PFT: 'Boys Low-balled Wade... on initial offer

[mschmidt64]

The notion that past results are indicative of future results is nonsense.

Are you serious?

How do you think we evaluate draft choices or make coaching promotions?

How do you think we give raises in the business world?

Past results are often the best indicator of future results.

The exclusive indicator? No.

But a strong starting point, absolutely. It's not arguable. Our whole world functions on making judgements based on our past perceptions.

Cowher hadn't won a super bowl in 15 years. Holmgren couldn't get Seattle over that hump and win a playoff game. These incidents from the past don't prevent the opposite from happening in the future. Such a narrow outlook is extremely shallow.

They each have histories that are significantly more impressive than Phillips.

Wade has shown he's a good coach. You can narrow your criteria to playoff wins, but that makes no sense.

When has he shown he's a good coach? I thought you just said you couldn't use the past to determine anything? Obviously you can.

He's come up with good regular season records. But he can't get teams over the hump.

There hasn't been a shred of evidence to suggest that he can do so here. "Knowledge of the 3-4" isn't evidence that he can get us over the hump. Parcells knew the 3-4 as well and he couldn't get us over the hump either.

You need something more. So far, there's only evidence that he can't.

So, we're just contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, then?

Not at all.

If we hired a good up and comer, I'd be quite pleased.

I would have trusted Ron Rivera to some extent.

Though I'll never trust Jerry.

 

[superpunk]

Are you serious?

How do you think we evaluate draft choices or make coaching promotions?

How do you think we give raises in the business world?

Past results are often the best indicator of future results.

The exclusive indicator? No.

But a strong starting point, absolutely. It's not arguable. Our whole world functions on making judgements based on our past perceptions.

Your whole base is flawed. All those situations look at past results for an indicator of future progress. They don't look at those past results and say "Oh....you haven't played in the NFL yet, you'll likely never be able to." We don't give them contracts based on what they've accomplished. It's based on what they might accomplish in the future.

When has he shown he's a good coach? I thought you just said you couldn't use the past to determine anything? Obviously you can.

That is not what I said. (Although I should have written "past performance is not a guarantee of future results) Because you have not done a thing, does not mean you are incapable. Bill Cowher couldn't win the super bowl for 15 years. That didn't stop him from actually doing it. You'd be better served in not creating talking points so that you can shoot them down, going instead with what is actually said.

Because Wade has not won a playoff game in no way indicates that he is incapable. That's the basic flaw in your argument, and your lack of other viable candidates shows that you are just whining for the sake of whining. We got the guy who fit our team best. A young up and comer is no more a sure thing than Wade, and there were none that fit what we need.

 

[DizzG]

He's come up with good regular season records. But he can't get teams over the hump.

if people like you were in Charge Bill Cowher would have been fired years ago. Tony Dungy would have NEVER been hired for the Colts job after getting fired in Tampa. He had the "rep" of only being able to go so far with a team and not getting them over the hump. Now he has a superbowl win

Bill belichick wouldnt have been hired to coach the pats after being a failure with the Browns

hell one could come up with 100 more examples. All the ones I listed would have fit your notion that there somehow wasnt a reason to think those people were going to do any better somewhere else based on the past.

 

[mschmidt64]

Your whole base is flawed. All those situations look at past results for an indicator of future progress. They don't look at those past results and say "Oh....you haven't played in the NFL yet, you'll likely never be able to." We don't give them contracts based on what they've accomplished. It's based on what they might accomplish in the future.

But you use the past accomplishments to project what their future might be. I didn't say it was a 1:1 correlation.

But that's all I'm doing.

Because Wade has not won a playoff game in no way indicates that he is incapable.

It's evidence.

It's not absolutely determinative, but it definitely says that, when faced with the playoffs in the past, he's struggled.

So where is the evidence that says that won't be the case here?

We got the guy who fit our team best. A young up and comer is no more a sure thing than Wade, and there were none that fit what we need.

I can not take seriously anyone who says Wade was the best candidate for this team. If you mean, the best candidate out of Wade, Norv, Rivera, Gibbs, and Caldwell, that's one thing.

It's not fathomable that there weren't better candidates out there, somewhere.

 

[Iago33]

mschmidt--

Seriously. Name who you wanted instead, and we'll talk about that.

 

[superpunk]

But you use the past accomplishments to project what their future might be. I didn't say it was a 1:1 correlation.

But that's all I'm doing.

Maybe - from a pessimist's viewpoint. But in none of those situations do they look at what they've accomplished and say that because they have not done a thing, they cannot do a thing.

That's what you're doing for Phillips, and it's nonsense.

So where is the evidence that says that won't be the case here?

He hasn't worked here yet. The data you request does not exist. Having an open mind precludes me from condemning him just because he didn't get it done 7 years ago.

I can not take seriously anyone who says Wade was the best candidate for this team. If you mean, the best candidate out of Wade, Norv, Rivera, Gibbs, and Caldwell, that's one thing.

It's not fathomable that there weren't better candidates out there, somewhere.

LOL....there's gotta be better candidates out there, grandpa...there's just got to. Is that really what you're rolling with? I don't want Wade, but I have no other viable candidate save to say "There are better candidates out there, somewhere." Noone fit as well as Wade. Little transition on D, he'll work with the offensive staff in place, it all fit well.

The "there's got to be someone better" only works if you've actually got someone better. I would have liked a young guy - but none fit. Maybe Garrett will in the future, but he's too much of a risk right now.

 

[mschmidt64]

mschmidt--

Seriously. Name who you wanted instead, and we'll talk about that.

There are numerous candidates I would have preferred.

Rivera and Rex Ryan were two that were near the top of my list.

But that's also irrelevant, because even if Jones didn't like either of those two guys, it would have been possible for him to find guys who I am not thinking of that have more potential than Phillips.

Just because I don't know their name doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[BigDFan5]

I can not take seriously anyone who says Wade was the best candidate for this team. If you mean, the best candidate out of Wade, Norv, Rivera, Gibbs, and Caldwell, that's one thing.

It's not fathomable that there weren't better candidates out there, somewhere.

Yet you can not name one?

 

[BigDFan5]

Just because I don't know their name doesn't mean they don't exist.

and just because you THINK they exist, does not mean they do.

 

[Iago33]

Why do people think Rex is head coaching material when he's been passed over more than Wade? He's a good DC, but why hasn't he been a hot name in these Head Coaching jobs?

And mschmidt--I see that you want someone with no track record as a HC rather than someone who's had some success. I can understand wanting youth and fire, but why must Jerry take a shot in the dark to please you?

 

[mschmidt64]

He hasn't worked here yet. The data you request does not exist. Having an open mind precludes me from condemning him just because he didn't get it done 7 years ago.

Again, spurious logic.

If we brought back Dave Campo, or, if we hired Rich Kotite, everyone would be quick to agree, based on their pasts, that they could not cut it here.

There is clearly a way to come to a reasonable conclusion of how the guy will fare.

You don't have any evidence that he'll succeed here though. The only evidence on the guy that exists is failure.

LOL....there's gotta be better candidates out there, grandpa...there's just got to. Is that really what you're rolling with? I don't want Wade, but I have no other viable candidate save to say "There are better candidates out there, somewhere."

Correct.

When I see a poor or mediocre candidate hired, it is a reasonable assumption that it would have been possible to hire a more quality candidate.

That's just how it works. There are always good coaches coming along.

When I see that we didn't get one, I have to blame due dilligence... or just conclude that the guy doing the picking doesn't really get it.

Noone fit as well as Wade. Little transition on D, he'll work with the offensive staff in place, it all fit well.

It does fit well for immediate cohesion purposes, no argument there. On talent alone, I expect we'll probably go 9-7 or 10-6 next year.

It doesn't fit well for long term improvement. Wade's "fit" as a coordinator doesn't speak to all his other duties as a head coach -- talent evaluator, problem solver, locker room controller, etc. He's seemingly been a poor fit for all of those things in the past.

And despite your objections that I can't assume that will be the same case here.... until you present some evidence that he won't have those same problems here... I can't believe it.

I can't go at this all night.

Suffice to say, I know that a lot of people want this to work and are willing to believe it for that reason alone.

I am not one of them.

I'm going to root for this team, regardless. I'm now in Phillip's corner.

But I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's got a sub-par track record, so he's gotta prove to me that somehow he's changed. I need to see proof that he's better than his past indicates.

When he does that, I'll accept him.

Until then... I'm a skeptic.

 

[mschmidt64]

and just because you THINK they exist, does not mean they do.

There has to be. It's not reasonable to conclude that all of a sudden, there are no more up and coming quality head coach candidates.

You just have to know where to look.

 

[mschmidt64]

Yet you can not name one?

I won't name one. I have my own suspiciouns, but the only reason people want me to name one is so they can try to shoot him down.

I'm reluctant to do that, since those people will not go in with an open mind, and instead they will be twisting the facts in order to try to fashion an argument that my candidate is not quality.

 

[khiladi]

We got a guy who is 0-3 in playoff appearances, strongly suggesting that he can't get the team over the hump. That's the very thing everyone critisized Parcells for.

We also didn't have Rob Johnson or Doug Flutie as a QB with sub-par RBs. It also took a miracle FLUKE play for the Titans, who that year went all the way to the Super Bowl, to even beat the Bills. The Bills could have easily gone to the SB if not for a miracle of miracles.

You got to be kidding if you think that the 0-3 is an accurate reflection of Wade Phillips. Have you notices the Bills record after Wade left, and even before he came?

They were not a play-off team. Wade got the best out of sub-par players. Look at what he has in Dallas...

 

[BigDFan5]

There has to be. It's not reasonable to conclude that all of a sudden, there are no more up and coming quality head coach candidates.

You just have to know where to look.

It is just as reasonable as saying that there must be some magical unkown guy somewhere who is better.

If you say there has to be someone better without knowing who that is, then you also leave open the possibility that there is nobody better and that is why they are not known

 

[BigDFan5]

I won't name one. I have my own suspiciouns, but the only reason people want me to name one is so they can try to shoot him down.

I'm reluctant to do that, since those people will not go in with an open mind, and instead they will be twisting the facts in order to try to fashion an argument that my candidate is not quality.

Sounds to me like you have someone in mind but you already know that you can not make a good argument of why he is better.

 

[mschmidt64]

If you say there has to be someone better without knowing who that is, then you also leave open the possibility that there is nobody better and that is why they are not known

No, that possibility doesn't exist, unless you are saying that there are NO QUALITY head coach candidates in existance out there remaining.

No logical person would argue that.

Since I maintain Phillips isn't quality, and I believe that quality does exist out there, then it's simply 2+2=4.

SOMEONE must be better.

And again, I have my suspicions, but I won't name them amongst a sea of people who are already hostile to me and just waiting to reject whatever name comes out of my mouth.

 

[BigDFan5]

No, that possibility doesn't exist, unless you are saying that there are NO QUALITY head coach candidates in existance out there remaining.

No logical person would argue that.

Since I maintain Phillips isn't quality, and I believe that quality does exist out there, then it's simply 2+2=4.

SOMEONE must be better.

Yes the possibility does exist, just you putting your fingers in your ears saying "NO NO NO IT DOESNT EXIST" does not make it so.

No logical person would say somebody out there who is unknown MUST be better just because I do not like Phillips

And again, I have my suspicions, but I won't name them amongst a sea of people who are already hostile to me and just waiting to reject whatever name comes out of my mouth.

Like I said you have a name but wont share it because you already know you have npo logical argument to why he is better than Phillips

 

[mschmidt64]

No logical person would say somebody out there who is unknown MUST be better just because I do not like Phillips

You aren't understanding me.

I'm sorry I can't explain it to you better, but I can't.

Like I said you have a name but wont share it because you already know you have npo logical argument to why he is better than Phillips

That's not true.

Sorry.

 

[BigDFan5]

You aren't understanding me.

I'm sorry I can't explain it to you better, but I can't.

I understand totally, its just ridiculous

That's not true.

Sorry.

Then sway me, make a logical argument of who would have been better right now