“Am I watching the same team as y’all” Part 2 (message for the homers edition)

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, ras977 said:

Why? The old saying--"i'm playing to my audience ".

Personal insults now, eh?

Okay, we're done.

 

[Mage]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Better coaches? Not really.

More successful coaches? Sure.

If you really want to talk about successful coaches without rings though, you haven't touched on the most obvious example.

Dude, stop skirting the question.  You know what I'm asking, and trying to word it differently shows me you know your argument is flawed.

Marty Schottenheimer and Andy Reid have never won a Super Bowl, so by your logic they haven't proven they can (and Marty obviously never will).  So are those two worse at head coaching and less capable of winning a championship than 2 Super Bowl winning HCs, Gary Kubiak and Jon Gruden?  2 guys who proved they could, ignoring context?

That is the question.  Not "who is more successful".  Tell me which of the pair is more of a championship caliber head coach.

[Darvinsun]

25 minutes ago, Pantherxtreme said:

No just befuddled that some people want to depart with the best coach in franchise history, who's off to a good start this season, and outside of the Rams and Saints the Panthers look to be one of the most complete teams in the NFC 2018. 

I don't always agree with Rivera's coaching style, but results matter and the Panthers have been playoff contender under his tenure and a Super bowl runner-up in '15.  It's hard to win in the NFL even more harder to win consistently, as far as his record against playoff teams, well right now our actual playoff record is 3-4 not great but far from a indication that we have a coach that chokes in big games.  

 

Every game we play it is a heartattack waiting to happen. Yes some of it is on players messing up bit some of it is Riveras decision making as well and its the same decisions we review every year. Even though we play different teams he seems to think all are the same.

[MasterAwesome]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Did it make a difference that John Fox chose to go for two more than once in Super Bowl 38 rather than opt for a simple extra point? 

The player argument doesn't make any sense. Teams win. Teams lose. Greg Olsen being on a team with Tim Couch is not the same as Greg Olsen being in a team with Tom Brady.

Players are in charge of playing their role. Head coaches are in charge of everything. Poor decisions on their part can do a lot toward losing a big game like that.

What??? Is the implication that players are blameless in every situation, because the Head Coach is ultimately responsible for everything? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of “execution”? Are you arguing that every player played their role perfectly in the Super Bowl? Sure didn’t look that way with our o-line...fumbles...dropped passes...etc.

Your second paragraph even contradicts your third one. So is player talent/execution important or not? What does it matter if Greg Olsen has Brady or Tim Couch throwing him the ball? Players just play their roles and the coach is what ultimately matters, right? So Couch and Brady are both QBs just playing their roles...shouldn’t you be more concerned about who is coaching Olsen in that hypothetical scenario of yours?

Everything you just said is painfully baffling.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, Mage said:

Coming from the guy who is saying "someone can't win something because they haven't proven they can yet".  

In a game where we were down only 6 midway through the 4th, Tolbert not fumbling while on Denver's side could have changed everything.  Who knows, maybe we score a TD.  We at least get a FG which changes the whole dynamic.  So much context is lost because all you wanna argue is, "Rivera lost thus Rivera not capable of winning a Super Bowl".

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation.

Didn't say that Rivera isn't capable. I said he hasn't proven that he can, and he hasn't. The only objective evidence that exists is that when he was given the chance, he didn't succeed.

For you, it's good enough that he got there. For me, it's not. Those are judgment calls. 

[ras977]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Personal insults now, eh?

Okay, we're done.

 

Take it as an insult, whatever, wasn't meant to be.

I think "you're done" because you have no rational thought s to back up your ideas on RR.

[Mage]

Just now, MasterAwesome said:

What??? Is the implication that players are blameless in every situation, because the Head Coach is ultimately responsible for everything? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of “execution”? Are you arguing that every player played their role perfectly in the Super Bowl? Sure didn’t look that way with our o-line...fumbles...dropped passes...etc.

Rivera is responsible for Miller and Ware, two Hall of Fame pass rushers, having a good game.

Even Belichick and McDaniels couldn't find a good counter to the Broncos defense, but suddenly because Rivera couldn't, he's "incapable of winning a Super Bowl".

[ras977]

1 minute ago, ras977 said:

Take it as an insult, whatever, wasn't meant to be.

I think "you're done" because you have no rational thought s to back up your ideas on RR.

 

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, Mage said:

Dude, stop skirting the question.  You know what I'm asking, and trying to word it differently shows me you know your argument is flawed.

Marty Schottenheimer and Andy Reid have never won a Super Bowl, so by your logic they haven't proven they can (and Marty obviously never will).  So are those two worse at head coaching and less capable of winning a championship than 2 Super Bowl winning HCs, Gary Kubiak and Jon Gruden?  2 guys who proved they could, ignoring context?

That is the question.  Not "who is more successful".  Tell me which of the pair is more of a championship caliber head coach.

I actually did answer your question.

To put it another way, if I were starting a team and wanted to hire a coach who I believed could get me a Super Bowl victory, I wouldn't hire a single one of those guys.

And here's the reality: If we do have to hire a new coach, we're also going to most likely be hiring somebody that's never won a  Super Bowl - or even been to one - as a head coach.

That is a huge gamble. And if you're going to do that, you have to do so with the belief that Ron Rivera is not capable of winning a championship.

And again, to be clear I haven't said that Rivera is not capable. I said he hasn't proven it yet. Hence, whether or not he can is still a subject of debate.

as I've said elsewhere, My ultimate answer to that question right now is that I don't know. But I think it's valid to have questions.

[Khyber53]

Rivera has proven that he can get to the Superb Owl and that puts him in very rare company. And even Belichick hasn't won each time he has gone/

Rivera has proven again and again that he gives his teams a shot at the championship. And those are the only coaches that can win it.

 

[Mage]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation.

Didn't say that Rivera isn't capable. I said he hasn't proven that he can, and he hasn't. The only objective evidence that exists is that when he was given the chance, he didn't succeed.

It's still terrible logic.  Nobody has proven anything before they have done it - that doesn't mean or establish anything.  James Harden hasn't proven he can win an NBA Championship, but he's obviously good enough to do it if the circumstances lined up in his favor.  Dan Marino never proved he could win a Super Bowl, but we know he could have.

I never said it was "good enough" to me that we only made it to the Super Bowl.  I'm a fan.  Obviously I wanted to win.  My point is that it shows Rivera, if the circumstances are right, can win a Super Bowl.  It isn't like we didn't have a slimmer of home that game.  Our offense just didn't have the talent to match-up against a defense of All-Pros and coaching wouldn't have changed that unless you think Belichick and McDaniels aren't geniuses.  They struggled too.

It was a bad game.  The only difference is you are using it to further a point and overthinking it rather than just accepting it for what it was: a bad game in an unfortunate situation. 

[Mr. Scot]

11 minutes ago, ras977 said:

Take it as an insult, whatever, wasn't meant to be.

I think "you're done" because you have no rational thought s to back up your ideas on RR.

I've given you nothing but rational statements, but you misinterpret them because you're incorrect about my thinking.

As I mentioned in another post, I have not said that Ron Rivera is incapable of winning a championship. I said he hasn't proven that he can. Can you objectively tell me that statement is wrong?

Given what we know at this point, I think it's perfectly reasonable to question Rivera. You can believe in him, or you can not. And right now for me, while I don't favor him being fired, I can't fully buy into him being a guy that will bring home a Super Bowl ring.

He has every chance in the world to prove me wrong. Frankly, I hope he does, but it's far from guaranteed that he will.

[Mage]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I actually did answer your question.

To put it another way, if I were starting a team and wanted to hire a coach who I believed could get me a Super Bowl victory, I wouldn't hire a single one of those guys.

And here's the reality: If we do have to hire a new coach, we're also going to most likely be hiring somebody that's never won a  Super Bowl - or even been to one - as a head coach.

That is a huge gamble. And if you're going to do that, you have to do so with the belief that Ron Rivera is not capable of winning a championship.

And again, to be clear I haven't said that Rivera is not capable. I said he hasn't proven it yet. Hence, whether or not he can is still a subject of debate.

as I've said elsewhere, My ultimate answer to that question right now is that I don't know. But I think it's valid to have questions.

"Not really", and then phrasing it into a different question afterwards, isn't answering the question.  Who is more of a championship caliber head coach, Reid/Schottenheimer or Gruden/Kubiak?  

And if the logic isn't about Rivera being capable but merely that he hasn't proven it, then well... what the hell does it matter then?  Again, nobody has proven anything before they have done it.  I mean the Ravens haven't been that good for years now, so why should I care that Harbaugh "proved" he could coach a team to a Super Bowl in 2012 (Rivera's 2nd season)?  Sean McVay hasn't "proven" he can win a Super Bowl.

We quite clearly can win a Super Bowl with Rivera.  Unless you think the odds of us winning the Super Bowl we made it to was 0%, then that means we could have won.  Just like its obvious McVay could win a Super Bowl if the circumstances line up.  But even if we go with the whole "prove it before we can know they can" logic, then at that point I don't even see why it matters if he's proven it or not since apparently he can't without winning the damn thing.  Did you not believe LeBron James could win an NBA Championship until he actually did it?

[MasterAwesome]

6 hours ago, *FreeFua* said:

When you look at the list of people who have pie’d the OP that should be enough confirmation right there to know your argument and thread sucks 

It’s so funny that the OP posted this in the other thread...meanwhile, his biggest vocal advocate for his stance in his own thread is over here spewing the most nonsensical, irrational arguments I think I’ve heard in a LONG time. Sounds like your argument and thread sucks pretty badly too, OP.