No, not at all. What I am saying is that your points, while well thought out and expressed, are in no way any less speculation that the opinions of anyone else in this thread.
I mean if you want to play this game then I guess moon landing truthers have a point too. You have to apply logic to the situation at some point and look at the circumstantial evidence. Such as Hackett running one style and then being forced to work in a QB who ran a totally different style.
Not at all. There is empirical evidence to support that the moon landing happened, including film, artifacts, ect. You can certainly have your opinion based upon the available evidence, but the only ones who know for sure who was the cause of the issues of the Denver Broncos offense are the people who were there and involved in it. It is fundamentally dishonest to act as if your opinions are anything more than opinions, just like anyone else in this discussion. So a LOGICAL question is why is it considered "forcing" to ask a head coach to build an offensive schema that works best with the tools/talents he had on hand? You certainly wouldn't use a screwdriver to hammer a nail, would you?
There’s a real disconnect here. For some reason actual quotes from the coach himself about having to modify the offense to fit the player that was acquired for 1 billion picks and then paid a ton of money after the head coach was already hired are not empirical evidence. The team hired the coach who has run the same offense his entire career. Then when they failed to get Aaron Rodgers they traded for a guy that didn’t fit that system at all. That guy then demanded that the playbook could be amended to include more vertical shots and on top of it, ran the offense so poorly that he was using audible calls from his days in Seattle. If you were hiring a top Italian chef in the business would you ask him to make Mexican food? It was a complete failure by the front office and ownership in Denver that put Hackett in an impossible situation that he handled poorly. These are things that actually happened that there is proof of. It is empirical evidence. Just because it goes against your case doesn’t mean it’s not evidence.
There IS such a thing as hearsay though. Just because he says thats how things happened, doesn't mean they happened that way in actual fact. There is a difference between what he said happened and observing what actually happened. No, I wouldn't. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask a top italian chef who makes an awesome marinara sauce to be able to make vodka sauce, carbonara sauce, or Bolognese sauce.
If the Jets trade for Rodgers, I'll buckle in for a fun little ride that will result in a few playoff games and no Super Bowl. This hire feels like Woody drunkenly beating the table for a headline move. Then Joe forcing a hire that might make the drunken social misfit owner happy. And Saleh gets to stand there smiling and holding his dick, wondering if he should try to get his old job back. Hey, maybe this time everything will work out by accident.
Great - another middle school response; why not try to act like an adult here? This could be a better place.
When an offensive coordinator gets hired as a head coach he doesn't get to use the excuse that it wasn't his offense.
Saleh came to the Jets from a DC position and the Jets proceeded to have the worst rated defense in the league his first year. I guess he should have been fired too.
But he wasn't fired, which clearly tells me that he was not the issue with the defense, according to the people actually involved in the situation.
Just so I have this clear... despite quotes from the coach himself about having to change the offense, it's all hearsay. And the eye test matching the quotes and the rest of the "hearsay" means nothing? Because that's exactly what happened.
Buddy, just do a tiny bit of research, please. As a matter of fact I'll do it for you in my reply to the guy who thinks you need actual lab tested soil from the moon to prove the moon landing was real.
