Your position, which I've quoted three times, is that what John took over was a pretty good situation.
the first two quotes have nothing to do with jim and the niners. It's about all first time head coaching jobs and John did take over a better situation than most 1st time head coaches do. Not saying it was a good situation that he was set up for success, but there's not really a lot of good HC positions open because that's why the got rid of their coach in the first place. For the most part John got a better roster than a lot of new coaches get. Do you think John took over a situation in Balt worse than most new coaches get? I'll take that ravens roster over most rosters new coaches get. I said he did similar things to jim because they did do similar things in turning around bad teams. I never said John did a bad job, just that Jim did those similar things with a worse situation and got slightly better results in his short time in the league. I can think John and Jim did similar things in turning around their teams but think Jim's was more impressive with a worse team. That's not mutually exclusive.
Do they? Really, it's only Packers fans who have responded to me.
Pretty sure it's just been me the whole time. And yes, they do. Ask 1,000 nfl fans who took over a better situation and I'd say at least 60% probably closer to 80% would say John. Again, not saying it was a good situation. John took a bad situation and did great things. Jim just took a worse situation and did comparable or better things with it.
that's just because you were shellshocked by Jim and didn't pay attention to what John did.
It's so weird to me that you keep telling me about these personal feelings I had and what games I was paying attention to. I don't know how to argue with someone who's psychic and knows more about me than I do. I mean I'll admit I haven't watched these games recently, I'm going off of things I look up to remind myself and my hazy memories from back then. But saying I was shellshocked and didn't pay attention to John is so weird.
Saying I think you might be a troll isn't name calling. It's saying I can't believe the way you're arguing with me, it seems fake.
He was the difference between a 13-3 team and a team that misses the playoffs.
I mean I guess he's the difference maker when the drop off to the next years QB is so stark. But if the ravens had gone with a more mediocre QB and not a disaster the dropoff wouldn't have been that much. And once John got a decent QB we got to see what he could really do. So yeah, that QB was the difference, but only because of how bad the next QB was not because of how good that qb was. He didn't lose an MVP caliber QB. He lost a good QB and went to a very bad QB.
John didn't take over a good situation compared to all nfl teams. He took over a good situation COMPARED TO OTHER FIRST TIME COACHES. Which are usually the worst 5 or so situations in the league. Don't act like I think or ever said what John did wasn't impressive or that any coach could have done that. John's one of the best coaches in the league, but what Jim did in his first 3 years is more impressive to me than what John did.