|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 1, 2014 14:35:52 GMT -5
Literally every team has had games like this. So does hat mean that there have never been any good coach in any sport if the team doesn't wake up for one regular season game? No one is saying they're as good as they used to be, quite the opposite, they've been a bad team so far this year. But to say a coach is a bad because his team overwhelmed in one game, or even one season, is to say that there has never, ever been a good coach. I didn't say Belichick isn't a good coach, but he is in no way as good as he fancies himself. He is a good coach, but not a great coach. Tactically, he's sound. His performance against Kansas City was bad, but usually that's not an issue. However, he has serious strategic shortcomings. The Patriots could easily be a great team right now if he and Bob Kraft did a better job building and managing a comprehensive roster. Just by virtue of having Tom Brady, they're dangerous, but years of mismanagement have finally crept up on them. Who does Brady have to throw to? Who's protecting him? What in the world is the defense made of? These are major problems and a truly great coach would not allow a great team like the Patriots of half a decade ago to slip as far as it has. So who are the "truly great" coaches then? The standard you set is so high that I can't recall any coach that would meet it, as all coaches have seasons that the talent isn't there at some point. You want to throw the guy under the bus for the first quarter of one season where they don't have the talent there, who hasn't had that problem at some point?
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Oct 1, 2014 15:50:56 GMT -5
NFL suspended Panthers DE Frank Alexander 10 games for violating the league's substance abuse policy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 16:47:31 GMT -5
I didn't say Belichick isn't a good coach, but he is in no way as good as he fancies himself. He is a good coach, but not a great coach. Tactically, he's sound. His performance against Kansas City was bad, but usually that's not an issue. However, he has serious strategic shortcomings. The Patriots could easily be a great team right now if he and Bob Kraft did a better job building and managing a comprehensive roster. Just by virtue of having Tom Brady, they're dangerous, but years of mismanagement have finally crept up on them. Who does Brady have to throw to? Who's protecting him? What in the world is the defense made of? These are major problems and a truly great coach would not allow a great team like the Patriots of half a decade ago to slip as far as it has. So who are the "truly great" coaches then? The standard you set is so high that I can't recall any coach that would meet it, as all coaches have seasons that the talent isn't there at some point. You want to throw the guy under the bus for the first quarter of one season where they don't have the talent there, who hasn't had that problem at some point? In my time as a football fan, I've never seen a coach who I could point to and say "Yes, this coach is truly great." To me, that would be someone who stands out far above the majority of the league's coaches, and I can't honestly say that I feel that way about anyone in the NFL right now. There are so many things that a coach must do, and no one has addressed everything particularly well. People always get distracted and make mistakes in some area. If I ever see a coach who can pull that off, they'd definitely get the recognition.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 1, 2014 16:51:13 GMT -5
So who are the "truly great" coaches then? The standard you set is so high that I can't recall any coach that would meet it, as all coaches have seasons that the talent isn't there at some point. You want to throw the guy under the bus for the first quarter of one season where they don't have the talent there, who hasn't had that problem at some point? In my time as a football fan, I've never seen a coach who I could point to and say "Yes, this coach is truly great." To me, that would be someone who stands out far above the majority of the league's coaches, and I can't honestly say that I feel that way about anyone in the NFL right now. There are so many things that a coach must do, and no one has addressed everything particularly well. People always get distracted and make mistakes in some area. If I ever see a coach who can pull that off, they'd definitely get the recognition. Then it's a useless distinction, and points more to an unrealistic expectation than any thing a coach can actually do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 17:02:27 GMT -5
In my time as a football fan, I've never seen a coach who I could point to and say "Yes, this coach is truly great." To me, that would be someone who stands out far above the majority of the league's coaches, and I can't honestly say that I feel that way about anyone in the NFL right now. There are so many things that a coach must do, and no one has addressed everything particularly well. People always get distracted and make mistakes in some area. If I ever see a coach who can pull that off, they'd definitely get the recognition. Then it's a useless distinction, and points more to an unrealistic expectation than any thing a coach can actually do. Nope. It's a matter of opinion. Useless to you, but not to me. I don't think it's an unreachable apex of ability that no one can ever hope to attain. It's just that according to my criteria, the odds of being a really phenomenal coach are really low, and as of right now, there's nobody who I think qualifies. That can change. I'm pretty certain that it will change, but right now, I don't see anyone who I can sincerely praise as such.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 1, 2014 17:08:54 GMT -5
Then it's a useless distinction, and points more to an unrealistic expectation than any thing a coach can actually do. Nope. It's a matter of opinion. Useless to you, but not to me. I don't think it's an unreachable apex of ability that no one can ever hope to attain. It's just that according to my criteria, the odds of being a really phenomenal coach are really low, and as of right now, there's nobody who I think qualifies. That can change. I'm pretty certain that it will change, but right now, I don't see anyone who I can sincerely praise as such. If you can't name a single coach who has achieved it, then I'd wager it's not as attainable as you think it is. If the standard is "never have a team look bad" then there's just no coach that will ever qualify. So yeah, you can set the bar as high as you want to in your mind, it is opinion, doesn't mean it's not a ridiculous level.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Oct 1, 2014 17:47:19 GMT -5
Raiders QB Matt Schaub has rejoined the team.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Oct 1, 2014 18:50:54 GMT -5
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,359
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Oct 1, 2014 19:00:48 GMT -5
I saw that live and wondered just what happened. I now see it and laugh.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Oct 1, 2014 20:55:45 GMT -5
A source told the Boston Globe that Aaron Dobson was deactivated in Weeks 3 and 4 because he "mouthed off" to Patriots OC Josh McDaniels.
"Mouthing off" to Belichick wannabe McDaniels apparently costs you two full games, despite the Patriots' glaring needs at perimeter wide receiver
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Oct 1, 2014 21:21:21 GMT -5
A source told the Boston Globe that Aaron Dobson was deactivated in Weeks 3 and 4 because he "mouthed off" to Patriots OC Josh McDaniels. "Mouthing off" to Belichick wannabe McDaniels apparently costs you two full games, despite the Patriots' glaring needs at perimeter wide receiver So, what, they can never criticize the coaches? What kind of dictatorship is BB running up there?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 1, 2014 21:27:46 GMT -5
Being sat for mouthing off coaches isn't uncommon. I've seen more than my fair share of players being reprimanded for disrespecting coaches. It's not like the NBA when the stars have all the power.
What is unusual is the length of time. Usually he'd be sat for part of a quarter.
|
|
Renslayer
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
every time i come around your city...
Posts: 16,579
|
Post by Renslayer on Oct 1, 2014 21:52:01 GMT -5
A source told the Boston Globe that Aaron Dobson was deactivated in Weeks 3 and 4 because he "mouthed off" to Patriots OC Josh McDaniels. "Mouthing off" to Belichick wannabe McDaniels apparently costs you two full games, despite the Patriots' glaring needs at perimeter wide receiver I need to find out more info as to what Dobson said because this sounds incredibly stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Oct 1, 2014 22:09:15 GMT -5
Saw this on the inquisitr
Now this is how I look at the situation. People claim that St. Louis isn't a football town and only is Baseball and Hockey. I find it there is way more then that. The Ram's as a team should be looked at and not the fans of the city. The reason the Rams are failing or have failed is they team itself for a long time was mismanaged when we went seasons as the team was looking to sell. When the team itself hasn't gave us the fan any kind of hope of being a winning team or a competitive team. Tell me why I should buy the most expensive ticket in town out of the three sports when the chances of them winning the game as been slim. Before Fisher came in the team would win at the most 3 games a reason. How can a fan get excited by that? The build does fill when there is something to get excited by it. Like now the team is building up too be something more then a joke. When you look at the history of the Rams in St. Louis the good season are not that many. The best years are 10 years plus ago. It's been a long time since there was a win lost record that was .500 or above. That is why fans get turned away because little is done to improve to give hope for such a long time. Bradford sold tickets but now failed to bee NFL strong. It took years for the Rams too look like a good team. It is a shame that people put down St. Louis for the lack of support in favor of LA who isn't the best fan supported area either.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Oct 1, 2014 22:20:44 GMT -5
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,359
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Oct 2, 2014 0:27:14 GMT -5
It seems like he has had this issue before.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Oct 2, 2014 1:48:36 GMT -5
Saw this on the inquisitr Now this is how I look at the situation. People claim that St. Louis isn't a football town and only is Baseball and Hockey. I find it there is way more then that. The Ram's as a team should be looked at and not the fans of the city. The reason the Rams are failing or have failed is they team itself for a long time was mismanaged when we went seasons as the team was looking to sell. When the team itself hasn't gave us the fan any kind of hope of being a winning team or a competitive team. Tell me why I should buy the most expensive ticket in town out of the three sports when the chances of them winning the game as been slim. Before Fisher came in the team would win at the most 3 games a reason. How can a fan get excited by that? The build does fill when there is something to get excited by it. Like now the team is building up too be something more then a joke. When you look at the history of the Rams in St. Louis the good season are not that many. The best years are 10 years plus ago. It's been a long time since there was a win lost record that was .500 or above. That is why fans get turned away because little is done to improve to give hope for such a long time. Bradford sold tickets but now failed to bee NFL strong. It took years for the Rams too look like a good team. It is a shame that people put down St. Louis for the lack of support in favor of LA who isn't the best fan supported area either. The Rams should've never been moved. Georgia Frontiere took a franchise with 50 years of history and moved them out during a recession in L.A. County. Anaheim was the beginning of the end of the L.A. Rams. Anaheim Stadium was unfit for football and took the Rams out of their base. When the Raiders moved there in 1982, it created more issues for the Rams. By 1994, with the team in freefall, the attendance falling apart, and no shot at a new stadium, Georgia took the team and bolted to her home town. Even if we're bad, you stand by your team. We've been #3 for years in St. Louis. The Dome is outdated, horribly, outdated. I don't see any value with the St. Louis Rams. The Los Angeles Rams, though? I see stars. At the same time....Bill Bidwell wronged the city of St. Louis when he moved the Cardinals in 1987. The Rams will never overtake the Chiefs, its time to move on and forget about it.
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Oct 2, 2014 13:08:55 GMT -5
Saw this on the inquisitr Now this is how I look at the situation. People claim that St. Louis isn't a football town and only is Baseball and Hockey. I find it there is way more then that. The Ram's as a team should be looked at and not the fans of the city. The reason the Rams are failing or have failed is they team itself for a long time was mismanaged when we went seasons as the team was looking to sell. When the team itself hasn't gave us the fan any kind of hope of being a winning team or a competitive team. Tell me why I should buy the most expensive ticket in town out of the three sports when the chances of them winning the game as been slim. Before Fisher came in the team would win at the most 3 games a reason. How can a fan get excited by that? The build does fill when there is something to get excited by it. Like now the team is building up too be something more then a joke. When you look at the history of the Rams in St. Louis the good season are not that many. The best years are 10 years plus ago. It's been a long time since there was a win lost record that was .500 or above. That is why fans get turned away because little is done to improve to give hope for such a long time. Bradford sold tickets but now failed to bee NFL strong. It took years for the Rams too look like a good team. It is a shame that people put down St. Louis for the lack of support in favor of LA who isn't the best fan supported area either. The Rams should've never been moved. Georgia Frontiere took a franchise with 50 years of history and moved them out during a recession in L.A. County. Anaheim was the beginning of the end of the L.A. Rams. Anaheim Stadium was unfit for football and took the Rams out of their base. When the Raiders moved there in 1982, it created more issues for the Rams. By 1994, with the team in freefall, the attendance falling apart, and no shot at a new stadium, Georgia took the team and bolted to her home town. Even if we're bad, you stand by your team. We've been #3 for years in St. Louis. The Dome is outdated, horribly, outdated. I don't see any value with the St. Louis Rams. The Los Angeles Rams, though? I see stars. At the same time....Bill Bidwell wronged the city of St. Louis when he moved the Cardinals in 1987. The Rams will never overtake the Chiefs, its time to move on and forget about it. Why are they #3 because the Cardinals are 9 times of 10 in the Playoffs. The Blues again has this long streak of making the playoffs and last few seasons started back on that. So of course The Rams will take a back team to them when we the sports fans can have hope in them. You can say stand by your team but that not easy to do when for several years when Georgia passed on her family wanted too sell. Which means no hope for us fan in having a good season or a chance of winning but they wasn't going to invest into the team. Fans do go to the Rams games and do all of that. But like anywhere else, the winning teams get the most fans. Look at NY City. Which team is Number 1? The Giants. How many times has the Jets been laughed at by everyone? Why? because the Jets don't win and the Giants have. That is why The Yankees has a huge following is because they have a larger history and again most seasons they make the playoffs. LA is no different. Lakers or Spurs? How many seasons did The Angels or Dodger not have winning seasons and what happened when they didn't. Point is LA isn't going to stand by the team either if they are not giving any kind of hope to say "Hey, they could go far this year." The Rams in St. Louis if they move is still going to be mostly the same team until contracts run out. The first season will have buzz because it's a new and fresh homecoming if you will. Then what happens when they fall? Plus you also have too look at Fisher who signed with St. Louis because of location compared to Miami. Will he willing to move to LA? That is a question because one of the reasons he took St. Louis is because where his family is.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Oct 2, 2014 13:29:29 GMT -5
Bridgewater is looking iffy as a starter for tonight like 50/50 iffy and the Vikings might have to go with sigh Christian Ponder
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,497
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Oct 2, 2014 13:37:31 GMT -5
Bridgewater is looking iffy as a starter for tonight like 50/50 iffy and the Vikings might have to go with sigh Christian Ponder {Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler] Green Bay wins
|
|