NFC contender QB coaches

Yeah, if he could keep his mouth shut for 10 min, I bet he could get laid. He's got the confidence but I bet he'd say something fucking stupid before it happened.

 

that type 'bravado' used on the net is usually hiding a tiny little pecker.

 

I can't imagine what that little encounter would be like.

 

Two thirds is enough for a "vast majority" in my opinion, but the point is that I already stated that only about one third use their QBs coaches primarily for instruction. Then you came back and tried to spin that as 15% in a rather poorly disguised attempt to make your opinion look less wrong.

Of course you have to spin it that way, but go read the bios yourself. Hell, we can post links to all of them in this thread if you really want to go to those lengths to prove yourself wrong. The fact of the matter is that only about a third of all NFL teams describe their QBs coaches as having principally instructional duties. I didn't make that up and I didn't write the bios, nor did I interpret them unfairly to suit my opinion. I'm not the one with the absolute obsession about quarterbacks coaches. You're the one who has this extreme opinion that cannot be swayed by anything or anyone, so I don't know how you get off in saying that I'm somehow twisting things. I think a quarterbacks coach can be great for a guy just coming into the league, but I don't happen to think that they're useful for veterans, but I've already stated that I wouldn't mind having a more instructional guy. My objection is to people such as yourself shitting on McCoy, or pretending that most teams think the way that you do about QBs coaches. They don't.

Note that I still included those OC failures in the one third who primarily instruct, so it's not like I ignored them or somehow manipulated that information. It's just my opinion that some of those guys are not great gurus so much as people of limited ability. Then again, some of them certainly do appear to be great QB gurus.

See, it frustrates me when you're just outright dishonest. I can at least respect an opinion explaining how you think QBs coaches can help develop a team's quarterbacks, but pretending that WRs coaches, RBs coaches, and TEs coaches spend anywhere near the time assisting the OC that those non-instructional QBs coaches do is just outright dishonest. You know that it isn't true, but you want to spin the fact that those other positional coaches do work with the OC some as an excuse to justify your position that non-instructional QBs coaches really aren't as subordinate to the OC as I've said (and as their team bios have said).

No, I didn't say that, but you've always been forced to rely on twisting my words because you've never felt confident enough to argue with me about something on legitimate grounds. I said that there isn't nearly as much coaching at the NFL level as in college or in high school (which is true), and that NFL teams don't expend as much effort in teaching/changing veterans as they do players who are new to the league. Guys with less than three years or so of experience are definitely still malleable, although less so than they were during their college years. It's not like there is one day where they suddenly go from being teachable to unteachable. It's a progression within a certain window of physical and mental development. In fact, I think hiring a QBs guru would be great if we happened to draft a QB in the early rounds and wanted to instruct him about how to perform at the NFL level. In those situations I think input and instruction can be enormously helpful, and possibly outright necessary. What I object to is the assertion that instruction is somehow necessary or even particularly helpful for veterans. I simply do not believe, based on what I know of professional sports and of brain development, that you can significantly change the way a guy in his late twenties or early thirties will perform.

Jake was not changed in one week. He was commanded behaviorally for one week. That's obvious because Jake has returned to his previous tendencies since that performance. Change would actually be getting Jake to consistently demonstrate different (and hopefully better) mechanics or decision-making. Commanding someone's behavior in one particular performance is possible regardless of the individual's age, but that's not producing actual change.

.

Perhaps you would care to note that while people here often rally to magnus' side (or their own) and disagree with me, that eventually they end up seeing that I was correct all along. Did they or did they not see that about Peppers? Did they or did they not see that about Delhomme? Did they or did they not see that about Trgovac? Did they or did they not see that about Seifert? The list could go on endlessly, but the point remains that time proves me right far more often than not. It's fine to object to my arrogance or the caustic nature of my responses, but you can't change the fact that I end up being correct. And isn't that the most important part?

I'm afraid you just undermined your own argument there. Bill Parcells is known as a master motivator, but he is also known for absolutely not being a good teacher of the game at all. He is extremely knowledgeable, but he does very little on-field teaching because he isn't good at it. In fact, it's one of the differences often cited when comparing him to Belichick. Meanwhile I've never even heard of Gruden being considered a great teacher (except perhaps as a QB guru). Instead Gruden is always talked about in terms of how well he studies the game and schemes against an opponent. The same goes for Shanahan.

Actually it isn't. I can't explain this to you sufficiently on a message board, but I can recommend plenty of books where you can discover that brain research proves you wrong. It is certainly true that we continue "learning" in the sense that we accumulate more and more knowledge throughout the course of our lives, but that is an absolutely different phenomenon from "changing," and our brains simply do not change as often or as easily after the mid-twenties as they did previously. The chemical nature of the brain changes such that its previous capacities for rapid development and reorganization are no longer possible. I know that because my mother happened to do a great deal of study around the country on brain research, but like I said, I can recommend books that will show you exactly where and why you're wrong if it's actually something you're interested in learning about. I suspect that it isn't, but I figured I'd offer.

 

Well, to me a vast majority is over 80%. Regardless, neither 25+ teams, nor 20 teams, nor 16 teams actually use their QBs coaches as administrative only, especially as you're attempting to paint. I'd be willing to bet it's a lot closer to a quarter, but certainly, it's up to how we interpret it, and I know there's a vested need for you in this regard.

By all means, I've read them. I actually know what they do and have done in past jobs. All you did to "prove yourself right" at the time was list them and say "vast majority". And yet in the post above, I actually outlined a number of very well pedigreed coaches who are currently QBs coaches that simply are not some administrative lackey. But sure, if you want to break it down to arguing irrationalities, have at it. I'm sure both of us can spend a number of posts stating how the other side "isn't seeing this how I do."

I think it's clear that we're both a little hardheaded, but yeah, I didn't come into this discussion saying things like "I'm really sick and tired of this whole QB coach discussion." I'm not looking to change your opinion of what you believe an NFL team should do, but it would be nice if you didn't blast people for finding that need to be valid.

Past that, I'm not touting an extreme position like "veteran players can't be coached."

Even though you know very little about him, and that your main interests in this seem to be defending Henning and blaming Jake? Go back to 2000. I wanted Musgrave to have a QBs coach. I wanted Henning to hire a QBs coach when he came on in 2002. This isn't a new thing

They do.

Which was brought up because you want to make them sound like half-assed coaches who have no talent. Which isn't true.

So why do they put WRs coaches in the booth? What bearing, in any form, do you have actual proof that any of these guys don't give input into gameplan? Hell, even though McCoy himself knows jack shit about wide receivers, he coached receivers for an entire year. Think he assisted Williamson?
Specifically, teams like our 1999 team even drew from the entire offensive staff to do things like call plays in certain situations. Some teams consider their line coaches or RBs coaches, at the college level, to be running game coordinators.

Of course they don't spend as much effort into teaching. That doesn't mean they don't work on players' fundamentals and technique when they're necessary. That an experienced hire would take less effort to get up to speed than an intern is logical, and irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not an experienced person can be taught or changed.

That "actual change" showed up every week of the last two months of 2004. Certainly, Jake's able to not make the same robotic movement every time he throws a ball, and was changed for a time this year - too far, in my opinion, but certainly changed. And if Jake needs to be told, every week, that he needs to throw off his front foot and improve his mechanics, then that's what we do, every week.
If not, then Henning is not doing his job as a defacto quarterbacks coach and we're being limited by his decision to not have a consistent tutor on staff that's directly assigned to the quarterbacks that actually carries out that task with the experience to handle the job.

As Piper said, who's the ref? Isn't it a bit silly to declare your victory about an opinion? I mean, hell, most of what you mentioned as "things Collin ended up being right on" were things I argued were correct, but sure.

It's interesting, in that respect, that you brought up that this topic was "as frustrating as the Thomas Davis debate", considering you'd taken the wrong tack on a large number of things directly related to that topic, even telling John Fox he was wrong about his safeties being interchangeable.

 

We are truly blessed!

:banginghe

 

That's fine for you to classify it as such when you use the term, but the fact remains that only a third of the QBs coaches in the NFL have team bios that suggest their duties are primarily instructional. I certainly never claimed that the other two thirds only help the OC, despite you trying to spin it that way, but it is true that the team bios for those individuals says that their primary duties are along those lines.

Because this is your baby, perhaps more than any other topic. You're absolutely obsessed with the idea of getting us a QBs coach that meets your qualifications. I simply don't care that much, and I am tired of the unsubstantiated claims that this is somehow a great need for us. I don't know if getting a "better" QBs coach would help or not, but I think that certain people (yourself most definitely included) pretending that it's an obvious and critical need are being ridiculous, and I do find that annoying. Clearly you don't have to stop talking about QBs coaches, but I'm just as within my rights to talk about how the pointless discussion annoys me.

See, there you go again. Anytime you can't actually argue the point, you exaggerate something to the point of ridiculousness and fight that paper tiger. Where did I say that those coaches get no input in the gameplan? Clue: I didn't. But it's a known fact that WRs, TEs, RBs, OL, DL, LBs, DBs, and special teams positional coaches have primary responsibilities in teaching technique and scheme for those positions. I'm not even attempting to explain why only QBs coaches seem designated to help the OC on so many teams, but it's the case regardless.

Certainly they work on technique, but my point was that you don't change a player at that age and with that level of experience. You want to make sure a guy stays focused and that he continues to use proper form, but you generally don't try and almost never succeed at trying to actually get a guy to be different than he was before. You get them to do what they do as well as they can, and teach them their role within the scheme.

I like how you pointed out Buffalo as his point of change until I pointed out that he didn't stay the way he performed against Buffalo, so now you say Delhomme's point of change was somewhere else entirely. Newsflash: If Jake had "changed" in late 2004, he wouldn't still be the same guy he is now in 2005.

:supergrin Ah, now we get to the real meat of your position, which appears to be your grudge against Henning.

Do you even live in the real world? Many opinions are proven valid or invalid over time. You pretend like opinions are valueless, despite the fact that analysis and evaluations form the basis of human behavior. Opinions aren't and never have been equal, and when someone's opinions consistently turn out to be correct, that is very meaningful. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person will continue to be correct, but it suggests it and it certainly means that something substantial was achieved during the earlier period.

Nice attempt at misrepresenting things again, but what I actually said was that Fox wasn't being entirely accurate with the media, and this certainly wasn't the first time that he sold the media a line of goods. Our safeties aren't interchangeable at all. As Fox later explained, sometimes the FS will have to adopt the SS's assignments because of our set-up and because of formation shifts by the offense, but there are clear differences between FS and SS in our system, and there are clear differences in who we want at those positions (some we think can play both, and some we don't). But yeah, nice try at completely misrepresenting what I said. We both know that you can't beat me with my actual words, which is the whole point in you using your usual trick. You're scared of arguing with me in real terms.

 

Maybe this would help:


3 entries found for vast.
vast ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vst)
adj. vast·er, vast·est
Very great in size, number, amount, or quantity.
Very great in area or extent; immense.
Very great in degree or intensity. See Synonyms at enormous.

n. Archaic
An immense space.

Doubt it, but worth a try.

 

"Our safeties are interchangeable. We feel good about our safety position. We made some acquisitions during the off-season. I feel good about it at this point. As to who's going to be where, that's why we go to camp. [Minter will] get reps there. They have to know both spots anyway." - John Fox, June 8, 2005, Panther.com

"Our safeties are interchangeable and it's not that big of a deal. There are a few calls that we get our strong safeties involved in. I haven't finished talking to Mike and Colin. We don't have to make that decision today and we haven't made it yet." - Mike Trgovac, August 15, 2005, NFL.com

 

Yeah, I know. As I said, Fox later explained the comment more in depth by saying that the FS and SS sometimes have to switch responsibilities when the offense shifts formations, but we still have the same guy line up at FS every single time. They don't switch responsibilities unless forced to do so by the offense, because the responsibilities are different.