You can deny these issues if you want. You can pretend hiring Lovie was what you all thought would happen - I get it - you've made the leap the owners knew you would. You don't have a choice in the matter, you want to enjoy football, you accept the forced conclusion.
p. 2
Maybe I missed the part where I was insulting - or maybe you have really thin skin?and that was me laughing at you, laughing at me, crying foul...Like I said, you think I believe that Lovie Smith was the first name on everyone's mind after the firing of Schiano, you're still not being truthful with yourself.But don't feel so bad, I hold the folks that wanted Gruden fired with as much contempt as I do for those who leap to their feet to applaud ANY/every move the owners make.
lol -- you cant help yourself (in bold)I dont think anyone was "leap[ing] to their feet to applaud ANY/every move the owners make." they were just disagreeing with your take. Believe it or not WT, it is possible to have a LEGIT belief that is different than yours . . . lol . . . it's not "WT's view" or "kool aid"
Seems you may have some trouble with opposing views.I mean, those who oppose your view.I used to be like that.Now it's just live and let live. No more claws.
Read it and weep anti-Grudenista'sLet's see if I can make it easier for you to understand:Yoo wer w-r-o-n-g-a-h (which of course asserts...), I was right. http://bleacherreport.com/tb/dc7z9
Used to be? Lol. Thanks for the laughs
Seems you may have some trouble with opposing views.I mean, those who oppose your view.I used to be like that.Now it's just live and let live. No more claws.
+1Those who are so hot to trot with our new OC might want ask themselves 2 questions:1. If he is so good why hasn't he been an OC in the NFL long before this?2. Lovie has a reputation of constantly hiring new OC, is this only the first of another group?As I stated earlier I am completely "Missouri" on Smith as HC. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being best) I rate Lovie below the middle. Of all the selctions he might have made he chose the one he did who has a lot of questions about him.
Who is "hot to trot?" A few people just pointed out that WT had his facts wrong. WT acknowledged that by abandoning a few of his claims. Booker summed it up well, but my take would be we all get the risk but that does not mean WTs facts are right nor does that mean "5 QBs not doing well in NFL = bad OC"Tedford may fail, just not because "he's a liar" or because "he may have paid Rodgers to endorse him" lol
OK maybe I was a little generous with those of you who seem to be supporting the Tedford choice - who I obviously don't. I am very concerned that Lovie, who has a record of continually changing OC, may have just chosen one about which there are questions in my mind to start with. I don't at all like Lovie's background of not having a strong offense, so every move he makes in that area is going to be under my new "Missouri" microscope.
OK maybe I was a little generous with those of you who seem to be supporting the Tedford choice - who I obviously don't. I am very concerned that Lovie, who has a record of continually changing OC, may have just chosen one about which there are questions in my mind to start with. I don't at all like Lovie's background of not having a strong offense, so every move he makes in that area is going to be under my new "Missouri" microscope.
yep, I agree. Based on track record Lovie doesn't deserve much credit on offense. Missouri is the best approach
I'm also close to Missouri on offense, US. I'm cautiously optimistic because I think Lovie understands that it was his downfall in Chicago. I also find Tedford more intriguing than a lot of retreads or first-time play-caller options. I'd much rather gamble on Tedford than have Kubiak, for example. But there's no doubt it's a risk.Btw, U.S., he has gotten interest from the pros before. But he didn't take the jobs when he was the "hot" guy, and now that Cal hasn't been as good he's no longer flavor of the month.
I think nearly everyone is skeptical of Lovie's choice for OC because of his track record. Tedford's not a terrible hire, and I think the only way people would be happy with Lovie's choice is if he hired a very proven commodity like Norv Turner. But it's dishonest to pretend that because people don't agree with WT's arguments (which he keeps dropping and refusing to defend) they are somehow all in on Tedford. It's ridiculous. We won't know a thing until the 2014 season starts and we play actual football, so being either hyper-critical or hyper-enthusiastic is foolish.
Who is "hot to trot?" A few people just pointed out that WT had his facts wrong. WT acknowledged that by abandoning a few of his claims. Booker summed it up well, but my take would be we all get the risk but that does not mean WTs facts are right nor does that mean "5 QBs not doing well in NFL = bad OC"Tedford may fail, just not because "he's a liar" or because "he may have paid Rodgers to endorse him" lol
No, that never happened. Perhaps you could share with me what facts I had wrong?You sure you aren't listening to the voices in your head?If you're referring to what I told Booker Reese - I told him that I would consider what he posted, and I remained skeptical.THIS particular thread that you've followed me to - has nothing to do with the topic you've taken feigned offense.Perhaps you can tell that by reading the topic. Sometimes it looks fun to tug on the Tigers whiskers, usually doesn't end the way the other party envisioned.Regarding the intensity of our exchanges, perhaps you can use the rule of "replying in kind?"...and just so I'm clear, your feigned offense is that you are an anti-grudenista who did not like the fact someone introduced you to the reality that - save for Gruden's refusal - you might be feeling like me right now......or that you were introduced to facts about Jeff Tedford that you weren't previously aware of...or just that you like mixing it up?I usually don't spend so much time with a poster - but I thought I might make an exception for such a special case.In the past, I have found that you make some interesting points - even if I don't always agree with them - but I typically find our exchanges frustratingly tedious,Also, you don't seem to like someone else using your tactics. ;)
WT, I am not offended by anything so how can I "feign offense" lol . . and there is no "intensity to our exchanges," at least not from my perspective. I said that it was funny that you cried foul in a thread that started with your trash talking and in which you called all who disagreed "kool aid" drinkers (lol) .. . . man . . . take a vitamin
Who is "hot to trot?" A few people just pointed out that WT had his facts wrong. WT acknowledged that by abandoning a few of his claims. Booker summed it up well, but my take would be we all get the risk but that does not mean WTs facts are right nor does that mean "5 QBs not doing well in NFL = bad OC"Tedford may fail, just not because "he's a liar" or because "he may have paid Rodgers to endorse him" lol
No, that never happened. Perhaps you could share with me what facts I had wrong?You sure you aren't listening to the voices in your head?
It's also likely the reason why he spent 10 years at Cal - due to NFL teams trusting Jeff Tedford's methods -
From the context, you meant "distrusting" his methods. That's wrong, he was offered jobs in the NFL. For goodness sake, the article YOU PROVIDED is about him turning down McKay TWICE. I posted another with the Bears offering him a HC job.And then there is this . . . not a voice in my head (like I said, you can't help yourself), but rather your completely unsubstantiated claim:
SOME of his pupils?Prior to Aaron Rodgers - who may/may not have received a check for endorsing Jeff Tedford -
and then . . also not a "voice in my head" . . .you claimed Tedford was a liar (lol):
The point is - his system hid how bad they were in college - and he allowed NFL exec's and coaches to think that the awful QB they were considering (that he trained), were really good, so they put their reputations on the line because Tedford let them. Why would he do that? Because getting his players onto NFL rosters allowed him to recruit more and better players.
Immediately after they were drafted - immediately - it became clear that these QB's were not what the execs who drafted them were had led to belive.
Who is "hot to trot?" A few people just pointed out that WT had his facts wrong. WT acknowledged that by abandoning a few of his claims. Booker summed it up well, but my take would be we all get the risk but that does not mean WTs facts are right nor does that mean "5 QBs not doing well in NFL = bad OC"Tedford may fail, just not because "he's a liar" or because "he may have paid Rodgers to endorse him" lol
Again, not that it is germane to this particular thread title, seems you lumped your wrongness, with my alleged wrongness, in an attempt to affect a blanket mea culpa?I do not abandon any claims - I simply allowed that I remain skeptical, yet will wait to see if what Booker relates makes a difference. It also is not lost on me that you argued from emotion regarding this new head coach, not citing facts - just scoffing at anyone who argued with the decision to hire Lovie Smith. You simply held your ground until someone showed up to make a more intelligent argument.It doesn't mean I concede, anything. I still do not like the choice of Jeff Tedford as OC of the Buccaneers. No one has shown me anything to change the fact that I do not believe his methods or system will translate to the NFL effectively. The reason I allowed for more consideration is that I appreciate the research Booker Reese does - because I have challenged him in the past and have consistently been impressed with his ability to hold/argue a differing view point, and present information without a lot of emotion. I respect him for that - and I agreed to pull my horns in, but the horns are still there.
Tedford may fail, just not because "he's a liar"
the words you quote, are your own. You tell me what you think happened? He obviously lost credibility after those 5 horrendous picks - so much so that it was thought to factor into where Aaron Rodgers would be selected in the 2005 draft. He also NEVER had another QB selected.But that's not why I don't like him as an OC candidate, I've already told you that. Do try not to be so overt in your obfuscations.
or because "he may have paid Rodgers to endorse him" lol
Do you know that he, or Cal, did not? It's conjeccture, but it doesn't mean it's wrong. I think it highly irregular that at the very moment Tedford needed some help to save his job, (because, you know, he was failing at his job to win games as Cal's head coach - ironically after the 'Tedford 5' - and Aarron Rodgers - he also failed to produce any further QB's who were drafted in the 1st round - since 2005). Suddenly the season before he was fired, a celebrity shows up - the only QB he ever coached that also had a succesful NFL career - decides to endorse him...
or because "he may have paid Rodgers to endorse him" lol
Do you know that he, or Cal, did not? It's conjeccture, but it doesn't mean it's wrong. I think it highly irregular that at the very moment Tedford needed some help to save his job, (because, you know, he was failing at his job to win games as Cal's head coach - ironically after the 'Tedford 5' - and Aarron Rodgers - he also failed to produce any further QB's who were drafted in the 1st round - since 2005). Suddenly the season before he was fired, a celebrity shows up - the only QB he ever coached that also had a succesful NFL career - decides to endorse him...
I think I will end my participation in this discussion on that last comment by you . . ."do you know that he, or Cal did not . . . " .. . . . wow
Misled GM's lose their jobs when they use a 1st round pick on a QB that goes BUST.When that happens FIVE CONSECUTIVE TIMES - you lose credibility with the folks who get paid to build NFL teams. Whether it was the fault of the GM for listening to you, or whether it was something you told them that made them feel better about taking one of your kids..Do you think it's possible, I mean after the first 3 1st round QB failures in the NFL, that a GM perhaps asked 'The Ted' "...uh, Jeff, my careers on the line here buddy..is this kid for real..."?Like The Rock says, "it doesn't matter what you think"...the proof is, folks stopped buying what he was selling.You can believe what you want about that, I submit something caused him to lose credibility. Rich McKay tried to hire him twice - but I notice you didn't offer that after the folks around here ranked McKay's decision making almost as highly as Mike Ditka's decsion to trade all of his draft picks for one guy......not a lot of offers for this "genius" in the last 10 years, were there? Can you imagine what it would be like to HIRE the guy who told 5 former GM's that his kid was "the real deal"?In reality - this post isn't for you - it's to correct the obfuscation others may be reading.