i agree he will get better this guys article thinks we struck gold https://thejetpress.com/posts/the-n...ive-coordinator-mike-lafleur-01fs4d1kq9sf/amp
You're missing the point G&C... He doesn't want to talk about football... he wants to talk about how you talk about football.
That's one way to look at it. The other is he just likes to debate. Sometimes I just think he picks the opposite opinion and has at it, whether he believes in it or not.
he's a good deep safety to prevent anything over the top as in he gets the job done. anytime we had roley out there he let up big plays over the top like the game losing TD to TB. if davis is back there, that play doens't happen. riley is awful, doens't belong on an NFL roster. davis is serviceable. not great and bad in run support but can fill a role and do that 1 thing well. probably better off as a depth guy then a true starter but nowhere near as bad as people claim on here and nowhere near the major issues we had on defense. Still drafting a hamilton is an instant upgrade and would be more then welcome
Id bet Davis got beat more than Riley, who is (other than bad) not even billed as a safety who can cover. To make it fair I'd also only use the games Riley was on the team... But also Ashtyn lost playing time to Riley and Pinnock, another guy you label as terrible but I think that was at corner. But he lost time to those guys.
pinnock was awful at CB, they wanted to give him snaps at S to see how he did. davis is a pretty well known quantity to the staff at this point. riley was the reason we lost to TB, had davis been in that position that TD likely doesn't happen. obviously his liability in the run game is the reason we want to give other players a try but he was also supposed to be a rotational player with maye and joyner starting but you know injuries and crap. parks was pretty good looking though
You still have not explained how you gave a coach a passing grade whose offense was number 24 in the league in scoring and while solidly in the middle of the NFL in passing yards at number sixteen had the third lowest completion rate and the 27th lowest rushing total. These are the metrics that get graded. You have not said how the coach whose offense held the ball for 28:40 in game one only had it for 23:00 in game seventeen. His team also went from 2 TDs to one, 252 yards to 53 yards, First downs sixteen to four and his completion rate from 54% to 35% in the same period. That does not represent progress - it shows a terminal affliction.
The question is what does it show about the year end grade of LaFleur; that's what the whole thread is about. It, like any other measurable, shows neither success nor progress yet over 60 percent of the people responding are arguing for As and Bs.
because numbers without context again. 1st off form 2020 we improved in PPG and YPG. in 2020 we were dead last. all those numbers went up. and that was done with major injuries at all the important positions and a rookie QB. We had a 2nd string QB throw for 400 yards and a 3rd string and 4th string QB throw for 300 each. We also faced the toughest defensive schedule in the NFL as far as pass defense goes. Our offense performed better then the bucs did against the saints for example and the bucs have the best QB all time, and 3 pro bowl WRs and a pro bowl RB and a pro bowl TE. when grading a coach you can look at reality vs realistic expectations. you expecting a team with the most money on IR, most rookies, assets not spend yet (traded players for future picks) to a team who is already stacked up and spent everything like say the chiefs or cowboys is unrealistic and why you can't accurately access the coaching staff. You completely ignore any situation and just quote stats. It's the equivalent of expecting a featherweight to beat a heavyweight in a boxing ring then blaming the trainer for the featherweight losing instead of understanding it's just a bad mis match
uhh no. They benched Davis for Pinnock because Davis is trash. Pinnock was playing out of position and was still better
LaFleur gets a mulligan because of his QB. His offense looked fine when there were other QBs. It is hard to tell how good he is
pinnock did play better at safety then he did at CB but he wasn't out of position. he was drafted as a S/CB and the jets wanted him to be a full time CB and compete with the other young guys where we felt we were ok at safety with maye and joyner and davis for the time being. either way not sure why you are so hung up on davis. nobody is saying he's great he's a limited player who does 1 thing well and other things not so good. who really cares at this point?
Come on, man - you can't be this close minded. In your high school algebra class your grade was based on what you did, not what the girl who sat next to you did. Your Psych101 grade was based on your performance, not that of a guy in another section. When you go bowling or play golf you earn your score and that doesn't change regardless of what your opponents do. In giving grades there is no "context." LaFleur gets graded on what he did with what he had, nothing more, nothing less. If nothing else, his lack of consistency is enough to keep him at "C" level at best. Why are you comparing 2021 to 2020? This is about LaFleur, no one else, and he wasn't here in 2020. The players were different, the entire staff was different and the schedule was different. Once again, grading is not about making comparisons, it is about assessing performance. Even with your constant comparisons you cannot make a case for A's and B's.
i'm not being closed minded, you just aren't grasping what i'm saying. If I was being closed minded i'd insult you or put you on ignore instead of continuing this pointless conversation. as far as grades yes there is context. never heard of grading on a curve? but besides that your example is all wrong. coaching a team isn't a finite test, ti's dependent on human beings. in your example saleh is the teacher not the test and his grade is based on how the class does as a whole. so a better example is is this way. saleh is teaching a bunch of kids for a class he took over when the last teacher failed and the kids aren't that bright he starts out with a 1.0GPA average. another teacher teaches an honor class who's students are at an average GPS of 3.5. by the end of the year they have a math bowl and saleh's class loses to the honor students. but they raised their average from 1.0 to 2.0 and the day of the bowl his bets students were out with covid and were replaced by people below his average who he barely got to teach and prep for the bowl. how could you say he's a bad teacher just because he lost an impossible situation
How can you say he's a good coach based on injuries, illness, tough opponents, etc.? I've been trying to get you to tell us what he has done that is positive to make the team better and all I get back is talk about other factors that don't answer that question at all. Grading on a curve is what is done when schools don't want to fail entire classes, it has no place here and, in any event, is not something you approached up front. That would have made the entire thread totally worthless instead of the exercise in futility it has become when we're now considering different years, different teams and different coaches. If you want to call the teacher the one being graded, make a case citing what he has done to make players' performances significantly improved this year, that would be the "teacher's job. But if you do any of that you must grade him simply on that. What any other "teacher" has done with his own "class" is totally irrelevant. I've already given you a few objective markers you can use to compare game one performance to game seventeen's.
