Bear's Brown on Jake

The Jets have a good defense.

The Bears are outstanding - and we were exposed. But we held up against the Buc's line.

We split the next six - I'm happy.

 

That's a fair point, although Denver certainly doesn't have a "true QB coach." But for the record, you and the media should bother to notice that Plummer's '05 numbers are almost identical to his '03 numbers, so this isn't exactly new. When he's given good protection, a strong running game, and isn't asked to make as many reads, Plummer is capable of getting the job done. It's when he's pressured either by the defense or by the scoreboard that he starts doing dumb things.

Year: G QBRat Comp Att Pct Yds Y/G Y/A TD Int Rush Yds Y/G Avg TD Sack YdsL Fum FumL
2005: 10 93.7 178 290 61.4 2074 207.4 7.2 13 3 33 101 10.1 3.1 1 13 82 3 2
2003: 11 91.2 189 302 62.6 2182 198.4 7.2 15 7 37 205 18.6 5.5 3 14 73 2 2

"In 26 years of coaching in the NFL, Dan ... has helped develop quarterbacks Joe Theismann, Don Strock, Doug Williams and Vinny Testaverde." Would Theismann qualify? Williams and Testaverde probably wouldn't be too far from the gunslinger mold either. They certainly weren't dink and dunk types. But beyond that, why was Don Strock mentioned in the bio?

By whose accounts? The only people I've ever heard that from were posters at either the Lair or here. I've never even heard a hint of that in the media or from people citing team sources. I don't know if the guy is worth a damn or not, but when people cite anonymous team sources they seem to indicate that both Delhomme and Henning are comfortable with McCoy and value his input. I honestly have no opinion because I don't know, but I am skeptical of the claims of the aforementioned posters because it seems to be an obsession like Purr's with blitzes and not so much an objective evaluation.

Could you please at least speak the truth? Say "it's bothered me since 2002 that we don't have a QBs coach THAT I LIKE." We do have a QBs coach, and he's as legitimate a QBs coach as the majority of such staffers in the league.

 

I absolutely hate the "gunslinger" excuse. How many times has it paid off in 3 years? A handful of passes that it worked out with how many game killing ints?

 

I think in this case it's used more to describe the type of QB Jake is, and I think it's accurate. He is a gunslinger, for better or worse. But regarding that, I agree with you. I mentioned in another thread that I honestly would rather have a boring QB at this point who might not make any great comebacks but won't fuck us over either. Those two early INTs ruined the game for me, whether or not we came back to win. I just couldn't enjoy the game from that point on, so I started playing Madden instead and watched periodically between plays.

 

A very casual fan I know who recently moved to the area and only started following the team to an extent becuase we always festivize for away games at someones house (he doesnn't go to games here) was like "Why do people like Jake?" and "How the hell is this guy still the QB?".

 

Pat McPhereson grew from OA to QBs coach, when they took the responsibility away from Kubiak, though "taking away" isn't intended negatively; You can argue that he's still just a glorified OA like McCoy, but the Broncos have a separate coach for that duty as well, Tim Calhoun.

That was the point, yes. Taking an offensive assistant and calling him a QBs coach doesn't make him legit enough, IMO, when he's got no previous experience coaching QBs. While roughly half the league (certainly not the majority) uses the QBs coach as a glorified offensive administrator, half the league has a real position coach there, and I've never been in favor of neglecting a position simply because the OC felt he could handle both roles. I've been against it with all three staffs that have tried to do this.

 

Steve Smith makes him look better than he is...

 

Uhm ... no, they most certainly didn't not take the responsibility away from Kubiak any more than McCoy took it away from Henning. Both are more hands-on OCs where they do most of the quarterbacks coaching. And for the record, McPherson started out as a defensive assistant before becoming an offensive assistant and then becoming quarterbacks coach two years ago. Whether you like it or not, that means Mr. Scot brought up an example of a QB getting better without the help of a true quarterbacks coach.

Actually it was more than half the league that doesn't have a "true" quarterbacks coach. Remember that the last time we had this argument I went through the profiles of every single quarterbacks coach and looked at the list of their duties.

 

I like Ricky Proehl. That guy can catch damn near anything if you get it near him.

 

Yep. Mike Nolan coached WRs, too. That doesn't make him the same coach as Greg Roman. McPherson coached D for one year, however, so he was certainly hired on because he was good at administration, not because he was a defensive coaching specialist.

And I remember you being tremendously subjective about how you judged them. I also remember you saying that "the vast majority of NFL HCs don't find it a need" at one time. I know you and I disagree on the importance of it. I know that I don't agree with a number of coaches on it. I also know that on a number of teams, the next most important position behind OC has been QBs coach, and the most important position coach hire. Along the way, some, like Andy Reid, have to take other jobs to be moved up, but they move up. And they use that position to advance.

I do believe QBs can be coached, and believe they need their own coach. I don't believe that Jake's problems are anyone other than Jake's, but I have a hard time believing he was "coached" into being above average in mid to late 2004 but he's beyond hope. You don't believe the above is true? Like I said, I'm more than fine with that.