Their opponent in that game was a gift from god.

What Gruden did to make that team better wasn't about X's and O's. It was one of those intangible things. They were a different team. More motivated... more emotional.

If you recall, Jamaal was putting the ball on the ground a heck of a lot back in those dark days. People who attended camp were talking about it. He was fumbling every second touch.

FAX

How many times do you see a team do a quick turnaround when a new coach is brought in?

Look at the 49ers this year. I still see the same shitty QB that they have had for years starting there.

See, good coaches are able to identify talent. Then, they are able to use that talent to the best of the players ability.

Do you think that JC rides the bench for the first half of McDaniels first season in KC?

I'm not excusing Haley's personnel decisions at all. You're just trying to change the target.

You were talking about his offensive system and ability as a coordinator. I'm pointing out that our offensive success has been more tied to the playing time of Jamaal Charles than who our OC is.

Haley has all kinds of problems, but unless we address the TALENT issue we're just treading water.

Yes. That's a hypothetical that cannot be proven, but LJ was entrenched in the starting RB spot. Over at another chiefs site I started driving the 'start Charles' bandwagon in 2008 and it was lonely. A lot of Chief fans in the 2009 preseason said he was outplayed by Battle and Savage and should have been cut (we kept 4 RB's).

The issue I'm debating isn't if coaches can have an impact. The issue I'm debating is whether coaching ALONE improves our current roster as of today into a good team. I do not believe it does. You, apparently, do. We're just probably not going to agree here.

Well that was a complete success.

I think coaching can have a bigger impact than any one player.

I understand that talent matters in the NFL. But, frankly, if one of the most talented backs in the league is sitting on the bench for half the season, I will not use it to excuse the HC/OC's lack of offense.

It is up to the coach to use the talent that is here to the best of their ability.

It's not an excuse for anything. It's an observation of cause and effect. I'm not defending anyone, I'm making a case for talent>scheme.

As for coaching having an impact more than any one player... no.

Give the Colts 100 coaches with what they have now, and they'll fail. Give them Manning with any of those 100 coaches and they'll succeed.

Put Brady and Belichick each on a bad team next year, and I'm pretty confident that Brady's team would be much much better than Bill's. Coaching matters, but not as much as talent.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...or-nfl-scouts/

McCluster is not as fast as Hall. But, he has run a 4.4. He isn't slow.

McCluster is about the same height as Hall, but a little less stout.

However, McCluster is much faster than Wes Welker. I just think that McDaniels would be able to put him in similar situations to Welker. Situations that could help him be more effective.

Look at Wes Welker's career before he got to New England. He had played in the NFL for four years prior to getting traded to New England.

Hey, it is always a combination of talent and coaches. I just think you can look around the NFL and see a ton of quick turnarounds by good coaches being added to teams.

As I said earlier, the 9ers are probably the easiest and best example of this in the current season.

And, you talke Brady and put him on a different team as a rookie and he could be selling insurance right now because a coach didn't see the talent that was there.

Manning probably gets at least a fair shot no matter where he goes due to where he was picked. But, lets say he goes to Cleveland. Do you really think he is the same Peyton Manning?

Yeah, NOW, after years of teaching and coaching, these guys could go anywhere and be successful.... but that is dependent on the coaching and teaching of these guys early in their careers.

How many times do you see a bust on one team go on to be successful on another?

There are so many moving pieces in all of these discusions. Heck, you give Haley the right pieces, an I know he can be successful. I saw it when he had Warner, Fitzgerald and Boldin. However, great coaches can get the most out of what they have.

I have to run, but I wanted to say that I think you are quality poster. I enjoyed the debate. I don't agree, but I appreciate that for the most part, you were respectful and more concerned with proving your point than anything else.

Thanks for the help wasting four hours of my day. :)

40 yard dash time is not the same as on field speed.

You know who was REALLY fast but never once got behind a defense or outran anyone? Sammie Parker. Yanno why? Not everyone carries that equipment the same. I haven't seen McCluster outrun anyone since opening day of 2010 when it was raining. He may run a 4.4 on track in shorts and no shirt... but the NFL is different and he's not a blazer on the field. I think assuming he can be Wes Welkerish is a bit much. I mean it was optimism when he was drafted to think that, but now? C'mon man.

You can also see team turn arounds by home-run draft picks that often accompany that new coach. Cowher was just Marty Jr. until they drafted Ben. We can debate this all day, but it's just a circular argument at this stage and we should probably stop.

Bro hugs for everybody!!

FAX

I do prefer all my discussions end that way. Hostility on the internet is like having phone sex... what's the ****ing point?

Never fear, for I am 100% simpatico with you on this deal.

For many a year (or even longer sometimes), I, myself, have stood tall and fully erect for goodness and niceness and right and virtue and kindnessness and proportionate tittahs and Triscuits with pepper cheese, Mr. WhiteWhale.

Not only that, but I am also pretty much against evil in all its forms. Especially reposts.

FAX