Raiders sign QB Jimmy Garoppolo (3 years, $67.5M, $34M gtd)

[BackinBlack]

15 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

He isn't young and inexperienced, which is what you claimed. That's a false statement. Learn the basics, kiddo. And he's only relatively young. The average is a few years older than he is. That's middle aged or roughly thereabouts for those keeping tally. 

Beyond that, he has had 3 years. That's all that matters, remember, because he's so inexperienced since we only count those years. All 3 sucked. Again, you're only making the point. 

Also, I'm far from angry. I'm genuinely amused at the lengths people are willing to go to defend Josh's ineptitude and the mental gymnastics one has to go through in order to get there. 

unfortunately that’s todays world, if someone has a different opinion then yours they are an embarrassment and should be ashamed. 
 

good teams, and management actually like talking to people with different opinions, as it can help see the whole picture. 
 

something I hate about JMD, he wouldn’t discuss game plan with Carr. That’s not good. Sounds like he will with Jimmy though, that’s improvement. 

[jimkelly02]

5 hours ago, BackinBlack said:

I feel like Im about to be labeled a JMD stan, as I was labeled a Carr stan for a long time, for because i continue pointing out the many obvious flaws in the team lol. 

Hey… if you want think highly of JMD or whatever go for it, god bless ya.  The only reason ONE person was called a JMD “Stan, SJW, etc” was because of their behavior.  In the end, we all just want to win.  We just have differences of opinion on this issue.  But I’m not going to try and force you to comply with the likeminded opinions of @ronjon1990and @Humble_Beast.

[BackinBlack]

13 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

Hey… if you want think highly of JMD or whatever go for it, god bless ya.  The only reason ONE person was called a JMD “Stan, SJW, etc” was because of their behavior.  In the end, we all just want to win.  We just have differences of opinion on this issue.  But I’m not going to try and force you to comply with the likeminded opinions of @ronjon1990and @Humble_Beast.

I dont even like JMD lol i just want give the guy time to judge him. 
he and the QB did not mix last year, we had injuries, bad depth and a bad D. 

I dont know why some expected so much. Especially with Carr historically struggling year 1 in a new scheme. 

the whole never had a winning season thing doesnt really bother me, its been 3 years. 
with the broncos being 8-8 his first season, maybe they win the extra game that nows been added . . 
that would have no impact on my thoughts on JMD lol 

But because there was one less game that season, he is now the worst coach ever lmao. Its just a silly argument to make. 
If it was a 17 game season and the broncos had beat a bad team, i wonder if Ronjon would be all about JMD since hes a proven winner lol

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, BackinBlack said:

you are claiming he shouldve been fired already correct? 

Would you say the same about Bill after year one in NE going 5-11? 
 

To be very very clear:

1. Yes, I think Josh should have been fired already.

I maintain wholeheartedly that we got sold a false bill of goods by him and Zeigler being a package deal that then turned into hiring an assistant GM and national scouting director tied to their failed Denver days and charity hires/signings so long as you could say you spent some time with the Patriots.

I don't think he was honest about what he could do with our roster and what he and Zeigler planned on doing/were capable of doing. At best, I think he sold himself as the next coming of the Patriots, despite being a much lesser coach and man than his old boss.

I believe he claimed he grew and learned from his past failings, something that is far from evident given how things have gone. I do not believe that he saw the Raiders as a dream job, I believe he knew his image needed a ton of rehab following the Indianapolis fiasco and that Robert Kraft wasn't going to nepo baby him into the HC role once Bill retires, and he saw a team that just made the playoffs with an interim coach and thought it was his best chance at some easy brownie points towards his actual goal.

I believe wholeheartedly that that more or less explains the relatively cavalier attitude he and Zeigler both took in regards to some of the basic fundamentals of football (ie: the trenches) while splurging on nifty but unnecessary hobby pieces like extra WRs and RBs tailored to emphasize what he is actually relatively good at- being an OC- and all the talk about "reloading, not rebuilding" and the other platitudes they drummed early on. 

I believe that now they're trying to revert back to what's familiar (ie: signing as many ex-Pats as possible) in hopes that on-field talent and familiarity with the scheme will compensate for the lack thereof from the top down on the sidelines and front office, and that it will work just enough to save his hide from being forever labeled as untouchable as a HC. 

I believe, wholeheartedly, that this keeps them from being in the best interest of the Raiders, because I firmly believe that if it does enough to save his hide, he will gladly bolt for a more stable and pre-built institution (roster, staff, admin) as soon as he can do so, consequences left in his wake be damned. 

I believe this based on the man's previous actions in Denver and by leaving the Colts high and dry. I believe that he figured Tom Brady would retire after the 2017 season at the age of 40 and once he knew Brady was coming back told Indianapolis to kick rocks as he knew being attached to Brady and Belichick was preferable to any other alternative.

I believe that's why he was then so willing to leave once he realized life without Brady was going to be tough given the Patriots issues with finding WRs, realized that some of the rumored fantasies like Rodgers coming to New England or some of the other rumors that swirled around were just that- rumors-and knew of the potential Carr-Adams connection looming, saw a QB that pulled a limited roster along, talent at RB, slot WR,  and TE and figured it was the best landing spot he could get with the least amount of work to be done. I think Josh McDaniels is the classic opportunist, and I do not trust opportunists. 

For what it's worth, I think that Josh would have done fine moving up as the Pats HC, as he would have simply moved upwards within the already in place system, ostensibly with Zeigler taking over the GM duties once Bill stepped down. I do not, however, believe that they are capable of, or even honestly interested in, actually building anything of their own from the ground up. With the Pats, as successors, they wouldn't have had to do much of that and would have gotten a bit of a sentimental pass for having to fill in the GOAT's shoes, something that would have almost certainly not been advertised far in advance. And if things went sideways, the good ol' "Bill overstayed his welcome and things began to rot a bit" excuse would have sufficed as the Pats have indeed taken a couple steps backwards in recent years. 

And for that, I wouldn't not have hired him in the first place. As he was a good enough charlatan to get in to begin with, I would have absolutely fired him for being the snake oil salesman I unapologetically believe him to be, to avoid being some short term stepping stone and vanity project at the expense of a true long-term outlook. 

 

2. No. Because Bill Belichick had already proven himself at least a relatively worthy HC following his stint in Cleveland. Art Modell had previously assured him he would be continuing his role as HC with the move to Baltimore. That whole fiasco was bizarre and anyone alive in the mid-90's would attest to the fact that the 1995 Browns were basically a dead team walking. Bill wasn't fired solely because of poor results that came from the 95 season, and his overall job performance prior to was an upward trajectory. He was a relatively proven commodity that then landed his second gig and began rebuilding the Patriots, a team that had been sporadically successful for the previous decade, but in a 4 year backslide from Parcells' last year through the Carroll years, going 11, 10, 9, and 8 wins. They were already on a downward trajectory, so Bill's 5-11 season wasn't unexpected or a nail in the coffin.

That's a stark contrast to McDaniels, who was fired unceremoniously from his first job because the results were exceptionally bad and getting worse by the week. He took over a middling Broncos team that stagnated under Mike Shanahan, had a graceful start in year 1, and things quickly went off the rails as it became clear he had no clue what he was doing. He made the team worse and there was little reason for optimism until he was gone. 

Bill Belichick had a bad year at 6-10 followed by two middling seasons at 7-9 followed by an 11-5 season, and then the derailed 5-11 year to his resume when he took over the Patriots. Clearly, he showed he at least some level of ability to coach a team to a better record consistently prior to all hell breaking loose in 95. And Bill took over a team that had gone 3-13 in 1990. He took a 3-13 team to 6-10 to 7-9, 7-9, and ultimately to 11-5. That's progress. That's respectable. That shows an ability to coach and improve. 

Josh McDaniels took an 8-8 Denver team to an 8-8 record where the wheels totally began to fall off after an 6-0/8-4 start to 3-9 and got fired. He now took over a Raiders team that went 7-9, 8-8, and then 10-7 to a decidedly ugly 6-11 year. 

The situations- both the coach's prior experience and the new team's momentum upon arrival are polar opposites when comparing Belichick's job in Cleveland and immediate impact in New England to Josh's job in Denver and immediate impact in Las Vegas. 

So, no, I wouldn't have fired Bill Belichick following the 2000 season, and no, it's not the same as Josh McDaniels following the 2022 season. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by ronjon1990

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, BackinBlack said:

If it was a 17 game season and the broncos had beat a bad team, i wonder if Ronjon would be all about JMD since hes a proven winner lol

Nope, that would solely be box score scouting. 

Even the 8-8 year turned fugly on the field. The next year was worse. 

The fact that our on-field product was also horrendously ugly and a step backwards in almost every aspect only solidified my opinion that Josh McDaniels is not HC material. 

He's sloppy, egotistical, incapable of self reflection, cannot adjust outside of predetermined structure, or communicate adequately, and our on-field performance that he leads and designs reflected that. 

[BackinBlack]

29 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

To be very very clear:

1. Yes, I think Josh should have been fired already.

I maintain wholeheartedly that we got sold a false bill of goods by him and Zeigler being a package deal that then turned into hiring an assistant GM and national scouting director tied to their failed Denver days and charity hires/signings so long as you could say you spent some time with the Patriots.

I don't think he was honest about what he could do with our roster and what he and Zeigler planned on doing/were capable of doing. At best, I think he sold himself as the next coming of the Patriots, despite being a much lesser coach and man than his old boss.

I believe he claimed he grew and learned from his past failings, something that is far from evident given how things have gone. I do not believe that he saw the Raiders as a dream job, I believe he knew his image needed a ton of rehab following the Indianapolis fiasco and that Robert Kraft wasn't going to nepo baby him into the HC role once Bill retires, and he saw a team that just made the playoffs with an interim coach and thought it was his best chance at some easy brownie points towards his actual goal.

I believe wholeheartedly that that more or less explains the relatively cavalier attitude he and Zeigler both took in regards to some of the basic fundamentals of football (ie: the trenches) while splurging on nifty but unnecessary hobby pieces like extra WRs and RBs tailored to emphasize what he is actually relatively good at- being an OC- and all the talk about "reloading, not rebuilding" and the other platitudes they drummed early on. 

I believe that now they're trying to revert back to what's familiar (ie: signing as many ex-Pats as possible) in hopes that on-field talent and familiarity with the scheme will compensate for the lack thereof from the top down on the sidelines and front office, and that it will work just enough to save his hide from being forever labeled as untouchable as a HC. 

I believe, wholeheartedly, that this keeps them from being in the best interest of the Raiders, because I firmly believe that if it does enough to save his hide, he will gladly bolt for a more stable and pre-built institution (roster, staff, admin) as soon as he can do so, consequences left in his wake be damned. 

I believe this based on the man's previous actions in Denver and by leaving the Colts high and dry. I believe that he figured Tom Brady would retire after the 2017 season at the age of 40 and once he knew Brady was coming back told Indianapolis to kick rocks as he knew being attached to Brady and Belichick was preferable to any other alternative.

I believe that's why he was then so willing to leave once he realized life without Brady was going to be tough given the Patriots issues with finding WRs, realized that some of the rumored fantasies like Rodgers coming to New England or some of the other rumors that swirled around were just that- rumors-and knew of the potential Carr-Adams connection looming, saw a QB that pulled a limited roster along, talent at RB, slot WR,  and TE and figured it was the best landing spot he could get with the least amount of work to be done. I think Josh McDaniels is the classic opportunist, and I do not trust opportunists. 

For what it's worth, I think that Josh would have done fine moving up as the Pats HC, as he would have simply moved upwards within the already in place system, ostensibly with Zeigler taking over the GM duties once Bill stepped down. I do not, however, believe that they are capable of, or even honestly interested in, actually building anything of their own from the ground up. With the Pats, as successors, they wouldn't have had to do much of that and would have gotten a bit of a sentimental pass for having to fill in the GOAT's shoes, something that would have almost certainly not been advertised far in advance. And if things went sideways, the good ol' "Bill overstayed his welcome and things began to rot a bit" excuse would have sufficed as the Pats have indeed taken a couple steps backwards in recent years. 

And for that, I wouldn't not have hired him in the first place. As he was a good enough charlatan to get in to begin with, I would have absolutely fired him for being the snake oil salesman I unapologetically believe him to be, to avoid being some short term stepping stone and vanity project at the expense of a true long-term outlook. 

 

2. No. Because Bill Belichick had already proven himself at least a relatively worthy HC following his stint in Cleveland. Art Modell had previously assured him he would be continuing his role as HC with the move to Baltimore. That whole fiasco was bizarre and anyone alive in the mid-90's would attest to the fact that the 1995 Browns were basically a dead team walking. Bill wasn't fired solely because of poor results that came from the 95 season, and his overall job performance prior to was an upward trajectory. He was a relatively proven commodity that then landed his second gig and began rebuilding the Patriots, a team that had been sporadically successful for the previous decade, but in a 4 year backslide from Parcells' last year through the Carroll years, going 11, 10, 9, and 8 wins. They were already on a downward trajectory, so Bill's 5-11 season wasn't unexpected or a nail in the coffin.

That's a stark contrast to McDaniels, who was fired unceremoniously from his first job because the results were exceptionally bad and getting worse by the week. He took over a middling Broncos team that stagnated under Mike Shanahan, had a graceful start in year 1, and things quickly went off the rails as it became clear he had no clue what he was doing. He made the team worse and there was little reason for optimism until he was gone. 

Bill Belichick had a bad year at 6-10 followed by two middling seasons at 7-9 followed by an 11-5 season, and then the derailed 5-11 year to his resume when he took over the Patriots. Clearly, he showed he at least some level of ability to coach a team to a better record consistently prior to all hell breaking loose in 95. And Bill took over a team that had gone 3-13 in 1990. He took a 3-13 team to 6-10 to 7-9, 7-9, and ultimately to 11-5. That's progress. That's respectable. That shows an ability to coach and improve. 

Josh McDaniels took an 8-8 Denver team to an 8-8 record where the wheels totally began to fall off after an 6-0/8-4 start to 3-9 and got fired. He now took over a Raiders team that went 7-9, 8-8, and then 10-7 to a decidedly ugly 6-11 year. 

The situations- both the coach's prior experience and the new team's momentum upon arrival are polar opposites when comparing Belichick's job in Cleveland and immediate impact in New England to Josh's job in Denver and immediate impact in Las Vegas. 

So, no, I wouldn't have fired Bill Belichick following the 2000 season, and no, it's not the same as Josh McDaniels following the 2022 season. 

I appreciate this, good post. 
The big thing Id say is, a lot of this is as you mention, what you believe. 
It could be true, and if so you make a lot of good points. 
It may not be true. 
They are opinions and beliefs, not facts. 
If someone has different opinions it doesnt make them wrong or stupid. 

I dont, and I think a lot of others dont know what Mark and JMD talked about in his hiring process. 
I dont know what JMDs thought process was for taking our HC job. 

He splurged on WRs but not the trenches id disagree with, giving Jones a big contract was a splurge. 
There first of 6 picks, and 4 of 6 picks were the trenches. 

again you believing he is going to leave us for another job when offered, is fine for you to believe, but Im not goign to knock the guy, because of something you fear? 

The Broncos fired him, he didnt leave. I also think it looks worse on the broncos, to give someone the power to trade away all their players to then only fire him mid season lol. He clearly thought he had time in Den and wanted to build it his way. Similar to Gruden trading mack and cooper, to get picks to build out his vision. 
Maybe he met with Luck and andrew told him he was considering retiring . . I dont know what happened and why he jumped ship. But if your going to believe hes going to run away from the raiders after building out his vision, I should be allowed to believe maybe there was a reason he jumped ship in Indy late? 

It sounds like you fault JMD for taking what he saw as a good opportunity.  . .I dont fault him for that. 

-
again these are all valid beliefs and fair for you to be scared of JMD running off if a better opportunity arises, but they arent facts. They arent for sure things. 
-
IF you can show me what he said to mark in the interview process, then ill agree with you . . but Im not going to just write him off because you think he promised mark something and failed on that promise. 

-

You say everyone knew Bill would fail year one, well half this forum wouldve told you JMD will fail with Carr. . . 
A coach needs a qb he can trust. 

-
Coming from someone who respects Carr wayyyy more than JMD, those two were never going to work together.
Mark/DZ chose to keep JMD over Carr. . . 

[BackinBlack]

17 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Nope, that would solely be box score scouting. 

Even the 8-8 year turned fugly on the field. The next year was worse. 

The fact that our on-field product was also horrendously ugly and a step backwards in almost every aspect only solidified my opinion that Josh McDaniels is not HC material. 

He's sloppy, egotistical, incapable of self reflection, cannot adjust outside of predetermined structure, or communicate adequately, and our on-field performance that he leads and designs reflected that. 

Our O improved in a lot of areas too though, 23.2 ppg vs 21.8, + way more balanced O. 
With 2 pretty major injuries. 

Our team turnover differential improved. Albiet not much, but another important stat, we improved. 
We had 4 fumbles on the season lost, compared to 10 the year prior. 

Scoring more, and having a better turnover margin than the season prior should lead to a better season. It didnt because our scores were streaky and not consistent. 

The patriots are notorious for not turning the ball over . . 4 fumbles on the year is pretty good. 
Lot of picks, some werent on Carr, but they still happened, Josh does not want turnovers.
it is tough to win when you turn the ball over. . . something josh was adament about working on, and he drastically reduced fumbles. 

Again, you say we took a step backwards in almost every aspect, but in reality, we took a step backwards on the win loss aspect, 100% that I agree with, but almost every aspect? What else? because turnovers and points are 2 pretty big things to improve on that your discrediting. 
-

Josh needs to learn how to call an entire game. 100% cannot and will not argue that fact. 
He would let up too early in games with leads, or start to flat and have to big of a mountain to climb. 

There were some positives in 2022, and some things to build on, and a whole lot of things to clean up. 

 

[ronjon1990]

13 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

You say everyone knew Bill would fail year one, well half this forum wouldve told you JMD will fail with Carr. . . 
A coach needs a qb he can trust. 

 

No, no, no, don't conflate these. 

I said Bill having a bad first year was not unexpected, because the team as a whole had been in a downward trajectory upon his arrival. Key word: team. 

If people want to say he was bound to fail with Carr, it only serves to prove they were more interested in hating Carr. Carr was a single player, not the entire team, not the team's recent history. And while he and Carr failed to materialize, Carr was objectively not the lone issue. Had the rest of the team shown up and Carr had a truly dreadful year, different story. 

As for the rest, yes, much of it is opinion. Some cannot be proven or is unlikely to ever be (ie: what was said in the interview). However, much of it is based on things that did indeed happen. There's a casual relationship beyond a mere hope that it isn't the case. It's one thing to connect existent dots and draw a conclusion. It's another to pretend those dots simply don't exist and try to draw a conclusion based on immaterial thoughts and feelings. And that's where I find conflict with most of the McDaniels support group- the arguments against kicking him to the curb almost always have two distinct aspects:

1. They disregard the "dots" entirely. Will the dots ultimately prove connected? Who knows. But the dots are there. Hoping the dots aren't connected isn't based on anything tangible that has, in fact, happened, rather on the mere hope that said dots aren't connected. 

2. They take said stance and refuse to accept the dots that are there, regardless of how relevant they ultimately prove to be, because of the emotional argument of "I'm tired of the turnover". Yeah, we all are. But pretending the dots aren't there just for the sake of a serotonin boost is akin to an ostrich digging its head into the sand. 

[jimkelly02]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

To be very very clear: …

As he was a good enough charlatan to get in to begin with, I would have absolutely fired him for being the snake oil salesman I unapologetically believe him to be, to avoid being some short term stepping stone and vanity project at the expense of a true long-term outlook. 

….. That's a stark contrast to McDaniels, who was fired unceremoniously from his first job because the results were exceptionally bad and getting worse by the week. He took over a middling Broncos team that stagnated under Mike Shanahan, had a graceful start in year 1, and things quickly went off the rails as it became clear he had no clue what he was doing. He made the team worse and there was little reason for optimism until he was gone. 

Absolutely spot on!  

I’d only add that JMD didn’t have a graceful start to year 1 …. He was cheating from the get go and when he was caught he threw his “friend” Scarnecchia, that recruited from NE, (which shows intent from day 1 to cheat) under the bus and blamed him entirely.  Some people don’t change, so when it goes bad here with JMD fully expect him to blame everyone else and save himself by spinning a narrative, much like he did with reporters about Carr and  Waller.

https://clutchpoints.com/broncos-news-ex-denver-lb-claims-team-was-cheating-during-josh-mcdaniels-era

https://www.espn.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/41297/ripples-of-broncos-last-london-visit-still-being-felt-in-their-return?platform=amp

Look at how JMD left the Broncos… disgraced as cheaters and a lockerroom in shambles:

“I believe it was the start of a dark chapter in Broncos history. I mean, we were accused of cheating, our head coach was fired“ - Champ Bailey

We can make all the logical explanations and show history and facts about JMD …. But regardless of all that… let’s make it simple:  look at who JMD is as a person and HC/leader…. And ask yourself should he ever have been trusted again… should MD ever have trusted this guy after everything he’s done and who he’s been exposed to be as a person?  Absolutely not.

Edited April 22, 2023 by jimkelly02

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, BackinBlack said:

Our O improved in a lot of areas too though, 23.2 ppg vs 21.8, + way more balanced O. 
With 2 pretty major injuries. 

Our team turnover differential improved. Albiet not much, but another important stat, we improved. 
We had 4 fumbles on the season lost, compared to 10 the year prior. 

Scoring more, and having a better turnover margin than the season prior should lead to a better season. It didnt because our scores were streaky and not consistent. 

The patriots are notorious for not turning the ball over . . 4 fumbles on the year is pretty good. 
Lot of picks, some werent on Carr, but they still happened, Josh does not want turnovers.
it is tough to win when you turn the ball over. . . something josh was adament about working on, and he drastically reduced fumbles. 

Again, you say we took a step backwards in almost every aspect, but in reality, we took a step backwards on the win loss aspect, 100% that I agree with, but almost every aspect? What else? because turnovers and points are 2 pretty big things to improve on that your discrediting. 
-

Josh needs to learn how to call an entire game. 100% cannot and will not argue that fact. 
He would let up too early in games with leads, or start to flat and have to big of a mountain to climb. 

There were some positives in 2022, and some things to build on, and a whole lot of things to clean up. 

 

Microstatistical improvements vs total on-field product are two different animals though. 

If a QB starts every game and carefully completes 3/3 passes per game for 1 TD and no INTs, the ratios, QBR, etc would go through the roof. The term garbage time comes to mind. 

That's an extreme example. I'll cede that. 

A more pertinent example is our run game, and something I'm on record as crediting him as being very good at, and why I prefer to let Jacobs walk or be traded as opposed to tying ourselves to a bloated RB contract. Our run game, on a statistical level, improved. But how often did it actually make a positive difference from the year prior? The Seattle game was a treat to watch, in a vacuum, but it also served as one game that caused a not-insignificant spike in our overall rushing statistics. 

Much like the fantasy football argument, it's possible to have a good statistical season and it still be an overall turd. We had a few nice and shiny statistical games that buoyed overall numbers as "improved", but again, the overall on-field product start to finish....eh not so much. Jacobs, for example, had a career year. Shame a disproportionate amount of his stats came in 5 games. That's relevant because statistical outliers like that are almost never indicative of sustainable success or improvement. It would be like calling a RB a franchise bellcow RB because they reach 1000 yards....despite the reality being they had a pair of 250 yard outings in weeks 1 and 2. 

Basically, I'm hesitant to put too much stock into the near equivalent of Combine workouts for draft picks. A guy at 6'6 280 can run a 4.29, jump 12 feet in the air, hot a 19 foot broad jump, hit a 1.5 3 cone shuttle, throw up 55 reps on the bench, and chuck a football 85 yards from a seated position. Those micros are nifty as all heck. They signify what some might call a "generational" prospect. But can they even actually play football?

Conversely, a team can do everything right based on a season's worth of stats. Score the most points, have the least amount of turnovers, a solid point differential.  I'm talking 28.11 pts per game to  22.58 allowed. But then you realize they won their first game 158-0 and proceeded to lose every other game 20-24. Is that a good team, or a team with a great game? See the imbalance? Would someone be overly optimistic about that team moving forward? 

With the 2022 Raiders, what I saw was a team with a couple of great games and a LOT of fluff that looks pretty on a spreadsheet, but not on the TV screen (and definitely not in person, as I was unfortunately subjected to lol). 

Edited April 22, 2023 by ronjon1990

[jimkelly02]

2 hours ago, BackinBlack said:

I dont even like JMD lol 

Oh Please… that’s what all JMD Stan’s say!  lol Jk!  

Anyways, my point was… no one here is going to try and force a belief on you, but if you’d like to debate we’ll certainly engage in an educated, civil manner with you (as you can see if already the case with you and Ron).  But don’t we don’t go around calling everyone who wants JMD to get another year a JMD-Stan.  That title is BP’s and he earned it with his behavior, not his opinions.

[ronjon1990]

14 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

Absolutely spot on!  

I’d only add that JMD didn’t have a graceful start to year 1 …. He was cheating from the get go and when he was caught he threw his “friend” Scarnecchia, that recruited from NE, (which shows intent from day 1 to cheat) under the bus and blamed him entirely.  Some people don’t change, so when it goes bad here with JMD fully expect him to blame everyone else and save himself by spinning a narrative, much like he did with reporters about Carr and  Waller.

https://clutchpoints.com/broncos-news-ex-denver-lb-claims-team-was-cheating-during-josh-mcdaniels-era

https://www.espn.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/41297/ripples-of-broncos-last-london-visit-still-being-felt-in-their-return?platform=amp

Look at how JMD left the Broncos… disgraced as cheaters and a lockerroom in shambles:

“I believe it was the start of a dark chapter in Broncos history. I mean, we were accused of cheating, our head coach was fired“ - Champ Bailey

We can make all the logical explanations and show history and facts about JMD …. But regardless of all that… let’s make it simple:  look at who JMD is as a person and HC/leader…. And ask yourself should he ever have been trusted again… should MD ever have trusted this guy after everything he’s done and who he’s been exposed to be as a person?  Absolutely not.

Lol. By "graceful" I mean he was the toast of the town through the first 7 weeks or so. 

But yeah, once exposed for who he truly was (is?) as a person, all downhill. And fast. 

[jimkelly02]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

Lol. By "graceful" I mean he was the toast of the town through the first 7 weeks or so. 

But yeah, once exposed for who he truly was (is?) as a person, all downhill. And fast. 

You almost gotta respect JMD’s salesmanship because he’s got sooo many layers Of dirt on him but he’s been able to manipulate, spin, and sell himself to 2 team AFTER The Denver disaster.  
he really is the ultimate snake oil salesman.  

[Frankie2Gunz]

18 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

1. Feel free to note I didn't say he wasn't young. If he were 46 with a handful of years of experience, that's one thing. But it isn't the case. At 46 with 22 years of experience, you don't get to call yourself inexperienced.

2. Said before, he's possibly a great OC and crap HC. He could've gained more experience by not sucking when he got the chance. Too bad he did and is thus opened for criticism of his similar performance. 

3. He's never had a winning season as a HC. That's a fact. He's never had a winning season without Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. That's a fact. He has, however, had horrid success as a HC in Denver, OC in St. Louis, and HC in Las Vegas. That's a fact. The crux of most arguments is that he's never won without the greatest HC and QB ever. That's not even disputable. Without them, he has not won. That's not even disputable. Would've been nice if he had objectively learned something from all that experience, but he hasn't. And that's the issue many people are highlighting. 

4. Congratulations on riding Tom and Bill to 5 more rings than Harbaugh? Harbaugh has far and away exceeded Josh McDaniels in every way as a HC and continues to do so. Oh, but we have to kiss Josh's rings he got courtesy of other peoples' success? That's what it's about? Talk about making someone's argument for them.....

5. Not cherry picking at all. He has two decades of NFL coaching experience. Yes, I'll hold someone with that much experience to a higher standard than a guy with 5 years total. That's how experience vs inexperience works. Again, had he not blown his last shot at being a HC by sucking, he would've gained more experience as a HC. Regardless, plenty of coaches with less overall coaching experience have come along and had better success in worse or similar situations. He's held to a higher standard because he's not a rookie, he's a retread. That's not complicated to understand. 

6. "Either ignor the 19 years, and he has 3 years experience as HC.

or he has 22 years of experience and a lot of Rings." ...... Yeah that's not at all how it works and I'd be embarrassed to even make such an argument. But ok, I'll bite. He has 3 years of HC experience, that's all that matters. Ok. Deal.  He's sucked in all 3. So congratulations on admitting he sucks as a HC. That's what we've been trying to tell you. 

If that's honestly the best argument you can come up with, you're absolutely a Josh McDaniels stan. 

 

@jimkelly02 @Frankie2Gunz we seem to have lost another one to the idiocy argument. 

 

You're exactly right about JM in that he has proven only to be a loser as a HC.  Here are some facts.

-His career record as a HC is 17 and 28.  

-He has never proven he can win outside of the protection of BB and Brady.

-He inherited a team that was a play away form advancing to the second round of the playoffs that had one of the most tumultuous seasons of any team in recent memory who lost their HC and #1 early in the year.  JM/DZ had one full offseason to "improve" the roster, made "splash moves" by signing Jones and trading for Adams and the team regressed in multiple areas.  W/L the D.  That is all on JM and DZ.

-This team blew a tremendous amount of leads last season.  They typically played well in the 1st half but the play calling in the 2nd half of games was atrocious.  That showed me that JM can't make proper adjustments at half time and that he lacks the ability to call a complete game or that his game plan is only competent when he has an elite D backing him up.  He would take his foot off the gas too early, thinking we would be able to run out the clock and the D could hold a lead which showed me that he didn't understand the construct and talent of his roster.  His play calling and time management was quite poor.  

-The Carr situation was a major embarrassment to him and the franchise.  There is no defending how that situation was handled and if anyone thinks the league didn't take notice they are delusional.  Extending Carr and paying him more money when it was not necessary was one thing but to extend him, pay him more money and give him all the power with a NTC, bench him at the end of the season, not allow him around the team, move on from him after the season and receive zero in compensation then incur a 6M cap hit for the upcoming season is flat out incompetence.  That is the move of an organization that is a dysfunctional **** show that has no clue what they are doing.  Players and agents took note, exactly like I said, which is why we had such a disappointing FA period.  We have backups as starters and watched 50M in cap space evaporate with not much talent added. 

-Since taking over with 2 FA periods and 1 draft under their belt they have managed to downgrade the QB position, the TE position DE and interior Dline, LB's and DB's.   The Oline is still in shambles as we have a Oline littered with career journeyman and backups as starters. All of this is on JM and DZ. 

Like we have both said multiple times the pressure is on for JM and DZ to nail this draft.  Their careers depend on it because if they do not have and A+ draft this year with one elite stud and multiple starters they are doomed and I would be quite shocked to see Davis give this **** show another year if they indeed field a roster that wins 4ish games.  The excuses can only go so far and only so many players can be thrown under the bus before it becomes apparent that the problem is that JM is an incompetent HC that needs to be replaced.  The sad thing is even if that does happen I have zero faith that Lloyd Christmas has the ability to identify what a quality HC is so we will once again be in the same situation as we are now.  A rudderless ship stuck in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean during hurricane season, wandering about aimlessly.... 

[BackinBlack]

14 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

No, no, no, don't conflate these. 

I said Bill having a bad first year was not unexpected, because the team as a whole had been in a downward trajectory upon his arrival. Key word: team. 

If people want to say he was bound to fail with Carr, it only serves to prove they were more interested in hating Carr. Carr was a single player, not the entire team, not the team's recent history. And while he and Carr failed to materialize, Carr was objectively not the lone issue. Had the rest of the team shown up and Carr had a truly dreadful year, different story. 

As for the rest, yes, much of it is opinion. Some cannot be proven or is unlikely to ever be (ie: what was said in the interview). However, much of it is based on things that did indeed happen. There's a casual relationship beyond a mere hope that it isn't the case. It's one thing to connect existent dots and draw a conclusion. It's another to pretend those dots simply don't exist and try to draw a conclusion based on immaterial thoughts and feelings. And that's where I find conflict with most of the McDaniels support group- the arguments against kicking him to the curb almost always have two distinct aspects:

1. They disregard the "dots" entirely. Will the dots ultimately prove connected? Who knows. But the dots are there. Hoping the dots aren't connected isn't based on anything tangible that has, in fact, happened, rather on the mere hope that said dots aren't connected. 

2. They take said stance and refuse to accept the dots that are there, regardless of how relevant they ultimately prove to be, because of the emotional argument of "I'm tired of the turnover". Yeah, we all are. But pretending the dots aren't there just for the sake of a serotonin boost is akin to an ostrich digging its head into the sand. 

haha well said, I guess ill just rebuttal with , my argument against kicking him to the curb is soley, we made our hire and it is too soon to kick him out. Especially after the whole Carr fiasco. 
Mark essentially had to choose between Carr and JMD, they were not going to mesh, and chose JMD. Right or wrong, weve moved on from Carr. 
If mark had fired JMD after year 1, I still would be saying we didnt give him a fair chance as our depth and injuries played a big role and we were close in a lot of games like the year prior, but came up short. 

The dots are there, yes he struggled in Den. . . but ultimately he made moves to build the team the way he wanted and got fired half a season into it. I dont understand why Den gave him all that power to trade everyone away to then trade him after a tough start to a rebuild season. This would be very similar to us firing him this year if we start 3-7. . . when you trade/ release your qb I assume the HC has some type of grace period from the owner. 

Players dont like him - yup this is true, a lot of players dont like Bill too. Strictly business when it comes to football and a lot of players want to have fun. I believe there should be a balance, but, we have seen very succesful coaches who are strict. Josh does need to work on this, but, players who love football and want to work are 1, the type of players i want and 2, do seem to like josh. 

Sucks as a HC - could be true, im sticking with the needs 3 years to build a vision. He didnt get it in Den, and some are writing him off before here. With terrible FAs and Drafts even Gruden built a team in 3 years, and I thought Gruden was a bad coach too. 

Never had a winning record - sounds like people saying Carr never won a playoff game so hes a loser. This is a team sport at end of day and wayyy more complicated then just hes a good coach so he will win every season

-
my whole point is yes there is a lot up in the air, and yes he could fail, but 1 a HC needs a qb he can trust. HE did not have that, and 2, give him time.