Alright then. You claim for 4 pages of a thread one thing and then when you're proven wrong by multiple people you start claiming that's not what you said even though it's been quoted to you by Fin D himself and I have read each of your posts in this thread. By refusing to even attempt to prove your completely made up points with any shred of factual evidence I heretofore deem you not worth my time or effort. You can't beat stupid.
This is what he quoted The quote very clearly notes that there is no concrete proof this is the case. Is there any question what "No one has expressly come out and said" means? There shouldn't be. You and Finascious are repeatedly arguing, and then high-fiving each other over something that I've admitted was true from the very beginning. And you're about fifteen minutes from minting a commemorative coin over it.
Still waiting for you to prove anything you've said. You did say you could provide links at one point, and you still haven't. We're waiting. Any day now. Go for it. You can do it. C'mon, be a sport. Give it a whirl.
I said I could provide links to evidence that the way that Ross has handled things has been unconventional, problematic, and embarrassing. You don't want that, though. You want me to provide links to something I haven't said was true and you decided to run with anyway because that's easier to keep asking for that and pretending like I'm stalling on it. I'll gladly give you those links if you actually have any interest in defending that point, but in the meantime by all means please tell me how what I wrote means something else than what I've repeatedly said.
Ok, so since you've argued X, then claimed your arguing Y and refuse (or unable) to give us any evidence to prove either X or Y, then I tell you what, pick anything in the world you want to prove, and provide some evidence. Doesn't matter what its about. Prove a maple leaf comes from a maple tree, I don't care. Because at this point, I don't believe you understand what things like arguments, points, opinions, facts, proof, etc. actually are in general, since you haven't displayed an aptitude for making a point, sticking to it and backing it up with evidence/facts/proof.
Tell me how I said something different than what I posted. The words are really not all that flexible for you to turn them into something. Let's start with you explaining these two: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...d-running-separate-coaching-searches-in-miami Jason La Canfora reporting that the Dolphins had two different coaching searches going on at once, in which Peterson would have joined the franchise with Fisher and wouldn't have otherwise, and had Peterson and Ireland essentially competing against each other. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15834419/dolphins-approach-cowher-concerning-potential-vacancy Here's the Dolphins approaching Bill Cowher this off-season through intermediaries... With a sitting head coach. A year after the Dolphins approached Cowher and were rebuffed because they had a sitting head coach, by Mike Freeman on CBS.com. After taking so much crap for interviewing Harbaugh with Sparano sitting, he's essentially just decided to do the same thing again but this time with more plausible deniability. But but but...it was only his second time! Do I need to dig up links about how a Jeff Fisher and Jeff Ireland tie-breaker was something Ross didn't want to handle and was a sticking point?
Before I start, you should know...this is going to hurt you a little. Ok, let's start at the beginning: I maintained that "embarrassing the franchise is silly" because it hasn't actually kept us from getting anyone. I'll prove I said that by showing you: Ok, now you replied to that with: This is when I laughed at you. Its where the major contention started. Its from here I've tried to get you to prove your above statement. From here, you've claimed to not have said this, that I need to prove its wrong, this isn't your point, etc., etc. blah, blah, blah, wah, wah, wah. So here it is in a nutshell. Defend that statement specifically. Explain to us, without dancing and running around how you know what you said to be even remotely feasible. There, I'm not assuming what you said or anything like that. Defend your statement. When you eventually apologize for wasting everyone's time with this drivel, then we'll tackle your understanding (or clear lack thereof) of marketing. Let's say this is true (i don't think it is)? So what? What was the damage? Did it keep us from hiring or getting a coach we were targeting? Nope. We could have had Fisher, but he wanted control we didn't want to give him. He didn't turn us down and he certainly didn't turn us down because there was a dual coaching search or because Ross was embarrassing or because of Ireland or whatever else. We said no to Fisher. Further more, the only info on this supposed dual coaching search comes from La Canfora and no one else. The only time it appears anywhere else, is if its a reprint of his article or blogs/forums reacting or citing that one article. You'd think something that dramatically crazy would have been reported on by someone else? Since it wasn't reported by anyone else and was barely discussed or circulated, how is that an embarrassment? So why don't I believe the dual coaching search in the first place? After Fisher went to St Louis, where were La Canfora's "sources" when he made the following report Link and neglected to mention Philbin as an option. Its not like Philbin was the first interview after Fisher or anything. All of this was, in addition to all the ridiculously and wildly inaccurate reports that came out about our coaching search. They say where's there's smoke, there's fire. That may be true, but what is also true is that when the media is all over the place on a given story, they are rarely right. Considering we were going to hire everyone from Fisher to Mularkey to Toub to McCoy so he would keep Bowles as his DC. Hell, McCoy bought so much into the hype from the media he turned down the Raiders cause he was sure he was coming here, or was that even true? Also, if Fisher was Peterson's target, why did it come down to giving power to Fisher or Ireland? If Ross set up a competition, then why would he let one of the competitor's dictate who won, especially when that person wasn't his friend and confidant for decades? It simply doesn't add up. Did you read the article? The article stats that intermediaries for the Dolphins contacted intermediaries for Bill Cowher but everyone involved will deny it. Well damn, with that anyone can be a reporter. Someone on my behalf had sex with someone on behalf of Scarlet Johanssen and I, ScarJo and our intermediaries will all deny it., therefore I had sex with ScarJo! Also, in that article it says: So I guess all those other teams that have contacted him directly or indirectly were embarrassments as well? Again, there is more evidence that shows Cowher doesn't want to coach then he turned us down because Ross is horrible. Hahaha, sure link away. Who is arguing that? Its all many of us have been saying. Ross, knowing football is not his expertise doesn't want to make the tie breaker in a player personnel decision, sounds exactly like type of thing you want out of an owner. Or do you want a Synder? Besides, how many franchises give personnel control to a coach who's never won a SB and has only 6 winning seasons out of 16? One. St Louis. Most teams are set up to have GM make final decision on players, why is Ross wrong for having his organization the way most others do? So to recap all of this for the tldr crowd: Disgustipate thinks Ross' antics are so embarrassing that we'll lose out on coaches or FA's, even though we haven't yet. I say he's wrong. He has yet to prove it.
No, it's not. Recapping was unnecessary, as is acting like you won an academy award because you think misrepresenting something I said in this very thread, with the quote there for everyone to read is utterly brilliant. Ok, let's start at the beginning: Not at all questioning what you said. Note that whether or not embarrassing is demonstrably problematic vs. potentially problematic isn't discussed, probably because you spent 20 posts urinating on your own shoes trying to claim you caught me in some sort of contradiction that would be pointless even if true. Again... We don't know what the consequences are or aren't because we don't have the background information. It could be nothing, something I readily admit, or it could be very tangible and we just don't know it. Dismissing the La Canfora article because it is inconvenient is ridiculous. He made the report, and no one denied or contradicted it. No clue. This is irrelevant. We're talking about La Canfora's report, and the other stuff has nothing to do with it. I realize you spent a lot of time on this but this is conjectural detective work that is difficult to care about at it's best. No kidding. Hence it being brought up in a thread about Ross making poor and bizarre decisions. It's not the slightest bit implausible we contacted Cowher. The point is that we contacted him the exact same way we were told not to the season before. That's it. I want an owner who can make basic decisions for the good of the franchise. If that truly was the sticking point it's probably the worst decision Ross has made so far. This is probably the worst self aggrandizement so far. You don't have an audience, you've got Deicides and Trowa rubbing up on each other.
No kidding. FinD is occasionally impossible to understand. Sometimes I'm not sure whether I need to be arguing or agreeing. Just kiddin, Fin. Modest exaggeration there.
Recapping was very necessary because you keep getting lost. For example see your next point and my response to it. Actually it was broached. It wasn't discussed, by you. I said it isn't demonstrably or even potentially problematic and wanted you to explain how it was either of those and have asked you over and over and over to do so, and you haven't. All you do is say "well, I know it hasn't yet but, but, but it could......". Now, if you maintain that is your only point and the reason you've been trying to say Ross is an embarrassment than its a stupid, stupid point for two reasons: 1. "Because it could happen", is great reason to wear a seat belt, for example. Know why? Because people have died or been injured by getting into accidents and not wearing seat belts. The difference here is, no one has turned us down because Ross is an embarrassment. In fact, everyone that we've gone after has been willing to come here except Cowher (who isn't willing to go anywhere). Everyone. Harbaugh, Fisher, Philbin, McCoy, Toub, Zimmer, etc. With Ross here we've landed Marshall, Bush, Dansby, Burnett, Incognito, etc. No one has turned us down because of Ross. 2. If it "could" cause problems, then it "could" be a positive too. Since you don't care that there's no facts to support your claim, then I don't care either and am telling you it could be seen as revolutionary. Its demonstrably helpful considering all the names we have signed and the names we turned down. Its potentially helpful for the same reasons you gave for it being problematic...just because. So there we have it, its either a bad thing or a good thing, which makes it nothing. So, we are left with either #1 which makes your point wrong or #2 which makes your point pointless, which is it? Background is irrelevant. If it is true it hasn't impeded us, we know that. We know why we didn't hire Fisher, and it had nothing to do with some dual search. If its not true then it doesn't matter. I didn't dismiss it. I certainly didn't dismiss it because it was inconvenient. I said how can one unconfirmed event not seen or reported by anyone else be an embarrassment? Lol, only in your world is pointing out that not only was the entire media reporting wrong things but so was the guy who wrote the article...not relevant. So bizarre it may not be true. Which was my point. Of course you believe it to be true and believe it may have hurt us, even though it hasn't. But it may...someday...maybe....who knows..... Hey, you may one day have a fish grow out of your forehead. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. No we didn't. Read your own article. We didn't contact Cowher. According to your article, non Dolphins contacted non Cowher people and everyone will deny it. Wow. You want an owner (who knows little about football) to make a personnel decision over a coach or GM? Really? That's ridiculous and you are literally the ONLY person to want that...ever. Free advice, you are not gonna get a whole lot of support on that one. You seem to use a lot of words and not know their meaning. What you're calling a "self aggrandizement" was the least like a self aggrandizement of all the things I wrote.
Absolutely. None of those things compromised any operational integrity of the actual team. Did you see Brandon Marshall go out of his way to praise how Sparano laid a foundation for the team? Do you remember Dansby say he would be going to bat for Sparano to stay? That isn't a healthy environment for the team. And it likely will spill over to Joe Philbin's era. The players themselves feel that the person who led them was mistreated.
Oooooooook. So this big horrible decision that destroyed our franchise because it is the worst possible thing an owner can do to a franchise...is responsible for us going from 7-9 two years in a row to 6-10. One game difference? You are clearly reaching here.
Something really doesn't become true just because you're willing to repeat it over and over. That's a really awful analogy. Causing unnecessary issues for an NFL franchise, while not life or death, is highly problematic. Those examples are crap. Harbaugh and Fisher weren't willing to come here. Those other candidates are not particularly impressive from the standpoint of a fresh head coach unless in particularly heavy demand is generally willing to go and interview wherever. Not to mention that THREE of the guys we interviewed this off-season came away having issues with out ownership. Fisher took a shot after the Dolphins childishly started leaking information once they figured he wasn't coming here, McCoy complained of not getting the job because he didn't want Bowles(When we made no effort to judge Bowles interest in staying on as DC prior), and Zimmer was apparently too outspoken for the job, which is asinine. You couldn't even put together a halfway coherent free agent list. Marshall and Dansby were trades. Incognito was a completely unheralded free agent. It's basically Dansby(Which occurred before a lot of Ross' dumb stuff), and Kevin Burnett, single mid-level free agent. Bravo. They're both awful arguments. There's no conjecture that looking incompetent is problematic. Suggesting that looking incompetent is a positive requires some sort of explanation. Yes, it is a problem. If you've got two people within the franchise competing against each other instead of cooperating for the best interest of the team, it's an issue. We quite possibly did not end up with the best possible coaching option this off-season because of it. If Philbin is not good, which there's a very solid chance of, the process in which he was hired is the root. Do you have any reason at all to disqualify it? If we are having people contact Cowher on our behalf as intermediaries, we're still contacting Cowher. No, not really? It's very frequently the case in the NFL. If Ross made the decision not rubber stamp a trade for Kyle Orton, he made a good football decision. Ross would be making a decision based on the best possible information from his coach and GM. This is not even remotely comparable to him being the personnel guy. It's a limited thing where he's going with someone elses decision. Playing to a non-existent audience is the definition of self-aggrandizement. Here's some help: "The act or practice of enhancing or exaggerating one's own importance, power, or reputation."
Hate is a strong word. I try not to "hate" anyone. And I certainly don't know Stephen Ross enough to hate him. I dislike the job Stephen Ross is doing as the owner of this team because: 1. I think he believes he can put fans in the seats with a circus side show. I'm not sure if he realizes winning is the only thing that really matters for putting asses in seats. 2. He's used the word "fanvision" one too many times for my liking. 3. He is not able to clearly communicate in front of a camera. 4. Whether deserved or not, he has a bad perception around the league. I've listened to current and former NFL people all say things like, "Stephen Ross has a lot of learning to do when it comes to being an NFL owner." 5. He muffed any chance of hiring Jim Harbaugh. Whether he succeeded in getting him or not, Tony Sparano should have been fired the second he decided to talk to him. None of this means I don't think he can learn to be an effective NFL owner. It's just why I dislike the job he's done thus far.
I agree. it's possible to respect someone and have their back while simultaneously understanding that someone has to be held accountable for 3 straight losing seasons. If building character among the team and improving the locker room were the primary qualifications of an NFL HC, then the league would be flooded with potential candidates. IMO, if anything, Sparano's "legacy" will be carried on b/c prominent players like Marshall bought into him and will feel compelled to hold future teammates to Sparano's standard while also keeping current teammates in check. I hate when people say "I've said it once and I'll say it again" but I've said it once and I'll say it again---- the best way to make Brandon Marshall an integral part of your team rather than a liability is to make him a captain and give him more responsibility, not less. Sparano did that, and now Marshall is a indebted to him. Brandon can still give 100% to his team, fans, organization, and new coach while honoring the old one. If Philibin turns into a great hire, one respected by Marshall & the rest of Miami, then it'd be hard for Brandon to not respect the organization for bringing him aboard, even at Sparano's expense. Ross & Ireland gave Tony an extra season and subsequently stuck with longer than most organizations would, so it's not like they were hasty & ruthless with their actions to warrant any type of mutiny.
There is a lot that is responsible for our record. I'm not going to try to parse how much each component is responsible. All I'm saying is that the actions he took regarding the Harbaugh situation were extremely detrimental to the football team.
Yes. And It's also possible to really like and respect an incompetent coach / boss. I'm sure we've all had a boss who wasn't effective but that we really liked either because they were a pushover or very lenient. Or maybe even just loyal to their employees to a fault.
Only they do, but all we have available are the statements they make publicly. I don't see any motivation for them to make public statements supporting Sparano, especially after he is gone. Just think about it for a second, Brandon Marshall has now publicly said that the offensive coordinator for the New York Jets was under-appreciated here, and is largely responsible for what good there is in the locker room. Do we not see how that can be extremely problematic, especially with a new head coach coming in?
Held accountable how? By receiving a contract extension? I don't see how the players could view what transpired last offseason as being held accountable.
I agree that doesn't make something true. Luckily that's not what happened. You were asked repeatedly to prove your point and the first time you tried was when you posted two links pages into the discussion. That is fact. Saying it isn't makes you a liar....which seems to be a trend now, that you've been beaten left and right. You can't keep saying these are problematic issues until you demonstrate they have actually caused us problems. What about that do you not understand? Its like talking to a wall. These problems that are so monstrous that they haven't actually stopped us from doing anything. How does that make sense to you? You despise Ross because he caused these "problems" that haven't in anyway impeded us from getting a single coach or FA we targeted. You cannot really be paying attention to what you're writing. You just simply can't be. So let me get this straight, Fisher was never coming here? You are a liar. And you are lying to save face, because you are wrong and everyone knows it. There is nothing anywhere, that says Fisher wasn't willing to come here. Stop lying, its more pathetic than being wrong. We are discussing how great any of these names are, we are discussing you saying Ross may be keeping people from coming here, and I gave you many names that have come here. If you want to get into a different discussion talking about those people's skills we can do that in another thread. Although, you'll probably just lie like you're doing here when you get painted in I submit we don't look incompetent. I've backed it up with more evidence than you have used to say we are incompetent. You cannot illustrate to me or anyone else what this supposed incompetence has cost us. Do you understand what incompetence means? Clearly you don't. Its not a problem because you say it is. Please tell me what got all screwed up because of this scenario? Or are you going to tell me Fisher. The same Fisher a couple of paragraphs ago wasn't come here regardless? Fisher wanted power we didn't want him to have it. Nowhere in that sentence is there anything about a dual coaching search. Before you feed us more lies, prove your BS. Give me a link to where it says Fisher turned us down because of the dual coaching search. BTW, "two people within the franchise" is a lie as well, unless you can provide for me Peterson's official title and hire date. I didn't disqualify it. I said there's not enough info or confirmation to be embarrassed. Allow me to demonstrate: "Disgustipate wets the bed. Sources have told me they've seen his sheets after he wakes up and they are soaked. People with knowledge of the situation, say that he does this 4 times a week on average." Ok, so are you embarrassed? Nope, of course not. Now, if it started to get really spread around and other people started reporting it, you just might get embarrassed then, but since its just one person saying it without proving it, there's really nothing to be embarrassed about. That and its not true...probably. My god, read the article. The Dolphins didn't contact Cowher. People for the Dolphins contacted people for Cowher and everyone will deny it. Do you not understand that you describe a Dolphin fan asked Cowher's publicist if he wants to coach the Dolphins, as a non official Dolphin representative asked people of Bill Cowher about coaching the Dolphins? So saying the Dolphin organization contacted Cowher is another lie. It is not frequently the case. The case is the GM is in charge of player personnel. That is how it generally works. Another lie on your part. If Ross says Ireland is in charge and has final say, then why would he listen to what the coach says? He effectively told Fisher, I don't know enough about football to make an informed decision on personnel. If a situation arises, where you believe X and Ireland believes Y, I'm going to go with Ireland because I trust his expertise when it comes to personnel over yours. He effectively made the tie breaker already. Another lie. First of all, as of this post, there have been 1,136 views of this thread I started. If that's not an audience then... Secondly, recapping the discussion wasn't exaggerating or enhancing anything. I did plenty of self-aggrandizement, throughout our argument, but that wasn't included
it's possible he just wants to bring more entertainment and enjoyment to the fans. maybe it's important to him. Would you prefer "ownervision" instead? lol Good thing he's not an actor. Screw the rest of the league. Of course he has learning to do; he's a new owner. The defining trait is: an unstubborn "willingness to learn" which he obviously has. I beg to disagree. It might've looked bad on the surface, especially with the media who gets paid to blow **** up; however, if Sparano represented Ross's 2nd choice/fall back option to Harbaugh, then there was no reason to fire Tony only to hire him back if Harbaugh didn't happen, which seemed likely b/c of his affinity for Cali and the west coast. That would've looked even worse. Could you imagine if we ****canned Tony, screwed the pooch on Harbaugh, and then had to renegotiate with Tony to bring him back b/c we felt he represented our next best option at the time? Agreed. you're definitely entitled to that opinion and at least you support your opinion.
But you aren't willing to quantify it? You cannot claim something was detrimental unless you can quantify the detriment. Sports gives us a convenient way to quantify success and failures. We lost one more game then we did the past two seasons and that's with the totality of all these "epic fail" moves that Ross has made. Either the record didn't happen or we need to look at how we use words/phrases like "as egregious a thing as any owner could do to his/her team".
This thread wasn't targeted to you. You don't hate Ross. I don't agree with most of your criticisms, but that's fine. Again, this thread wasn't for people who don't hate Ross.
It may be problematic. It may not be. Its at best 50/50. But either way, are you arguing for keeping Sparano?
Fair enough. I just figured I'd share my minor beefs with the man. I'm really hoping he's done right for us with the Philbin hiring. And I'm hoping he's going to do whatever it takes to get us a franchise QB this year. For a franchise QB I'd forgive Ross and Ireland both for all their past misgivings.
Its like I said in my OP, I'm actually indifferent to the guy at this point. I just can't stand the end of the world, franchise destroying, bs that is getting thrown around. I agree on the QB & Philbin. Though I have a great feeling about Philbin. I can't defend the feeling or prove it will come true though. That's why I'm not going to run around tell people its guaranteed he'll be successful, like other people have done on the opposite side of the coin.
Not necessarily, not if what Sparano did was motivate them to build both character and a sense of team & unity and instill responsibility and accountability at both the team and individual level, b/c those traits in and of themselves (if established) would almost morally prevent Marshall & Co from developing either a problematic locker room or not giving 100%. If anything, it will be good for an arriving, new coach b/c Marshall, Bush, and Co [thanks to Tony] will likely make sure they hold the new coaches to their newly higher standards, improved character, and cohesive locker room rather than passively waiting for the new coach to hold the team to his. It's quite possible, if there's as much character etc as Brandon says there is, that this team actually puts in some major effort in the offseason to earn the same respect from Philibin that they've been conditioned to receiving from Sparano (kinda like the daddy syndrome where they covet and seek that continued fuzzy feeling of his acceptance). B/c of Sparano, they now might act like a pack and work their tails off with the hopes of making Philibin want to fit in and be a part of them and subsequently earning his respect and utmost dedication in return.
A point I didn't actually, you know, make. Either you're dumb or just playing dumb and the distinction isn't all that clear from your posting history. If it's the former, get someone to help you understand because I've exhausted the capabilities and it'll probably require some sort of government intervention. If you're playing dumb, the benefit is dubious to say the least given the circumstances. What I wrote is in this thread and very clear. We cannot identify if it has been problematic or not. There are hints that it is. You don't agree because you're white knighting Stephen Ross for some reason. That's fine. Even if you're right(which is based entirely on you complaining about pretty unimpeachable sources), the potential and perception if it being a problem is an issue. He's widely considered to not know what he's doing in the league, and he's not popular with the fans. Even if it's not directly an issue, it's rapidly become a secondary issue.
I'm not arguing that Sparano should have been kept. He either needed to be fired last offseason, or Ross never should have courted other candidates. I think Sparano was an average head coach. Upgrading from an average head coach is rolling the dice. You could do worse, but you certainly could do better (Harbaugh). But what Ross tried to do was eliminate the inherent risk. Either way, it was perceived that Sparano was wronged. Hence the money Ross gave him, and the power he supposedly got regarding personnel. I certainly would not want any player to be under the impression that their head coach had been wronged by the owner.
I think the biggest risk is apathy. The only time I could see some rebellion is if the team starts out with a poor record.
With all due respect, its ridiculous to expect someone to quantify another's emotions. But just to pose a question. Who do you think asked Vernon Carey to take a pay cut? Do you think he would have taken a pay cut of Stephen Ross had asked him?
Still lying. Its sad really. You said it cost Cowher. You said it cost Harbaugh. You said it cost Fisher. That means you think it has been an actual problem. You then claimed it could cause problems in the future. That means you think its a potential problem. I have asked you to prove those claims over and over, and you haven't. Where am I making anything up in that recap? Be a man for the first time on these boards and just stop lying. Have whatever opinion you are going to have, I don't care, just don't pass it off as truth. You are not going to win and you do not have the stamina to keep going. The only thing dumb I've done is try to argue with a compulsive liar. Which you are. You make statements, then cry, then claim you didn't make those statements or they aren't your point. Its very dumb of me to continue. But I will. Because you will concede or quit. If you can't identify is if its been problematic, then shut up already. All you've done is to imply that has been problematic and could be in the future and you've done so in the face of irrefutable evidence. Now, you want to sit back and say we can't say if its problematic? No. You don't get to change your BS and lie again. Name one "unimpeachable source" used. La Canfora gives no sources. None. The Cowher article's sources aren't given either, they even go the extra mile and say, if you figure out who these "sources" are, they'll deny it. How effing convenient. But by all means, please tell us how sources you don't know are "unimpeachable". Don't ignore this one, like you have so much else in our argument. You will answer it.
