GM-HC options

[Jerry]

7 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

the OC was trash too

Downing was trash.  The guy before him (can't remember his name) did pretty well IMO.  The OC in 2016 was good.

[SimonGruber]

6 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

Olsen and then Todd Downing. 

Take your pick, you can't be wrong lol

Forgetting Bill Musgrave 2015-2016 who I thought did well with Carr

[OnlyGlove]

Matt Campbell could be the perfect fit.  Offensive mind and incredible culture builder.  

Patrick Graham if we want to go a different root 

[Darbsk]

On 12/2/2021 at 7:39 PM, drfrey13 said:

A lot of people thought I was crazy to not want Gruden as a head coach.

I seem to recall it was like a 60/40 split maybe, there were a lot of guys that were fawning over Gruden but a lot of guys who were very sceptical and some who outright thought it was a big mistake. I didn't like the hiring as he'd never built a roster himself and used Al's and Tony Dungy's and though he did get the best of them down in Tampa for a couple years it quickly turned sour when he had personnel control.

[Darbsk]

14 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

On 12/2/2021 at 10:59 PM, Jerry said:

He kept the wrong coordinator.  Should've kept our OC and replaced the DC and who knows what would've happened.  I think our whole history would've gone differently these past 5 years.

the OC was trash too

Bill Musgrave trash?? To totally discredit JDR and Musgrave and use the excuse of a soft schedule is disingenuous in the extreme.

They engineered a great season, we were 12-4 and likely would have been 13-3 and a serious playoff danger without Carr's injury and you don't sonehow 'luck' into that, you still have to play really well and of course one thing we were doing is beating the team's we should have beaten which is what we hadn't done for years and continue not to do - see Giants and Bears games plus Dolphins, Falcons last year and others down the stretch. We were actually getting better down the stretch not fading. 

Musgrave was great at getting Carr in a groove, starting him slowly, building momentum and making the most of pretty average to decent weapons. We definitely got rid of the wrong guy and ultimately JDR paid the price. 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Darbsk

[Jeremy408]

6 hours ago, Darbsk said:

Bill Musgrave trash?? To totally discredit JDR and Musgrave and use the excuse of a soft schedule is disingenuous in the extreme.

They engineered a great season, we were 12-4 and likely would have been 13-3 and a serious playoff danger without Carr's injury and you don't sonehow 'luck' into that, you still have to play really well and of course one thing we were doing is beating the team's we should have beaten which is what we hadn't done for years and continue not to do - see Giants and Bears games plus Dolphins, Falcons last year and others down the stretch. We were actually getting better down the stretch not fading. 

Musgrave was great at getting Carr in a groove, starting him slowly, building momentum and making the most of pretty average to decent weapons. We definitely got rid of the wrong guy and ultimately JDR paid the price. 

 

On 8/1/2021 at 9:29 PM, Jeremy408 said:

 

Ok lets look at it(i'll put the teams that made it to the playoffs in bold and teams picking in the top 10 the following year in red)

2016 schedule

W-Saints 7-9(picked 11th in the 2017 draft and also had the same record as the bills)

L-Falcons 11-5

W-Titans 9-7

W-Ravens 8-8

W Chargers 5-11

L Chiefs 12-4 

W Jaguars 3-13

W Buccanneers 9-7

W Broncos 9-7

W Texans 9-7(infamous laser pointer game lol)

W Panthers 6-10

W Bills 7-9

L Chiefs 12-4 

W Chargers 5-11 

W colts 8-8

L Chargers 9-7

2017 schedule

W Titans 9-7

W jets 5-11

L WFT 7-9

L Broncos 5-11

L Ravens 9-7

L Chargers 9-7

W Chiefs 10-6

L Bills 9-7

W Dolphins 6-10

L Patriots 13-3

W Broncos 5-11 

W Giants 3-13

L Chiefs 10-6

L cowboys 9-7

L Eagles 13-3

L Chargers 9-7

 

Your thoughts? 

 

[Darbsk]

1 hour ago, Jeremy408 said:

  On 8/2/2021 at 5:29 AM, Jeremy408 said:

 

Ok lets look at it(i'll put the teams that made it to the playoffs in bold and teams picking in the top 10 the following year in red)

2016 schedule

W-Saints 7-9(picked 11th in the 2017 draft and also had the same record as the bills)

L-Falcons 11-5

W-Titans 9-7

W-Ravens 8-8

W Chargers 5-11

L Chiefs 12-4 

W Jaguars 3-13

W Buccanneers 9-7

W Broncos 9-7

W Texans 9-7(infamous laser pointer game lol)

W Panthers 6-10

W Bills 7-9

L Chiefs 12-4 

W Chargers 5-11 

W colts 8-8

L Chargers 9-7

2017 schedule

W Titans 9-7

W jets 5-11

L WFT 7-9

L Broncos 5-11

L Ravens 9-7

L Chargers 9-7

W Chiefs 10-6

L Bills 9-7

W Dolphins 6-10

L Patriots 13-3

W Broncos 5-11 

W Giants 3-13

L Chiefs 10-6

L cowboys 9-7

L Eagles 13-3

L Chargers 9-7

 

Your thoughts? 

My thoughts would be this;

You are trying to say our 12-4 record wasn’t as good as it appears due to the records of teams that we beat, but of course, if our record isn’t accurate to how good a team we are then how are the other teams records accurate to how good they were? You’ve scuppered your own argument with your first premise! You can’t say our 12-4 isn’t a true indication of our quality but then say a team that is 8-8 like the Colts for example or the 7-9 Saints isn’t good because they don’t have a winning record. It’s a non sequitur. The Saints, Ravens, Colts and Panthers were all good teams that year that just happened to not have winning records.

Both years we played 6 teams with losing records and in ‘16 one of those teams was the Panthers who went to the Super Bowl the year before. It’s a mirage to say that one year was vastly easier than the other. Obviously, if we were better and stole some victories off other teams in 2017 their records would have been worse. If the 17 team played the 16 schedule their opponents would have had better records in some cases as we would have lost more and if the 16 team played the 17 schedule then visa versa. 

I think you’ll agree that good teams beat the teams they are supposed to beat and we did that in 2016, we were a very good team. The main reason I believe for the great record is not strength of schedule at all but turnover differential, we were superb that year in that facet of the game. Great in big moments. We would have caused waves in the playoffs I genuinely believe as we had unbounded confidence until Carr broke his leg.

 

[Jeremy408]

6 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

My thoughts would be this;

You are trying to say our 12-4 record wasn’t as good as it appears due to the records of teams that we beat, but of course, if our record isn’t accurate to how good a team we are then how are the other teams records accurate to how good they were? You’ve scuppered your own argument with your first premise! You can’t say our 12-4 isn’t a true indication of our quality but then say a team that is 8-8 like the Colts for example or the 7-9 Saints isn’t good because they don’t have a winning record. It’s a non sequitur. The Saints, Ravens, Colts and Panthers were all good teams that year that just happened to not have winning records.

Both years we played 6 teams with losing records and in ‘16 one of those teams was the Panthers who went to the Super Bowl the year before. It’s a mirage to say that one year was vastly easier than the other. Obviously, if we were better and stole some victories off other teams in 2017 their records would have been worse. If the 17 team played the 16 schedule their opponents would have had better records in some cases as we would have lost more and if the 16 team played the 17 schedule then visa versa. 

I think you’ll agree that good teams beat the teams they are supposed to beat and we did that in 2016, we were a very good team. The main reason I believe for the great record is not strength of schedule at all but turnover differential, we were superb that year in that facet of the game. Great in big moments. We would have caused waves in the playoffs I genuinely believe as we had unbounded confidence until Carr broke his leg.

 

I'm having trouble understanding your point here

[Darbsk]

2 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

I'm having trouble understanding your point here

Well, if you say our 12-4 record is not a true reflection of the team we were, that maybe talent wise we were a 10-6 team for example. Then you can't say every other teams' records were accurate to how good they were. Maybe the 8-8 Colts were 10-6 talented too for example. 

You are holding up every other teams records on the schedule as totally accurate to downplay our victories against supposedly weaker teams then saying our record wasn't accurate as to how good we were.

Is that clearer? 

[Jeremy408]

1 minute ago, Darbsk said:

Well, if you say our 12-4 record is not a true reflection of the team we were, that maybe talent wise we were a 10-6 team for example. Then you can't say every other teams' records were accurate to how good they were. Maybe the 8-8 Colts were 10-6 talented too for example. 

You are holding up every other teams records on the schedule as totally accurate to downplay our victories against supposedly weaker teams then saying our record wasn't accurate as to how good we were.

Is that clearer? 

Well I mean if your team is 12 and four because they...

1. Played mostly either bottom 10 defenses(bringing this up because the conversation is about the OC)

2. Played Mostly against teams that went on to pick in the top 11 in the following year's draft(this matters if we're going to bring up how good the head coach was) 

3. Only beat 1 playoff team in the regular season(that happened to be game where the other team was at a disadvantage because it was in a different country where it's allowed to point lasers in the quarterbacks eyes so they aren't able to see clearly who their throwing to. (this also matters if we're going to bring up how good the head coach was) 

4. How their wins were cut in half the following year when they played less teams picking in the top 11(and even lost some of those games)

Again, it's not one of these things it's all of these things that anyone being honest I asked a look at and question how legit was that 12-4 & how legit was the Coach/how legit was the OC

[Darbsk]

23 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

Well I mean if your team is 12 and four because they...

1. Played mostly either bottom 10 defenses(bringing this up because the conversation is about the OC)

2. Played Mostly against teams that went on to pick in the top 11 in the following year's draft(this matters if we're going to bring up how good the head coach was)

3. Only beat 1 playoff team in the regular season(that happened to be game where the other team was at a disadvantage because it was in a different country where it's allowed to point lasers in the quarterbacks eyes so they aren't able to see clearly who their throwing to. (this also matters if we're going to bring up how good the head coach was) 

4. How their wins were cut in half the following year when they played less teams picking in the top 11(and even lost some of those games)

Again, it's not one of these things it's all of these things that anyone being honest I asked a look at and question how legit was that 12-4 & how legit was the Coach/how legit was the OC

That's simply not true though. Points 2, 3 and 4 the Information you posted above disputes that.

In '16 there were 5 'red teams', as you categorised them yourself, same as in '17. In '16 there were 4 'bold teams' and in '17 there were 6 so not a world of difference overall. Also, in '17 our QB broke a bone in his back early in the season and we had a bum OC so there is that! 

Do you not think those played a major part rather than strength of schedule? What changed year to year? Our OC, our QB was injured mid year and we weren't so effective in turnover differential. I would suggest they were the factors that were all important. By all means think it's lasers and terrible defences the year before that meant we were a mirage but I beg to differ.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Darbsk

[Jeremy408]

58 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

That's simply not true though. Points 2, 3 and 4 the Information you posted above disputes that.

In '16 there were 5 'red teams', as you categorised them yourself, same as in '17. In '16 there were 4 'bold teams' and in '17 there were 6 so not a world of difference overall. Also, in '17 our QB broke a bone in his back early in the season and we had a bum OC so there is that! 

Do you not think those played a major part rather than strength of schedule? What changed year to year? Our OC, our QB was injured mid year and we weren't so effective in turnover differential. I would suggest they were the factors that were all important. By all means think it's lasers and terrible defences the year before that meant we were a mirage but I beg to differ.

He didn't break his back in 2016 I'm speaking directly to the fact that they played a good amount of teams that were sorry and 2016 specifically. The red teams also don't include teams that had bottom 10 defenses(it's like I mentioned before speak directly to the OCs success). Also concerning the lasers it's pretty well documented how it affected the quarterbacks vision so it's not like that was a conspiracy theory or anything(especially if you look at how that was the only win against the playoff team that year)

[drfrey13]

1 hour ago, Darbsk said:

That's simply not true though. Points 2, 3 and 4 the Information you posted above disputes that.

In '16 there were 5 'red teams', as you categorised them yourself, same as in '17. In '16 there were 4 'bold teams' and in '17 there were 6 so not a world of difference overall. Also, in '17 our QB broke a bone in his back early in the season and we had a bum OC so there is that! 

Do you not think those played a major part rather than strength of schedule? What changed year to year? Our OC, our QB was injured mid year and we weren't so effective in turnover differential. I would suggest they were the factors that were all important. By all means think it's lasers and terrible defences the year before that meant we were a mirage but I beg to differ.

My personal opinion is the WFT game that led to the team quitting on JDR and everything snowballed from there.  The TOs is a major role also.  from 2016 to 2017 our take away and giveaway flip flopped.  TOs are effort and luck so we had some bad luck also.  +16 to -14 would be a disaster for any teams record.  -2 per game differential correlates to a bad record.  So having almost a drop of 2 per game year over year was going to end with a big drop in wins.

[Darbsk]

2 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

He didn't break his back in 2016 I'm speaking directly to the fact that they played a good amount of teams that were sorry and 2016 specifically. The red teams also don't include teams that had bottom 10 defenses(it's like I mentioned before speak directly to the OCs success). Also concerning the lasers it's pretty well documented how it affected the quarterbacks vision so it's not like that was a conspiracy theory or anything(especially if you look at how that was the only win against the playoff team that year)

I think we're at crossed wires here. Not sure what you mean?

My point is that I think the regression in '17 was due to Carr injuring his back, whatever happened in Washington ( I was away in Gambia at the time with no internet access for a couple weeks so missed that at the time) plus the fact that our OC Downing was nowhere near as adept as Musgrave. Also, our turnover differential was vastly different to that in '16 and these factors made the difference and not a softer schedule in '16 then a tougher schedule in '17.

[Jeremy408]

58 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

I think we're at crossed wires here. Not sure what you mean?

My point is that I think the regression in '17 was due to Carr injuring his back, whatever happened in Washington ( I was away in Gambia at the time with no internet access for a couple weeks so missed that at the time) plus the fact that our OC Downing was nowhere near as adept as Musgrave. Also, our turnover differential was vastly different to that in '16 and these factors made the difference and not a softer schedule in '16 then a tougher schedule in '17.

I'm just saying there are reasons for why they went 12 and four and 2016 that doesnt to delrio being a good HC or Musgrave being a good OC(good reasons that I gave in the last message). 

I'm specifically talking about 2016 at this point.

You mentioned the turnover differential being high in 2016 is also because the schedule is softer and when you're playing bottom 11 teams in the nfl and Jameis Winston you're going to get more turnovers thats just how it is.