How does that matter? How does that in any way change what I said? I said that a fan who likes to be optimistic finds it difficult to reconcile two ideas. Those ideas are A) Jeff Ireland is a bad GM, and B) Jeff Ireland will continue to run the team in the foreseeable future. You're asking how that accounts for people that don't think Jeff Ireland is a good GM or a bad GM. My answer is, easily. Re-read the two statements. LOL. You're too much. So people are rejecting rationality and logic on the argument of Jeff Ireland on the basis of their "motivations"...which means they're deciding things illogically...but now when people raise potential "motivations" on your side of the aisle, they're rejected because they aren't "logical" enough. Riiiiight.
So, in effect, you're saying that Ryan Tannehill was a mistake and he's to blame for the losses and the inability of the surrounding cast to help him out ?? At least using your logic that's how I read it...bottom line, as many of us knew, we simply don't have enough quality and talent talent to play at a competitive level. This is the situation this team has been in since JJ left. It's not a mirage, it's not necessarily Ireland's fault, it's a cumulative cause/effect situation of poor decisions, bad luck and general inability to pick the right players at the right time and then, when the right players are picked, we don't develop them... It's not just one guys fault...
It matters because it's less likely to be a motive for people who believe there is insufficient objective evidence available to take a position either way on the matter than it is to be a motive for people who consider Jeff Ireland a good GM outright. What is the most likely motive for people who feel they can't take a position either way? I didn't say your proposed motive was illogical. It's actually logical for people who choose to believe Jeff Ireland is a good GM. But there have been other motives proposed here that have been illogical. That's what I was referring to when you remarked that I appeared to believe I have the market cornered on logical motives.
How? In what way? The same as the most likely motive for people who feel Jeff Ireland is a bad GM. The same as the most likely motive for people who feel Jeff Ireland is a good GM. The MOST LIKELY motive is simply an opinion which has been formed based on thought and observation. But you consistently choose to disrespect people by coming up with irrational motivations...and conveniently, only for people who disagree with you.
Do you honestly think there is no one here who has an irrational motive regarding this? I propose that someone has an irrational motive only when I believe I see it in what they're saying and how they're saying it, and then I qualify it by saying it's my opinion only. Like I said, view that as "disrespectful" if you wish, though I have to wonder whether some people believe their opinions should be so revered that any critical analysis of them by someone else is inherently "disrespectful."
Since Ireland has been here he has put an emphasis on our Oline, wrs, dbs, and QB. IMO he has had limited sucess for what he has invested in those areas. When comparibg him to other GMs around the NFL his results have been average to slightly below average. He has to his credit done good at getting our salary cap issues more managable.
I think it's entirely disrespectful to assume that someone or a group of someones has an irrational, emotion-based motivation to where they're incapable of higher order thinking about the topic at hand. Yes, based on flimsy logic such as "If Ryan Tannehill is a good QB and Jeff Ireland picked him then Jeff Ireland must also be a good GM." And do I get away with saying you're an ******* if I say that it's just my opinion? Is the disrespectful content of that message totally removed because I said it was only my opinion, and that it's based on observation? LOL. I'm soooo shocked that you would take a thinly veiled jab at me by continuing to propagate this idea that any of my arguments are based on some completely egotistical, irrational idea that I can never be wrong. Shocked, I tell ya!
I don't think it's necessarily disrespectful at all to converse with someone about an issue and come to believe that his or her position on it derives from an irrational and/or biased motive. And I don't think there is anyone here, including myself, who deserves so much "respect" that such a belief on someone else's part necessarily involves "disrespect."
Sorry dudes, this will never end. There is no winning this debate. It's a merry-go-round from hell. We can't even come to an agreement on when, before this off-season, was lil' Jeffy fully in charge on making the decisions. Hell we can't even decide this off-season because of Sherman's connection to Tanne and Philbin's connection to Sherman, etc, etc, etc. So even if we do try to judge just by this past off-season, the argument is made that it all hinges on the success or failure of Tanne. So then, by that rationale, we can't really judge this off-season for a couple of years because you can't fully judge a rook until two to three years after being drafted.(I think we'll know sooner, but hey.) (I don't agree with that notion. I believe you can look at the attempt and plan to build the team for now and in the future and around the rook). So say after three years the team still stinks and Tanne turns out to be a bust, then it will be argued that the team only appeared to stink because Tanne was a bust and it all hinges on the success or failure of the QB. So after a few years, we will be able to better judge Ireland because we'll know by then if Tanne is a bust or not. That is the QB Ireland picked and supposedly his GM's prowess solely hinges on the success or failure of the QB he selects and the rest of his moves are irrelevant. But...then it will probably go back to the Sherman/Philbin connection with Tanne, etc, etc, etc..... No exit. Time to jump ship.
When you simply come to the conclusion that a grown person's motives are nothing more than childish frustration and finger pointing that is in fact disrespectful, or if not disrespectful at the very least arrogant. Nobody is looking to be placed on a pedestal nor are they looking to be talked down to in a debate. People have put forth evidence and well thought out arguments and you've made the choice to scoff at all of it.
And I'm entitled to have my opinion in that regard. I'm sorry it doesn't afford you the level of respect you feel you deserve.
Is this truth or myth ? When was it ever reported that Ireland was enamored with Tannehill ? Before Philbin was here ? Because Tannehill is contradictory of everything Ireland has believed a QB should be in years past. Tannehill is an assertive, gunslinger type which is counter to a "Parcells" QB, and that is the school in which Ireland was brought up. Or at least that is how he looks to me. So is this myth that has been told so many times it has become truth ? When did Ireland make any statements about Tannehill that suggested he was interested in him ? If it was AFTER the Philbin hire, it's disqualified.
It's looking like another underwhelming draft for Ireland. At least in the eyes of this coaching staff, and its Ireland that needs to find players for them, not them to bend their philosophy to fit Ireland's draft picks.
It seems to me they are purposely fazing him out, and it will probably get worse as the year goes on, especially if we lose. He is wanting a long-term healthy contract and I don't think Philbin wants to do that. How do you make Reggie inconsequential ? You play him but sparingly. That doesn't give him the numbers he wants to make his argument for that huge contract.
The same Jimmy Graham that Sparano coached in the Senior Bowl and Ireland had many chances to check out 1st hand in person and get feedback directly from a man that was coaching him. Yet he still didn't take him.
No I think Ireland is just shady and crafty enough to tell Ross what he wants to hear. I also believe he's a lying weasel and probably shifted blame for many of the bad things onto Sparano & Parcells. And he's had time to do his job, and its been less than spectacular. We are less close to the playoffs than we were after 2010. That was when Parcells left.
Dude this is not scapegoating. This is "he has done a poor job and needs to go". Its not an either him or someone else decision. That is a scapegoating scenario.
Well I found it an interesting thread but I don't have the time to come here every day. I happen to have today free as the women in my life were all out at the shopping mall, and my son & I were just hanging out and we were reading it together.
I'll paraphrase something I said in a thread a while ago. It's absolutely absurd to believe that Jeff Ireland can be absolved of culpability. It's absurd to believe that he stuck around in a job where his first two years he didn't even have the latitude to do his job and the following 3 were marred by the interventions of a bumbling owner. If he were as smart as some claim, he would have gotten out from the get go rather than put his reputation on the line for what he would have felt were sub-par picks. At least he could get a job afterward. If he has any consolation in this farfetched scenario, at least he can get fired and write a tell-all titled "My Life as a Human Puppet".
What do you suppose would be the reason Stephen Ross, a billionaire, and Carl Peterson, a guy with decades of NFL front office experience, could put their heads together and appraise a situation that in your mind is so clear-cut, and come away making a decision so absurd?
