idzik.. just how bad was he at drafting players ? ? ?

[NoBowles]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

Your lack of rebuttal on any of those points shows clearly you have no viable replies to refute them.  I'll take them all as wins in that case.

Yes, you win, celebrate in style, go Idzik.

[#27TheDominator]

40 minutes ago, phill1c said:

"Your lack of rebuttal on any of those points shows clearly you have no viable replies to refute them.  I'll take them all as wins in that case."

NOT SO FAST, MR. MAGOO!!

There's plenty of rebuttal for those inane 'points':

- got rid of a lot of awful contracts and old players who were not longer viable.

• You're damning with faint praise: he let contracts expire
• My sister could have done the same. there was no real acumen needed to not renew or extend a bad contract
• And who did he replace these "awful" contracts that simply expired
• (so maybe by the time Idzick dealt with them these contracts were not so awful)

Meanwhile, we are supposed to praise Maccagnan for getting rid of awful contracts that he drafted. 

Quote

 Refused to pay any one position. (ie REVIS) too much so that it hamstrung a team.

• Not seeing how the Jets were hamstrung by the Revis contract
• They had Revis for a while and got rid of him once his play diminished.
• Suffered no real lasting cap damage.

Meanwhile, Maccagnan signed Revis right back and paid him a ton after his play diminished.  Now, his play has diminished so much that we don't even have Revis on the team, yet Maccagnan agreed to keep paying him. 

Quote

Firing idzick was THE START of good things for this franchise. He was a capologist, nothing more.

The start?  These are the good old days? I guess after 2017 we may look at 5-11 as an impressive win record. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, nyjunc said:

do you guys think they weren't trying to get deals done earlier?  they did all they could to keep harrison.  

he didn't have to sign those players but he had to sign players and it worked for a year. last year was a disaster, no one could have predicted we'd be that bad.  I think many thought we'd take a step back but nothing like what we saw.  Now it's being torn down to rebuild, let's see how it goes?  

Obviously they didn't do all they could to keep Harrison since he went to the Giants (and what made it worse is he didn't seem happy about it, other than the money).

No offense, but for all your defense to the contrary, you have no idea what they did to try to keep Harrison. For all you know he only ultra-lowballed an extension at $4m or under. He unsuccessfully tried to do the same with Mo and the only reason he retained one but not the other is only 1 could be tagged, and nobody paid his absurd asking price in trade. 

It did not work for a year, as an unprecedented series of fortunate events was required to eke our way to 10 wins and no playoffs. A fool dumps all those resources on short term, old veterans when you don't even have a known, starting QB on the team. What we saw in 2015 was the most optimistic upside of that course of action.

[phill1c]

17 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Meanwhile, we are supposed to praise Maccagnan for getting rid of awful contracts that he drafted. 

Um, dude, I just rebutted an opinion on Idzick. The rebuttal didn't tell you what to think about Maccagnan. Please don't attribute ideas to me that I haven't offered, ok?

19 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Meanwhile, Maccagnan signed Revis right back and paid him a ton after his play diminished.  Now, his play has diminished so much that we don't even have Revis on the team, yet Maccagnan agreed to keep paying him. 

The Revis contract, IMO, wasn't the worst thing: the Jets needed a CB and Revis was available. With 50 million in cap space and a non-existent secondary, it seemed ok at the time and, really, who else wanted to play for them? NOBODY. So, they got a good CB--not Revis Island good, but good--and a feel-good story. And I think the Jets got what they needed from Revis: one good year and one horrible year. Ironically, I might have to say that about Fitzsuckage as well: one decent year (if I exclude the choking) and one horrible year. Now the Jets are in full rebuild and are shed of their contracts.

26 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

The start?  These are the good old days? I guess after 2017 we may look at 5-11 as an impressive win record.

Again, I didn't call these the good old days. So, please, if you want to say something, take ownership of it, otherwise just comment on what I actually said, not what you want me to have said.

It's called a rebuild. That's how I look at it.

[phill1c]

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Obviously they didn't do all they could to keep Harrison since he went to the Giants (and what made it worse is he didn't seem happy about it, other than the money).

Wow, all this hand-wringing over a NT?!! We're not talking Joe Klecko here.

I'd be more upset if they spent a fortune on a NT, like the Giants did, for all the good it did them. Snacks is a good guy to have on the cheap. But if it compromises the ability to surround him with playmakers, he's totally not worth it.

[#27TheDominator]

6 minutes ago, phill1c said:

Again, I didn't call these the good old days. So, please, if you want to say something, take ownership of it, otherwise just comment on what I actually said, not what you want me to have said.

It's called a rebuild. That's how I look at it.

You said firing Idzik was THE START of good things for this franchise.  You said it.  I quoted it.  How long does a rebuild take?  When can I expect the good times? 

1 minute ago, phill1c said:

Wow, all this hand-wringing over a NT?!! We're not talking Joe Klecko here.

I'd be more upset if they spent a fortune on a NT, like the Giants did, for all the good it did them. Snacks is a good guy to have on the cheap. But if it compromises the ability to surround him with playmakers, he's totally not worth it.

You only like to spend on playmakers?  Like ILB, OG and safety? 

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, phill1c said:

Wow, all this hand-wringing over a NT?!! We're not talking Joe Klecko here.

I'd be more upset if they spent a fortune on a NT, like the Giants did, for all the good it did them. Snacks is a good guy to have on the cheap. But if it compromises the ability to surround him with playmakers, he's totally not worth it.

I am left to believe one of two options here after reading this post:

1. You are being purposefully obtuse

2. It is not purposeful

The "hand-wringing" about Snacks is that he - like Mo - represented significant spending that could have been made. In other words, the "poor Maccagnan had to spend it he had no choice he had to bring in all these 30something and sucky FAs he had to he had to" is a whole mountain of horsesh*t meant to deflect from his blatant incompetence. 

[phill1c]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

You said firing Idzik was THE START of good things for this franchise.  You said it.  I quoted it.  How long does a rebuild take?  When can I expect the good times? 

"THE START of good things" does not equal "the good old days."

I can't tell you how long a rebuild takes. What am I, ******* Nostradamus? If it were up to me, for you, never. Because, let's face it, you'd be bitching about something and claiming I said something I didn't.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, phill1c said:

 let's face it, you'd be bitching about something and claiming I said something I didn't.

You mean exactly like you're doing in typing this very sentence?  

[phill1c]

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

You said firing Idzik was THE START of good things for this franchise.  You said it.  I quoted it.  How long does a rebuild take?  When can I expect the good times? 

You only like to spend on playmakers?  Like ILB, OG and safety? 

Wow, there's another dick who feels he must attribute opinions to me that I never offered.

I wouldn't spend a lot on a NT who's primarily a space-eater and who only plays two downs.

Moreover, I have been saying, for a couple of years now, that ILB--specially David Harris--should not be paid. So, really, I think you're way off base.

[phill1c]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You mean exactly like you're doing in typing this very sentence?  

Um, I don't believe I've claimed you've said something you didn't. But, then again, you say so much and it often goes against something else you've said, so maybe?

No hard feelings though. Just pointing out that people read things and then take them to extremes that weren't meant and that were never actually stated.

[#27TheDominator]

Just now, phill1c said:

Wow, there's another dick who feels he must attribute opinions to me that I never offered.

I wouldn't spend a lot on a NT who's primarily a space-eater and who only plays two downs.

Moreover, I have been saying, for a couple of years now, that ILB--specially David Harris--should not be paid. So, really, I think you're way off base.

Ouch.  So salty.  

It must be upsetting to see me attribute opinions to you that are in your quotes.  

You didn't want to pay an ILB?  I am with you.  How about spending draft capital on them?  Personally, I liked the idea of Lee's athleticism, but I remain concerned about spending our picks on ILB and S, especially when we are already paying decent money at ILB and S.

[phill1c]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

Ouch.  So salty.  

It must be upsetting to see me attribute opinions to you that are in your quotes.  

You didn't want to pay an ILB?  I am with you.  How about spending draft capital on them?  Personally, I liked the idea of Lee's athleticism, but I remain concerned about spending our picks on ILB and S, especially when we are already paying decent money at ILB and S.

I see...Salty, huh?

You must have a spelling problem. Because I think I showed you how what you said I said was not what I actually said. But, moving on...

I don't think we are paying anyone at Safety or ILB. Gilchrist has been released. And Harris is released. Where's the money being spent? Damario Davis?

I think you need to have LBs, inside and outside. Are you Idzick?

[nyjunc]

39 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Obviously they didn't do all they could to keep Harrison since he went to the Giants (and what made it worse is he didn't seem happy about it, other than the money).

No offense, but for all your defense to the contrary, you have no idea what they did to try to keep Harrison. For all you know he only ultra-lowballed an extension at $4m or under. He unsuccessfully tried to do the same with Mo and the only reason he retained one but not the other is only 1 could be tagged, and nobody paid his absurd asking price in trade. 

It did not work for a year, as an unprecedented series of fortunate events was required to eke our way to 10 wins and no playoffs. A fool dumps all those resources on short term, old veterans when you don't even have a known, starting QB on the team. What we saw in 2015 was the most optimistic upside of that course of action.

do any of us really know?

it worked for a year, good teams take advantage of breaks.  we had a soft sched, we still won 10 games.  the sched last year wasn't difficult and we won 5.

[#27TheDominator]

18 minutes ago, phill1c said:

I see...Salty, huh?

You must have a spelling problem. Because I think I showed you how what you said I said was not what I actually said. But, moving on...

I don't think we are paying anyone at Safety or ILB. Gilchrist has been released. And Harris is released. Where's the money being spent? Damario Davis?

I think you need to have LBs, inside and outside. Are you Idzick?

Do you honestly think I am defending Idzik?  How ******* simple are you?  I am just pointing out that people are acting like our current purge is somehow better than the last purge.  

Yes, the Jets released Gilchrist.  They are still paying him $1.375M per for the next two years. Thankfully, Harris has no dead money. 

[nyjunc]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

Do you honestly think I am defending Idzik?  How ******* simple are you?  I am just pointing out that people are acting like our current purge is somehow better than the last purge.  

Yes, the Jets released Gilchrist.  They are still paying him $1.375 per for the next two years. Thankfully, Harris has no dead money. 

whether it will be better is TBD.  I have more confidence in Macc than Idzik but I could be wrong?

[#27TheDominator]

8 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

whether it will be better is TBD.  I have more confidence in Macc than Idzik but I could be wrong?

It is unlikely that you will be "wrong."  It will be hard to actually do worse, but will it be better?  This guy already had one shot.  He is getting a second shot at a rebuild.  The fact that he fell into the trap of believing that Fitzpatrick to Marshall was a sustainable plan does not bode well.  

[phill1c]

I don't think the purges are the same: not the GM, not the head coach, not the expectations for the team.

[nyjunc]

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

It is unlikely that you will be "wrong."  It will be hard to actually do worse, but will it be better?  This guy already had one shot.  He is getting a second shot at a rebuild.  The fact that he fell into the trap of believing that Fitzpatrick to Marshall was a sustainable plan does not bode well.  

what were his options at QB?  he clearly didn't want Fitz or he would have given him a big deal before he hit FA.  Marshall(and Decker) made Fitz look good, they couldn't do it year 2.

[#27TheDominator]

3 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

what were his options at QB?  he clearly didn't want Fitz or he would have given him a big deal before he hit FA.  Marshall(and Decker) made Fitz look good, they couldn't do it year 2.

We have been down this road several times.  He drew a line in the sand regarding Fitzpatrick.  Then he crawled across it and paid him.  It was too late to pay him and it was wrong to give him that much money.  Nobody else was giving him that kind of scratch at that point.  I did not like Geno, but I would have rolled with him or Petty at that point and taken my lumps.  

People act like the Jets were stuck at QB.  Around 1/3 of the league swapped QBs to start 2016. Was our situation so good that we shouldn't have been one?  

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

We have been down this road several times.  He drew a line in the sand regarding Fitzpatrick.  Then he crawled across it and paid him.  It was too late to pay him and it was wrong to give him that much money.  Nobody else was giving him that kind of scratch at that point.  I did not like Geno, but I would have rolled with him or Petty at that point and taken my lumps.  

People act like the Jets were stuck at QB.  Around 1/3 of the league swapped QBs to start 2016. Was our situation so good that we shouldn't have been one?  

the amount was irrelevant, it was a 1 year deal.  it didn't cost us from signing others.  

who were the QBs you would have gone after last year?  who would have changed our 2016 season?

 

[Sperm Edwards]

23 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

do any of us really know?

it worked for a year, good teams take advantage of breaks.  we had a soft sched, we still won 10 games.  the sched last year wasn't difficult and we won 5.

No we don't, but you're the one making the baseless claim that he did everything he could to sign him. Clearly that's not true, otherwise he'd still be unsigned to this very day. And nobody believes it would have taken $9m at that time. Truth is, even at that amount, it's still better spent money than the millions flushed down the toilet, on top of an additional $3m per for McLendon.

It did not work for a year in that it wasn't a worthy return for the considerable investment that cost the team the following season (and arguably this one as well). So no, that non-playoff year most certainly did not work out.

[nyjunc]

5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No we don't, but you're the one making the baseless claim that he did everything he could to sign him. Clearly that's not true, otherwise he'd still be unsigned to this very day. And nobody believes it would have taken $9m at that time. Truth is, even at that amount, it's still better spent money than the millions flushed down the toilet, on top of an additional $3m per for McLendon.

It did not work for a year in that it wasn't a worthy return for the considerable investment that cost the team the following season (and arguably this one as well). So no, that non-playoff year most certainly did not work out.

it's always better to have a chance week 17 than to have your season over in October.

[#27TheDominator]

9 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

the amount was irrelevant, it was a 1 year deal.  it didn't cost us from signing others.  

who were the QBs you would have gone after last year?  who would have changed our 2016 season?

 

Are you insane?  The amount was irrelevant?  Just pay everyone what they ask?  Of course it cost us from signing others. It is costing us now because we are that far in the hole and had to cut Harris because we are paying Fitzpatrick the money Harris would have earned.  We could have kept D'Brick instead of injury prone Clady.  There are numerous places that money could have gone.  How shortsighted are you?  It isn't a matter of just our 2016 season it is the point that the team was taken in the wrong direction.  

[#27TheDominator]

2 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

it's always better to have a chance week 17 than to have your season over in October.

How about March?  Is it better to have have a chance in October or have your season over in March? 

[NoBowles]

11 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Are you insane?  The amount was irrelevant?  Just pay everyone what they ask?  Of course it cost us from signing others. It is costing us now because we are that far in the hole and had to cut Harris because we are paying Fitzpatrick the money Harris would have earned.  We could have kept D'Brick instead of injury prone Clady.  There are numerous places that money could have gone.  How shortsighted are you?  It isn't a matter of just our 2016 season it is the point that the team was taken in the wrong direction.  

What??? This is absolutely hysterical. Do you know how much cap space we have right now? I literally spit my diet coke all over when I read this, comic gold. Thanks for the laugh.

[phill1c]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I am left to believe one of two options here after reading this post:

1. You are being purposefully obtuse

2. It is not purposeful

The "hand-wringing" about Snacks is that he - like Mo - represented significant spending that could have been made. In other words, the "poor Maccagnan had to spend it he had no choice he had to bring in all these 30something and sucky FAs he had to he had to" is a whole mountain of horsesh*t meant to deflect from his blatant incompetence. 

Ok, I think I get it:

• If Maccagnan does something, it's bad.
• if Maccagnan doesn't do something, it's bad.
• if a poster doesn't expressly say something, you'll attribute whatever you want them to have said to them.

Sperm, you seem very locked into some very spurious beliefs. And they all seem to originate from some preconceived notions that you have that have zero basis in the substance and text of my opinions.

I didn't say Maccagnan HAD to do anything. Where did you get that? I didn't say it, I didn't imply it.

You really should get some help for the voices inside your head that attribute statements to others that people never actually make

Wow...you're a nutcase.

[jgb]

On 7/11/2017 at 1:33 AM, nyjunc said:

Parcells walked into a very talented young team.  The team was just poorly coached, BP is an all time great HC.  many of the same players that were 1-15 in 1996 were 9-7 in 1997.

it's not just that Idzik's drafts were bad but he built up for that one huge draft and did a horrendous job that set the franchise back a few years.  we had a one year blip w/ FA when we had to spend but Macc deserves time to rebuild the right way.

love these unprovable chicken-vs-egg debates.

Guy 1: "The QB is not that good, the elite weapons make him look better."

Guy 2: "No, the QB is elevating the skill players to make them look elite."

+++++

Guy 1: "That team was talented just poorly coached."

Guy 2: "Disagree my good man. The new coach knew how to create something greater than the sum of its parts."

+++++

Guy 1: "The running back takes so much attention that he opens up passing room for his mediocre QB."

Guy 2: "You're wrong. The amazing QB is clearing out running lanes for his RB."

[thadude]

When it's December and MetLife is empty and we are 2-10 while the Giants and Patriots are destined to meet in the Super Bowl again and Hack looks bad the pity party somehow being thrown for Macagnan will be over

[Sperm Edwards]

17 hours ago, phill1c said:

Ok, I think I get it:

• If Maccagnan does something, it's bad.
• if Maccagnan doesn't do something, it's bad.
• if a poster doesn't expressly say something, you'll attribute whatever you want them to have said to them.

Sperm, you seem very locked into some very spurious beliefs. And they all seem to originate from some preconceived notions that you have that have zero basis in the substance and text of my opinions.

I didn't say Maccagnan HAD to do anything. Where did you get that? I didn't say it, I didn't imply it.

You really should get some help for the voices inside your head that attribute statements to others that people never actually make

Wow...you're a nutcase.

 

First of all, you've been given a long leash by a few moderators already, in the form of simply having many of your posts hidden. If you continue breaking our site's easily-followed rules - like discussing topics we disallow, or making personal attacks - you will be banned from posting here.

 

In reply to the other parts of your post:

Your 3rd bullet point: you are the one repeating this same straw man argument by suggesting what I would say (or "attribute") if this or that were to be posted. The irony, to which you seem oblivious, is that you're posturing victimhood of this tactic that you alone are employing.

The 2 bullet-points above it illustrate a simplistic view of those with whom you disagree.

There is no shortage of comments on this board - and repeated in this thread - that state Maccagnan had to spend this money. The fact is he had to spend about $40m in new cash. Many people seem to have misguidedly drawn the conclusion that (1) far more had to be spent; and (2) that he was limited to spending it on that year's free agent class or in trading for other veterans. The facts are he could have wiped out most of that "had to spend" cash just on extending Mo and Snacks alone.

Put more plainly, the insinuation is he had to do just what he did, in an effort to absolve him for so many whiffs that is still harming the team 2 years later (with some more spilling over to 2018).

[Sperm Edwards]

17 hours ago, nyjunc said:

it's always better to have a chance week 17 than to have your season over in October.

I didn't take you for an ends-justify-the-means type. Of course, in this case, the "ends" being failure: for all the spending into future seasons for the benefit of 2015, we missed the playoffs in 2015. There is nothing to indicate that, had we even lucked into the playoffs, that we'd have been anything other than 1 and done with another Fitzpatrick meltdown in a wildcard game.

It falls on deaf ears to say the result speak for themselves as justification for handing out some $200m in contracts, when the results ended in failure that season, even greater failure in 2016, and we sure seem headed to equal or still-greater failure in 2017.

[phill1c]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

 

First of all, you've been given a long leash by a few moderators already, in the form of simply having many of your posts hidden. If you continue breaking our site's easily-followed rules - like discussing topics we disallow, or making personal attacks - you will be banned from posting here.

 

In reply to the other parts of your post:

Your 3rd bullet point: you are the one repeating this same straw man argument by suggesting what I would say (or "attribute") if this or that were to be posted. The irony, to which you seem oblivious, is that you're posturing victimhood of this tactic that you alone are employing.

The 2 bullet-points above it illustrate a simplistic view of those with whom you disagree.

There is no shortage of comments on this board - and repeated in this thread - that state Maccagnan had to spend this money. The fact is he had to spend about $40m in new cash. Many people seem to have misguidedly drawn the conclusion that (1) far more had to be spent; and (2) that he was limited to spending it on that year's free agent class or in trading for other veterans. The facts are he could have wiped out most of that "had to spend" cash just on extending Mo and Snacks alone.

Put more plainly, the insinuation is he had to do just what he did, in an effort to absolve him for so many whiffs that is still harming the team 2 years later (with some more spilling over to 2018).

Ah, the power play...not unexpected. I would argue I'm not on anyone's leash. I would also submit that my arguments are no different than those who rebut my arguments or who make arguments that I rebut. It appears that only I am subject to being chastised about not following these "easily-followed rules".  I see a lot of arguments posted that start with disallowed topics and I see no admonishments. It appears to me that "easily-followed" rules are selectively enforced and especially when I break them. As it is, I generally talk and move on. I realize that it's a football forum and that I probably won't convince those not open to being convinced. And, of course, I have a real life outside of this forum. My god, if I didn't--and the Jets were something that was really important to me--I think I would Just End The Season (so to speak). I think in the end you're better off with me than without me, but, really, I'm not in charge of that so I'm going to be myself in any event.

Now on to the football-related part of your post:

              "There is no shortage of comments on this board - and repeated in this thread - that state Maccagnan had to spend this money..."

The only issue is that I DIDN'T MAKE THEM!! So, if you're rebutting MY argument, you can't use other peoples' arguments as if they are mine. Pretty simple notion: don't attribute others' arguments to me because 1) I'm not defending other people's arguments; I'm making and defending only mine, and 2) It's hard to know why you say what you say when you refer to arguments I haven't made.

More globally, here's my problem with your logic: you have a anti-Maccagnan bias. And every single argument you make that has him as a topic you start with that bias and work your way back. That's the opposite of unbiased thinking. And it leads to faulty logic and attributing arguments to others that they didn't actually make and other bizarre rants that make a discussion with you difficult to maintain.

Also, your anti-Maccagnan bias prevents you from accurately assessing the particular topics you argue. You see, not every move a GM makes is going to result in a tangibly positive result. Some moves are foundational. Some are for the near-term. Some are made to placate the fan base. I'm sure there are other reasons that I haven't mentioned. Also, because I don't know the full plan, where the team is in that plan, I'm going to temper criticism and adulation accordingly. Most importantly, I'm not going to let my frustration with past results play a large role in my assessments.

Your assessments seem to have only ONE facet: to prove how bad Maccagnan is. No disrespect intended, but it seems kinda ludicrous to have so much animosity invested in a GM of a football team, when it's all about entertainment. It's not 'real'. There's no hard-and-fast science to it. I mean, I get it, you're a moderator on this forum, so, clearly, discussing the Jets is very very very important to you. But maybe you've lost some perspective as to the importance of the specific arguments you're making and how there generally can't be a right or a wrong that can be proved. And definitely you don't seem open to the possibility that you could be wr, wr, er, incorrect. Just like me sometimes, you could benefit from maybe a marijuana gummy or a cognac.

Anyway, peace be with you...

[nyjunc]

19 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

Are you insane?  The amount was irrelevant?  Just pay everyone what they ask?  Of course it cost us from signing others. It is costing us now because we are that far in the hole and had to cut Harris because we are paying Fitzpatrick the money Harris would have earned.  We could have kept D'Brick instead of injury prone Clady.  There are numerous places that money could have gone.  How shortsighted are you?  It isn't a matter of just our 2016 season it is the point that the team was taken in the wrong direction.  

again, did it affect our cap?  who cares what the amount was, it was a 1 year deal.  Harris being cut had absolutely nothing to do w/ Fitz.

19 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

How about March?  Is it better to have have a chance in October or have your season over in March? 

this year it appears our season is over before it begins but in hindsight so was last year, 2014, 2012, 2007, 2005.  we'll see what happens.

[nyjunc]

12 hours ago, jgb said:

love these unprovable chicken-vs-egg debates.

Guy 1: "The QB is not that good, the elite weapons make him look better."

Guy 2: "No, the QB is elevating the skill players to make them look elite."

+++++

Guy 1: "That team was talented just poorly coached."

Guy 2: "Disagree my good man. The new coach knew how to create something greater than the sum of its parts."

+++++

Guy 1: "The running back takes so much attention that he opens up passing room for his mediocre QB."

Guy 2: "You're wrong. The amazing QB is clearing out running lanes for his RB."

isn't that all arguments on message boards?

 

I love when people whine about others discussing things rather than try to participate.

[nyjunc]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I didn't take you for an ends-justify-the-means type. Of course, in this case, the "ends" being failure: for all the spending into future seasons for the benefit of 2015, we missed the playoffs in 2015. There is nothing to indicate that, had we even lucked into the playoffs, that we'd have been anything other than 1 and done with another Fitzpatrick meltdown in a wildcard game.

It falls on deaf ears to say the result speak for themselves as justification for handing out some $200m in contracts, when the results ended in failure that season, even greater failure in 2016, and we sure seem headed to equal or still-greater failure in 2017.

anything can happen in the playoffs, it sucks missing year after year after year.  the book on Macc isn't finished,  we'll see what happens.