Game Balls

I have no problem with you Mikey. You are as close to the game as any of us zilches.

I agree that Jake was far from perfect. He got away with a few. But every QB gets away with a few. Every week. Jake gets away with his share.

He played well, and we won. Time will tell if he can keep it up. He did torch Tampa on the road last year, so he's got that workin' for him.

 

I don't hate Jake. I don't even dislike Jake. I have a problem with his well documented tendency to make stupid throws which often cause us to either struggle to put a game away or lose it outright. If he could eliminate those passes, or at least commit them no more often than most other NFL quarterbacks, his positives would be significant enough to make him one of the better starting quarterbacks in the league. Right now he isn't, no matter what his QB rating may be. But to reiterate, I touted our signing of Delhomme when he first arrived, and I predicted that he would have strong numbers, so it's not as if I'm strictly against him. I see him with an obvious and very frustrating flaw that is unnecessary and correctable, and I want to see it fixed.

Before you start issuing or accepting challenges, you might actually want to demonstrate some football knowledge. All I've seen so far is that you like to bark at me as if I'm responsible for you being born with a shriveled dick and squirrel nuts. By all means, if you have knowledge, make an actual contribution. Post something worth reading.

Uh ... my uncle lived in Pickens for a number of years and I'd never heard of the Greenville News until you mentioned it. Is it even published? But at least now I know why you're so pissed off all the time:

I guess I would be too.

That's one of the times, yes. Remember how you made all sorts of bullshit claims which were proven wrong through numerous examples of players being much more important than coaches in winning Super Bowls (does the Barry Switzer comment ring a bell?)

Seriously, argue with someone on your level. I'm pretty sure there are elementary schools in Greenville who could spare a minute or two.

 

basically, my post (the last one) was made in an attempt to stop the bickering. Jake played well, got away with some bad throws, and threw no INT's.


I would think we could stop the hair pulling and other stuff, and talk about his effort (the good and the bad) without looking like a bunch of Bucs fans (see theri board--its friggin hysterical).

That's all....I know you and me are cool Hammer, I am just feelin all warm and fuzzy after watch the Cats smash the Viqueens.

 

Let's revisit this argument.

I don't know what your stance was, but here is mine:

Coaching matters. Always has, always will. Here's why........

The vast majority of championship teams in the Super Bowl era won their title, in large part, due to the coach.

Your argument on Belichick was he was worthless until he came to NE. My argument is that New England was worthless until Belichick arrived. You are the only one who remembers the 2000 Patriots, but he had shit for talent that year. He had an old, slow defense, and nothing on offense as far as skill players go. He got his guys in, and won three of four titles after that. Even when he didn't win it all, he finished with a winning record.

Additionally, Parcells won two titles, and won a third conference title with Belichick as his defensive coordinator. That's my argument.

Gruden pushed Tampa over the top. Piss all over that if you'd like, but he did. He gave that offense the attitude it needed to go into Philadelphia in January of 2003, and take the NFC crown. He also installed the WCO, and ran it masterfully in spite of some weaknesses.

Billick's offense has been a complete and utter failure. But here is the thing about Billick in 2000. He realized what he had, and he swallowed his pride. He emphasized the running game more down the stretch, and limited the passing game. The defense rallied, and played lights out. The Ravens rushed for over 2100 yards in the regular season, forging an 11-game winning streak en route to SB XXXV. It certainty didn't matter as much that year, but coaching still mattered. Of course, unless a coach is a "genius", he is worthless....right? Billick dumbed it down, and he was brilliant for it.

1999- Vermeil. Rams. Warner.

So I suppose you are one that thinks that if Rodney Harrison never blew Trent Green's leg out, the Rams would have never found Warner, thus never winning it all. Think whatever you will, but the Rams rolled through the NFC, and won SB XXXIV. Did Warner make Vermeil a champ? Nope. Vermeil made Warner a champ. Or Mike Martz made Vermeil a champ. You could even credit their defensive coordinator, Peter Giunta, since he coordinated a defense that finished 7th in the NFL. But that was all about the players, right?

1998, 1997- Shanny, Broncos, Elway.

Ok. We will be splitting hairs on this one all day. All I know is that Elway was ring-less without Shannahan. He was also ringless without Terell Davis, a late-round pick that Shannahan turned into a perrenial pro-bowler. Additionally, Shannahan has also made 1,000 yard rushers out of Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Rueben Droughns, Clinton Portis, and, coming soon....Tatum Bell.

He mattered. Coaching matters.

1996 - Holmgren, Pack, Favre.

It all came together. They had the running game with Bennett and Levens. They had the receivers in Freeman and Brooks....when Brooks got hurt, Holmgren and Ron Wolf acquired Andre Rison. He played exceptionally well down the stretch. Don Beebe played well, too. But it wasn't exactly Swann and Stallworth he was working with.

Fritz Shurmur's defense was exceptional. He had some playmakers, but he also had a great scheme for them. Scheme matters. Coaching matters.

1995- Switzer.

Ok....Point for Collin.

IMHO, 9 of the past 10 Super Bowl Champions were coached by coaches who were instrumental in that team's rise to glory. It's my opinion, one that would be shared by most coaches and players in the league.

 

Just to follow up.

I never said, or thought, that coaching is all that matters. But I disagreed with your prior assertion that coaching doesn't matter.

1/3 = Coaching

1/3 = Talent

1/3 = Front office

That's how I feel 'bout that one.

 

Shurmur really was incredible. It's a shame for Holmgren that the old man passed, not only because of the obvious human aspects of course, but that's off topic. Fritz was the cornerstone of the GB move, and even with Rhodes there a while after, it's been hard for them to build D. They've spent, but they haven't built.

BTW, I pulled out, just today from the desk here in the office, my Shurmur playbook, the older 5-LB copy from Rams days. Too bad it was mostly hand-drawn.

Just an aside from whatever this has become or is becoming.

 

I just remember that 1996 NFC Title Game, and how precise and dominant Green Bay was that day. They killed our zone blitz with the screen. Shurmur also got after our asses. It was a well played--and coached---title game.

Another point. Anyone think that the Vikings will duplicate what the Panthers did in the second half on 2004. With Mike Tice?

Tice < Fox

Coaching Matters.

 

that might be unfair, considering their starting QB is done....maybe the 2002 Panthers is a better comparison, between weinke, peete, and fasani.

Tice still wont equal what Fox did that year either, IMO.

 

You are one serious dumbass. We actually established the opposite, that coaches consistently did not win without their key players.

Wrong. I never said that Belichick was worthless, as he's an absolute genius and probably does a better job of putting his players in a position to make plays than anyone else (one of the two areas where I said NFL coaches actually make an impact). But as I pointed out, Belichick did not win in Cleveland, and he did not win in New England until Tom Brady took over.

Dude, you should at least check some facts before you post. Pete Carroll went 27-21 in his three seasons as head coach of the Patriots before Belichick took over (who went 5-11 in his first season).

Again, check your facts before posting. Tampa Bay ranked 15th in points in Dungee's last season as their coach, but ranked 18th in scoring that first year under Gruden. So the Buccaneers actually got worse on offense under Gruden, but they went from the 8th ranked defense to #1 in part because of players they added. And yes, they scored 27 against the Eagles in the NFC Championship game, but remember that one of those touchdowns was an interception return and another was a result of a missed tackle by Barry Gardner that led to 67 extra yards for Jurevicius. Also note that Gruden's last two years have been losing seasons. As asked in the other thread, did Gruden suddenly forget how to coach or was he hurt by losing a number of key players? And this season did he suddenly remember how to coach or has he benefitted from adding new key players?

Billick's offense in '00 had essentially the same production as it did in '99 and in '01. The difference in that Super Bowl season was that their defense ranked 1st in the league.

Vermeil went 9-23 in his first two seasons as coach of the Rams. Which do you think was more likely, that Vermeil suddenly remembered how to coach or that a capable QB, a healthy Isaac Bruce, the drafting of Torry Holt, and the acquisition of Marshall Faulk had something to do with it?

Yes, it was. Look at the above list of players who either weren't with the Rams in '99 or else were injured.

How many playoff games has Shanahan won since Elway retired? Answer: None.

How many playoff games has Mike Holmgren won without Favre? Answer: None.

Point? How about game, set, and match?

 

Perhaps.....But all things considered, the loss of Smitty, Foster, Davis, and Jenks could be considered on par with losing Culpepper.