blaming the generals

[csx]

I understand your subtle insinuation that the majority of the fans favorite, Cam, really isn't that good. Really? You believe that.

There are 53 people on the roster. Everyone complains about how bad the OL, receivers, and defensive backs are but then says the coaching loses every game. That's like half the team being shiit.

[MHS831]

John Fox took a 1-15 team to 7-9 in one year, then the Super Bowl the year after without a huge amount of player turnover. Sometimes it is the leadership.

 

He had some pretty good players coming of age at that time.

 

I think our leadership is bad from Rivera to Richardson.  I want to love Richardson, but he is screwing up a lot.

 

Players here love him, but the vibe he sends out is often not good. 

 

Still, there is leadership on the field as well.  If the generals suck, the captains can step up.  

[MHS831]

While the US has some good leaders and some bad ones, we usually win because we have better weapons.  True story.

[SOJA]

can we bump that old thread where fiz talks about how bad the Jay Cutler trade was 

[raleigh-panther]

back in the day when there were wars against western nations, the defeated nation would typically head home with their tail between their legs and everyone would blame the leadership for the poor performance. It was easier to imagine that their soldiers (typically theirs sons etc) were just as good as those fuging prussian pigs, or those papist french, or the godless british sailors, or whatever; they just had a few jews or whatever that had snuck into the upper echelons and fuged it up.

better leaders and we're just as good as the rest of them! next war!

well, sometimes the soldiers just aren't that good. italian soldiers weren't defeated by ethiopia because of bad leadership. the americans didn't get routed by canada because they didn't have good generals. sometimes your soldiers just fuging blow....

....even your favorite one.

It's easy as fans to pin everything on the coaching staff, because it's easier to fire 10 dudes than replace 30.

It's easy to blame the lack of development and, dare I say regression, of a certain favorite player, on the bad coaching, other elements, weather, commercial shooting schedule, etc.

sometimes the british send a bunch of inbred australians over the barricades into machine gun fire. sometimes the soldiers just can't cut it against starving koreans/vietnamese.

Here is the problem with your argument. The generals picked these soldiers or opted to keep these soldiers

[cgarsmoker]

Look at it this way..... Would San Fran, Seattle, Atlanta, or even New Orleans be any good and considered contenders with Rivera as their HC and Shula as the OC?

Would the Panthers instantly become a better team by replacing Rivera/Shula with any of those coaching staffs?

[Kettle]

our general has less stars and bars than the other generals.

[Lords0fPain]

back in the day when there were wars against western nations, the defeated nation would typically head home with their tail between their legs and everyone would blame the leadership for the poor performance. It was easier to imagine that their soldiers (typically theirs sons etc) were just as good as those fuging prussian pigs, or those papist french, or the godless british sailors, or whatever; they just had a few jews or whatever that had snuck into the upper echelons and fuged it up.

 

better leaders and we're just as good as the rest of them! next war!

 

well, sometimes the soldiers just aren't that good. italian soldiers weren't defeated by ethiopia because of bad leadership. the americans didn't get routed by canada because they didn't have good generals. sometimes your soldiers just fuging blow....

 

....even your favorite one. 

 

It's easy as fans to pin everything on the coaching staff, because it's easier to fire 10 dudes than replace 30. 

 

It's easy to blame the lack of development and, dare I say regression, of a certain favorite player, on the bad coaching, other elements, weather, commercial shooting schedule, etc.

 

sometimes the british send a bunch of inbred australians over the barricades into machine gun fire. sometimes the soldiers just can't cut it against starving koreans/vietnamese. 

 

 

 

 

Its always leadership (at some level), if the soldiers "blow", then the leadership did not  put the RIGHT people (mid level leadership) in the right positions to correct that or maybe the soldiers don't respect their leaders. The 1st Iraq war the regular soldiers where surrendering to camera men, the only ones fighting was the specially picked Republican Guard. Which one you think liked and/or respected their leadership?