JeffJewell
Starter
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2002
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 0
Will Turner be better than Gailey?
Just wanted to get some opinions on Norv Turner's likely future performance.
A couple years ago, I was skipping around my house over the news than Kippy Brown had been handed his papers and Chan Gailey was coming in. I don't know about anyone else, but I was extremely disappointed with Gailey's game planning and play calling, overall. I suppose there's only so much you can bitch about an 11 win season, but I did not feel that Gailey elevated our offense to the extent I expected.
Now, I'm equally happy that Chan's in the can and Norv's coming in.
What do you think the chances are that Turner won't take this offense to the next level, either?
Jeff
PS: about the best thing I can think of to say about Chan is that, during his tenure, we did consistently beat the teams we were "supposed" to beat. As was mentioned in another thread, though, that makes a "good" team, not a "great" team. After thinking about the question above, I also wonder if Turner isn't entering a situation where failing to become "great" in the short term is going to be defined as failing, period?
Just wanted to get some opinions on Norv Turner's likely future performance.
A couple years ago, I was skipping around my house over the news than Kippy Brown had been handed his papers and Chan Gailey was coming in. I don't know about anyone else, but I was extremely disappointed with Gailey's game planning and play calling, overall. I suppose there's only so much you can bitch about an 11 win season, but I did not feel that Gailey elevated our offense to the extent I expected.
Now, I'm equally happy that Chan's in the can and Norv's coming in.
What do you think the chances are that Turner won't take this offense to the next level, either?
Jeff
PS: about the best thing I can think of to say about Chan is that, during his tenure, we did consistently beat the teams we were "supposed" to beat. As was mentioned in another thread, though, that makes a "good" team, not a "great" team. After thinking about the question above, I also wonder if Turner isn't entering a situation where failing to become "great" in the short term is going to be defined as failing, period?