up to his abilities. That’s a coaching failure, they had this guys talent at their disposal and could not figure out a way to maximize his potential that he’s showing now. By the way, I’m well aware that the above two examples you’ve already struck down in a prior post (you know since I read posts and everything). But these are two painfully obvious examples of coaching mishaps here that have NOTHING to do with who acquired them. It’s another example of you minimizing the importance of coaching at this level in order to prop your side of the argument up. Like I said, not a balanced take or one that adds up to thinking coaching is important, but not as much so.