What the Gruden haters dont want to admit or are not smart enough to realize

[ryan24]

Man, dude, how do you expect ANYBODY to read that post? I'm not the grammar police, but I can't even read it.

Yeah....an indentation or two might have been nice

:-)

[cheveliar]

7

My point is when you give Jon the players he needs to win with...like he had in Oakland...like he had in his first year in TB his track record is very successful....and even to this point his Winning % ranks up there with the best...plus when you get him to the playoffs he shows that he winns at a higher % than some of those coaches that wn big only in the regular season

Well since one playoff run (2002) accounts for most of those wins, he's not money in the playoffs. His two highly touted Raiders teams Dungied it up in the playoffs and then he choked on a hairball to a terrible WAS team in Tampa.

As to "give Jon the players he needs to win with" doesn't say much for him as a coach. That is the Phil Jackson road to fame and fortune, give me MJ+Pippen or Kobe + Shaq and I'm a god, make me coach with lesser talent and I get bounced in the first round. I ask my coaches to coach up the talent not just ride the talent to where they want to go. Gruden does appear to be a function of the talent more so than most coaches. Give him good players and he's good, give him mediocre players and he's, well actually, bad. Again, the bigger issue is the way Gruden loses control of the bobsled and totally bottoms out his team recently. People will toss out Bellichek's CLE years but at least he flubbed early in his career and has gotten better whereas Gruden has regressed on that front. Cowher/Shanny/Belliechk have dealt with major injury issues but never crash landed the way Gruden has.

<insert usual cry and whine about your pick of lame excuses for Gruden here>

Come on Dal.  Those are solid facts.  The man has taken two teams to the playoffs and won a Super Bowl.  I think that's enough validation to make those numbers mean something. 

Oh I forgot, my glass is too full so <I'm inserting lame excuses here...or up there> whichever way you wanna read that...

[dalbuc]

Come on Dal.  Those are solid facts.  The man has taken two teams to the playoffs and won a Super Bowl.  I think that's enough validation to make those numbers mean something. 

Yes, he's taken two teams to the playoffs and he's done what he should have done once. Other than that he lost with very good teams in the playoffs (OAK) or a poor playoff team to an awful one. Can he win, of course, is he a post-season monster, no.

[ABuccs Fan]

Watch NFL Network's Americas Game about SuperBowl 37 and see what Warren Sapp thinks of Jon Gruden. Jon made good on his promise!!!!

[cheveliar]

Come on Dal. Those are solid facts. The man has taken two teams to the playoffs and won a Super Bowl. I think that's enough validation to make those numbers mean something.

Yes, he's taken two teams to the playoffs and he's done what he should have done once. Other than that he lost with very good teams in the playoffs (OAK) or a poor playoff team to an awful one. Can he win, of course, is he a post-season monster, no.

So if the answer is yes and we agree, why you got to qualify my man like that.  True facts that validate stats don't have to be qualified, true? Seems to me making an excuse or discrediting has an ill affect on the picture being created here. It shouldn't matter, better yet, it doesn't matter if he had the little sisters of the blind blocking for him.  He got what he deserved out of every trip to the playoffs.  He's only coached one team worthy of winning it all...that other stuff don't matter dawg...

[GameTime]

why does everyone have to be labeled as either a gruden hater or a gruden lover?  i just want a coach that wins, and wins right.  no excuses. 


and where did you get grudens W/L record?  not to trust wikipedia, but they have him at 77-67.

[DanTurksGhost]

and where did you get grudens W/L record?  not to trust wikipedia, but they have him at 77-67.

Gruden's career regular season record is 77-67 and his post-season record is 5-3. His combined record is 82-70 (54%).

[dalbuc]

He got what he deserved out of every trip to the playoffs.  He's only coached one team worthy of winning it all...that other stuff don't matter dawg...

Can't say that either or you can go down the Dungy excuse road as well. there's no way a team with Dilfer/King, Jorge Diaz, George Hegamin, Green or Anthony should be SB either but he gets ripped for that failure. If you get into the post-season you are in it to win not just get there.

Furthermore, the problem is that Gruden should have won the game vs WAS, we were favored, he was favored over NE with that OAK team and lost. I don't recall when he lost to BAL if he was favored or not but his high test offense got blanked in that game. None of those are "good" efforts in the playoffs. So 1 of 4 efforts has been really good and they were not even good by the stanards of the teams he had - as in that 2005 Bucs team wasn't gonna win another game but it should have won THAT game.

[caradoc]

Dungy was a complete choke job even with Peyton and Marvin....nothing changed with him this year...Peyton just got off the schnide

I love the last one, doesn't matter. See the problem with your list of total failure is this and you Dungy-bashing dopes will never get this: you can't play it both ways. Dungy was trying to win with Dilfer and King for god's sake. Now if Gruden had that level of QB talent you'd be crying your little heads off about how he had no players and so you can't blame him for his falures. Shouldn't you, using your own bad logic, absolve Dungy, and in fact praise him, for winning as MUCH as he did with such lousy players - not to mention being saddled with that clown McKay? See, I don't think some of your think out the full implications of what you say in terms of your own opinions.

This is my biggest critique of Gruden. Dungy's offenses remain better than Gruden's despite having what should undeniably be considered lesser talent and so Gruden's output looks anemic in terms of wins and output compared to Dungy despite better talent.

As for the "they haven't won it" let's also roll that none of them have ever flopped around like dead fish the way we have. There is a ceiling to achievment that a lack of players hangs on you - there's no doubt. No coach in history would have won a SB with that team we had last year. No one thinks that team we had last year was a Super Bowl contender (well people like you did before the season only now that we failed do you see it so blindly obvious you couldn't have won, nice switch) but it also did not have to be as bad as it was anymore than there was a good reason that 2003 team collapsed to 7-9. You look at the records of the Shanny, Homgren, Billick and Cowher typers and you don't see the kind of top 5 draft picks we've had. That's the big difference.  Gruden can deliver the goods, 2005 and 2002 but he also totally drops the ball 2003, 2004, 2006 and that is what makes him so damn maddening to me.

But nothing was different from Cowher...Belichick (missed the playoffs a year after a SB win WITH Brady)...Billick....thats what you dont understand

The coaches call the plays....the players are the ones that go out there and perform. Its not Gruden's fault that Clayton didnt do so well as much as it wasnt Cowher's fault Rothlesburger ran his skull through glass and wasnt playng 100% last year

Gruden didnt bust Simm's spleen...didnt seperate the vertebrae from Allstotts neck...didnt give Caddy a high ankle sprain

Your coaching ability is only measured by the talent you have on the field....was it a mistake to have Grads start?? Well yeah...but I dont see people calling for Tort's head when he messed up and signed Grahme and Burke as his goalies in 05

They suck...he realized that next season and did his best to change that...all is well...what is so different about Gruden in this situation??

That seems to mean our offense currently has more talent than Indy's?  How do you come up with that?

All Tony did was take 5 years to do what Gruden did in one:  He got a team that was great on the other side of the ball, and wrung enough out of his side to win it.  And both had some luck in their opponent as well.

And Dungy isn't really relevant here, but it is a nice comparison to make, since so many of you hold onto the golden years of "close but no cigar".


And the player thing isn't reasonable.  You can refer to it as a whiny excuse, but it's reality.  Lack of picks and FA mobility hurt us in the talent department.  Considering he's only in his third freal year of designing the team, I don't hold too much of the past against him.  The excuse won't cut it any longer, he's now had enough time that we should be looking forward, and there's been enough talent added that we should see where we're going.  But the 04 an 06 campaigns are hard to throw on what people percieve as his inability to draft/FA well. 

We took out a mortgage to win the SB, then took out a second to try and get back in 04.  It busted, no doubt.  Butwhat would you have preferred?  Take a chance on repeating when you are really close (1 season away from your SB win), or saying, "Nah, sure we have most of the pieces, but lets just start rebuildning now cuz we won't win"?  Had we decided not to gamble in 04 we'd be a year ahead of where we are now -- 06 would have been our 07.  I suppose the instant gratification crowd can't handle an extra year, but that's your problem, not mine.  I love how the haters always seem to be capitan hindsight.  There were reasons these choices were made, and they weren't done with no consideration for the possible negative consequences, but some people prefer the meme of irresponsible idiot coach I guess...

[DanTurksGhost]

We can make these comparisons because they are, of course, valid, since all teams are equal, all players are equal, all front offices are equal, and all assistant coaching staffs are equal. Since each NFL game is played on a neutral site and it takes place in a vacuum, the only difference between wins and losses are the head coaches.

[BucLord]

and where did you get grudens W/L record? not to trust wikipedia, but they have him at 77-67.

Gruden's career regular season record is 77-67 and his post-season record is 5-3. His combined record is 82-70 (54%).

Whats is overall regular season % as a Buc coach???

[GameTime]

oh whoops, i get it now.  the first post doesnt take into account this past season.  so he can say dungy is only 5-8 in the playoffs rather than 9-8.  and he can erase grudens 4-12 season.  geez.   what great facts!

i dont care who our coach is.  just get tampa some wins.  the right way.

[caradoc]

oh whoops, i get it now.  the first post doesnt take into account this past season.  so he can say dungy is only 5-8 in the playoffs rather than 9-8.  and he can erase grudens 4-12 season.  geez.   what great facts!

i dont care who our coach is.  just get tampa some wins.  the right way.

Is there a wrong way to win?

[BucLord]

 just get tampa some wins. the right way.

Thats gonna require a new HC and GM and about 4-5 years od doing stuff we should have started doing the last 2 years

Passing on Quinn is gonna sting just as bad as Doug Williams and Steve Young.

I just dont see anything that looks positive about our QB position next year

[umguy1999]

How many top 5 picks did any of those guys get in recent years? we got 2 since Gruden has been here.

How many have also gave up their first rounders for was it 3 years?? and a few second rounders??

And the first year Gruden was here he was pounding the table for Brian Westbrook at that 3rd round pick....and guess what we got from....

"the Architect of the Bucs greatness"  Richie McKay

Marquise Walker (BTW his superbowl ring is on Ebay)

And who gets the blame for that one??? Not McKay but Gruden

Do you mean the first rounders we gave up to get him here? Or the ones for the players that got us the SB?
Lets see what we go and what we really lost...

2000 1st
2001 2nd
2002 1st. and 2nd.
2003 1st.

For that we got Keyshawn and Gruden
Keyshawn makes up for the 2000 pick so that leaves 4 picks, I guess you are saying Gruden was not worth it and I would have to agree.

I am sure that each and every one of those 4 guys would have been used to get a pro-bowl calibre players and none would be busts, that is the why we went 7-9 5-11 and 4-12.  We could have maybe had guys like Jeremy Stevens , Philip Buchanon & Ryan Sims..oh wait WE DO, so I guess its SB for us right?