jsmith6919
Honored Member - RIP
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28,407
Look it up agenda-boyFactually and provably wrong.
Look it up agenda-boyFactually and provably wrong.
Ok.....Look it up agenda-boy
Yes and the 6th was just 7-7 and still out of the playoffs.Didn't Landry have 5 losing seasons to start?
Lewis falls under my definition so he's out and going back all the way to Fisher at Tennessee and Belichick at Cleveland isn't helping your argumentOk.....
Jeff Fisher missed the playoffs his first four seasons in Tennessee before making the playoffs his fifth. Bill Belichick missed the playoffs his first three seasons in Cleveland before making it his fourth. Marvin Lewis missed the playoffs his first two seasons in Cincy... then was one and done his third year.... then missed the playoffs his next 3 years (so 1 out of 6).
He also started out with a brand new expansion team before free agency....Didn't Landry have 5 losing seasons to start?
Your definition is arbitrary and thus meaningless. On no planet is making the playoffs 1 out of your first 6 seasons "winning." Yet he established continuity and now has created a half decent team there. So no, winning did not establish continuity for Marvin Lewis. Continuity has led to repeated playoffs now that he's been there long enough.Lewis falls under my definition so he's out
You've got some fucking balls to make up an arbitrary standard completely on your own, then have it completely disproved, refuse to own up to the fact that your statement is false, and then accuse me of being the one with an agenda.and going back all the way to Fisher at Tennessee and Belichick at Cleveland isn't helping your argument
Garrett remains an average head coach. He needs talent, and he needs a good staff.Personally I'm iffy on Garrett, and wish we could have picked up a Harbaugh, Fox or someone on that level. But the team has a good dynamic and great coordinators. That's all you need to win a super bowl. Brian Billick's dumb ass has a superbowl ring after all.
Lewis MADE THE PLAYOFFS IN HIS FIRST 3 YEARS so there is nothing arbitrary about it and as for Cleveland/Tennessee in what world do they count as one of the "most successful franchises"Your definition is arbitrary and thus meaningless. On no planet is making the playoffs 1 out of your first 6 seasons "winning." Yet he established continuity and now has created a half decent team there. So no, winning did not establish continuity for Marvin Lewis. Continuity has led to repeated playoffs now that he's been there long enough.
You've got some fucking balls to make up an arbitrary standard completely on your own, then have it completely disproved, refuse to own up to the fact that your statement is false, and then accuse me of being the one with an agenda.
That's the MO for most of you Garrett haters though. Anything less than pure contempt for the guy is "an agenda." Yet you are the ones who refuse to accept anything less than your own point of view on the matter. Quick, post that stupid "pushing" GIF so the other trained seals clap for you.
There's a reason why the most successful franchises also happen to be the most stable.
That's the MO for most of you Garrett haters though. Anything less than pure contempt for the guy is "an agenda." Yet you are the ones who refuse to accept anything less than your own point of view on the matter. Quick, post that stupid "pushing" GIF so the other trained seals clap for you.
Ok.....
Jeff Fisher missed the playoffs his first four seasons in Tennessee before making the playoffs his fifth. Bill Belichick missed the playoffs his first three seasons in Cleveland before making it his fourth. Marvin Lewis missed the playoffs his first two seasons in Cincy... then was one and done his third year.... then missed the playoffs his next 3 years (so 1 out of 6).
What is arbitrary is saying that winning breeds continuity and then saying that making the playoffs 1 out of 6 seasons counts as winning just because the "1" happened in the first 3 years. You are the one that picked the three year barrier, yet there is nothing that indicates 3 years is any kind of magic time length that proves anything.Lewis MADE THE PLAYOFFS IN HIS FIRST 3 YEARS so there is nothing arbitrary about it
I didn't say they were. I said there's a reason why the most successful franchises also tend to be the most stable.and as for Cleveland/Tennessee in what world do they count as one of the "most successful franchises"
LOL. So four years of "be great today" or whatever other standard Garrett coaching cliche you choose wasn't enough to win in December... But five years, boy, that was the magic number?In this year's case, there was also a positive to the continuity of Garrett's regime. The players bought into what he was preaching, and it generated a bunch of guys who did not roll over in December for once.
You did not name any team that has continuity, you named some that had it. Fact is Lewis made the playoffs in his first 3 years and therefore showed a reason to keep him around. And I said "Every organization that has continuity has a HC that showed something in the first 3 years." so it is factually correct. I ceded Garrett as the exception with "Except if you are in the family portrait"What is arbitrary is saying that winning breeds continuity and then saying that making the playoffs 1 out of 6 seasons counts as winning just because the "1" happened in the first 3 years. You are the one that picked the three year barrier, yet there is nothing that indicates 3 years is any kind of magic time length that proves anything.
In any case... back to my point.... 1 out of 6 is not a whole lot of winning, and yet Marvin Lewis still managed to stick around and eventually generate a team that has made the playoffs the last 4 seasons. So continuity did help him despite not winning early on.
I didn't say they were. I said there's a reason why the most successful franchises also tend to be the most stable.
You then made some clearly false statement about "no team that has continuity has a coach that didn't [make the playoffs] in the first 3 years."
Which is factually incorrect. I just named a couple.
It contributed to it. It wasn't the sole (or even the main) reason.LOL. So four years of "be great today" or whatever other standard coaching cliche you choose wasn't enough to win in December... But five years, boy, that was the magic number?
Those are also reasons.Please, we won in December for the same reason we won the other months: We were healthy and Linehan and Marinelli did great jobs.
You did not name any team that has continuity, you named some that had it. Fact is Lewis made the playoffs in his first 3 years and therefore showed a reason to keep him around. And I said "Every organization that has continuity has a HC that showed something in the first 3 years." so it is factually correct. I ceded Garrett as the exception with "Except if you are in the family portrait"
You dredge up some old ass examples like that was a valid point and then try to claim Lewis even though he showed something early but yea I'm pushing an agenda..
Getting technical on verb tenses now to save your argument.