Jay Gruden and the new Philosophy - and all things coaching...hell it is offseason after all.

[Laron Burgundy]

There is a thread about Jay Gruden and the new philosophy....in case you missed it.

 

And no, you can't tell his intelligence level based on last year.

 

If you think last years debacle and that disaster of a presser didn't help Snyder force a GM hire you are fooling yourself.  As I posted, Gruden was like, I am not going out like that, his honesty was the only that kept him from going out like every other coach here.  But you don't recognize the circus. 

 

It's not based on just last year, though that didn't help.  There's hard knocks video with him on it, and plenty of other press conferences.  I'm not saying he's an imbecile by any means, but bill belichick he is not.

 

Also, I'm curious where Jay said he wasn't going out like that.  Wasn't aware he held a press conference demanding a new gm to replace his friend... who hired him.

[chipwhich]

Also, I'm curious where Jay said he wasn't going out like that.

 

He never said it.  It was obvious he was aware of the media circus under Shanny with RG3 and Kyle/Mike.  Had he said nothing, last year would have been a speculation **** fest like what happened under Shanny.  He obviously made the decision not to be in the situation Mike was in and laid everything out on the table at every presser.  You might be an RG3 fan and not get it.  That's fine.  But Gruden clearly stated in one interview the clown show here was much more than he ever would have imagined.

 

Or you might be right, he is an absolute idiot.  There were no problems on the team.  The media circus and player insiders and RG3 play was all Shanny's fault.

[Laron Burgundy]

The issue with your argument is in your first post you seemed to have advanced knowledge of his deficiency in this area and it was a major reason why he should not have been hired in the first place.

 

In your next post your reason sounds like our current understanding of him, in which case we shouldn't have brought him back.

 

 

In any event I get it. I've been back and forth on Jay staying our coach, however if he really has any chance to succeed he definitely needs a GM in place like SM. Someone who is not his friend (per se), one with a strong track record of success building teams in a certain manner and with a certain type of player. This forces Jay to do all the adapting to grow and win as a coach.

 

This is in stark contrast from what we had in Shanny, who's rosters were all over the place. He definitely found some strong players that will be with this team for some time. However, the one constant was it left us with an undersized front line which if we can turn over 3 of the starters (for the price we paid) by the 2nd year since Shanny's been gone, that will be a true accomplishment.

 

Oh no, sorry, I watched him on hard knocks before he was hired and he just didn't seem like a cerebral coach.  His pressers afterwards confirmed that to me.  Again, not saying he's dumb, but he's coaching against some guys who are extremely bright.  It was few and far between that we outfoxed a defense last year.  It's not all on him, of course, but I shudder to think how our offense would have looked like without desean.

He never said it.  It was obvious he was aware of the media circus under Shanny with RG3 and Kyle/Mike.  Had he said nothing, last year would have been a speculation **** fest like what happened under Shanny.  He obviously made the decision not to be in the situation Mike was in and laid everything out on the table at every presser.  You might be an RG3 fan and not get it.  That's fine.  But Gruden clearly stated in one interview the clown show here was much more than he ever would have imagined.

 

Or you might be right, he is an absolute idiot.  There were no problems on the team.  The media circus and player insiders and RG3 play was all Shanny's fault.

 

So Gruden hired McC by being honest in pressers.  Gotcha.

 

The same guy who kept Haslett around, a known commodity, hired someone to replace his friend, who had been responsible for hiring Jay in the first place.  Now that's really starting to make sense Chip.

[chipwhich]

So Gruden hired McC by being honest in pressers.  Gotcha.

 

The same guy who kept Haslett around, a known commodity, hired someone to replace his friend, who had been responsible for hiring Jay in the first place.  Now that's really starting to make sense Chip.

 

Again, instead of discussing the problems of the franchise, you insult the coach because you watched an HBO reality series.  Gotcha.

 

Chat me up at the end of this season.

[Laron Burgundy]

Again, instead of discussing the problems of the franchise, you insult the coach because you watched an HBO reality series.  Gotcha.

 

Chat me up at the end of this season.

 

The coach IS one of the problems with the franchise.  I don't understand how someone can accept Bruce Allen's incompetence at running a football team, but reject the notion that Gruden, hired by Allen, is yet another sign of his incompetence.

 

But listen, I hope you're right.  I don't want to sit through another dreadful season, would love to have hope around here for once.  I don't think Gruden is the coach to take us to where we want to go, but I trust Scot is the GM who can.

[chipwhich]

The coach IS one of the problems with the franchise.  I don't understand how someone can accept Bruce Allen's incompetence at running a football team, but reject the notion that Gruden, hired by Allen, is yet another sign of his incompetence.

 

But listen, I hope you're right.  I don't want to sit through another dreadful season, would love to have hope around here for once.  I don't think Gruden is the coach to take us to where we want to go, but I trust Scot is the GM who can.

 

We change coaches like we change underwear.  I wont bore you with our coaching choices and their results.  Fact is every coach is unsuccessful.  Why?  Because the ownership is a train wreck.  Our problem isn't coaching its team building.  And we are a disaster at that.  HOF coaches leave here with ruined reputations.

 

Now lets build the team the right way and draft players.  You probably like that most of our offensive and defensive lineman were free agents.  That doesn't work.

[TSO]

Allen's incompetence (essentially admitted by him) in terms of player acquisition/evaluation does not equal incompetence in terms of his knowledge of coaches and ability to evaluate them.

His resumé includes being the son of a great coach as well as being in upper tier management with three Super Bowl reaching/winning coaches.

I think his experience with coaches should give him, at least, a little leeway there. Let's not assume his lack of ability and experience on the player personnel side is in anyway indicative of his capabilities in terms of FO and staff management.

He did, after all, hire Scot. So throwing out there the old "well, Allen sucks, so that means it's likely Gruden sucks cuz he's his hire" shouldn't ever be accepted rationally. That would, by analogical deduction, mean the Scot hire likely sucks, too.

Similarly, if we say Scot being a "lifer" and growing up with scouting in his blood because of his father are good things... it's unfair and hypocritical to ignore, or worse devalue, Allen's near identical past with coaching.

Of course, Allen could have made a huge mistake here and the Gruden hire was more based on emotion (connections) than rationale, but it doesn't change his history with great coaches and general experience in some winning FOs.

Now here comes the old downplaying of *insert staff member's name here* past accomplishments. A favorite ES pastime.

Here, I'll cut it short for you guys:

Bruce Allen had nothing to do with those coaches, he was just a cap guy and just got by on his name. Clearly, he learned nothing from his father. Jon Gruden really sucked anyway and won off of Dungy's work. Mike Shanahan is the devil and Allen was just in his office farting the whole time. Callahan blew it in the Super Bowl and never recovered after that, therefore he's overrated, too.

Did I miss any?

[The Wicked Wop]

I think last years debacle had a whole lot more influence than the presser by Allen.  In fact, I think the presser by Allen had almost no impact.  You dont go from not looking, to hiring a guy that quickly as well as its well reported that they had previously talked to Scotty Mac about the job.  The Allen press conference was a disaster not because he was honest, but because he was trying to hide everything that was about to happen.  Thats why he wouldnt answer questions, and why it was so frustrating.

 

Exactly, and the part that is bold and underlined where to start and stop otherwise everyone wants to speculate about everything.

[Laron Burgundy]

Allen's incompetence (essentially admitted by him) in terms of player acquisition/evaluation does not equal incompetence in terms of his knowledge of coaches and ability to evaluate them.

His resumé includes being the son of a great coach as well as being in upper tier management with three Super Bowl reaching/winning coaches.

I think his experience with coaches should give him, at least, a little leeway there. Let's not assume his lack of ability and experience on the player personnel side is in anyway indicative of his capabilities in terms of FO and staff management.

He did, after all, hire Scot. So throwing out there the old "well, Allen sucks, so that means it's likely Gruden sucks cuz he's his hire" shouldn't ever be accepted rationally. That would, by analogical deduction, mean the Scot hire likely sucks, too.

Similarly, if we say Scot being a "lifer" and growing up with scouting in his blood because of his father are good things... it's unfair and hypocritical to ignore, or worse devalue, Allen's near identical past with coaching.

Of course, Allen could have made a huge mistake here and the Gruden hire was more based on emotion (connections) than rationale, but it doesn't change his history with great coaches and general experience in some winning FOs.

Bruce Allen had nothing to do with those coaches, he was just a cap guy and just got by on his name. Clearly, he learned nothing from his father. Jon Gruden really sucked anyway and won off of Dungy's work. Mike Shanahan is the devil and Allen was just in his office farting the whole time. Callahan blew it in the Super Bowl and never recovered after that, therefore he's overrated, too.

Did I miss any?

 

Some points.  You assume Scot is Allen's hire.

 

Secondly, you made my second point for me so no need to expound.  Gruden has connections with him.  We all know people who never should have been hired who have gotten hired even by fantastic owners/managers.

 

And thirdly, Allen hired none of those super bowl reaching/winning coaches.  It's quite a leap in logic to start from he's been around great coaches to end at he's good at hiring great coaches.  You can't compare Scot and him, Scot has actually gotten the job done before.  Your comparison completely crumbles right there.  If anything, Allen's ability to hire coaches is more akin to Joseph Madden's ability to coach.  It might be good, it might be awful.  Early results are definitely leaning more towards awful.

[Laron Burgundy]

 

We change coaches like we change underwear.  I wont bore you with our coaching choices and their results.  Fact is every coach is unsuccessful.  Why?  Because the ownership is a train wreck.  Our problem isn't coaching its team building.  And we are a disaster at that.  HOF coaches leave here with ruined reputations.

 

Now lets build the team the right way and draft players.  You probably like that most of our offensive and defensive lineman were free agents.  That doesn't work.

 

 

So our defensive line won't work this year?  As it should be entirely free agents.

 

Just because the front office has been a disaster doesn't mean the coaches haven't as well.  We saw Shanahan crumble up in denver when he had more control, at this point I'm not sure he could coach any team.  And gibbs, well, I don't know how anyone can be disappointed in two playoff appearances in 4 years with our recent history.  

 

Other than that we've had a pretty poor menagerie of head coaches to really compare against.  For all your protests about us just firing coaches willy nilly, I don't think Danny has had a quick trigger finger since Schotty, and that was 13 years ago.

[goskins10]

It's not based on just last year, though that didn't help.  There's hard knocks video with him on it, and plenty of other press conferences.  I'm not saying he's an imbecile by any means, but bill belichick he is not.

 

Also, I'm curious where Jay said he wasn't going out like that.  Wasn't aware he held a press conference demanding a new gm to replace his friend... who hired him.

 

Bill Belichick's 1st 3 yrs as HC - 6-10, 7-9, 7-9. Year 4 he was 11-5 going 1-1 in the Playoffs. The next 2 yrs? a wicked 5-11 both seasons. So, for his first 6 season BB was a cumulative 41-55 for a 42.7% winning %. Remove the clear anomaly of 11-5? It drops to 30-50 for 0.375 winning %.

 

Gruden coaches one year with a franchise chock full of holes with at least some locker-room problems, a complete lack of talent or depth (see STs) goes 4-12 and it's "well he sucks" NEXT!!!! Talk about impatient!

 

How about we give the guy more than a second to show us what he can do?

[The Wicked Wop]

Allen's incompetence (essentially admitted by him) in terms of player acquisition/evaluation does not equal incompetence in terms of his knowledge of coaches and ability to evaluate them.

.......

I think his experience with coaches should give him, at least, a little leeway there. Let's not assume his lack of ability and experience on the player personnel side is in anyway indicative of his capabilities in terms of FO and staff management.

He did, after all, hire Scot. So throwing out there the old "well, Allen sucks, so that means it's likely Gruden sucks cuz he's his hire" shouldn't ever be accepted rationally. That would, by analogical deduction, mean the Scot hire likely sucks, too.

Similarly, if we say Scot being a "lifer" and growing up with scouting in his blood because of his father are good things... it's unfair and hypocritical to ignore, or worse devalue, Allen's near identical past with coaching.

Of course, Allen could have made a huge mistake here and the Gruden hire was more based on emotion (connections) than rationale, but it doesn't change his history with great coaches and general experience in some winning FOs.

Now here comes the old downplaying of *insert staff member's name here* past accomplishments. A favorite ES pastime.

Here, I'll cut it short for you guys:

Bruce Allen had nothing to do with those coaches, he was just a cap guy and just got by on his name. Clearly, he learned nothing from his father. Jon Gruden really sucked anyway and won off of Dungy's work. Mike Shanahan is the devil and Allen was just in his office farting the whole time. Callahan blew it in the Super Bowl and never recovered after that, therefore he's overrated, too.

Did I miss any?

 

I wouldn't be shocked to learn Allen never truly wanted to be GM in 2014, and it was more to do with the firing of Shanny, lack of time before the Draft and FA, and available candidates he was comfortable with was the true cause.

 

What can't be said is he's stubborn, or is a dummy (as last year unfolded) as he likely improved his job security both long and short term by moving back to team president and hiring the most talented GM candidate available.

 

Lastly, what happens if we find out this year (or over the next few years) that last years draft under Allen was far better then predicted by analysts, and the fans, and it was a draft where 4 - 5 solid players/contributors were attained.  Do you see much praise coming from ES'ers, general fans, or the media

[Laron Burgundy]

Bill Belichick's 1st 3 yrs as HC - 6-10, 7-9, 7-9. Year 4 he was 11-5 going 1-1 in the Playoffs. The next 2 yrs? a wicked 5-11 both seasons. So, for his first 6 season BB was a cumulative 41-55 for a 42.7% winning %. Remove the clear anomaly of 11-5? It drops to 30-50 for 0.375 winning %.

 

Gruden coaches one year with a franchise chock full of holes with at least some locker-room problems, a complete lack of talent or depth (see STs) goes 4-12 and it's "well he sucks" NEXT!!!! Talk about impatient!

 

How about we give the guy more than a second to show us what he can do?

 

Belichick did that record with the Browns, so he had just as much incompetence from the front office.  The thing you seem to leave off is the point differential for a season (a much better indicator of how a team plays than W-L) where Belichick was -5, -5, -3, 136, -67.  In comparison the year before he got on the Browns they were -234 and the two years after were -220 and -258.  We had an awful season last year at -137, you can just imagine how bad those Browns teams were that surrounded Belichick's career there.

 

But I'm not talking about Belichick's early results.  He didn't suddenly become the smartest coach in the nfl after he started winning.  He's always been intelligent, and you could tell that even when he was with the browns.  

 

For example: 

 

Now Belichick is an unfair comparison for almost any coach in the league, but I'd hope you could see why Gruden doesn't hold his coattails in terms of intellect.  Now you could argue that you don't have to be the smartest guy in the league to win, but it wouldn't shock me if the more consistent coaches were also among the smartest.

[Burgold]

Next time I am on a computer I will check your book out(typing from mobile, sigs don't show up on it).

Why do you feel its important he coached on opposite side as head coach? Just curious to hear your reasoning?

Because that meant the success of his unit probably really was his doing. There's much to be said for being mentored by a genius or a great, but the question always remains... is the defense good because of the coordinator or is it still really the head coach. Now, if your head coach made his name designing offenses and his team under you has one of the top defenses, I can be pretty sure the great defensive mind is you. Guys usually specialize on one side. Shanny often tried to meddle on defense, but it never or rarely in his decades as a head coach worked out. Gibbs had his side of the ball and let the D guys go whether it was Pettibone, Williams, or Blache.

 

I don't know if I'm right, but it seems a good way to vet the coach. Just one more metric amongst many.

 

Edit: and thanks Bishop for saying you'll check out the book! If you're still on cell you can also go to https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1074492781/a-halo-of-mushrooms-a-fantasy-novel-and-ebook?ref=nav_search

[TSO]

Some points. You assume Scot is Allen's hire.

Secondly, you made my second point for me so no need to expound. Gruden has connections with him. We all know people who never should have been hired who have gotten hired even by fantastic owners/managers.

And thirdly, Allen hired none of those super bowl reaching/winning coaches. It's quite a leap in logic to start from he's been around great coaches to end at he's good at hiring great coaches. You can't compare Scot and him, Scot has actually gotten the job done before. Your comparison completely crumbles right there. If anything, Allen's ability to hire coaches is more akin to Joseph Madden's ability to coach. It might be good, it might be awful. Early results are definitely leaning more towards awful.

I don't assume anything, Scot IS Allen's hire according to the initial press conference introducing Scot.

Secondly, you seem to not understand how to have a nuanced conversation on any topic so "no need to expound". But, then, like you I'll expound, lol.

Acknowledging that the Gruden hire could easily be a mistake is not tantamount to "making your point" for you. There is a difference between making statements of fact (with very little info) versus acknowledging possibilities (because of that lack of info). Something you clearly struggle with, unfortunately.

Thirdly, my point never was that he's "great at hiring coaches" (again with your patented hyperbole), but that his resumé and experience includes being around them his entire life and career so, therefore, his ability there isn't equal to his inability to evaluate player personnel.

So there was no leap in logic, because what I said was he deserves, at least, a little leeway in terms of his capability to identify good coaches. And what I said was in response to the argument that "Allen's incompetence likely means Gruden is incompetent".

That is illogical since we don't know Allen's skill at hiring coaches (all we know is his past experience with them, a positive to say the least), whereas we do know he was never involved on the player personnel side outside of handling the cap. And when he may have been in Tampa, he did poorly with it.

Which is where the Scot hiring and the analogical deduction came from. Not a comparison, just simple logic. If Allen's incompetence is assumed for everything he does (based on his player personnel skills), then it means the Scot hire was likely made with that same incompetence.

Can't apply it to one and not the other.

This is not a comparison of Scot's skills with anyone else's. Maybe he just got lucky with Scot and escaped his incompetence there, whereas with Gruden it was on full display, lol.

Doesn't change the logic, however.

I'm not surprised this confused you into thinking I'm saying "Allen is great at hiring coaches". It seems like the only leaps here are the ones you make for my positions, unfortunately.

Maybe I should make this easy for you, though I know you're likely to ignore the question as before (only yours matter, I know).

Is Allen's experience/resumé with coaches (be it hiring or not) better/equal to/worse than his experience/resumé with player evaluation?

[The Wicked Wop]

.............. The thing you seem to leave off is the point differential for a season (a much better indicator of how a team plays than W-L) where Belichick was -5, -5, -3, 136, -67.  In comparison the year before he got on the Browns they were -234 and the two years after were -220 and -258.  We had an awful season last year at -137, you can just imagine how bad those Browns teams were that surrounded Belichick's career there.

 

But I'm not talking about Belichick's early results.  He didn't suddenly become the smartest coach in the nfl after he started winning.  He's always been intelligent, and you could tell that even when he was with the browns.  

 

...............

 

That's a dangerous way to measure things with such a small sample size for Gruden as a comparison especially with a hold over defensive coordinator.

 

In the years mentioned the Browns PF were 293, 272, 304, 340, and 289 which was a strong enough drop off to keep the wins away, as Cleveland'smPA didn't change much from Marty's time there. The immediate reaction is to also say its Cleveland, but this was just 2 years removed from the period of time when they were under Marty and went to the Playoffs 5 straight years and I'll infer that it was a bit more of a complete team at least initially. 

 

At this point with the our most recent FA's and draft picks its easy to see us as a moremcomplete team. Were missing some pieces for sure but ever team does, so Gruden's ability to get these units to gel, along with getting improved and consistent QB play will likely define this season.........IMO we could have a 5 win season just as easy as a 9 win season depending on things fall.

 

As far as the intelligence thing I've seen the extremes either way. Take Shanny for instance, before his stint here I would think he strikes you as very bright, but his ego, lack of understanding of his own limitations or weaknesses make him an idiot, as his brilliance helped make our defense a liability in a very short period of time and really ruined any chance of winning despite the cap penalty.

 

I'm not going to sit here and say Jay is my guy better for worse, but given the situation last year and the stark contrast to how we're doing business now, the situation screams the guy deserves a fair chance.  He knows the X's and O's and if he can make this team gel, and learn to get the most out of RG3 (both psychologically and professionally) then I can care less if he's the savant of NFL coaches.

[goskins10]

Belichick did that record with the Browns, so he had just as much incompetence from the front office.  The thing you seem to leave off is the point differential for a season (a much better indicator of how a team plays than W-L) where Belichick was -5, -5, -3, 136, -67.  In comparison the year before he got on the Browns they were -234 and the two years after were -220 and -258.  We had an awful season last year at -137, you can just imagine how bad those Browns teams were that surrounded Belichick's career there.

 

Edited....

 

Now Belichick is an unfair comparison for almost any coach in the league, but I'd hope you could see why Gruden doesn't hold his coattails in terms of intellect.  Now you could argue that you don't have to be the smartest guy in the league to win, but it wouldn't shock me if the more consistent coaches were also among the smartest.

 

So now instead of wins/losses pts are the most important indicator of how a team performs. C'mon, you are just grasping there. You made an off hand comment about BB based on his current position in the NFL. The fact is he struggled, and he struggled mightily in his early yrs. BTW - the 6th season was 5-11 at NE, NOT CLEVELAND!  Also so now all of a sudden Gruden has a SB winning FO to help him last year? As much as I love my Redskins, we have traded the moniker most incompetent FO back and forth with Cleveland and a few other teams for quite some time. Again, just some rationalization to justify an off hand comment.

 

Let's get down to the real issue. You have made yourself judge and jury on a man's intellect and overall intelligence based on what, his performance in front of a microphone and/or camera? Based on what you perceive as the right moves to make as the HC of a football team? Many people don't perform well in from of a camera. It's has nothing to do with intellect.  

 

Have you ever sat down with the man and talked with him? How well do you know him? Also, just because BB is a great manipulator and got lucky enough to draft Tom Brady (before you say he had great insight drafting Tom, BB himself said had he known how good TB would be he would have draft him in the 1st rd.) does not make him intelligent. He has after all been stupid enough to get caught cheating twice.

 

My point is that you don't have enough data or information to say one way of the other about Jon Gruden. None of us do. I am not saying he is for sure an overly intelligent man. WE fans really don't know yet. The real issue is we are a losing team and people want to blame someone. The HC and QB are going to take that heat, no matter what and I get that. But let's not start deciding we know intimately the level of intellect a man has because he doesn't "sound" intelligent on a few sound bites from cameras or because we don't like the decisions he has made. He has access to a lot more information than you or I.

 

He now has a real GM, some assistant coaches with some real NFL experience and a roster that is improving. I don't see us pushing for a PO spot, but I do look for an improved product this yr with a chance to win next yr. Give the guy a break! 

[chipwhich]

So our defensive line won't work this year?  As it should be entirely free agents.

 

You can't draft an entire team in one year.  Many on this board expects a one year turnaround.  You don't fix 15 years of free agent splurging in one offseason with a new GM.

 

 

Just because the front office has been a disaster doesn't mean the coaches haven't as well.  We saw Shanahan crumble up in denver when he had more control, at this point I'm not sure he could coach any team.  And gibbs, well, I don't know how anyone can be disappointed in two playoff appearances in 4 years with our recent history.  

The coaches have been poor.  Why?  Because they had poor talent.  A HOF coach couldn't even get 2 winning seasons in a row.  Schotty who won everywhere had to have a miracle to pull to .500  Shanny couldn't win here.  The college coach everyone wanted couldn't win here.  Why?  Talent.

 

 

Other than that we've had a pretty poor menagerie of head coaches to really compare against.  For all your protests about us just firing coaches willy nilly, I don't think Danny has had a quick trigger finger since Schotty, and that was 13 years ago.

 

I don't care about firing coaches or quick trigger.  You care more about that than me.  I want 3 years of drafting players and building a foundation of our own.  I also want us to resign our own.

[RFKFedEx]

I'd bring Scott and Jay back if the team goes 1-15 this year. In fact, I'd pray for their return. Consistency and stability are desperately needed around here. Even if we have to suck for another year or two. 

[Laron Burgundy]

I don't assume anything, Scot IS Allen's hire according to the initial press conference introducing Scot.

Secondly, you seem to not understand how to have a nuanced conversation on any topic so "no need to expound". But, then, like you I'll expound, lol.

Acknowledging that the Gruden hire could easily be a mistake is not tantamount to "making your point" for you. There is a difference between making statements of fact (with very little info) versus acknowledging possibilities (because of that lack of info). Something you clearly struggle with, unfortunately.

Thirdly, my point never was that he's "great at hiring coaches" (again with your patented hyperbole), but that his resumé and experience includes being around them his entire life and career so, therefore, his ability there isn't equal to his inability to evaluate player personnel.

So there was no leap in logic, because what I said was he deserves, at least, a little leeway in terms of his capability to identify good coaches. And what I said was in response to the argument that "Allen's incompetence likely means Gruden is incompetent".

That is illogical since we don't know Allen's skill at hiring coaches (all we know is his past experience with them, a positive to say the least), whereas we do know he was never involved on the player personnel side outside of handling the cap. And when he may have been in Tampa, he did poorly with it.

Which is where the Scot hiring and the analogical deduction came from. Not a comparison, just simple logic. If Allen's incompetence is assumed for everything he does (based on his player personnel skills), then it means the Scot hire was likely made with that same incompetence.

Can't apply it to one and not the other.

This is not a comparison of Scot's skills with anyone else's. Maybe he just got lucky with Scot and escaped his incompetence there, whereas with Gruden it was on full display, lol.

Doesn't change the logic, however.

I'm not surprised this confused you into thinking I'm saying "Allen is great at hiring coaches". It seems like the only leaps here are the ones you make for my positions, unfortunately.

Maybe I should make this easy for you, though I know you're likely to ignore the question as before (only yours matter, I know).

Is Allen's experience/resumé with coaches (be it hiring or not) better/equal to/worse than his experience/resumé with player evaluation?

 

First, hiring the right coach is still a far cry from being around great coaches.  By that very same token, Allen has been AROUND great players, but can he draft great players?  I find it completely irrelevant to the discussion.  I fully admit Allen's coach hiring ability is an unknown, but let's not try to shine a positive light because he's been AROUND great coaches.  Like I said, early returns point at negative results.

 

Your last question is also not a parallel thought.  Let me adjust it for you.  The question would be "is Allen's experience/resume with coaches (be it hiring or not) better/equal to/worse than his experience/resume with player acquisition (be it drafting them or not)?"  It's absolutely silly that you're implying being around great coaches has any impact on his ability to find the right coach.  

 

To put it another way, Allen has, what, 5 years of leading a draft room and other time spent as an understudy?  How many coach searches has he been a part of?  I'd say he has MUCH more experience finding players than he has finding coaches.

 

Again, you are assuming Scot was Allen's hire.  I could just as easily see Danny having a big hand in it.  Of course in press conferences Allen would take credit, but let's not forget who owns this franchise.  I think it's at least a little naive to think Allen voluntarily stepped down after one poor year when he didn't seem to show any pause in directing tampa through some tumultuous seasons.  Why would he suddenly doubt his own ability?  

 

Secondly, he seemed to have AJ Smith lined up (unless that was Danny as well), and you KNOW he's shown a preference to hiring friends over anything else.  Why the sudden change of heart there?

[Laron Burgundy]

You can't draft an entire team in one year.  Many on this board expects a one year turnaround.  You don't fix 15 years of free agent splurging in one offseason with a new GM.

 

The coaches have been poor.  Why?  Because they had poor talent.  A HOF coach couldn't even get 2 winning seasons in a row.  Schotty who won everywhere had to have a miracle to pull to .500  Shanny couldn't win here.  The college coach everyone wanted couldn't win here.  Why?  Talent.

 

 

I don't care about firing coaches or quick trigger.  You care more about that than me.  I want 3 years of drafting players and building a foundation of our own.  I also want us to resign our own.

 

Are we really complaining about Gibbs not getting two winning seasons in a row?  Take a look around the league.  Unless you're in a weak division with a HoF caliber qb, you're going to have ups and downs.  Schotty had one year, he probably would have won here, that was an example of Danny bringing down the ax too soon.  And a college coach that everyone wanted?  Please.  We all know he was the architect of his own demise here.  I don't think you can blame Spurrier's lack of success on anyone but himself.

 

I want us to draft players as well, everyone does.  What I also want is to be rid of the tampa crew that has ran us into the ground the past few years.  If Gruden has another poor season he absolutely should be let go.

[Laron Burgundy]

So now instead of wins/losses pts are the most important indicator of how a team performs. C'mon, you are just grasping there. You made an off hand comment about BB based on his current position in the NFL. The fact is he struggled, and he struggled mightily in his early yrs. BTW - the 6th season was 5-11 at NE, NOT CLEVELAND!  Also so now all of a sudden Gruden has a SB winning FO to help him last year? As much as I love my Redskins, we have traded the moniker most incompetent FO back and forth with Cleveland and a few other teams for quite some time. Again, just some rationalization to justify an off hand comment.

 

Let's get down to the real issue. You have made yourself judge and jury on a man's intellect and overall intelligence based on what, his performance in front of a microphone and/or camera? Based on what you perceive as the right moves to make as the HC of a football team? Many people don't perform well in from of a camera. It's has nothing to do with intellect.  

 

First, yes, any analytical study of a team has to do with point differential, not wins or losses.  A team that wins 16 games by 1 point each SHOULD be worse than a team that blows everyone out but loses a game by a point, to take the logic to the extreme.  It is one way prognosticators use to project future success or failure of a team.  Part of that has to do with sample size, scoring and giving up hundreds of points in a season ends up being a lot less fluky than 16 games.

 

Didn't say Gruden had a great FO, that merely the Browns were, if anything, in worse shape.  You counted one year of the patriots that fit your argument, it is, again, a fluky sample size.

 

You can tell by the vocabulary and mannerisms about the general idea of someone's intelligence.  Gruden sought out the camera on hard knocks, so I don't think he's camera shy.  If you want an addendum, sure: it appears, to me, that Gruden is not above average in intelligence for coaches.  Maybe he's Mensa-level smart, but he certainly doesn't appear that way, given every bit of info I can use to make that assessment. 

[TSO]

First, hiring the right coach is still a far cry from being around great coaches. By that very same token, Allen has been AROUND great players, but can he draft great players? I find it completely irrelevant to the discussion. I fully admit Allen's coach hiring ability is an unknown, but let's not try to shine a positive light because he's been AROUND great coaches. Like I said, early returns point at negative results.

Your last question is also not a parallel thought. Let me adjust it for you. The question would be "is Allen's experience/resume with coaches (be it hiring or not) better/equal to/worse than his experience/resume with player acquisition (be it drafting them or not)?" It's absolutely silly that you're implying being around great coaches has any impact on his ability to find the right coach.

To put it another way, Allen has, what, 5 years of leading a draft room and other time spent as an understudy? How many coach searches has he been a part of? I'd say he has MUCH more experience finding players than he has finding coaches.

Keep in mind rule 11 if you're going to quote entire posts, btw.

I like how you ignore the fact that his father was a great coach and he went his entire life growing up watching him up close.

That's just meaningless, I guess.

It was widely known he used the Al Davis method of finding a HC on his most recent search when we hired Gruden. Where did he get that from, thin air?

And since when is that the criteria? How many "coaching searches" one has been a part of? That might be the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard. We're going to penalize guys who've had success with coaches and didn't need to fire them all the time? Lol.

He was part of both the Callahan and the Jon Gruden hires there in Oakland and had a good enough relationship with Gruden that the Bucs let go of their GM and gave him the title so he could come on board. Mike Shanahan specifically asked for him when coming on board here. I know I know, Mile Shanahan is the devil and has done nothing in his career. It was all Elway, Mmhhhmmmm.

Oh, and how about this little tidbit? He was hired as head coach for a small college program (Occidental college) in 1979.

But, clearly, that's all meaningless according to LB. Only the amount of coaching searches mean anything. Robert Kraft and co. better hurry and fire Bellicheck before this becomes a slight on their record!

Of course, being an "understudy" for player evaluation is okay to include as experience when it fits your argument, though.

I think it's frankly ridiculous you act like his experience with these coaches has had zero effect. That you completely omit his childhood as well. There is no way he went through all of that and came out unable to identify good coaching at all.

The question is how much of an effect?

As for your "great player" analogy, that fails because he's had a much more consistent background with good to great coaches whereas his player personnel acquisition has been all over the place. So even if he was AROUND great players, he was also around a lot of bad ones he was supposedly at the helm of selecting (in Tampa, mainly). The same can't be said about the coaches he's been around.

So Allen has been a known when it comes to player personnel. He's always been seen as a guy who will work with his coaches and give them more say over it, while handling the cap directly. He essentially admitted, last year, that Brown and Campbell would be running their respective shows. But he's an unknown when it comes to coaches, and all we do have is his past experience with them which cannot be taken as a negative overall. I can see if you want to be neutral on it, but I lean towards it being a net positive for sure.

And your speculation on the Scot hire means nothing. You can keep typing away about what you think and how "it was likely Dan", but we have direct comments from both Scot and Allen that Allen hired him. Never mind the fact that he mentioned he wanted Scot last year but he wasn't available.

But I fully expect you to continue to ignore that, too.

[goskins10]

First, yes, any analytical study of a team has to do with point differential, not wins or losses.  A team that wins 16 games by 1 point each SHOULD be worse than a team that blows everyone out but loses a game by a point, to take the logic to the extreme.  It is one way prognosticators use to project future success or failure of a team.  Part of that has to do with sample size, scoring and giving up hundreds of points in a season ends up being a lot less fluky than 16 games.

 

Didn't say Gruden had a great FO, that merely the Browns were, if anything, in worse shape.  You counted one year of the patriots that fit your argument, it is, again, a fluky sample size.

 

You can tell by the vocabulary and mannerisms about the general idea of someone's intelligence.  Gruden sought out the camera on hard knocks, so I don't think he's camera shy.  If you want an addendum, sure: it appears, to me, that Gruden is not above average in intelligence for coaches.  Maybe he's Mensa-level smart, but he certainly doesn't appear that way, given every bit of info I can use to make that assessment. 

 

The problem with using pts is that it could be quite anecdotal. Those teams were very Def running teams. They did not score a lot of pts. Most of their games were going to be close as their running game takes time off the clock. I used the 1st season with NE as it was the start of his career before he started winning, not to add to the numbers.

 

Also, assuming their FO was worse is completely ignoring that the Browns were just a year removed from a pretty good run. He took over in 1991. Between 1985 and 1989 the Browns made the POs every season, winning their division 4 of those 5 times. So that's 5 of 6 season in the POs just before BB took over. We had 1 winning season in the 6 seasons before. Yea, Gruden inherited a better team.... not!

 

That whole he sought out the cameras thing is purely speculative on your part. Could be the cameras sought him out because as I understand it, he is very active in practices and it made for better TV. Finally, I have met people without a HS degree who had a somewhat limited vocabulary because of it but were very intelligent. Again, it's purely speculative on your part.

 

Bottom line is you have a perception of Gruden which is yours to make. Where I have a problem is when people start stating it like it's a fact. You are more than free to come to your own conclusions and if you want to believe he is a blithering idiot have at it. Just don't state as fact. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

What if Team A goes 0-16 but loses every game by a point while Team B goes 15-1, all 15 wins coming by a single point but the one loss is by 17?