Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by TM, May 25, 2006.
Right. Soon they're gonna start to refer to us as "sonny-boys" and "wipper-snappers".
Belly up to the idiot bar....
More lies. Again i supposedly said that martz and sherman are superior and i implied that dungy was superior to lombardi. Yeah sure. Lombardi the second best coach in football history after ST PAUL of ALABAMA. That's just assinine.
The bottom line is that whatever a coach has accomplished gets urinated on by gut in his perilous attempt to defend his hero fisher. The point is that even if martz, sherman or dungy had a couple of super bowl rings gut would just crap on it and say they had all this hall of fame talent.
One coach that hasn't even been mentioned yet is john fox. Another coach who has done a better job than jeff fisher the last few years.
Watch as gut bashes fox and trys to tell us how his accomplishments don't matter. All for thre glorification of his exellency jeff fisher.:sad2:
Just out of interest, outside of RollTide and Gut, and BiPolar's special comments is anyone actually reading this?
I assume it is completely off topic.
I'll put your quote on the bottom just like you do because you are my hero!
Seriously, if Fisher had been terminated after the 98 season because Bud felt he wan't getting the job done and that was a good time to turn the job over to a guy like Sherman what do you think Sherman's record would have been for the next 5 years? The Titans had a core of players that were very talented and Sherman may have very well done as well or better with that talent. Same with Martz. That is reality.
Oh, if Fisher has another 5-11 or so season I would guess he might not be as hot of a commodity as a head coach as you might think. As Rolltide said, and gernerously at that, a Watermelon could have coached the team to a 5-11 record. Maybe even a veggie of some kind.
You can keep trying to spin your point in vain...but you can't argue logic or spin it away with insults or misquotes.
Where's the answer to my question?
If Dungy is better than Fisher because he's done something that Fisher has NOT done, why is he not better than Lombardi who has also not done that? Based on your argument, you did imply Dungy is as good as Lombardi. If he's not, then it's because you are using other criteria in judging a coach. You don't want to do that because it would make you look bad.
If you wanted to look at Fisher fairly, then you'd take all criteria into account...talent level, number of times rebuilding a team, wins, losses, playoff appearances, playoff wins and losses, Super Bowl appearances and SB record.
Instead, you selectively compare coaches using one criteria - which ever one makes them look better than Fisher. But I'm the one who's biased?
Just to show im not misquoting you about your claim that Dungy is BETTER than Fisher, here's your quote.
"I consider these coaches to be better than jeff fisher.
Your reason for Dungy being better is 8 playoffs in 9 years...something Lombardi hasn't done either. So he's either better than Fisher and Lombardi based on that, or he's not because Lombardi and Fisher have done more when you take ALL the criteria into account. Which is it?
A valid question. If Sherman had led the Titans during their prime, I don't think he would have done near as well as Fisher did. Not because Fisher is my hero, but because based on his record, he did 'less' with MORE talent.
Sherman inherited a team featuring a Hall of Fame QB in his prime and soon after got one of the top RB's in the league. That is significantly more than what the Titans had IMO. Plus, GB has played in a fairly weak division comparatively.
Based on that and with more talent, Fisher did more. My definition of more being he went deeper into the playoffs more times and nearly won a Super Bowl. You could argue that you think GB's talent was equal...but even in that case, Fisher still did more! IMO that is.
I think you need a course in logic. You have taken every angle possible to argue against these coaches. None of them the same. This discussion has had little to do with jeff fisher it is about you nit picking from every possible angle about how this guy had this player or how this guy didn't win this game or how this guy had a great assistant and jeff fisher has had all those things!
You said that sherman won with more talent than fisher won with. No he didn't.
The 99 and 2000 teams that went 13-3 back to back had a bonafide all time great player in matthews and no less than 10 near hall of fame players.
Those 10 players have 24 pro bowls. 24 pro bowls! Whether any of them make the hall of fame or not there is no doubt they are all exellent players at their positions and all are high character guys.
In addition to matthews and the 10 players mentioned(i just named half a football team!) there were numerous other quality starting players.
Robertson-robinson-randall godfrey-john thornton-kenny holmes-jon runyon-jackie harris
Fisher did a good job back then but come on, who wouldn't win with that team?
In 1999 it took a miracle play or the Titans would have been out in the first game of the playoffs. They almost lost to a Bills team that had both OTs hurt and out of the game. In 2000, when almost everyone thought the Titans were the most talented team in the NFL they laid an egg in the first playoff game. In short, Fisher came withing 1 inch (if the Wycheck pass was ruled a forward lateral) of losing two years in a row in the first round of the playoffs.
My whole point isn't trying to prove Sherman is better than Fisher or visa versa. My point is you can't say one guy was successfull just because he had superior talent while Fisher was successfull because he was a superior coach. It is obvious Fisher isn't anything special without superior talent either. Fisher has done nothing earth shattering as far as developing a UDFA or low pick QB into a pro-bowler or coming up with a new fangled offense or defense. Heck if Fisher had Farve as his QB he would have had him handing the ball off to EG 40 times a game.