Tom Shane Predicts The Jets Season

[T0mShane]

It's a simplistic view of things IMO. The "relaxed approach" to the QB position is quite a bit more. This is the sequence of events, regarding the QB position, as I saw them.

The incumbent HOF/Pro Bowl QB retires. The team has nobody now, and Tannenbaum isn't waiting for Favre to un-retire once OTAs and half of camp is over (which is what he's done for years, as Favre feels it's beneath him and would serve little purpose other than maybe getting him injured).

A GM wants to trade up into the top 5 and guarantee $20M to a QB. The HC he hired says, "OK sounds good." Then Favre is cut. He goes on to have a career year for Minnesota and they nearly go to the SB. The Jets team, despite the handicap of the guy they tied themselves to for at least 2 years, goes to the championship game 2 years in a row. The sparks that Sanchez showed were mistakenly thought to be just that. What he was showing IMO was his ceiling, as well as being the beneficiary of defenders dropping what should have been another 20 routine picks just over those first couple of seasons alone. Not to mention a ground attack, stingy defense, and dominant OL that took all possible pressure off him during these years.

If you think any anointed-genius head coaches would have benched their bosses' pride and joy in 2011, you're really deluding yourself. And when I say his bosses, I don't merely mean Tannenbaum but Johnson as well. Sanchez was a high-profile QB and that's exactly what Johnson wanted. He's on billboards. He's on TV. He's all over the place and that's how Woody Johnson wanted it. To compound matters, there wasn't another NFL-quality QB on the roster to replace him with anyway (Clemens and then Mark Brunell, because Drew Brees once said Brunell really helped him or something). The team was headed for a 3rd straight playoff spot until Sanchez melted down even worse than usual.

I'm quite sure Ryan felt Sanchez was better than he actually was. He's hardly the first good HC to err in this regard, and he won't be the last. For example, but for Bill Belichick pushing for Testaverde, Bill Parcells was ready and willing to tie the entire fate of the 1998 Jets to Glenn Foley. Hell, even Sanchez was better than Foley, and it's an understatement to say I have had a low opinion of Sanchez.

Then in March of 2012 the GM - with the HC's blessing (which he was going to give no matter what his boss wanted) - goes after Peyton Manning as a replacement for Sanchez. Manning wants nothing to do with New York. Despite the foil hat beliefs, the obvious reasons are two-fold: his brother plays for the other NY team, and the last thing he needs or craves in his life are NY sports media vultures led by the likes of Rich Cimini and Manish Mehta. The spotlight comes to Peyton Manning, not the other way around. He turns us down without meeting with us, since he knows he can go anywhere and doesn't have to deal with any of that nonsense.

Then the crucial mistake happens. Even though we didn't officially meet with Manning, word got out that we showed interest. Showing interest in Manning means showing interest in dumping Sanchez if we were able to land him. This was not lost on Sanchez, who's an immature mope as it is. To make up for it, Tannenbaum guarantees Sanchez 2 more years at starter money with 3 more fluff years on the tail end of it should he turn himself around. It's dressed up as clearing cap room and getting him for cheap (compared to what he'd cost after turning his career around). But competition is brought in for Sanchez: Tim Tebow. Then the team (Johnson/Tannenbaum) hold press conferences for their backup QB, and announce him as the team's #2 QB before he's even in NY. Tannenbaum then trades away the guy originally brought in to "compete" with Sanchez. The 2012 and 2013 Jets are doomed. It's only made worse by Holmes busting his foot and Tannenbaum trading up for a total project WR (and compiling a roster so top-heavy and thin that it pretty much dictates Stephen Hill will be starting way before he's ready). This marks the first time Ryan finally outs his GM as doing something he felt was stupid (though he put it more nicely than that, saying that's "not what [he] would have done" or something).

What happens? Hill performs as anyone should have expected, Holmes gets a million Jets fans to learn what a Lisfranc injury is, Keller spends the year mostly injured, and Sanchez fully melts down to a blob of jell-o. The team manages to eke out 6 wins anyway.

Next season there's not a lot to choose from at QB. As Tannenbaum left the team pretty cash-strapped, we're clearly not competing for a title in 2013 unless Green Bay decides to trade us Aaron Rodgers and Jordy Nelson for Mark Sanchez and Stephen Hill. David Garrard is the cheap veteran brought in, since the GM is clearly looking to save his cap space for 2014 and beyond, rather than sink millions more on someone else (not that there was much to choose from anyway). In the draft, we take the guy most had as the best QB of the class, who many had going in the top 10 (if not #1 overall), whatever anyone's opinion is of him today. Garrard clearly looks like he's going to win the job over Sanchez and Smith, and then retires when he gets too many bruises just from OTAs. Now there's no one else to pick up. They hold a competition that Idzik clearly wants Smith to win (and/or wants Sanchez to lose). Rex famously put Sanchez in during that pre-season game, which, for all the Snoopy Trophy comments, I still think was mostly to give Sanchez an opportunity to nail the starter job once and for all after a dreadful game from Smith. Sanchez gets injured, and the Mark Sanchez era is officially over in New York. Sanchez goes off on Idzik, not Rex, because he feels the competition should have been over, and would have been if not for Idzik sticking his nose in. Despite the good long-term outcome for the Jets (Sanchez out and Smith gets experience), unfortunately, that left Smith and Matt Simms as the only QBs left.

Smith sucks as a rookie, but over the last month in particular he shows a glimmer of what people thought he might be. They still bring in the top free agent QB available anyway. They pass on drafting a QB for the first 5 rounds, but that's Idzik's domain and decision, and this has been made very obvious who don't have their hats made out of Reynolds Wrap. Rex is given his one pick to make on his own, and he takes a QB with a similar skill set to Geno Smith. He'll probably suck also, but if both he and Smith pan out, they don't need to change the whole offense around should Smith get injured in future years.

I would classify this as an accurate description to date of the QB situation during the Ryan years.

No mention of Chewbacca?

[#27TheDominator]

Orrrrrrrrr Pete Carroll took over a program that was 5-11 and 4-12 in the two seasons before he got there, then built it into one of the best teams in the NFL within three years. Not as impressive as taking over a 9-7 team and driving it into a complete rebuild three seasons later, but still...

 

Pete Carroll one of the best teams in the NFL 7-9.  Rex Ryan complete rebuild 8-8

[Sperm Edwards]

No mention of Chewbacca?

No doubt, the Chewbacca Defense is a classic. But you can't prove Chewy had anything to do with the Jets. One little gnawing session on Sanchez's shoulder does not an excuse make.

[bitonti]

we will go 7-9 to 9-7, and that will be the case for the next 5 years. I am tired of it

 

 

only on Jets message boards is going winless preferable than going .500. it's crazy talk. Winning is in fact better than losing.

 

as for Shane's original post many of these games are well thought out  but the 44-3 drubbing at the end of the year defies logic. Especially because the team has proven they will play hard for Rex at the end of the year, whether or not they are in the playoffs. 

[dbatesman]

the team has proven they will play hard for Rex at the end of the year, whether or not they are in the playoffs. 

 

(except for 2011, when they lost 3 straight to end the year (and 2012, when they lost 3 straight to end the year))

[Jetsfan80]

(except for 2011, when they lost 3 straight to end the year (and 2012, when they lost 3 straight to end the year))

 

So in 2011, with the team at 8-5 and a virtual lock for the postseason, we're to believe that the team decided to "give up on Rex"? 

 

In 2012 we lost relatively close games in Weeks 15 and 16; 14-10 to the Titans and 27-17 to the Chargers. In Week 17, with a 6-9 record and the season over, we lost 28-9 to Buffalo.

 

So in 5 years there's only one game in the Rex era where a case can be made that the team "gave up" on Rex.  Then this happened at the end of 2013:

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, Rex sure lost the team.

[dbatesman]

So in 2011, with the team at 8-5 and a virtual lock for the postseason, we're to believe that the team decided to "give up on Rex"? 

 

In 2012 we lost relatively close games in Weeks 15 and 16; 14-10 to the Titans and 27-17 to the Chargers. In Week 17, with a 6-9 record and the season over, we lost 28-9 to Buffalo.

 

So in 5 years there's only one game in the Rex era where a case can be made that the team "gave up" on Rex.  Then this happened at the end of 2013:

 

 

 

 

Yeah, Rex sure lost the team.

 

I never said the team gave up on Rex. My point was simply that Tom predicting a late-season ass-kicking most certainly does not "def[y] logic." Relax.

[ZachEY]

(except for 2011, when they lost 3 straight to end the year (and 2012, when they lost 3 straight to end the year))

 

I don't really buy the 2011 as a collapse deal at all.

 

They were a mediocre to below average team the entire season.  They were 5-5, and won three straight against very bad teams.  They then lost 3 straight against average to slightly above average teams.  The Dolphins being the only one you could say the Jets were possibly better than.

 

I think the 2011 team finished as it should, the scheduling just made it look worse than it was.  Had you flip flopped those 6 games, I think the results would have been the same.

 

As for 2012, outside of the last game, again I don't think you can say the team gave up.  That team was complete trash, and barring the good fortune of playing jacksonville and arizona, would have lost 6 in a row, not for lack of effort, but for overwhelming terribleness.

[dbatesman]

I don't really buy the 2011 as a collapse deal at all.

 

They were a mediocre to below average team the entire season.  They were 5-5, and won three straight against very bad teams.  They then lost 3 straight against average to slightly above average teams.  The Dolphins being the only one you could say the Jets were possibly better than.

 

I think the 2011 team finished as it should, the scheduling just made it look worse than it was.  Had you flip flopped those 6 games, I think the results would have been the same.

 

As for 2012, outside of the last game, again I don't think you can say the team gave up.  That team was complete trash, and barring the good fortune of playing jacksonville and arizona, would have lost 6 in a row, not for lack of effort, but for overwhelming terribleness.

 

 

I never said the team gave up on Rex. My point was simply that Tom predicting a late-season ass-kicking most certainly does not "def[y] logic." Relax.

[Larz]

So in 2011, with the team at 8-5 and a virtual lock for the postseason, we're to believe that the team decided to "give up on Rex"? 

 

In 2012 we lost relatively close games in Weeks 15 and 16; 14-10 to the Titans and 27-17 to the Chargers. In Week 17, with a 6-9 record and the season over, we lost 28-9 to Buffalo.

 

So in 5 years there's only one game in the Rex era where a case can be made that the team "gave up" on Rex.  Then this happened at the end of 2013:

 

 

 

 

Yeah, Rex sure lost the team.

 

that gif is really cool

[T0mShane]

that gif is really cool

It's the one gif that perfectly encapsulates the Woody Johnson Era, really.

[Jetsfan80]

Especially because the team has proven they will play hard for Rex at the end of the year, whether or not they are in the playoffs. 

(except for 2011, when they lost 3 straight to end the year (and 2012, when they lost 3 straight to end the year))

I never said the team gave up on Rex. My point was simply that Tom predicting a late-season ass-kicking most certainly does not "def[y] logic." Relax.

 

Getting blown out and the team "giving up" are two different things.  The former can be due to a lot of different causes.  The latter almost always gets a coach fired. 

[dbatesman]

Getting blown out and the team "giving up" are two different things. The former can be due to a lot of different causes. The latter almost always gets a coach fired.

I never said the team gave up on Rex. My point was simply that Tom predicting a late-season ass-kicking most certainly does not "def[y] logic." Relax.

I never said the team gave up on Rex. My point was simply that Tom predicting a late-season ass-kicking most certainly does not "def[y] logic." Relax.

Pasted it twice this time, if that helps.

[T0mShane]

Pasted it twice this time, if that helps.

I think what they're saying is that the team lost for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Rex(?)

[slats]

I think what they're saying is that the team lost for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Rex(?)

 

When the team wins, it's because of Rex. When they lose, it's because you suck. 

[predator_05]

Can't see us getting killed by the Bears at home. They don't defend the run too well and Cutler sh*ts himself in prime-time games.

 

I can't see us losing in Miami, Buffalo or Tennessee either. Those are winnable games and we lost them last year because of our own mistakes. Miami will definitely pick up a W in Metlife though, they always do...this has become a tradition. Not too sure if Belicheat can win here either, but we'll call that a loss just to be conservative.

 

Minnesota could be a complete blow-out, they look a good sleeper team to me and their offense is shaping up nicely under Norv Turner. They play real fast in that dome, and i can see this being Geno's worst game of the year as the team falls behind early and hopelessly chases the game for 3 quarters.

 

So:

 

Wk 1 OAK w 1-0

Wk 2 GB L 1-1

Wk 3 CHI w 2-1

Wk 4 DET w 3-1

wk 5 SD L 3-2

Wk 6 DEN w 4-2

Wk 7 NE L 4-3

Wk 8 BUF W 5-3

Wk 9 KC L 5-4

Wk 10 PITT L 5-5

bye

Wk 12 BUF W 6-5

Wk 13 MIA W 7-5

Wk 14 MIN L 7-6

Wk 15 TEN W 8-6

Wk 15 NE L 8-7

Wk 16 MIA L 8-8

 

8-8, but could be 7-9 or 9-7 if we're lucky. Not a million miles away from the playoffs. The good thing is that other playoff contenders don't look too hot themselves so we'll still be in the hunt for a wildcard spot to represent a mediocre AFC.

[ZachEY]

I think what they're saying is that the team lost for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Rex(?)

 

Again, your term "absolutely" makes it unarguable.

 

My overall point is that making those late season losses a Rex issue is ignoring just how bad the teams were, which, to me, is still on Tannenbaum, something you once were the most vocal here about.

[T0mShane]

When the team wins, it's because of Rex. When they lose, it's because you suck.

This is probably not untrue.

[The Crusher]

I will need to revue this thread and call the show.  This time I will actually introduce a subject rather than wait to be interviewed.

[use2Jet]

only on Jets message boards is going winless preferable than going .500. it's crazy talk. Winning is in fact better than losing.

 

as for Shane's original post many of these games are well thought out  but the 44-3 drubbing at the end of the year defies logic. Especially because the team has proven they will play hard for Rex at the end of the year, whether or not they are in the playoffs. 

 

If going winless meant finally getting rid of Rex, it would be preferable to keeping him and going .500, yes.

[use2Jet]

It's a simplistic view of things IMO.  The "relaxed approach" to the QB position is quite a bit more.  This is the sequence of events, regarding the QB position, as I saw them.

 

The incumbent HOF/Pro Bowl QB retires.  The team has nobody now, and Tannenbaum isn't waiting for Favre to un-retire once OTAs and half of camp is over (which is what he's done for years, as Favre feels it's beneath him and would serve little purpose other than maybe getting him injured).  

 

A GM wants to trade up into the top 5 and guarantee $20M to a QB.  The HC he hired says, "OK sounds good." Then Favre is cut.  He goes on to have a career year for Minnesota and they nearly go to the SB.  The Jets team, despite the handicap of the guy they tied themselves to for at least 2 years, goes to the championship game 2 years in a row.  The sparks that Sanchez showed were mistakenly thought to be just that. What he was showing IMO was his ceiling, as well as being the beneficiary of defenders dropping what should have been another 20 routine picks just over those first couple of seasons alone.  Not to mention a ground attack, stingy defense, and dominant OL that took all possible pressure off him during these years.

 

If you think any anointed-genius head coaches would have benched their bosses' pride and joy in 2011, you're really deluding yourself.  And when I say his bosses, I don't merely mean Tannenbaum but Johnson as well.  Sanchez was a high-profile QB and that's exactly what Johnson wanted.  He's on billboards.  He's on TV.  He's all over the place and that's how Woody Johnson wanted it.  To compound matters, there wasn't another NFL-quality QB on the roster to replace him with anyway (Clemens and then Mark Brunell, because Drew Brees once said Brunell really helped him or something).  The team was headed for a 3rd straight playoff spot until Sanchez melted down even worse than usual. 

 

I'm quite sure Ryan felt Sanchez was better than he actually was.  He's hardly the first good HC to err in this regard, and he won't be the last.  For example, but for Bill Belichick pushing for Testaverde, Bill Parcells was ready and willing to tie the entire fate of the 1998 Jets to Glenn Foley.  Hell, even Sanchez was better than Foley, and it's an understatement to say I have had a low opinion of Sanchez.

 

Then in March of 2012 the GM - with the HC's blessing (which he was going to give no matter what his boss wanted) - goes after Peyton Manning as a replacement for Sanchez.  Manning wants nothing to do with New York.  Despite the foil hat beliefs, the obvious reasons are two-fold: his brother plays for the other NY team, and the last thing he needs or craves in his life are NY sports media vultures led by the likes of Rich Cimini and Manish Mehta.  The spotlight comes to Peyton Manning, not the other way around.  He turns us down without meeting with us, since he knows he can go anywhere and doesn't have to deal with any of that nonsense.

Then the crucial mistake happens.  Even though we didn't officially meet with Manning, word got out that we showed interest.  Showing interest in Manning means showing interest in dumping Sanchez if we were able to land him.  This was not lost on Sanchez, who's an immature mope as it is.  To make up for it, Tannenbaum guarantees Sanchez 2 more years at starter money with 3 more fluff years on the tail end of it should he turn himself around.  It's dressed up as clearing cap room and getting him for cheap (compared to what he'd cost after turning his career around).  But competition is brought in for Sanchez:  Tim Tebow.  Then the team (Johnson/Tannenbaum) hold press conferences for their backup QB, and announce him as the team's #2 QB before he's even in NY.  Tannenbaum then trades away the guy originally brought in to "compete" with Sanchez.  The 2012 and 2013 Jets are doomed.  It's only made worse by Holmes busting his foot and Tannenbaum trading up for a total project WR (and compiling a roster so top-heavy and thin that it pretty much dictates Stephen Hill will be starting way before he's ready).  This marks the first time Ryan finally outs his GM as doing something he felt was stupid (though he put it more nicely than that, saying that's "not what [he] would have done" or something).  

 

What happens? Hill performs as anyone should have expected, Holmes gets a million Jets fans to learn what a Lisfranc injury is, Keller spends the year mostly injured, and Sanchez fully melts down to a blob of jell-o.  The team manages to eke out 6 wins anyway.

Next season there's not a lot to choose from at QB.  As Tannenbaum left the team pretty cash-strapped, we're clearly not competing for a title in 2013 unless Green Bay decides to trade us Aaron Rodgers and Jordy Nelson for Mark Sanchez and Stephen Hill.  David Garrard is the cheap veteran brought in, since the GM is clearly looking to save his cap space for 2014 and beyond, rather than sink millions more on someone else (not that there was much to choose from anyway).  In the draft, we take the guy most had as the best QB of the class, who many had going in the top 10 (if not #1 overall), whatever anyone's opinion is of him today.  Garrard clearly looks like he's going to win the job over Sanchez and Smith, and then retires when he gets too many bruises just from OTAs.  Now there's no one else to pick up.  They hold a competition that Idzik clearly wants Smith to win (and/or wants Sanchez to lose). Rex famously put Sanchez in during that pre-season game, which, for all the Snoopy Trophy comments, I still think was mostly to give Sanchez an opportunity to nail the starter job once and for all after a dreadful game from Smith.  Sanchez gets injured, and the Mark Sanchez era is officially over in New York.  Sanchez goes off on Idzik, not Rex, because he feels the competition should have been over, and would have been if not for Idzik sticking his nose in.  Despite the good long-term outcome for the Jets (Sanchez out and Smith gets experience), unfortunately, that left Smith and Matt Simms as the only QBs left.

Smith sucks as a rookie, but over the last month in particular he shows a glimmer of what people thought he might be.  They still bring in the top free agent QB available anyway.  They pass on drafting a QB for the first 5 rounds, but that's Idzik's domain and decision, and this has been made very obvious who don't have their hats made out of Reynolds Wrap.  Rex is given his one pick to make on his own, and he takes a QB with a similar skill set to Geno Smith.  He'll probably suck also, but if both he and Smith pan out, they don't need to change the whole offense around should Smith get injured in future years.

 

I would classify this as an accurate description to date of the QB situation during the Ryan years.

 

This post has out-willed me, you win.

[Jetsfan80]

If going winless meant finally getting rid of Rex, it would be preferable to keeping him and going .500, yes.

 

I don't think another .500 season will cut it for Rex.  We'll see.

[use2Jet]

Do you know what either "perpetual" or "young" mean?  Because neither of those things are close to being accurate.

 

I'm not even attempting to defend Rex here, you can feel free to carry on with your hating on him in every single post you make on this board if you like.  Hell, there's plenty of legitimate reasons to hate on Rex, I don't deny that for a second.  I just don't get some folks' penchant for counting on ones which, you know... aren't real.

 

Perspective my man, perspective.....

 

In the NFL, 5 years is a long time. For the most part, Rex is a .500 coach in his 5 years here.

 

The core of that team, Revis, Mangold, Harris, Brick were all young at the time, and they were the core players of the team. In addition, back then Keller was considered a big prospect, and was also young. When your best players are young, I consider that a young team.

 

Sorry for offending you so badly with my perspective.

 

And for the record, I hate on Idzik and Woody, just as much as I hate on Rex

[use2Jet]

I don't think another .500 season will cut it for Rex.  We'll see.

 

From your fingers to God's ears....

[use2Jet]

You realize this is a game you have no control over? Me thinks you need more hobbies.

And none of that is accurate either.

 

You should have seen me when I was actually passionate

 

Oh, yes, it unfortunately is quite accurate.

[use2Jet]

From your posts, it seems I'm older than you are.  You're merely going about it wrong, and someone who's allegedly 40 years old ought to know better.  You're not enjoying it like you should.  It's entertainment, not real life.  

 

You're also weighing how the defense performed and are ignoring the massive pressure put onto them by trotting out there so quickly so often.  It's a rare defense that can finish at or near the top with a turnover machine at QB.

 

This past year was just a disaster for a variety of reasons, the chief one being it was prior to a rebuild phase of a gut+rebuild process.  

 

- Based on the draft - nabbing Richardson at #13 overall in particular - Coples was moved to OLB (even though he wasn't a pure OLB anyway).  He was too heavy because he wasn't given ample time to properly condition himself down (like he had this year).  And then to compound matters, he broke his leg.  Still, the year in & out of the position all year, in what was clearly a throwaway season in the spring, means this season he ought to be better.

- Davis is developing well. That's never a sure thing. Except when the Jets develop someone; then it was going to happen no matter who he played for.  This is among the silly arguments.

- Harris is still a sloth with a head for the game but a body that can't keep up. I can't figure how this guy once ran a 4.5 forty.

- The defensive backfield was a train wreck.  The only 2 starter-worthy talents at corner were both hurt, and one of them was a rookie who missed significant time in the off-season (and the regular season) to boot. Allen is/was still developing, and I take for granted that 7th round picks tend to develop more slowly than higher ones. That he's developing at all is an accomplishment, statistically speaking. Lowery used to at least be a decent starter but he's not starter level anymore (and was only marginally so last season).

- Freaking Calvin Pace had 10 sacks. The one guy they brought in to rush the passer was on IR before the season got underway.  Who no one wanted as their starter.  I would classify this as someone playing above his talent level.

- We had a top-notch DL, and a couple of decent but not great LBers, and not a whole lot else.  Some here mock the high-ranked rush D.  I'd say the opposite.  At least the D did that, and given the lack of points a Smith-led offense was scoring, teams were far more likely to run than pass against the Jets (relative to the league mean).  And the numbers add up to that.  22nd-most pass attempts against (22nd-most yards-against) + 9th most rush attempts against (3rd-most yards-against).  Overall #19 in PA and #11 in YA.  All things considered, I don't think that was performing below the talent level.  Had Milliner and Cromartie been healthy most or all of the season, and we finished that low, then I'd say he did a piss poor job of it.  But I sense even you'd agree that in that scenario it's unlikely our pass D finishing ranked #22.

 

Besides, I'm not the one throwing around words like "genius" to describe him (and still don't).  The defensive players he coached are the ones who say that.  And opposing coaches with good offenses clearly take note of when they play the Jets and do consider it an accomplishment when we don't stop them.  It happens to everyone, but it's when the Jets are the opponent that Belichick tells his QB & receivers, after the game and on camera, that they just accomplished something noteworthy. 

 

There is nothing entertaining or enjoyable about being a Jet fan. More like a colonoscopy with a few decent seconds from the anesthesia, and the cool sounding farts afterwords.

[#27TheDominator]

Perspective my man, perspective.....

 

In the NFL, 5 years is a long time. For the most part, Rex is a .500 coach in his 5 years here.

 

The core of that team, Revis, Mangold, Harris, Brick were all young at the time, and they were the core players of the team. In addition, back then Keller was considered a big prospect, and was also young. When your best players are young, I consider that a young team.

 

Sorry for offending you so badly with my perspective.

 

And for the record, I hate on Idzik and Woody, just as much as I hate on Rex

 

Who were the best players on the Jets last year?  They sure as hell weren't Mangold, Harris and Brick.  

 

I understand how hateful a .500 record is, but think of how much we crucify Peyton Manning and Romo for their failures in the playoffs.  9-7 with a couple of playoff wins is worth a lot more than 10-6.  The question is: Which direction is the team headed?  This season will answer that. 

[use2Jet]

Who were the best players on the Jets last year?  They sure as hell weren't Mangold, Harris and Brick.  

 

I understand how hateful a .500 record is, but think of how much we crucify Peyton Manning and Romo for their failures in the playoffs.  9-7 with a couple of playoff wins is worth a lot more than 10-6.  The question is: Which direction is the team headed?  This season will answer that. 

 

My original point had nothing to do with last year, and everything to do with the team Rex inherited.

 

For me, and I realize I am alone here, it is SB VICTORY or bust. I have seen everything else I want to see as a Jet fan, home playoff wins, AFCC games (4 painful ones), all but the elusive SB victory.

 

Anything that is not a step in that direction is a step backwards for me. Every year we keep Rex, who will NEVER, EVER win a SB here, is a huge step backwards. It represents at least one extra year that we cannot win it all.

[T0mShane]

Again, your term "absolutely" makes it unarguable.

My overall point is that making those late season losses a Rex issue is ignoring just how bad the teams were, which, to me, is still on Tannenbaum, something you once were the most vocal here about.

I was actually kidding there, trying to get batesman to flip out.

[T0mShane]

I don't think another .500 season will cut it for Rex. We'll see.

Oh, but it will.

[use2Jet]

Again, your term "absolutely" makes it unarguable.

 

My overall point is that making those late season losses a Rex issue is ignoring just how bad the teams were, which, to me, is still on Tannenbaum, something you once were the most vocal here about.

 

Must be great to be Rex. Anything you do positive, is all you and not the players nor the GM. Anything you do not so great, is the fault of the GM or the players.

 

I think they call that teflon status?

[peebag]

The Jets will not lose to the Vikes or Chiefs cuz I'll be at both games oozing Gang Green karma

[T0mShane]

Again, your term "absolutely" makes it unarguable.

My overall point is that making those late season losses a Rex issue is ignoring just how bad the teams were, which, to me, is still on Tannenbaum, something you once were the most vocal here about.

RE: Tannenbaum, my great complaint with him was that he had no business evaluating personnel, which left him at the mercy of his coaches and Bradway, which then led to an organizational insecurity which manifested itself in building through free agency and trades. Rex was an integral part of all of that, as evidenced by the string of all-swagger punks that started streaming through the door as soon as Rex was hired (you'll recall Tannenbaum and Mangini beating us over the head with the term "character" every off-season). Rex has done a bad job with the individual players he's been given, other than DL because he's a DL coach.

[faba]

Must be great to be Rex. Anything you do positive, is all you and not the players nor the GM. Anything you do not so great, is the fault of the GM or the players.

 

I think they call that teflon status?

Take comfort  that anything we do positive on offense Rex should not get any credit for- Marty time

[dbatesman]

My overall point is that making those late season losses a Rex issue is ignoring just how bad the teams were, which, to me, is still on Tannenbaum, something you once were the most vocal here about.

I never said the team gave up on Rex. My point was simply that Tom predicting a late-season ass-kicking most certainly does not "def[y] logic." Relax.

I never said the team gave up on Rex.

I never said

I never

never