The "rebuild" myth

[kevinc855]

There is no such thing as a "Rebuild" in the NFL so can we all stop talking about. Baseball where there is 162 games there is rebuilding due to length of season, minor leagues, and number of games. In football there is one team, and 16 games, and each team plays to win them all. A "rebuild" team example comes to mind is the Browns, every year they have a good pick and each year they are terrible. I could also point to the Jaguars as another example. Titans while on there way up, will most likely still miss the playoffs.

Instead of sitting in your fantasy world of saying we are rebuilding, the Jets need to build a CULTURE, a culture of winning, much like the Patriots, Steelers and Broncos have. You never see these teams get high picks or play all young players, but they are smart in building an organization that breeds success. I'm tired of hearing about draft picks, the Jets will get one from 6-10 this year but that won't solve all their problems. It runs much deeper, the Jets need to learn how to become a winning culture.

[Anthony Jet]

17 minutes ago, kevinc855 said:

There is no such thing as a "Rebuild" in the NFL so can we all stop talking about. Baseball where there is 162 games there is rebuilding due to length of season, minor leagues, and number of games. In football there is one team, and 16 games, and each team plays to win them all. A "rebuild" team example comes to mind is the Browns, every year they have a good pick and each year they are terrible. I could also point to the Jaguars as another example. Titans while on there way up, will most likely still miss the playoffs.

Instead of sitting in your fantasy world of saying we are rebuilding, the Jets need to build a CULTURE, a culture of winning, much like the Patriots, Steelers and Broncos have. You never see these teams get high picks or play all young players, but they are smart in building an organization that breeds success. I'm tired of hearing about draft picks, the Jets will get one from 6-10 this year but that won't solve all their problems. It runs much deeper, the Jets need to learn how to become a winning culture.

Somewhat agree, don't believe in tanking and nothing in the draft is  given, but I can't say I wasn't indifferent when the jets were in the mariotta sweepstakes. 

Have a feeling your gonna have a lot more people against you than with you on this one 

[JetPotato]

It's much easier to build a "winning culture" when you first construct a roster of players who win games.

[LionelRichie]

31 minutes ago, kevinc855 said:

There is no such thing as a "Rebuild" in the NFL so can we all stop talking about. Baseball where there is 162 games there is rebuilding due to length of season, minor leagues, and number of games. In football there is one team, and 16 games, and each team plays to win them all. A "rebuild" team example comes to mind is the Browns, every year they have a good pick and each year they are terrible. I could also point to the Jaguars as another example. Titans while on there way up, will most likely still miss the playoffs.

Instead of sitting in your fantasy world of saying we are rebuilding, the Jets need to build a CULTURE, a culture of winning, much like the Patriots, Steelers and Broncos have. You never see these teams get high picks or play all young players, but they are smart in building an organization that breeds success. I'm tired of hearing about draft picks, the Jets will get one from 6-10 this year but that won't solve all their problems. It runs much deeper, the Jets need to learn how to become a winning culture.

 

rebuild is code for finding a new QB who can play.   

Bortles stinks so the Jaguars are still "rebuilding", the Browns are worse than the Jets at finding a QB, Kaerpernick went from all-pro to terrible so the 49ers are rebuilding.   

Then look at the Raiders - now that they have Carr #2 they are rebuilt.

[The Crusher]

Two of those teams have had a hall of fame QB the last decade or so. Denver has the best edge rusher the league has seen possibly since LT. Denver has also never won a Super Bowl without a Hall of game QB since Elway. Who is also a very good GM. They did win with a withered Peyton Manning but Von Miller took that game over like myself at the fried shrimp portion of my go to buffet. Jets have none of those things. No QB, no edge rusher whatsoever and a bumbling buffoon for a GM. Until we find something close we will be in this perpetual football purgatory disquised like a rebuild. So the question is what is the quickest way to get there? 

[The Crusher]

14 minutes ago, LionelRichie said:

 

rebuild is code for finding a new QB who can play.   

Bortles stinks so the Jaguars are still "rebuilding", the Browns are worse than the Jets at finding a QB, Kaerpernick went from all-pro to terrible so the 49ers are rebuilding.   

Then look at the Raiders - now that they have Carr #2 they are rebuilt.

It really is. Well done.

[kevinc855]

18 minutes ago, LionelRichie said:

 

rebuild is code for finding a new QB who can play.   

Bortles stinks so the Jaguars are still "rebuilding", the Browns are worse than the Jets at finding a QB, Kaerpernick went from all-pro to terrible so the 49ers are rebuilding.   

Then look at the Raiders - now that they have Carr #2 they are rebuilt.

I can agree with that. QB is by far the most important position in this league. Hopefully Petty can work out, but we will see.

[PCP63]

You have to have good players to actually win and create a "winning culture". You rarely get these players (especially QBs) with the 20th pick.

 

Obviously, no NFL player would purposely play bad. But why not give the young guys more PT? You'll probably get a higher draft pick, AND they get live-game experience that will help them (and you) in the future.

 

Play Marshall, Decker less. Give Anderson and Peake more PT. Let Fitz and Geno walk. See what we have in Petty/Hack. Am I saying to let go of all good players? Of course not. But Marshall/Decker/Mangold/Harris are not in our future. They're aging quickly, and will not be around by the time we're competitive. But Anderson, Peake, Jalin, Powell, Jenkins, Burris, etc. will be.

 

We made too many win-now moves when we're not a win-now team. Give the young guys experience, get a high draft pick, build through the draft.

[kevinc855]

1 minute ago, PCP63 said:

You have to have good players to actually win and create a "winning culture". You rarely get these players (especially QBs) with the 20th pick.

 

Obviously, no NFL player would purposely play bad. But why not give the young guys more PT? You'll probably get a higher draft pick, AND they get live-game experience that will help them (and you) in the future.

 

Play Marshall, Decker less. Give Anderson and Peake more PT. Let Fitz and Geno walk. See what we have in Petty/Hack. Am I saying to let go of all good players? Of course not. But Marshall/Decker/Mangold/Harris are not in our future. They're aging quickly, and will not be around by the time we're competitive. But Anderson, Peake, Jalin, Powell, Jenkins, Burris, etc. will be.

 

We made too many win-now moves when we're not a win-now team. Give the young guys experience, get a high draft pick, build through the draft.

You still need to sign good players to make a good team. The FORTE move for example was a smart one, we didn't draft a RB and can't go without one. Decker hasn't played this year, we are playing Peake and Anderson, and Petty. 1st round picks are 1st round picks with little difference sometime between 20 and 10.

[rangerous]

totally agree about the whole misuse of rebuilding as it applies to the nfl.  by design teams have to replace at least 12 or so players each season just due to attrition and that means the teams are in a state of flux.  the real good teams are not ones that rest on their laurels and expect players to be the same year after year.  they are not afraid to trade a really good player if it looks like the player is in decline or will adversely impact the salary cap.  of course having a good qb is essential but that qb also needs an oline, receivers, rb's etc.  qb's (see luck or early manning) can't win alone.  and nothing has been said about the defense riving the offense yet.  the other thing the successful teams is a stable front office and coaching.  that's why bowles and maccagnan need a couple more seasons to get their rythym down.

[August]

1 hour ago, LionelRichie said:

 

rebuild is code for finding a new QB who can play.   

Bortles stinks so the Jaguars are still "rebuilding", the Browns are worse than the Jets at finding a QB, Kaerpernick went from all-pro to terrible so the 49ers are rebuilding.   

Then look at the Raiders - now that they have Carr #2 they are rebuilt.

So is Tampa, Tennessee, SD, Carolina, GB rebuilding too? How about Arizona, Cincy, NO? You can't simplify rebuilding into just being about the QB. 

[UnitedWhofans]

2 minutes ago, August said:

So is Tampa, Tennessee, SD, Carolina, GB rebuilding too? How about Arizona, Cincy, NO? You can't simplify rebuilding into just being about the QB. 

If you can rebuild a college football program, it has to be at least possible to rebuild an NFL team.

 

[Adoni Beast]

The real good teams have a franchise quarterback whose play can single handedly win them make the difference and win their teams a lot of close games.

It also allows team to cut bait with players who are good but about to decline, allows coaches to take more risks during games, because the quarterback can compensate. 

A franchise quarterback is everything in todays league.

[ZachEY]

[BigRy56]

It's just about the quarterback.... Every team is 'rebuilding'... unless they have one.

[munchmemory]

1 minute ago, BigRy56 said:

It's just about the quarterback.... Every team is 'rebuilding'... unless they have one.

And that's why, no joke, we as an organization have been "rebuilding" since Namath left town.  Yeah, Kenny O. was decent for a while.  And Chad almost seemed to have "it". But in reality, all of our QBs--from Todd, to Nagle, to Sanchez, to Geno, to Fitz have not gotten the job done.

[Kleckineau]

The "you cant win without a top QB"  dogma was trashed by the Broncos last year so stop already.

Coaching esp in game and game planning are just as important.

[munchmemory]

9 minutes ago, Kleckineau said:

The "you cant win without a top QB"  dogma was trashed by the Broncos last year so stop already.

Coaching esp in game and game planning are just as important.

I still believe you don't win without a virtuoso at QB.  I would put one caveat however.  An average QB can win the championship if that team has a superlative defense.  '85 Bears with McMahon, 2000 Ravens with Dilfer and '15 Broncos, although Peyton was there, too.

[August]

You need talent to win in the NFL, not just a good QB. There are plenty of teams with good QB's that are bad teams. Oh and good coaching as well. 

[FidelioJet]

4 minutes ago, Kleckineau said:

The "you cant win without a top QB"  dogma was trashed by the Broncos last year so stop already.

Coaching esp in game and game planning are just as important.

A hall of fame QB - that many believe is the best to have ever played the game- winning a Super Bowl trashed a dogma?

Yes, he wasn't what he used to be - but if you watched the game he did what he needed to do to win.  He put together a TD drive to start the game, played safe while they had the lead...and when they went down in the game late - he put together another drive to win.  He won the game based upon an immense amount of experience and poise.  

Yes, they won from a dominating defensive performance but Manning shouldn't be put into the crappy QB bucket.

[FidelioJet]

2 minutes ago, August said:

You need talent to win in the NFL, not just a good QB. There are plenty of teams with good QB's that are bad teams. Oh and good coaching as well. 

Just because you have a good QB doesn't mean you will win - but if you don't have a good QB you can't win. 

With that said, sustained success should be the goal..and in that case you NEED a franchise QB. 

[BigRy56]

14 minutes ago, Kleckineau said:

The "you cant win without a top QB"  dogma was trashed by the Broncos last year so stop already.

Coaching esp in game and game planning are just as important.

 

Peyton's performance obviously slipped but you cannot understate his ability to run an offense. That probably helped a lot during their run last season.

I also don't think that you need a top quarterback to win. Eli won (twice), Flacco won, and in my opinion, they were never even considered top qbs. Roethlisberger also won before he was considered to be a top QB. You just need a quarterback that will be there for his career, somebody who will make plays when they need to and allow you to address the rest of your team instead of worrying about the quarterback position every year.

[Matt39]

 

pretty much

[Ex-Rex]

2 hours ago, JetPotato said:

It's much easier to build a "winning culture" when you first construct a roster of players who win games.

You first have to find players like Rodney Harrison, Ronnie Lott, Ray Lewis etc... Men who don't allow for excuses or "acting" like you are playing hard, which is a favorite past time for some Jets players (Calvin Pryor. Mo Wilkerson, Gilchrist and a few others) and will kick their a$$ if they see them loafing. The Jets haven't had such leaders since Joe Klecko and Marty Lyons, but they are badly needed here. The winning culture needs to come from the players NOT the coaches or the front office. Rex tried to be that guy, but he is not a player and eventually they tuned him out.

[Beerfish]

Yeah just build culture, forget the players!

[rex-n-effect]

You might as well just talk about how the secret to winning is to want it more. 

I can get on board with your point that the organization sets the tone and the players respond; however, when you start talking about building a winning culture out of thin air you're delving into worthless platitudes. 

[August]

31 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

Just because you have a good QB doesn't mean you will win - but if you don't have a good QB you can't win. 

With that said, sustained success should be the goal..and in that case you NEED a franchise QB. 

I agree with most of your points. It's just that no one should think that having a franchise QB is enough. You need a complete team around the QB in order to win. 

[JetPotato]

18 minutes ago, Ex-Rex said:

You first have to find players like Rodney Harrison, Ronnie Lott, Ray Lewis etc... Men who don't allow for excuses or "acting" like you are playing hard, which is a favorite past time for some Jets players (Calvin Pryor. Mo Wilkerson, Gilchrist and a few others) and will kick their a$$ if they see them loafing. The Jets haven't had such leaders since Joe Klecko and Marty Lyons, but they are badly needed here. The winning culture needs to come from the players NOT the coaches or the front office. Rex tried to be that guy, but he is not a player and eventually they tuned him out.

You're right. But it's more than "attitude". It's a poorly constructed roster. It's the salary cap era and you're always going to have some units that are strong and some that are weaknesses. Unfortunately, we have most of our "strength" in a defensive line that is supposedly elite, yet still doesn't produce the pass rush to earn that title. Sure, they stop the run, which would have been great if it were 1985. We also have money invested in a very good wide receiving corp, but have no one that can throw them the ball. So, in a league in which passing is all that really matters, we have an awful secondary and awful quarterbacks. Yay.

[FidelioJet]

4 minutes ago, August said:

I agree with most of your points. It's just that no one should think that having a franchise QB is enough. You need a complete team around the QB in order to win. 

Agreed...

But I think it's just so hard to build a winning culture and a consistent roster when your QB position is in constant flux....When you have to keep drafting QB's, starting new ones etc.....it just puts a huge weight on everything else.  You need to find that QB then build around him.

[Integrity28]

I've been saying it here for years. The term "rebuild" is part of a revisionist history strategy for PR teams. It's much more palatable to market the current, or most recent, season as a "rebuild" than it is to call it a failure. Truth is, it's a failure.

Some organizations just tolerate failure so well that it is presented as "constant hope" before the season, and "part of a rebuild" after the season. This is the Jets.

Other organizations don't tolerate failure well at all, so it is presented as a failure, and the term rebuild is different for them. It specifically means that during the unacceptable failed season they realized exactly what parts of their roster they need to turn over, and plan to do so. There is no packaged "hope". There is just returning to the norm of not failing. This is the Broncos, Steelers, Packers, etc.

Perfect example is the Packers this year, they are right smack in the middle of a failed season. 

[rangerous]

1 hour ago, munchmemory said:

I still believe you don't win without a virtuoso at QB.  I would put one caveat however.  An average QB can win the championship if that team has a superlative defense.  '85 Bears with McMahon, 2000 Ravens with Dilfer and '15 Broncos, although Peyton was there, too.

how about adding johnson, doug williams, mark rypien, joe theisman, to that list.  how about eli manning, flacco?  imo the only qb's who can make plays without players are roethlisberger and maybe rivers.  the rest are very good but depend on the team around them.  even brady. and let's be clear, all of these great qb's have good players around them.

as for the need for a top flite qb, it certainly helps but great teams execute.  they do they same things well over and over.  they tackle, they make blocks, they catch the ball, they don't fumble, they don't take plays off, they are physically fit, they know the game rules, and they want to play for the sake of playing.  it's up to the coaches to make sure the plays play to the team's strengths and they make sure the players are executing.

[Beerfish]

15 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

I've been saying it here for years. The term "rebuild" is part of a revisionist history strategy for PR teams. It's much more palatable to market the current, or most recent, season as a "rebuild" than it is to call it a failure. Truth is, it's a failure.

Some organizations just tolerate failure so well that it is presented as "constant hope" before the season, and "part of a rebuild" after the season. This is the Jets.

Other organizations don't tolerate failure well at all, so it is presented as a failure, and the term rebuild is different for them. It specifically means that during the unacceptable failed season they realized exactly what parts of their roster they need to turn over, and plan to do so. There is no packaged "hope". There is just returning to the norm of not failing. This is the Broncos, Steelers, Packers, etc.

Perfect example is the Packers this year, they are right smack in the middle of a failed season. 

I've said it before teams that rebuild on the fly have at least one totally dominant phase of the team in place.  Most of the time it is a QB, in Denvers case their defense.

You don;t hear a 'rebuild' for teams that have Rogers, Brees, Brady, Roeths, heck even Rivers.

Hell the Pats rebuild in season half the time and get away with it only because they have Brady and a superb coaching staff.

[UnitedWhofans]

6 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

I've said it before teams that rebuild on the fly have at least one totally dominant phase of the team in place.  Most of the time it is a QB, in Denvers case their defense.

You don;t hear a 'rebuild' for teams that have Rogers, Brees, Brady, Roeths, heck even Rivers.

Hell the Pats rebuild in season half the time and get away with it only because they have Brady and a superb coaching staff.

I disagree with that to an extent. You do hear the word rebuild around some of those teams. And part of their "rebuild" is trading their QBs. This has been the case with Brees and Rivers especially. I think another bad year next year and Green Bay will start to have that chat.

There has even been at times a faction of Pats fans that have suggested moving on from Brady. Nuts, but it's true

Regardless, I think its a big question whether to have a good team around you then you get the QB or the other way around. If you do it the other way, you could end up like Indy and San Diego

 

[Kleckineau]

1 hour ago, FidelioJet said:

A hall of fame QB - that many believe is the best to have ever played the game- winning a Super Bowl trashed a dogma?

Yes, he wasn't what he used to be - but if you watched the game he did what he needed to do to win.  He put together a TD drive to start the game, played safe while they had the lead...and when they went down in the game late - he put together another drive to win.  He won the game based upon an immense amount of experience and poise.  

Yes, they won from a dominating defensive performance but Manning shouldn't be put into the crappy QB bucket.

GOAT probably but last year he sucked. Fitz was a better QB than he was last year. He was benched for Osweiller for goodness sakes.

I wont argue his greatness just saying a Lombardi can be won with out a top QB which Peyton was not last year.

[rex-n-effect]

10 minutes ago, Kleckineau said:

GOAT probably but last year he sucked. Fitz was a better QB than he was last year. He was benched for Osweiller for goodness sakes.

I wont argue his greatness just saying a Lombardi can be won with out a top QB which Peyton was not last year.

I believe by "benched for osweiller" you mean out several weeks with an injury.