King Calls Gruden "inherently dishonest"

[chace1986]

Brian Billick was/is a great coach.   Raheem couldn't carry his jock.

Two references to other mens "jocks" or "jock straps" in one day....interesting Java...but yea...jocks aside...Billick>Morris.

[Naismith]

Ah, quoting posts, the kryptonite to the user block.

Not surprising that Ku Klux Java is still spewing his hatred because he can't stand that the coach of the team is a black man. It's really sad.

[Benchwarmer#1]

IMO, Malcom would not have fired Gruden. At least not until his contract was up or at least near it.

When Classless meets Dheads, I guess someone has got to go. Makes for good conspiracy theories though.

Like, Was Gruden just a Ahole and the team mutinied against him?

Or, maybe the "new" ownership didn't get along with Gruden because of their snobbish ways?

Either way, it doesn't matter anymore. Old news. King may be right about this, but everything he said should be taken with a grain of salt.

[nubcake]

I'm certainly no Gruden homer, but all of these stories are starting to get old. And anyone notice how all of these guys have some sort of issue? King was lazy, Keyshawn had an attitude, Clayton...well, who knows what his problem was but he obviously had one lol. Gruden certainly has his faults and don't doubt that there were some issues going on between him and the locker room, but until I at least hear from one of our more respected former players I think I'm just going to ignore this stuff. It seems a lot like when some player gets accused of rape and then all of a sudden multiple women hop on board and say "he raped me too!!!" Why is it years later after someone else says something that everyone else finds the need to pile on?

[lazoran]

I'm certainly no Gruden homer, but all of these stories are starting to get old. And anyone notice how all of these guys have some sort of issue? King was lazy, Keyshawn had an attitude, Clayton...well, who knows what his problem was but he obviously had one lol. Gruden certainly has his faults and don't doubt that there were some issues going on between him and the locker room, but until I at least hear from one of our more respected former players I think I'm just going to ignore this stuff. It seems a lot like when some player gets accused of rape and then all of a sudden multiple women hop on board and say "he raped me too!!!" Why is it years later after someone else says something that everyone else finds the need to pile on?

A reason these stories get so much attention on these forums are mainly because of the trolls like Java who swing from Gruden's nuts. I appreciate everything Gruden did for this team and he was a huge reason we got over the hump but it was his time to go. I think also as Gruden got older he got smarter and might be better then ever this time around as a coach whereever that may be.

[jerseybucsfan]

I agree, but then again if he's REALLY smarter, he'd realize that the job may not be worth all the aggravation. You can win a Super Bowl and a fanbase can completely turn on you anyway. I think merely if he hadn't drafted Clayton (and taken Steven Jackson instead), if he had gotten a franchise QB (be it either Rodgers or Brees), we wouldn't be having any of these conversations. Jerk or not, he'd still be here and be winning. All the moralizing and nonsense about how the lockerroom turned on him is speculation, revisionism, downright lies in a lot of cases. I mean think about this logically for a moment. We're 9-3 heading into the MNF game against the Panthers in 2008. Did the lockerroom turn on him then? No. They couldn't stop the run because they weren't good enough and then all the injuries and so they lost. The Monte stuff came out and it weakened the focus. San Diego simply was hot and more explosive and then some bad playcalling and bad luck came into play in the Atlanta and Oakland games (like Caddy's injury, Ruud not falling on the fumble in OT, etc.) I'm sure some guys turned against him and he made a lot of mistakes into 2003-2004. But we're really mixing arguments. Gruden was a different guy by 2007 and 2008. In the end, he could be a saint and a good guy and it really didn't matter because he didn't draft well, the team was unlucky and he lost his playcalling mojo. So they got rid of him, we committed to youth and hopefully in five years we're having way more positive conversations about Raheem.

[CyberDilemma]

IMO, Malcom would not have fired Gruden. At least not until his contract was up or at least near it.

When Classless meets Dheads, I guess someone has got to go. Makes for good conspiracy theories though.

I don't know where these fairy tales keep resurfacing from. The brothers hired Gruden and they fired Gruden. Malcolm bought the team for his sons to run. He oversaw the new stadium deal and moved on to other ventures. His expertise is real estate and strong-arming people. That's why he was involved with the stadium deal. As far as everything else, Malcolm admits he knows nothing about the game of football and has/had no interest in running the day-to-day operations. The Glazers took a perennial loser and laughing stock of the league and turned it around into a Super Bowl winner and 3-time division champion. They got a new stadium built that is still one the the nicest in the league. They have hired 3 brilliant, young head coaches during their tenure. They forked out the money to build a team that most likely will easily produce 3 to 5 Hall of Fame inductees within the next 5 years or so. Of the 32 current NFL owners, only 10 have EVER brought a Super Bowl winner to their cities. The Glazers are one of them, yet, the fan base continually wants to rip them to pieces.

[1sparkybuc]

I agree, but then again if he's REALLY smarter, he'd realize that the job may not be worth all the aggravation. You can win a Super Bowl and a fanbase can completely turn on you anyway. I think merely if he hadn't drafted Clayton (and taken Steven Jackson instead), if he had gotten a franchise QB (be it either Rodgers or Brees), we wouldn't be having any of these conversations. Jerk or not, he'd still be here and be winning. All the moralizing and nonsense about how the lockerroom turned on him is speculation, revisionism, downright lies in a lot of cases. I mean think about this logically for a moment. We're 9-3 heading into the MNF game against the Panthers in 2008. Did the lockerroom turn on him then? No. They couldn't stop the run because they weren't good enough and then all the injuries and so they lost. The Monte stuff came out and it weakened the focus. San Diego simply was hot and more explosive and then some bad playcalling and bad luck came into play in the Atlanta and Oakland games (like Caddy's injury, Ruud not falling on the fumble in OT, etc.) I'm sure some guys turned against him and he made a lot of mistakes into 2003-2004. But we're really mixing arguments. Gruden was a different guy by 2007 and 2008. In the end, he could be a saint and a good guy and it really didn't matter because he didn't draft well, the team was unlucky and he lost his playcalling mojo. So they got rid of him, we committed to youth and hopefully in five years we're having way more positive conversations about Raheem.

I don't disagree with the jest of your post, but with Gruden the future was bleak. Kiffin was gone and Garcia would have returned at QB. It would have been a continuation of the plug in the rejects from other teams. Maybe Gruden would have taken Raheem's advice and drafted Freeman, but there's no way to know for sure. One thing I do know, Gruden would never have gutted the team for a youth movement. I feel like the whole organization is more unified. The doghouse is gone and everybody gets a fair opportunity to contribute. It's more about ability than seniority. Raheem has created a brotherhood, and the future looks brighter because of it.