Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Growl

Who is Jim Harbaugh?

193 posts in this topic

notice how he got timid when I asked him to analyze some short term stuff like this year's playoffs.

He's banking on no one giving a sh*t in three years if he's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

notice how he got timid when I asked him to analyze some short term stuff like this year's playoffs.

He's banking on no one giving a sh*t in three years if he's wrong.

You asked me to do what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say we were aspiring for mediocrity.

Mission Accomplished! Again, and again and again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I never gave a definite timeframe. Let's say if he's still there in three years I'll be wrong.

Haha, so you caught my snarky comment. Kudos.

Okay, we'll check in come 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FP I normally applaud your posts and Lord knows I have pied you many times. But this time, I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about.

Do you understand the difference between going 12-1 at Stanford vs going 12-1 at USC?

USC normally recruits among the Top 5 in the nation, and ran a pro-style offense the envy of many of the nations best programs. Stanford was/and still is considered an academic school that happened to have a football team.

Great coaching gets you wins at Stanford. Great talent gets you wins at USC.

Except for two losing seasons at Stanford, Harbaugh had 3 winning seasons at San Jose State, 3 more winning seasons at Stanford, and now 2 more winning seasons in San Francisco. This dude has been winning at all levels. Now he was not elite as a player. But as a coach I would take him over almost everybody but Belichick right now. That's only because Belichick has been consistently been winning NFL games longer.

NE 2001 11 5 0 .688 1st in AFC East 3 0 1.000 Super Bowl XXXVI Champions

NE 2002 9 7 0 .563 2nd in AFC East – – – –

NE 2003 14 2 0 .875 1st in AFC East 3 0 1.000 Super Bowl XXXVIII Champions

NE 2004 14 2 0 .875 1st in AFC East 3 0 1.000 Super Bowl XXXIX Champions

NE 2005 10 6 0 .625 1st in AFC East 1 1 .500 Lost to Denver Broncos in AFC Divisional Game

NE 2006 12 4 0 .750 1st in AFC East 2 1 .667 Lost to Indianapolis Colts in AFC Championship Game

NE 2007 16 0 0 1.000 1st in AFC East 2 1 .667 Lost to New York Giants in Super Bowl XLII

NE 2008 11 5 0 .688 2nd in AFC East – – – –

NE 2009 10 6 0 .625 1st in AFC East 0 1 .000 Lost to Baltimore Ravens in AFC Wild Card Game

NE 2010 14 2 0 .875 1st in AFC East 0 1 .000 Lost to New York Jets in AFC Divisional Game

NE 2011 13 3 0 .813 1st in AFC East 2 1 .667 Lost to New York Giants in Super Bowl XLVI

NE 2012 12 4 0 .750 1st in AFC East 1 1 .500 Lost to Baltimore Ravens in AFC Championship Game

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need glasses or something?

If you asked me to predict this year's playoffs I already did earlier. I had Atlanta over Baltimore, and I'm 1 for 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much further down the rabbit hole can we go?

13 pages full off FP not knowing wtf he's talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FP I normally applaud your posts and Lord knows I have pied you many times. But this time, I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about.

Do you understand the difference between going 12-1 at Stanford vs going 12-1 at USC?

USC normally recruits among the Top 5 in the nation, and ran a pro-style offense the envy of many of the nations best programs. Stanford was/and still is considered an academic school that happened to have a football team.

Great coaching gets you wins at Stanford. Great talent gets you wins at USC.

Except for two losing seasons at Stanford, Harbaugh had 3 winning seasons at San Jose State, 3 more winning seasons at Stanford, and now 2 more winning seasons in San Francisco. This dude has been winning at all levels. Now he was not elite as a player. But as a coach I would take him over almost everybody but Belichick right now. That's only because Belichick has been consistently been winning NFL games longer.

NE 2001 11 5 0 .688 1st in AFC East 3 0 1.000 Super Bowl XXXVI Champions

NE 2002 9 7 0 .563 2nd in AFC East – – – –

NE 2003 14 2 0 .875 1st in AFC East 3 0 1.000 Super Bowl XXXVIII Champions

NE 2004 14 2 0 .875 1st in AFC East 3 0 1.000 Super Bowl XXXIX Champions

NE 2005 10 6 0 .625 1st in AFC East 1 1 .500 Lost to Denver Broncos in AFC Divisional Game

NE 2006 12 4 0 .750 1st in AFC East 2 1 .667 Lost to Indianapolis Colts in AFC Championship Game

NE 2007 16 0 0 1.000 1st in AFC East 2 1 .667 Lost to New York Giants in Super Bowl XLII

NE 2008 11 5 0 .688 2nd in AFC East – – – –

NE 2009 10 6 0 .625 1st in AFC East 0 1 .000 Lost to Baltimore Ravens in AFC Wild Card Game

NE 2010 14 2 0 .875 1st in AFC East 0 1 .000 Lost to New York Jets in AFC Divisional Game

NE 2011 13 3 0 .813 1st in AFC East 2 1 .667 Lost to New York Giants in Super Bowl XLVI

NE 2012 12 4 0 .750 1st in AFC East 1 1 .500 Lost to Baltimore Ravens in AFC Championship Game

See, that's a logical fallacy though. You can do that for almost any college coach that makes the jump to the NFL, because they only get the opportunity if they were winning a lot at the lower level. His college career is irrelevant.

What I'm looking at is purely his pro career, and I do not see an elite coach. A good one, yes. Elite, no. Even if we assume he has outstanding leadership skills and motivational acumen those traits only get you so far: you have to be able to actually provide a schematic advantage for your team. Right now I see Ditka 2.0: a guy who ends up in a fortuitous situation, with good coordinators and lots of surrounding talent who is riding it like he invented football. But that's my unpopular opinion, although I really wish someone someone would actually refute my assertations for a change rather than just say "no, because wins."

Because winning early isn't an infallible indicator of a good coach, as George Siefert can attest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much further down the rabbit hole can we go?

13 pages full off FP not knowing wtf he's talking about.

Please, by all means enlighten me. You say I don't know, but no one presents any goddamn evidence aside from his win-loss record, which is NOT an infallible indicator of coaching acumen (or do you want to say Dalton > Cam?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, that's a logical fallacy though. You can do that for almost any college coach that makes the jump to the NFL, because they only get the opportunity if they were winning a lot at the lower level. His college career is irrelevant.

What I'm looking at is purely his pro career, and I do not see an elite coach. A good one, yes. Elite, no. Even if we assume he has outstanding leadership skills and motivational acumen those traits only get you so far: you have to be able to actually provide a schematic advantage for your team. Right now I see Ditka 2.0: a guy who ends up in a fortuitous situation, with good coordinators and lots of surrounding talent who is riding it like he invented football. But that's my unpopular opinion, although I really wish someone someone would actually refute my assertations for a change rather than just say "no, because wins."

Because winning early isn't an infallible indicator of a good coach, as George Siefert can attest.

Maybe?

But we do know, from reporters, players, other coaches, friends, support staff, etc., (either during or after their tenure), how good a job these coaches really do. It's the proverbial, who earns their record, vs the coaches who were just fortunate for other reasons (good/inspired players, Coordinator or 'Right Hand Man' doing most of the HC work for him, Players running the team, extreme Luck and good fortune--despite the HC incompetence and poor work habits/judgement, Great GM, etc.). You get the idea/where I'm coming from. These things don't happen in a vacuum.

If Harbaugh is as bad or unimportant as you allude to, I'm sure people close to the situation would know and chat about this. Fans who follow the team would hear the murmurs and the rumors. And of course, eventually the reporters, sources, insiders, etc., would start spilling the beans to the public in varying fashion. And of course, there's the GAME TAPE!

However, you hide behind the general premise, 'no on can prove to me outside his record that he's a great coach'. This presumes, anyone here cares enough to stalk the internet seeking various positive statements regarding Harbaugh's coaching, as if you'd care, listen, not back down and validate it anyway. Remember, you're the one making the accusations here. And Harbaugh's the one with excellent achievement and the sterling reputation. So where's YOUR evidence!!??

In other words, as much as you ask for 'the evidence'. You can't prove he's a bad coach either. So if we go by his record; the recent turn around he's been involved with; the improved QB play, and the fact that he's currently going to the SuperBaugh, we can only conclude he's a good--to very good coach, until proven otherwise......According to you, it was 2-3 years from now, when he starts losing when we'll find out for sure. However, couldn't some one say to you at the time, if or when that happens, "just cause he has a losing record, it doesn't mean he's a bad coach?"

Ya dig? They're just certain things in life we have to accept, until shown the evidence/proven otherwise.

Deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites