Davidson In ?!

They all contained nearly the exact same sentence used in Shefter's piece, and all came dated later than his.

 

Fair enough, if that's how it happened. Do you have any actual reason to doubt the validity of the statement?

 

The fact that we have no evidence that Mangini ever asked the Browns for an interview. Look, whether or not Mangini did want him ultimately doesn't matter. Clearly he was thought to be bright or he wouldn't have been under Belichick in the first place. I'm just concerned that we're handing someone the reins of our offense when he's had no experience with that, and when he was turned down twice by Cleveland. As I've said, I like him better than McCoy, it just concerns me that we're hitching our wagon to an unknown.

 

Nope. But there's a solid link that a former contemporary wanted to work with him again.

I believe it does. What former players and coaches say about a guy, in trying to get him or trying to go where he is (in the case of guys like Andruzzi), it says something positive. Does it mean his offense will be good? Not necessarily, but up till then, we just have speculation. If you want to base your opinion on "they didn't hire him" rather than "they tried to keep him on and other people wanted him", I don't begrudge that, but we're all doing it on speculation.

 

*sigh* I was really trying to give you a good jumping off point where we could agree to disagree. You can continue playing with semantics all you want, but these are the facts:

* We have no actual evidence that Mangini ever asked the Browns to interview Davidson, and he certainly could have.

* Davidson did not interview with Arizona. His name came up in conjunction with Whisenhunt because the Cleveland Plain Dealer speculated that's where he might go once he got turned down for the Browns job.

* Davidson wanted the Browns job, interviewed for it, and was turned down.

* Davidson was not chosen to be Crennel's OC in '05 either.

* Davidson was not chosen by Belichick to be New England's OC following Weis' departue.

 

How gracious of you. I'm fine with simply disagreeing on that, and guess what, that's what we're doing.

I'm not, you are You're stating he's not good because of speculation, and deciding all the other speculation isn't true. I have a hard time believing that all the positive rumors simply aren't true. You don't have a hard time believing that.

 

I like it when you outright lie about what I'm saying, especially when the lie is directly opposite of what I've said. For instance, note this post:

I never ever said that he's destined to be bad or "not good" because Cleveland turned him down. I said that them rejecting him twice worries me, as it should any sane person.

There aren't "all the positive rumors," there is just one stating that Mangini wanted him. I pointed out that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mangini ever asked the Browns for permission to speak with Davidson. You've never even disputed that point because you can't.

 

Certainly, you've stated as such, and yet you're giving him the benefit of no doubt at all. You're rejecting pretty much almost every opinion of why he could or should be considered esteemed. But you're willing to take that he wasn't hired in 2005 (when he wasn't in consideration) as a major strike against him. It seems as if that's a good bit unbalanced, to ignore almost every positive but take a lot of stock into the negative.

It's speculation. Therefore, the opinion is do you believe the printed report, or deny it's true because it didn't get printed that permission was also asked/denied. Just as with AZ, and so on. You choose to believe that the reasons we feel he actually was wanted, are all false.

 

Like I said, anytime you can't actually argue the points you resort to lying about what the other person said. Once again, I am not saying that he will be a bad coordinator. I am saying that it concerns me that this person who has some negative things about him and has almost no experience as an NFL coordinator is taking over this team, which supposedly has Super Bowl aspirations.

As I stated before, it's like replacing Jake Delhomme with a rookie QB. Would you be comfortable with that? Of course not. The rookie might be better and certainly might have more long-term potential, but it would be a pretty huge risk to take right now with a team that should be able to compete.

Wrong. You are once again lying about what I'm saying because you are hopelessly outclassed in this argument and see no other way of avoiding the admission that my concerns are valid. If you believe that Fox hired him because Mangini may or may not have wanted him to be their offensive coordinator, you're a bigger moron than I thought. Obviously that wouldn't play a part in their decision. They chose Davidson because they believe he was the best candidate, and maybe they're right, but I'm still not comfortable with risking our upcoming seasons on such an unknown.

 

yes, he has some negatives. He also has some positives, and some glowing recommendations. Some of these positives you choose to disbelieve, and almost all of the negatives you choose to believe. I don't think that's realistic.

oll...argument tricks again. You throw this around so much nobody gives it any thought anyway, but it's not true either way. You do realize I'm not trying to mis-state what your opinion is, you're just going back and forth between looking to discredit anything anyone may say positively about Davidson and trying not to call him a bad coach.

As for your concerns being valid, I have no problem with your opinion being that you may or may not like him, but you're giving him no benefit of the doubt.

Where'd I say that? I stated that Mangini wanted him, and that was some validity to the idea he's not the "nobody wanted him" loser you're painting him. I stated that other coaches wanted him. Suddenly, somehow, all those reports became false out of nowhere.