I'm not asking you to quantify someone else's emotions. I'm asking you to quantify a detriment to a team. This seriously "egregious" error either cost us wins or didn't. Unless of course, you're saying it didn't cost us winds but somehow effected the individual player's emotional state and you're worried for the long term mental health? It either hurt the team or didn't. If you are going to say it hurt the team then you need to quantify the "hurt". What did it cost us?
So do you agree or disagree that Sparano was under-appreciated? Who do you believe under-appreciated him? If it was executives of the team, how do you think players will feel toward management that they believe have under-appreciated others? Again, I'm not arguing anything here other than perception.
It absolutely cost us performance on the field. Have we forgotten defensive players basically coming in out of shape? Again, its silly to try to say that this directly led to x, y, or z wins or losses. Team success is largely built upon a multitude of factors and synergy of all of them. But I absolutely do believe that it had an effect on wins and losses. Not to mention the culture of an organization is going to have lasting effects beyond just last year. Again, if Stephen Ross approaches Yeremiah Bell, and says "I want you to take a paycut for me", how do you think Bell would respond? Do you think the perceived mistreatment of Sparano will have any effect on Bell's willingness to sacrifice for a team that Stephen Ross owns? The fact is, one could defend Ross' actions with the adage "its just business". That very much applies. But I don't believe "its just business" is the type of culture you want to promote for a football team.
You do realize your act is more funny than it is irritating, and I'm under no illusions what you're doing here, right? Just as a heads up you could have spent a whole lot less time, and done a whole lot better job of "beating" me in an argument if you actually had one rather than decided to play games until I got bored, right? No? Because I'm 100% correct. At a very basic level, doing stuff that creates negative publicity for the franchise is bad, and from that doing stuff that indirectly and directly affects the franchise, potentially or in reality is also bad. None of those things should be the least bit controversial. Neither journalist has had problems with being wrong or dishonest before, and you're tactic of calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar isn't really going to float.
I honestly do not see the connection between Ross trying to hire Harbaugh with Sparano under contract and the defense coming in not conditioned. Especially in a lockout shortened offseason. Its clear you thought we were a team that was better than 7-9 otherwise you'd see this similar to me. All of this supposed strife and we were only one loss behind our two year trend.
Tell you what Chuckles, you keep making lies and accusations, Ill just let you argue with yourself: But then you said That’s a contradiction, and it doesn't stop there. Then you say: Yet you said: And, Yet you also said: But then for good measure, you then say: Seriously bro, if you can’t see how you’ve contradicted yourself with lies and bs from your first post to your last, then you have serious, serious problems. You are a liar. Possibly even a pathological one. Before you respond either get some help or feel free to restate your stance clearly one more time so when you contradict it again in the future, I can come to one place to show where you are lying again.
That's not at all a contradiction. We got turned down by Bill Cowher after the 2010 season because we had a coach under contract. It's unlikely that he flat out told them "no", because we contacted him(yes, it's the Dolphins contacting him if it is at their bequest) and were turned down unequivocally the next year. That satisfies every bit of your confusion in two sentences. We got turned down by Cowher because we had a head coach. It's unlikely that this was enough initially to completely sour him on the job, because we tried the next year. However, something had clearly changed in the next year. What had him deign to interview the first time was extremely likely to be a contributing factor, but likely not the only thing for him to close the door completely. I'm not a liar because you are very easily confused.
If Sparano accomplished what Brandon said he did, then I don't see a problem with any potential apathy. Essentially, any apathy would be met with Brandon & Co's iron fist [if he's as much of a loyal supporter of Tony as he appears] b/c "apathy" is strongly contradictory & counterproductive to the most significant principles Tony preaches and instills in his players. I promise you---- out of respect & honor of Tony, Brandon will mightily attempt to thwart any signs of early season apathy, especially after the high he's riding from the Pro Bowl (which is huge for him considering his disorder). Plus, IMO apathy is one of the contributors to last season's slow start after the crazy offseason, so I'd hope this team learned its lesson the first time around b/c apathy does nothing but hurt themselves, and there's no reason to cut off their hand to spite their Ross, I mean face.
Not if they believe that type of thing isn't recognized/rewarded by the organization. Again, when Marshall says Sparano is underappreciated, who is he referring to?
Great questions, String. I know you're not arguing. These are valid concerns that, under different circumstances, could have entirely different results. I don't know the intricacies of what transpired behind the scenes to even attempt an answer with any degree of accuracy, and I won't make stuff up just to support my beliefs. All we have to go on is that Brandon believed Sparano was under-appreciated, correct. 1. Do we know that he was specifically referring to management and not some of the players who failed to capitalize as much on Sparano's teachings as Brandon, himself, did? 2. Could it be a combination of the 2--- both management & players? If so, to what extent or degree? 3. Or, could Parcells & Henning be included in this "under-appreciation" due to the 3 years worth of control they assumed coupled with the lack of freedom afforded Tony, and if so, to what degree? .....and lastly, is any "under-appreciation" at a level significant enough to cause problems, ones that will undoubtedly be met with at least Brandon's heavy opposition as I previously mentioned?
Apathy due to a crazy off-season likely did affect wins & losses early on. Despite the off-season turmoil and lack of expectations, the team actually turned out to be pretty damn good, good enough to have made a playoff run if they initially didn't let the off season turmoil affect them, but I'm guessing the defensive guys (like Vontae & Dansby) learned from their mistakes, b/c as last season taught us, you never know how things will turn out, no matter how pessimistic they may appear. Prominent figures like Marshall, Bush, and Dansby who bought into Tony's principles & ways will attempt to preserve the positive culture that was built last season. Tony doesn't have to be here for this to happen if influential players have fully adopted his beliefs, hence this culture should become transcending if Ireland continues adding the type of high-character, team-oriented players who will both embrace this culture and hold others to its lofty standard.
Respectfully, that's the beauty of what Sparano instilled in the team; they don't have to be "fully" recognized by the organization to give 100% and maintain the culture. The unity, character, and sense of team that he instilled will take care of this for them b/c they'll recognize & reward themselves, and I don't see a guy like Ross not recognizing and rewarding his players after the past praise he's dished out on both a team & individual level combined with the high respect shown toward Philibin by a similarly high-character team in Green Bay.
They publicly undercut the head coach of a football team. The fact that Sparano didn't lose the team is a testament to Sparano, but that doesn't change the fact that Ross publicly made a fool of him. Now considering how much you believe Marshall honors Sparano, I can't imagine that he thinks very highly of Ross.
Only when I uncuff them and let 'em outta the box. It's understandable this brief freedom leads to an abuse of privileges.
Hey, Ross was dating the ok looking chick and saw a potential opportunity with the super hot one. Is it right what he did? Not really, but I wouldn't accurately call it wrong either. IMO it falls in the gray area. Is it understandable? I believe so. I believe Brandon understands that Ross holds his team's success & best interest in highest regard, and as such understands that his owner will exhaust every means to help construct the most successful team possible (which included signing Marshall to a big contract during a time when half the country was busy writing him off as a bad apple). If those "means" include hastily pursuing your dream HC (who proved worthy of such admiration), then that's what you do and worry about the consequences later IMO. It's still a business, a billion dollar one at that, and people typically aren't disappointed about not getting fired from a job they love. In fact, where would Marshall & the team be right now culture-wise if Ross had fired Sparano? It's possible the off season's fiasco/adversity actually made us better, improved our character & locker room culture, and unified the team. So it should be considered that, despite how it looked, it might've been the best thing for this team. Instead of looking at what happened during the off season, we should instead be looking at where we currently are and how we got here. If we're in a good place right now then that's what should matter. It seems like we are, but I guess we'll have to wait till October or November to know for sure.
You can't say we know for a fact X happened and then turn around and say there is no concrete proof X happened. Which is what you've been doing in this thread.
Because I admitted that the point I was making wasn't something we can know for sure that doesn't mean you need to treat everything like you are having some sort of pothead existential crisis about everything being subjective.
I agree. If you ask Brandon Marshall whether Tony Sparano was treated fairly by Stephen Ross, my guess is he would say "no". If you asked him if Tony Sparano was under-appreciated by Ross, my guess is he would say "yes". I don't think thats a good dynamic for any large organization, including a football team.
Or, I'm questioning how can you out of one said of your mouth say we know something for sure than out of the other say we can't know for sure. Which is what you're doing and its getting old. Either you know something for fact OR you don't. You can't do both about the same thing. This ain't rocket science. How the hell do you not see how all those quotes of your contradict each other? You actually say, "I didn't say that the embarrassment has costed us coaches or free agents, because I don't know that it has." And thats a direct contradiction too, "Not to mention that THREE of the guys we interviewed this off-season came away having issues with out ownership." I mean really? See, now I'm starting think you aren't lying, but actually lack any and all capacity for rational, intelligent thought.
No one has come out and said they didn't accept a job because Ross did something stupid. We know that he has done things that have been perceived as unprofessional, ridiculous, etc.* We also know that coaching prospects have had negative opinions of Ross, and that some of them turned down jobs after these actions occurred. Add it up. Fill in the blanks. How much of your time do you spend getting confused about stuff that isn't all that difficult and flying into wild, simian rages over it, out of curiosity? *Provided of course you don't consider it perfectly reasonable to accuse every report that doesn't include a notarized statement of making things up
Do you really not realize that you keep saying that we know that people have turned down jobs here because of Ross, and then saying that that isn't what you're saying? I just want to know if you realize it or not.
This is seriously some Charlie Brown trying to kick a football **** here. It's like every time you or Finascious see a statement with nuance, a qualifier, or something other than blatantly obvious black and white, you seize up like an old machine with no lubrication and catch on fire. Cowher turned down a request to speak to the Dolphins because they had a coach under contract. You understand the qualification on that last sentence, right? It's something Ross did, and it's embarrassing, but considering the "because they had a coach under contract" caveat that was widely reported, the inference you should be drawing is that he was willing to engage in some capacity speaking to the Dolphins had they fired Sparano. It shouldn't be controversial here that Ross transgressed, given Cowher's reaction. The next off-season, he was sought out there intermediaries to check to see if he was interested, and he rebuffed them. There were some reports claiming they tried to contact Cowher before Sparano was fired again. I don't know if that's true, but if it is it's really stupid. Regardless, Cowher denied them, flat out, and unequivocally. I can't prove this is because of anything Ross did, but considering the circumstances I think it's fairly likely. You are getting confused at the difference between Cowher refusing to speak to the Dolphins with qualifications, and then later refusing to speak to them in general. And getting ridiculously and disturbingly excited about it.
There is so much political BS in football that I would not put very much stock into anything anyone involved says. All of you are getting sucked into conjecture and speculation that is based on (at least to some degree) falsehoods. 1. Huizenga was a horrible owner and I'm glad he sold the team. It would not surprise me in the least bit if his one last disservice to the team was to sell it to someone more incompetent then he was. 2. Ross so far has not impressed me yet. I think he deserves some credit for at least taking a swing for the fences when he saw an opprotunity and I think he desrves the criticism he gets for striking out. Whether he likes it or not, we are the fans, and we are his boss. Without us he gets to sit in his stadium watching his team all by himself. As a fan I want to see my team out there winning games against the best around. I want consistent play and I want my team in the playoffs. Sparano needed to go. He got out-coached consistently. He is no sean peyton, Bill Belicheck, Or Tom Coughlin. He is a Parcell's failure. Ross should of named Bowles interim coach last year instead of bringing him back. He was a lame duck coach who was fortunate enough to of had a locker room full of professional athletes. They started winning despite of him not because of him. I do cut Ross slack on that stuff because that was what he inherited from WH but he did handle it poorly. The Philbin hire, Ross owns. Lets see what happens before slamming the guy. I hope its a good hire but only time is going to tell. Minority ownership: I could careless whoelse owns part of the team. Thats between him and then as long as he isnt sharing the team with some notorious villian like a Hitler type who gives a damn. The nightclub: I think is a dumb idea. Who is gonna pay all that money to go to a game and then hang out in a club instead of watching the frigging game. It just seems like a bad buisness decission. The only thing about it that bothers me is if it effects the price of my tickets because its a loss he is trying to make up for with ticket sales. I can careless about all the drama of if we are an embarassment of a franchise or the bad boys or whatever. Do what we have not done for almost 30 years now. Get us a SB appearence and I will be a fan of the Ross era of ownership. Until that happens, I will remain a critic.
Some guys, they just hate for no reason. [video=youtube;qN4dOU_1hoA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN4dOU_1hoA[/video]
You make a black and white claim, then pretend the conclusion is up in the air. That is you doing it. Its not hard to say what you mean. If you use a term, like "black & white" or "for a fact", make sure its true. Why is it that difficult for you? It is a fact Ross approached Cowher before firing Sparano. It is a fact Cowher didn't like that and told Ross to approach him after he fired Sparano. It is a fact that Cowher has spoke with many teams and hasn't taken a job with any of them. Those are all facts. You & Jason Cole want to imply Cowher isn't our coach because Ross didn't fire Sparano. I'm implying Cowher doesn't want to coach. You are making a bigger leap then I am. All you have is Cowher didn't like being approached before a coach was fired but would still be willing to talk. I have he hasn't accepted ANY DAMN JOB, at all. My evidence is 10 fold more compelling. Plain & simple. Unless you want to count an article, that says people for the Dolphins contacted (pay attention, because you keep ignoring this part) people for Cowher (not actually Cowher). For all you know, Marino asked Cowher's make up girl, if she thinks he be willing to coach the Dolphins, and Marino did this without being asked too. The article doesn't make it any more clear than that. That's not me being obtuse, that's going by the words in the actual article you posted as some sort of evidence. Read it again. There is no evidence Cowher refused to speak to them a second time. There is however, nothing but evidence and fact, that Ross turned down Fisher. There is speculation that Harbaugh turned us down because of Ross, there is also speculation that he turned us down because he simply wanted to stay in CA. By my count, when it comes to coaches, that leaves: 1 coach we turned down 1 coach we don't know, but there's solid evidence in each direction. 1 coach we don't know, but there's more solid evidence to say it had nothing to do with Ross. We also know that was Ross' first time in that position. We also know that since last year, he's hired a HC & other candidates made us their #1 choice.
