Official Jon Gruden Thread IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,703
#2,703
Just out of curiosity, how many Superbowls do you think the bucs would have won without gruden? I mean they were always kind of garbage in the NFL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,707
#2,707
DeusExMachina said:
Search function, guy. I think I've posted more than my fair share of evidence that Grubage is NOT the man for the job.

Here, start by reading this: http://www.volnation.com/forum/7508753-post105.html

I know, I know....it's FACTS that don't support your worship of Jon Grubage, but give it a look-see and tell me where I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Lol at we won't take into consideration what he did in Oakland also. So he was par or below par in numbers in the NFL. So what? Like I said, Pete Carroll and Saban also struggled in the NFL and both built dynasties in college football. And the fact he was below average in offense, in Tampa bay, where they had extremely limited offensive weapons due to a beyond stacked defense, leads me to believe noone could've done much better. I know brad Johnson, Warrick Dunn, and mike alstott are all hall of famers though. No reason to struggle with weapons like that. Like I said to start, when grading a coach you have to look at a body of work, so your research is pointless without pointing out what he did in Oakland with offensive weapons around him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,708
#2,708
Vols033 said:
Lol at we won't take into consideration what he did in Oakland also. So he was par or below par in numbers in the NFL. So what? Like I said, Pete Carroll and Saban also struggled in the NFL and both built dynasties in college football. And the fact he was below average in offense, in Tampa bay, where they had extremely limited offensive weapons due to a beyond stacked defense, leads me to believe noone could've done much better. I know brad Johnson, Warrick Dunn, and mike alstott are all hall of famers though. No reason to struggle with weapons like that. Like I said to start, when grading a coach you have to look at a body of work, so your research is pointless without pointing out what he did in Oakland with offensive weapons around him.
Click to expand...
you guys are wasting your time.:no:
 
#2,710
#2,710
Vols033 said:
Lol at we won't take into consideration what he did in Oakland also. So he was par or below par in numbers in the NFL. So what? Like I said, Pete Carroll and Saban also struggled in the NFL and both built dynasties in college football. And the fact he was below average in offense, in Tampa bay, where they had extremely limited offensive weapons due to a beyond stacked defense, leads me to believe noone could've done much better. I know brad Johnson, Warrick Dunn, and mike alstott are all hall of famers though. No reason to struggle with weapons like that. Like I said to start, when grading a coach you have to look at a body of work, so your research is pointless without pointing out what he did in Oakland with offensive weapons around him.
Click to expand...

The NFL provides a much truer evaluation of a coaches "coaching" abilities than college. The reason is that in the NFL, everybody has pro-level talent. Although some rosters might be better than others, the gap is not nearly as wide as it is between the "haves" in college and the "have nots." The NFL is a pretty level playing field, and a coach's decisions make a bigger difference.

If you notice, the NFL flameouts like Spurrier, Saban and Petrino started to roll in college after a few recruiting classes. Once they established a high level of superior talent, they took off.

I think Gruden was around 20 games over .500 over an 11 year or so career. That actually is pretty impressive, especially since it occurred during the salary-cap era..
 
#2,711
#2,711
EZE said:
The NFL provides a much truer evaluation of a coaches "coaching" abilities than college. The reason is that in the NFL, everybody has pro-level talent. Although some rosters might be better than others, the gap is not nearly as wide as it is between the "haves" in college and the "have nots." The NFL is a pretty level playing field, and a coach's decisions make a bigger difference.

If you notice, the NFL flameouts like Spurrier, Saban and Petrino started to roll in college after a few recruiting classes. Once they established a high level of superior talent, they took off.

I think Gruden was around 20 games over .500 over an 11 year or so career. That actually is pretty impressive, especially since it occurred during the salary-cap era..
Click to expand...

Agree for the most part, but petrino is not known for his recruiting prowess. He runs a system that he recruits well for at the collegiate level and he has great success. It's not that his team is stacked with talent, just guys who fit a system perfectly mixed with some of the best playcalling in the country. A lot like chip Kelly at Oregon. Oregon doesn't have top 5 classes, but he gets guys who fit his system to perfection, and they execute at an extremely high level.
 
#2,724
#2,724
PimpVol said:
:yes: Sums up the Gruden crowd quite succinctly.
Click to expand...

Lol, not exactly, although I do appreciate you fixing my post. I just want to see facts, and not stating what gruden did in Oakland is not stating all the facts. The only reason for hiding facts would be because they are facts that dispute his argument. I don't know if gruden would be the sure answer or not, but what I do know is that he is a big name, and big name alone combined with our facilities would buy him a couple of top notch recruiting classes. Plus he would have immediate respect from a lot of our current players just for being a coach who has been there and has got a ring, which would probably inspire them to reach their full potential.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top