Bleedin Green

The Jets most definitely needed to handle Hopkins infinitely better than they did, but it's not really all that difficult to piece together what they opted to do with their game plan, considering the success of their pass rush was dependent on heavy blitzing, and there do happen to be some rules about how many defenders you're actually allowed to play at a time. That's not even meant as the slightest bit of an excuse or justification, because Hopkins is why the Jets ultimately lost, but it's not such a difficult concept to grasp what happened as some try to make it out to be.

No, it's simply not celebrating one person for the work of another, particularly when it's being cited as the only worthwhile thing he's done.

So the lemmings are those who opt not to mindlessly concede to the Jets' PR attempts for Maccagnan? And others are "incessant whining" for not celebrating the repeated failures of the GM, all while you're carrying on based solely on your lack of acceptance of the opinion of others? It's always fun around here seeing those pointing the fingers being the most guilty party of their own accusations. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Like I said, I have no issue with Heimerdinger having made the move. There's a thing called delegation, and absolutely nothing wrong with that on its own. I don't doubt that Maccagnan was at the very least aware of everything happening, and even a good chance influencing it. With that said, when it's being used as quite literally the sole reason to support the retention of Maccagnan, which has been the case in not only the article that started this thread, but many others, that's ridiculous. Just because a horrible manager happens to have one good employee who does their work well, doesn't mean the manager deserves to keep their job for that alone. Quite frankly, even if the trade had been 100% Maccagnan's doing, I still wouldn't consider it enough to make up for his endless list of faults.

Yeah, as you mentioned while extremely long, that's definitely the perfect article to sum it all up. Part of why it's so meaningful is also given the timing of when it came out. I can freely admit, I'm always a bit suspicious when other behind-the-scenes type reports come out well after the fact and just so happens to bring up previously unreported history that fits the narrative of what's happening at that time. That's not the case at all here, as Heimerdinger's swinging of that trade was being reported from the very time it happened, which does everything to suggest it's the reality, especially given the volume of details behind it all that this particular article provides. At the time, I will admit I didn't consider it any major issue to have the Assistant GM playing his part in all of this, and I still don't think there's anything wrong with that on it's own, but when it's that move that is being used as the sole defense for why Maccagnan should retain his job, that's an entirely different story.

Fair enough, except those kind of roster-based decisions and changes all occur in the offseason, so it's a little late for that now. I would have no issue with them firing Bowles at any point this season, but that still wouldn't have done anything to change the current reality, unless you'd be gambling on whoever was interim coach being even worse. Any idea of tanking now is entirely dependent on wanting the team to knowingly and intentionally losing games, which never actually happens in the NFL, despite the claims of some around here saying otherwise.

It's doubtful they do any more with Robby this season than tag him as an RFA. That's been Maccagnan's M.O. for his entire time here.

There is a pretty big difference between the GM knowingly making some changes that may not improve your team immediately, but are for the long-term benefit of the team, and suggesting that the entire team (coaches, players, and everyone in between) should deliberately sabotage themselves while actually on the field playing the games. The former is certainly common enough, the latter doesn't actually happen.

So Maccagnan should keep his job solely because Heimerdinger worked out a trade up with the Colts, and the Browns and Giants both passed on Darnold? Yeah, that seems totally valid.

Do you really believe their countless years of sucking was intentional? Because everyone involved in that situation no longer works for the Browns. There is a very important difference between being the league's worst team every year, and supposedly intentionally losing.

That's what training camp and preseason is for. You don't worry about evaluating your backup at the expense of your rookie starter. If you were talking about the potential switch from a long-established veteran starter, or the splitting of reps at another position where that might be appropriate (i.e., not QB), there might be a different argument. However, benching a guy who still has plenty of growing to do, only in order to worry about a potential future backup for a coaching staff that isn't even here yet, is a bit far-fetched.

Yeah, I hadn't look at the PFF rankings particularly recently, but I did remember that they were far less positive about Shell than many around here. He's certainly been quite unimpressive, but ultimately comes with a much lower level of expectation from many, given he's a low draft pick still on a rookie contract, so seems to get graded on a curve by many. I'd be curious to see how PFF thinks of Long's ranking as a G, as although the sample size is a bit small at this point, he's certainly performed better there than at center (although that's not really saying all that much). In truth, it would be great if the Jets could do a full replacement of the OL across the board, but that is rather unfeasible to do in one offseason, which is why I think letting Shell and Beachum fight it out for the RT spot is a more likely option that would still be a better situation in the short term (assuming of course LT is properly addressed in the process).

The difference is, those who are actually employed by the team will never see those games as meaningless, and that's all that really matters. And this isn't some concept unique to the Jets, but rather is consistent across the entire NFL. Even the GM, who is the one guy on the team who would get the benefit of the higher pick, would most likely rather see the team he already put together look better on the field.

The Jets don't need just one WR though, they need many. It's for that reason they should be looking to retain what they have and continue to address the position in both FA and the draft.

"If there ever was a time to tank..." a comment that has been made around here for 8 years running. At some point people around here will just need to accept that its never a likely circumstance for an entire roster of players, staff of coaches, front office, and ownership to all get on board with intentionally losing solely because it might impact a couple of draft slots for a team that many of those same people will likely no longer be associated with by that time it happens if it all goes that badly.