(04-15-2016, 02:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't be serious.

Is Belichick a bad coach because Albert Haynesworth was a total flop with the Patriots?

Alexander was giving Mathis starts before he got hurt in the middle of the '09 season.  After that Mathis was not very good for the Bengals.  Just like he ahd not been very good for the other two teams he had gone through in 4 years (Carolina, Miami).  There was tons of film on Mathis when he left the Bengals in free agency and he could only get a league minimum contract to be a back up.  If Alexander was "wrong" about Mathis at that time then you also have to admit that every other team in the league was "wrong" about him also.

A coach can only do so much.  A lot of a players success depends on the player.  Even the best coaches in the league like Belichick can not make every player work hard.  Mathis was an out of shape slob when he left the Bengals.  He even posted a video of himself getting back in shape.  

By the end of his first training camp with the Eagles, Mathis established himself as a starter.

If evaluation and development are an important part of coaching, why do you refuse to give Paul Alexander "credit" for Mathis, but give Marvin credit for Rudi?

(04-15-2016, 03:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: By the end of his first training camp with the Eagles, Mathis established himself as a starter.

Mathis only got a chance to start because of injuries to Winston Justice and Ryan Harris.  I am not denying that he played well once he becane a starter, but even when he roprted to camp the eagles did not see him as anything but a backup until injuries moved him into a starting position.

(04-15-2016, 03:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If evaluation and development are an important part of coaching,  why do you refuse to give Paul Alexander "credit" for Mathis, but give Marvin credit for Rudi?

There was no big change while Mathis played under Paul Alexander.  He arrived as a waiver wiring signing after being cut by 2 teams in 2 years, and he left on the same level as a guy who could only get a league minimum contract.  There was no change to either "blame" or "credit" to Alexander.  

On the other hand Rudi was a third string RB when Marvin arrived and became a Pro Bowl RB with multiple 1000 seasons.  There was a big change to credit to Marvin.

(04-15-2016, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Mathis only got a chance to start because of injuries to Winston Justice and Ryan Harris.  I am not denying that he played well once he becane a starter, but even when he roprted to camp the eagles did not see him as anything but a backup until injuries moved him into a starting position.


There was no big change while Mathis played under Paul Alexander.  He arrived as a waiver wiring signing after being cut by 2 teams in 2 years, and he left on the same level as a guy who could only get a league minimum contract.  There was no change to either "blame" or "credit" to Alexander.  

On the other hand Rudi was a third string RB when Marvin arrived and became a Pro Bowl RB with multiple 1000 seasons.  There was a big change to credit to Marvin.

So you admit there was no big change with Mathis under Paul Alexander and you don't deny he played much better under Howard Mudd almost immediately; but somehow coaching had nothing to do with his evaluation development even though you claim evaluation and development are a part of coaching?

(04-15-2016, 06:21 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So you admit there was no big change with Mathis under Paul Alexander and you don't deny he played much better under Howard Mudd almost immediately; but somehow coaching had nothing to do with his evaluation development even though you claim evaluation and development are a part of coaching?

Correct.  Even the best coaches can not get production from a player who will not get in shape.

See: Bill Belichick and Albert Haynesworth.  I can find many other examples if you want, but that one proves my point pretty well.

(04-15-2016, 06:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:

Don't know what your point is here, but I would like to say that Billy Joel is one of the most underrated talents of his generation.

One of the best all-around combinations of "singer/songwriter/elite musical chops" ever.

His piano skills don't get enough recognition because many people think of him as just a pop-radio star.

My favorite Billy Joel tune didn't even have any piano in it:

(04-15-2016, 06:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Correct.  Even the best coaches can not get production from a player who will not get in shape.

See: Bill Belichick and Albert Haynesworth.  I can find many other examples if you want, but that one proves my point pretty well.

So according to you, evaluation and development are a part of coaching, but don't apply to Paul Alexander's evaluation and development of Mathis. Because Mathis wasn't motivated. Even though motivating players is also a coach's job.

So how did other coaches motivate Mathis to get All Pro production from him while Alexander got "no big change"?

Haynesworth was a former two time All Pro 30 y/o 10 year NFL veteran already in a state of decline during the previous two seasons entering what would be his final season in the NFL. At best, that is a piss poor comparison.

(04-15-2016, 07:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So according to you, evaluation and development are a part of coaching, but don't apply to Paul Alexander's evaluation and development of Mathis. Because Mathis wasn't motivated. Even though motivating players is also a coach's job.

PA actually had Mathis playing at an elite level before he got injured in '09.  Someone had him rated as the best OG in the league.  I have no idea why he did not come back in 2010 in that top form, but I don't see how you can blame that on PA.

PA did all he could do to make Mathis great.  So had the coaches at two other NFL teams.  But none of them could get him to play at a high level until he made up his mind to get in shape.
  
I really feel like I just keep repeating myself and you keep asking me the same question over and over again.

(04-15-2016, 07:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: PA actually had Mathis playing at an elite level before he got injured in '09.  Someone had him rated as the best OG in the league.  I have no idea why he did not come back in 2010 in that top form, but I don't see how you can blame that on PA.

PA did all he could do to make Mathis great.  So had the coaches at two other NFL teams.  But none of them could get him to play at a high level until he made up his mind to get in shape.
  
I really feel like I just keep repeating myself and you keep asking me the same question over and over again.

You probably feel that way because you keep contradicting yourself . . .

(04-15-2016, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There was no big change while Mathis played under Paul Alexander.

(04-15-2016, 07:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: PA actually had Mathis playing at an elite level before he got injured in '09.

So there was no big change while Mathis played under Paul Alexander except for when you claimed he played at an elite level.  But, how could he play at an elite level when there was no big change in his level of play under Paul Alexander? 

I always liked dark Joel

(04-15-2016, 08:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You probably feel that way because you keep contradicting yourself . . .




So there was no big change while Mathis played under Paul Alexander except for when you claimed he played at an elite level.  But, how could he play at an elite level when there was no big change in his level of play under Paul Alexander? 

There was no net change from when he arrived until when he left.

I give PA the credit for both the increase and decrease, but since they cancel each other out there is a zero net sum gain.


BTW for all of you following along with this I suggest you soak a pair of panties in gas and stretch them over your head making a mask that covers your nose and mouth.  That will make it all of this much more entertaining.

(04-15-2016, 08:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There was no net change from when he arrived until when he left.

I give PA the credit for both the increase and decrease, but since they cancel each other out there is a zero net sum gain.

(04-15-2016, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There was no change to either "blame" or "credit" to Alexander.  

So you give Alexander credit for the change in play, except when you claimed there was no change.

Previously you claimed there was no change in play, except when Paul Alexander got him to play at an elite level.

You have contradicted yourself so much you're as bad as Lucie in PNR.  Matter of fact, you've crossed the Rubicon Luciecon.

(04-15-2016, 09:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So you give Alexander credit for the change in play, except when you claimed there was no change.

Previously you claimed there was no change in play, except when Paul Alexander got him to play at an elite level.

You have contradicted yourself so much you're as bad as Lucie in PNR.  Matter of fact, you've crossed the Rubicon Luciecon.

I am sorry if I have misrepresented my position.  I will step back and blame Paul for the decline in his play from '09 to '10.  But since I also give credit to PA for his improved play in '09 then there is a zero net some gain.  In the end the scales return to their original levels an there is no loss to blame of gain to credit against the record of our resident o-line guru.  

PA doesn't have the enchanting blue eyes of Bobby Bratkowski, but he has a more demanding presence. Paul's size exudes power.  Masculine yet refined.  He commands the largest brutes on the team forcefully ordering them to act at his bidding.  Yet he also knows that the soft, subtle touch of his thick fingers can produce magical music.  A sweet serenade capable of taming the most savage heart.  

And also Heineken?  **** that shit!  Pabst Blue Ribbon!!! 

(04-15-2016, 07:08 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: My favorite Billy Joel tune didn't even have any piano in it:

I think the only Billy Joel song I don't like is "When in Rome."  I even like that odd duet he did with Cyndi Lauper from his 1986 album.