Jump to content

Big Blocker

Members
  • Posts

    1,456
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Big Blocker

  1. 20 hours ago, Warfish said:

    Facts are not misleading. Your understanding of them may be where the flaw lies.

    But by all means, keep ranting about the one aspect of this franchise there is 0% chance of changing. Catharsis, no matter how ignorant and misguided, is good for the soul. 

    Or so I hear.

    My post was coherent, logical, on point, and devoid of anything that any fair minded person not beholden to their own agenda would call ranting.

    Since you chose to engage in a personal attack, you indicate you have nothing of value to say on the subject. Other than asserting that Woody's ownership, or more to the point his approach to managing the Jets, is immutable. 

    Someday in fact Woody Johnson will no longer own the Jets.  Maybe then they will go to an SB.

     

    Have a nice day.

    • Upvote 1
  2. 23 hours ago, Warfish said:

    You are no doubt aware that the Woody Era has been the Jets best era for "being competitive" outside the singular success of 1969, right?

    If not, you might want to take a look. While very up and down, and lacking consistent every-year quality, the Woody Era has undoubtedly been our best in this teams sad history.

    So, yeah. 

    Those numbers are misleading since he took over a team that had just gone to the Champ game the year before, and was a favorite to go to the SB before Vinny was lost for the season, and still went 8-8 with a Qb search that lasted half the season.  Curtis Martin, one of the best Jets ever, was great for his first seven seasons.  In short the Jets were one of the best teams in the league when Woody bought them, and while it has been some ups with the downs ever since, the overall trend has beyond dispute been down.  Down to where the team is today.

    Johnson knows less about football than the average poster here, yet management of the team runs through him.  Several disastrous decisions were either his by commission or omission, and there's no need to repeat them here.  Management openings have increasingly been filled with people with no track record of success since those who have that do not want to work for the Jets.

    18 years, and the Jets are what they are today.  Which is the opposite of competitive.  The common factor throughout?  Woody Johnson.

  3. I don't think the Jets will ever be competitive as long as Johnson owns the team.  Posts like the OP's may vary on the details, and his is complicated by his move to LA.  But it was clear enough to me he was also talking about his dad. I get it.  I understand it.

    • Upvote 2
  4. 15 hours ago, southparkcpa said:

     

     

    Well.... DBate happens to be correct.  Hes not really bitching..just stating fact.   Like doing a kitchen remodel 12 times on a house now you say, screw it and knock the house down.  I'm all for it but who is in charge of this rebuild???  

    No one in management has any track record for we fans to be hopeful. I am of course... but if history is any indicator.    

    I basically agree here, only to add as I expect you would also agree that Woody is a huge part of the problem, too.  But on the GM for a moment...

    To be clear, Macc just might surprise me and start being an effective GM.  But so far I see no consistency to his approach to running this team.  And as far as the draft is concerned, he has been inconsistent at best.  Going BPA with Williams was an easy, safe move he doesn't deserve much credit for.  But others?  Darron Lee, really?

    The main point is we have no good reason to think Macc will be effective going forward with a rebuild.  None. 

    The lack of proven record, the lack of an inspiring history of prior, effective performance, goes back to Woody. No one who has such a history wants to work for him.

    again it is not impossible for it to happen.  But it is highly likely the Jets will not win a Super Bowl as long as Woody is the owner.

  5. 16 minutes ago, whodeawhodat said:

    watch the yungins.  See how our rooks, 2nd and 3rd year players develop.

    That sounds like the equivalent of watching paint dry.  The reality is you will be watching other teams beat the snot out of the Jets.  I have not found that to be an enjoyable experience over the years.  Call me crazy.

    and as far as development is concerned, you might be able to perceive development, assuming there is positive development, over some course of time.  But usually that will be a longer course of time than one game, or even a couple in a row. 

    Of course to be clear I am a fan of football in general.  I do not intend to imply I will not watch football or for that matter am not going to watch the Jets.  But it doesn't seem unreasonable to say the prospect of watching say the Jets Patriots games this season will be somewhat less enticing than if the Jets in fact had a competitive team.

  6. IMo those who think they see great logic in the move by this FO seem to be a tad optimistic.  We'll see how this ends up playing out.  It may be the optimists are merely putting lipstick on a pig. 

    One thing's for sure.  It will be a rough year to be an STH, and as for watching the Jets on tv, they might best put them on Comedy Central.

  7. 16 hours ago, phill1c said:

    thanks, I guess, for the clarification. what would I do without you to tell me how I should answer questions I fully understand?

    That said, I don't think he CAN play himself into a long-term deal because, really, in the end, the DE position doesn't warrant three or even two franchise-level players. Even when Richardson and Wilkerson were playing at their elite levels, the result wasn't really all that impressive. That's why Leonard Williams fell to the Jets because many GMs appear to realize that you can easily do without an elite 3-4 DE and still have an effective even stellar defense.

    No, I was describing what I understood your main point to be.  I was not telling you to do anything, although were it not for the rules here, I might have something to say.

    But back on the substance, I doubt the FO thinks that they will go without both of Wilkerson and Richardson.  So what I said made sense to me, and as I said was in response to the OP's question of CAN Richardson end up on the Jets.

  8. Chadwick to this day remains a divisive presence among Jet fans.  Perhaps it is surprising that he still has a rabid, unreasonable  and uninformed base of supporters, but this kind of thing happens in society.    Not all Jet fans are reasonable or know the game that well.  They tend to be Chad Fans.  I'm not going to get into debating an issue that was long ago settled.  Quite simply no matter what he might have accomplished otherwise, once exposed in that Raiders game and then the string of injuries he was hampered by, he was not a good Qb.   

    • Upvote 1
    • Thumb Down 1
  9. 15 minutes ago, phill1c said:

    I'll defer to your account that he played [only] 3 games in position and had solid stats in them. But that accounting doesn't at all mention the negative effects he had on the team--his cancerous relationships, his lack of leadership. Sure, in a very small sample he had some numbers (cherry picking?). Bottom line, the jets lost two of those games. Maybe not due solely to him, but there were plenty of other games where--and I'm not buying that he only played 3 games in position--he really didn't do much of anything.

    Basically, IMO, the stats he generates rarely result in victories or many game-turning plays. And, as I have come to believe, he plays a position that seems less impactful than in the past. Combine the meh overall stats and the poisonous attitude and I think he should be someone else's headache. Jets management should make the decision that if you're a knucklehead, you're NOT on the Jets.

    The central point of your post is essentially that Richardson's past shows him to be irredeemable, or likely to be, on a going forward basis.  Personally I am less inclined to be so categorically skeptical.  I think I have a good idea what you are considering when you come to your position.  But I don't feel close enough to what is going on with him on the team to reach the same conclusion.

    The OP's question was about CAN, not WILL or WON'T.  That being the case I think the correct answer has to be he can, if...  IF starting with he has or is about to give the FO the hope that he will redeem himself, grow up and get past whatever has turned his early promise into something less than that.

    If that comes to pass, there are two significant reasons to think Richardson can stick here.

    First of all they've already tried to trade him, and have failed.  While this makes it tempting to think the Jets are overvaluing him, like I think it pretty clear they did with Wilkerson before, then they should not repeat that mistake and end up holding on to him because they expect too much in a trade.  But this goes back to the redemption issue.  Other teams are further away from him, so on what basis would one of them take a chance on him when the Jets are basically saying they're giving up on him?  Some other team would have to think they know something about Richardson, something positive, that the Jets do not see.

    The second factor, and here I risk looking really foolish in the coming season, is I think Wilkerson not only has not but will not live up to his contract.  If that is correct and the Jets both see Richardson as redeemable and continue to get no attractive offer for him, then OF COURSE he would likely end up staying with the Jets.

    So those are the if's.  But if the if's play his way, the answer is clear.

    • Upvote 1
  10. 21 hours ago, SwanseaJack said:

    If Hackenberg is good, one thing is for certain... everyone on this forum would have known it all along, have always said he was a steal in the second round and said from the start he should be given a chance.

    Meh.  As someone who has more or less concluded it is unlikely that he will become a solid NFL Qb, if in fact he turns out to be, what I will say is why has the team been giving us all the signals it has that he is no good?  It is those signals, not some make pretend kind of personal and special insight I claim to have (since I do not), that are the basis for my view of Hack, as I think I can say for essentially all who are skeptical about him.

    So, if in fact he turns out to be good, I will be left scratching my head about how he has been handled so far.

    • Upvote 1
  11. 29 minutes ago, varjet said:

    Great post Win4ever.  I did not quote it because of its length.

    I don't think anyone gives a high draft pick to trade for Glennon.  I think the QBs with trade value have lower salaries.  It is tough to pay someone and give up a draft pick. 

    What they do get is a bridge QB and a potential future QB.  It is a decent QB story.  If they are drafting high again next year, they could always draft another QB high and either release Glennon or trade Trubisky. 

    Hopefully Hack can play well enough to be at least a 2.  The Jets definitely add at least 1 QB next year.  It could be a draft pick or a FA, or both.  This is McCown and likely Petty's last year on the Jets..

    I also like Win's post above, and yours before it.  Not sure about some others on this thread, specifically those who seem to know already that Trubisky will be a bad Qb.   Maybe they can pick out a lottery ticket  for me.

    As for Chicago, no doubt their approach may not pan out.  But IF they were right to want Trubisky, the trade up makes sense in that it was likely SF was offering the second spot to any team that made an attractive enough offer, not just Chicago.  So Chicago was not trading up in a vacuum, but did so in order to prevent some other team from trading for the spot and picking Trubisky.

    All of this suggests that Chicago has the flexibility to trade Glennon perhaps even before the season starts, certainly next year, when and if Trubisky shows he's ready to play.  And if Trubisky can't take the job away from Glennon in 18, then they've got him under contract. And if both look good next off season, Chicago can trade one of them, probably Glennon.  Like I said it might not pan out for them, but I can see the logic.

  12. On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 2:09 PM, bitonti said:

    the only problem with that is Trubisky seems like a top 3 pick these days. If he gets to 6 it's best of all worlds for Mac he gets value and need. Trubisky at 6 would be an easy situation for Mac

    But what happens when Trubisky goes higher and there's no real QB worth the 6. That's where all this trade down stuff comes in. I don't think Mac is brave enough to make a stand and "Reach" for a Mahomes or whoever. 

    Well yeah obviously if Trubisky goes higher, Macc could only be criticized for not trading up, which is a more difficult case to make and to be clear not one I am making.

    If Trubisky is gone at 6 the Jets might very well trade down.  Trade down and take another Qb?  Probably they won't. 

  13. 4 minutes ago, bitonti said:

    the only way I see Mac getting through this year if he takes a QB this year and even though the team is bad, this young player gets some snaps at some point, even if it's toward the end of the year and that pick gives the franchise hope. 

    Hack is going to be bad, Petty is going to get hurt. McCown shouldn't even be on the field.

    They aren't going to lose all the games with that group and then bring Mac back to take Darnold. If he couldn't find a QB in three drafts, he wouldn't be someone the franchise should trust to take a QB super high. 

     

    I agree. Given the constant complaints here over Bowles, the real focus will be on Macc. IF Macc does not take an available Trubinsky at 6 and Hack (as I expect) shows nothing, and the Jets have a poor season while Trubinsky shows development elsewhere, then I can see Macc getting fired. Bowles meanwhile gets a pass in a rebuilding year, and Woody and his family try to replace Macc while saying the new GM has to take Bowles.

    If on the other hand Trubinsky is drafted and gets in some games and does not crap the bed, Macc will be back in 18.

    • Upvote 1
    • Thumb Down 1
×
×
  • Create New...