Chris Johnson, not Woody, will decide the fate of Bowles and Maccagnan at the end of the year

[sciond]

who cares  at this point....

[Mogglez]

2 hours ago, jetfan39 said:

the more I read your posts the more I think you are the reincarnation of THADUDE

It's exactly who he is.  He's circumventing his ban.  Pretty sure he did the same thing back on JI but I'm not sifting through that trash bin or giving Sooth a click to figure that out for sure.  My memory is decent enough.  He had, like, 6 accounts and was repeatedly told that they would continue to be banned.

[RESNewYork]

51 minutes ago, Bugg said:

And this makes the awful job Bowles is doing....okay? 

It does not but maybe give it more than 2 weeks. Fans love to botch and moan about Bowles but there are counter points. Like in 2015 when the Jets missed the playoffs at 10-6 by losing to buffalo but to get to that point the Jets had to go on a winning streak which included beating the pats. 

[dbatesman]

2 hours ago, Pac said:

What a pile of defeatist horsesh-t.  No surprise the Dbuttman and TomShame gave you cute little heart symbols for this monologue of cowardice.

"we have 1 talented football player... we're the worst...  we suck... we won't be good until the next solar eclipse...  wah wah wah"

Holy crap the lot of you need spankings.

Heres the thing guys: the Jets actually have lot's of good players

[dbatesman]

2 hours ago, Pac said:

It was a couple years after they fired your boy Idzik.

That was one of our better decisions. See, when a team is bad, its the GMs fault for not getting good players, not the coaches fault. Except now when its totally the coaches fault, but you get the picture

[Fantasy Island]

8 hours ago, Pac said:

I think Fitzpatrick was the biggest mistake he's made but there is plenty evidence to suggest he never wanted to re-sign him.  Between leaving him dangling in FA and offering a contract he could easily escape from it was pretty clear he never thought much of Fitzy.  I think more of the blame for that blunder falls on Bowels and the lunatic fringe who insisted that sh-tty QB was desperately needed.

Your 2nd point doesn't hold water unless you're saying that Watson and Mahommes are off to miserable starts.  The Texans scored a paltry 13 points last week and Mahommes can't get off the bench.

 

The correct answer is resigning Darrelle Mevi$.   In 2016 he got paid over $1 million per game to stand out there and watch opposing WRs, TEs, RBs, and eligible Tackles run past him.

[Fantasy Island]

4 hours ago, MDL_JET said:

Lol I saw that he has to get in shape a little more. Wtf?? It's been what, 2 weeks? Did he just lay on the couch and stuff his face without moving until now? 

Revis trained him.

[Dcat]

14 hours ago, Pac said:

And your blind hatred is ruining your soul.

Time will tell us whether it was a good draft or not but the early results look pretty damn good.

LOL.  When your argument has no validity, why not go for the melodramatic?  How classic.  And right now the draft looks like a waste.  2 new safeties and still a defense that is porous and gives up tons of yardage and points.  Yeah.. the draft is looking real good.  So good that Mac goes out to get JAGs like Kerley and Kearse to start so he doesn't have to play the 2 rookie WRs he drafted.  

[Sonny Werblin]

19 hours ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

How many teams have the owner pick the coach rather than the GM?  I'd much rather the owner hire/fire the GM but let the GM pick his own coach.

To be fair, I do believe that every NFL team with exception of the publicly owned Packers has the Owner hire the coach. Of course, for many of the teams the GM leads the search, conducts the interviews and makes a recommendation. In this instance, Charlie Casserly and Ron Wolf, provided the services the GM would provide in the coach search. Plus, Casserly and Wolf are the same tandem that recommended Macagnan -- who used to work for Casserly. You don't think they have the same criteria for a HC? And, how quickly people forget that Bowles and Quinn were the hot candidates for HC.  So, do people really think Macagnan would take his first GM job and make a "surprise" hire as HC?

I'm new to this board, but I've got to say, there is a ton of of unfair agenda driven criticism. Many have developed their own narrative of the team, management, or coaches and bend the truth, miscast past occurrences, and use hindsight as a weapon to attempt to prove the truth of their opinions.

The truth here is that Bowles was a great hire "at the time". Some have decided he is not a good coach based on the play of the team (they apparently forget the 10 win season with Fits at the helm) and his in game decisions, and that's fine, they are entitled to that opinion and, more importantly, they have a rational basis for it. I am of the belief that Bowles has the qualities to be a successful HC who sticks with one team for 10 to 15 seasons. I want long term stability. Very few HC's are the difference makers between wins and losses (good players are the reason teams win) -- and I don't see a HOF HC walking through the Jets door -- so I'd rather accept that Bowles will do some on the job learning because I believe he possesses the innate qualities that make a successful NFL HC.

Any attempt to argue that Bowles was a bad hire because he was hired before Macagnan is just plain silly, but sadly it is emblematic of a lot of the arguments posters make here.

[Sonny Werblin]

11 hours ago, Pac said:

All last year and this year I've heard Bowles talk in press conferences about missed assignments and players not sticking to their roles.  The team rarely exhibits passion during the games or disappointment in their performances when they lose.

Whose fault is this?

Last year I felt it was the fault of the veterans in the locker room. This season, if the team does not improve in the areas you mention, that's on Bowles. Time will tell.

[Sonny Werblin]

12 hours ago, MDL_JET said:

What do you think he does well?? I go back and forth with Bowles. But when we invest so much into the defense, including 3 top picks since he got here, and the D still can't come together you wonder what the hell is going on. 

I think Kacy Rogers is the main problem with the D because Bowles wants to be a HC, not a DC who is HC. He doesn't coach the D or call the plays. In fact, other than it being a 3-4 base D, I'm not sure how much of this is really is Bowles' D. In Arizona he played a lot of man and sent extra pass rushers. I've seen none of that in the first two games. It seems like it would have been a smart tactic against the Bills since they don't have great WRs, and while it may have been suicidal against the Raiders so was giving Carr all day in a clean pocket. Also, I don't think Rogers ever coached with Bowles when Bowles was the DC, so I'm unclear whether Bowles would instruct Rogers to learn and then run Bowles D rather than his own. Frankly, based on the lack of extra pass rushers, I'd say the D is more of Rogers design than Bowles.

[#27TheDominator]

24 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

I think Kacy Rogers is the main problem with the D because Bowles wants to be a HC, not a DC who is HC. He doesn't coach the D or call the plays. In fact, other than it being a 3-4 base D, I'm not sure how much of this is really is Bowles' D. In Arizona he played a lot of man and sent extra pass rushers. I've seen none of that in the first two games. It seems like it would have been a smart tactic against the Bills since they don't have great WRs, and while it may have been suicidal against the Raiders so was giving Carr all day in a clean pocket. Also, I don't think Rogers ever coached with Bowles when Bowles was the DC, so I'm unclear whether Bowles would instruct Rogers to learn and then run Bowles D rather than his own. Frankly, based on the lack of extra pass rushers, I'd say the D is more of Rogers design than Bowles.

You complain about agendas and then want to pin this on Rodgers based on pure conjecture?

1. Rodgers was handpicked by Bowles.  He stuck even after the mini-purge this off-season.

2. Rodgers was under Bowles in Miami from 20087-2011 where Bowles was assistant and then interim HC.  Yes, Nolan was the DC, but they had plenty of time working together to know their philosophies were compatible.  They also worked together under Parcells in Dallas.  I am not sure why we are poaching guys from Sparanos staff, but that is a different matter. 

3. If this isn't Bowles scheme, then what is he providing?  He isn't a motivator, he isn't a game manager.  He was supposed to be a defensive savant. 

4. The personnel seem to have been picked specifically at Bowles request - safety/LB hybrids with speed, but the corners seem slow.  That may contribute to the lack of man, though I personally thought I saw plenty - problem is that Burris is slow and Skrine is short and they were abused. I saw them sending guys too, but there is a difference between sending Abraham and sending Jenkins.

[Philc1]

12 hours ago, flgreen said:

No attack here honest.

Please explain to me why the most physically talented unit on the team has give up 66 pts.  Worst in the NFL.  

That's Bowles expertise.   This is a badly coached football team 

We have by far the NFL's worst defense.  Bowles is a joke 

[Philc1]

47 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

I think Kacy Rogers is the main problem with the D because Bowles wants to be a HC, not a DC who is HC. He doesn't coach the D or call the plays. In fact, other than it being a 3-4 base D, I'm not sure how much of this is really is Bowles' D. In Arizona he played a lot of man and sent extra pass rushers. I've seen none of that in the first two games. It seems like it would have been a smart tactic against the Bills since they don't have great WRs, and while it may have been suicidal against the Raiders so was giving Carr all day in a clean pocket. Also, I don't think Rogers ever coached with Bowles when Bowles was the DC, so I'm unclear whether Bowles would instruct Rogers to learn and then run Bowles D rather than his own. Frankly, based on the lack of extra pass rushers, I'd say the D is more of Rogers design than Bowles.

Everyone knows Bowles is the real defensive coordinator and has even less to do with the offense than Rex

 

Bowles cannot make adjustments, no one plays hard for him.  Arizona had a top 3 defense last year clearly they never missed Bowles.  He isn't bad he is horrible 

 

[Sonny Werblin]

18 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

You complain about agendas and then want to pin this on Rodgers based on pure conjecture?

1. Rodgers was handpicked by Bowles.  He stuck even after the mini-purge this off-season.

2. Rodgers was under Bowles in Miami from 20087-2011 where Bowles was assistant and then interim HC.  Yes, Nolan was the DC, but they had plenty of time working together to know their philosophies were compatible.  They also worked together under Parcells in Dallas.  I am not sure why we are poaching guys from Sparanos staff, but that is a different matter. 

3. If this isn't Bowles scheme, then what is he providing?  He isn't a motivator, he isn't a game manager.  He was supposed to be a defensive savant. 

4. The personnel seem to have been picked specifically at Bowles request - safety/LB hybrids with speed, but the corners seem slow.  That may contribute to the lack of man, though I personally thought I saw plenty - problem is that Burris is slow and Skrine is short and they were abused. I saw them sending guys too, but there is a difference between sending Abraham and sending Jenkins.

Just curious what is my agenda?

1. Yes, Bowles picked Rogers and stuck with him -- which disappointed me. And Rogers failures are Bowles. If Bowles sticks with Rogers for the entire season, I do not see the D improving, Bowles should be fired. The most important quality of a HC is the ability to identify good Co-ordinators and position coaches in the hiring process. I fear Bowles puts his friendship with Rogers over his obligation to the Jets to have the best DC possible.

2. Not sure I get your point. My point was that Rogers never ran a D scheme designed by Bowles. Are you agreeing with me?

3. He is being a HC. Not sure how all of you people know what Bowles does as a HC or how he interacts with his players. It seems like your assumption that Bowles is doing nothing if he is not running his own D, is more like a belief or guess, than a fact. People who have seen his interaction with the players -- Willie Colon and Chris Johnson -- have flat out stated in the past two days that Bowles has a great relationship with is players and holds players accountable. Since they see it, I'll believe them over your guess.

4. This is a simplistic view. The only player chosen that was arguably chosen to fit Bowles scheme is Darron Lee since he seemed to fit the way Bowles used Buchanon in Arizona, but then again, Lee was compared to Shazier... Does that mean the Jets are trying to run the Steeler's scheme. I use my eyes when I evaluate. Bowles D played man to man and brought extra pass rushers, and when in a 3-4 D bringing a 4th pass rusher in the form of one LB is not an extra pass rusher. So, based on what I see, this is not Todd Bowles D. Rogers is the DC. Not Bowles. Rogers call the D plays. Not Bowles. It is Rogers D. When the Jets hired Bowles they hired a HC, not DC. I, for one, want a HC who coaches the whole team, not just one side of the ball.  And I also want a HC that holds his assistants accountable for performance. Sadly, Bowles has not done that with Kacy Rogers.

[#27TheDominator]

2 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

Just curious what is my agenda?

My point isn't that you have an agenda, it is that you are assuming everybody else does.  We all look at the data and make assumptions. Yours involves Rodgers running his own D that isn't designed by Bowles.  I find that idea a bit outlandish, but crazier things have happened. 

I think the idea that Rodgers "never ran a defensive scheme designed by Bowles" is the simplistic view.  They worked together for years.  You think the assistant HC doesn't get any input?  You think Nolan made all the decisions in setting up that D, when they passed him over for Bowles as interim? 

As for Bowles "being a HC" I don't see how he is "being a HC" without setting up the D. When he interviewed for the position, do you think he dazzled them with his administrative capabilities or sold them on running an innovative D that would succeed in the NFL.  It is part of the job.  I will grant you that he loses a lot of control by not calling the plays, but the idea that this "isn't his D" is beyond ridiculous.  

As for his relationship with the players and "accountability" ex-players said the same about Rex.  How much do you value their opinions? 

You think this roster is of Maccagnan's doing? Other than the fact that they only added one cover corner this year, it seems like exactly what he would ask for.  Arguably the stupidest move by the FO has been resigning Fitzpatrick and Mr. He's Our Starter obviously requested that.

[Philc1]

13 hours ago, Pac said:

All last year and this year I've heard Bowles talk in press conferences about missed assignments and players not sticking to their roles.  The team rarely exhibits passion during the games or disappointment in their performances when they lose.

Whose fault is this?

Idzik 

[whodeawhodat]

17 hours ago, Mogglez said:

I don't know why this is surprising to anyone.  Woody is legitimately not allowed to have anything to do with the team as long as he is ambassador.  That will be a total of 4 (or 8, but let's not take the discussion there) years and I'm sure the NFL will monitor that situation close enough that he doesn't dare think about intervening.

Chris is 110% in charge.  That might actually be a good thing, lmao.

idk about this.  Is there legislation that an individual must divest all business interests for the post he was assigned?  I talk to my brother about most big decisions i make in my life.  If he handed over his business to me to run you bet your ass i would consult with him before any major decision was made for his company.

[Sonny Werblin]

39 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

My point isn't that you have an agenda, it is that you are assuming everybody else does.  We all look at the data and make assumptions. Yours involves Rodgers running his own D that isn't designed by Bowles.  I find that idea a bit outlandish, but crazier things have happened. 

I think the idea that Rodgers "never ran a defensive scheme designed by Bowles" is the simplistic view.  They worked together for years.  You think the assistant HC doesn't get any input?  You think Nolan made all the decisions in setting up that D, when they passed him over for Bowles as interim? 

As for Bowles "being a HC" I don't see how he is "being a HC" without setting up the D. When he interviewed for the position, do you think he dazzled them with his administrative capabilities or sold them on running an innovative D that would succeed in the NFL.  It is part of the job.  I will grant you that he loses a lot of control by not calling the plays, but the idea that this "isn't his D" is beyond ridiculous.  

As for his relationship with the players and "accountability" ex-players said the same about Rex.  How much do you value their opinions? 

You think this roster is of Maccagnan's doing? Other than the fact that they only added one cover corner this year, it seems like exactly what he would ask for.  Arguably the stupidest move by the FO has been resigning Fitzpatrick and Mr. He's Our Starter obviously requested that.

You make some good points, but I still don't know what my agenda is? Are you conflating my opinion with the concept of an agenda?

[#27TheDominator]

30 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

You make some good points, but I still don't know what my agenda is? Are you conflating my opinion with the concept of an agenda?

Did you read my post?  I DID NOT SAY YOU HAD AN AGENDA.  I said it wasn't fair to complain about our/everybody having an agenda because you feel they twist the narrative, when your spin is that this is Kacey Rodgers D.  There is no evidence of this other than your conjecture and as an explanation to protect Bowles defensive credentials.  That would be your "agenda."

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

My point isn't that you have an agenda, it is that you are assuming everybody else does.  We all look at the data and make assumptions. Yours involves Rodgers running his own D that isn't designed by Bowles.  I find that idea a bit outlandish, but crazier things have happened. 

This is what I was responding to:

3 hours ago, Sonny Werblin said:

I'm new to this board, but I've got to say, there is a ton of of unfair agenda driven criticism. Many have developed their own narrative of the team, management, or coaches and bend the truth, miscast past occurrences, and use hindsight as a weapon to attempt to prove the truth of their opinions.

1. You claim "we" twist the narrative, but your version makes at least as many assumptions.

2. There is not really such a thing as "a good hire at the time."  You are either a good hire or not a good hire.  It may be an understandable or sensible hire, but it is only "good" if the coach is good.

3. In that post you act like people are miscasting the past, in particular about the timing of the hire.  It is true that Maccagnan was technically hired first, but Bowles was already rumored to be the choice before they even interviewed Maccagnan and I am pretty sure that they picked Maccagnan specifically as a guy that would work well with Bowles.  I rembmer reading it at the time.  I was on this board every day and reading all the articles and I knew Bowles would be the coach well in advance of the Maccagnan's hiring.  That being said, there may be limited importance to any of that and Maccagnan was supposedly in on Bowles final interview. 

[Sonny Werblin]

45 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Did you read my post?  I DID NOT SAY YOU HAD AN AGENDA.  I said it wasn't fair to complain about our/everybody having an agenda because you feel they twist the narrative, when your spin is that this is Kacey Rodgers D.  There is no evidence of this other than your conjecture and as an explanation to protect Bowles defensive credentials.  That would be your "agenda."

This is what I was responding to:

1. You claim "we" twist the narrative, but your version makes at least as many assumptions.

2. There is not really such a thing as "a good hire at the time."  You are either a good hire or not a good hire.  It may be an understandable or sensible hire, but it is only "good" if the coach is good.

3. In that post you act like people are miscasting the past, in particular about the timing of the hire.  It is true that Maccagnan was technically hired first, but Bowles was already rumored to be the choice before they even interviewed Maccagnan and I am pretty sure that they picked Maccagnan specifically as a guy that would work well with Bowles.  I rembmer reading it at the time.  I was on this board every day and reading all the articles and I knew Bowles would be the coach well in advance of the Maccagnan's hiring.  That being said, there may be limited importance to any of that and Maccagnan was supposedly in on Bowles final interview. 

Sorry. I misread the first line. But, to be fair, I dion't think I said every poster. I think I said "many" posters (at least that's what I meant). And, perhaps, it's not many, and rather just a vocal few who post a lot. Like I said, I'm new here. I'm not familiar with all of the posters. But, I stand by my view that their are lots of posts (maybe by just a few posters) that unfairly attack Mac and Bowles based on revisionist history, misinformation, conjecture, etc... just to make it fit their narrative. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of fair criticisms, and they are warranted.  

1. I'm trying to arrive at an opinion based on what I see. What assumption did I make? That it is Rogers D? Did I assume he is the DC? Did I assume he calls the D plays? I think we call those things facts. You are the one assuming that because Bowles used to be a DC, the Jets must be running his D. What evidence do you have? That the Jets run a 3-4? They ran one before Bowles and so do most teams. Please enlighten me as to my "assumptions". 

2. Really, that is just stupid. Bowles was a top 2 HC candidate when hired, and I acknowledge that he may fail. So, he was a good hire at the time but only time will tell if in the end it was a good hire.

3. I'm really not sure what your point is here. 

[#27TheDominator]

13 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

Sorry. I misread the first line. But, to be fair, I dion't think I said every poster. I think I said "many" posters (at least that's what I meant). And, perhaps, it's not many, and rather just a vocal few who post a lot. Like I said, I'm new here. I'm not familiar with all of the posters. But, I stand by my view that their are lots of posts (maybe by just a few posters) that unfairly attack Mac and Bowles based on revisionist history, misinformation, conjecture, etc... just to make it fit their narrative. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of fair criticisms, and they are warranted.  

1. I'm trying to arrive at an opinion based on what I see. What assumption did I make? That it is Rogers D? Did I assume he is the DC? Did I assume he calls the D plays? I think we call those things facts. You are the one assuming that because Bowles used to be a DC, the Jets must be running his D. What evidence do you have? That the Jets run a 3-4? They ran one before Bowles and so do most teams. Please enlighten me as to my "assumptions". 

2. Really, that is just stupid. Bowles was a top 2 HC candidate when hired, and I acknowledge that he may fail. So, he was a good hire at the time but only time will tell if in the end it was a good hire.

3. I'm really not sure what your point is here. 

We can ignore #3, but as for the rest:

Preamble: Agreed.  I would add that for some of the agenda driven posters their purpose is comedy.  I know for a fact that they point out the ridiculous and sublime for their own amusement. The problem is that others don't see when they are joking and when their are serious and sadly the team's performance has allowed the two to align way more closely than I would prefer.

1. Bowles is the HC and he is a defensive coach.  If the D is not the BEST D he can envision, he is a moron and should be fired on the spot.  If he gives Rodgers play calling duties so that he can oversee the rest I understand, but if he is not involved in game planning, what is his purpose?  Looking stoic on the sideline?  Hurray.  

2.  You claim that is stupid and literally quote my point as your own (see bold).  A good hire at the time isn't a thing.  He was a good hire or bad hire, whether or not it made sense to hire him at the time. 

[Freemanm]

Bowles reminds me of a certain someone. Chris needs to understand that Bowles has to go.

[Philc1]

12 minutes ago, Freemanm said:

Bowles reminds me of a certain someone. Chris needs to understand that Bowles has to go.

Bowles is actually worse than Kotite

[Bugg]

3 hours ago, Sonny Werblin said:

Just curious what is my agenda?

1. Yes, Bowles picked Rogers and stuck with him -- which disappointed me. And Rogers failures are Bowles. If Bowles sticks with Rogers for the entire season, I do not see the D improving, Bowles should be fired. The most important quality of a HC is the ability to identify good Co-ordinators and position coaches in the hiring process. I fear Bowles puts his friendship with Rogers over his obligation to the Jets to have the best DC possible.

2. Not sure I get your point. My point was that Rogers never ran a D scheme designed by Bowles. Are you agreeing with me?

3. He is being a HC. Not sure how all of you people know what Bowles does as a HC or how he interacts with his players. It seems like your assumption that Bowles is doing nothing if he is not running his own D, is more like a belief or guess, than a fact. People who have seen his interaction with the players -- Willie Colon and Chris Johnson -- have flat out stated in the past two days that Bowles has a great relationship with is players and holds players accountable. Since they see it, I'll believe them over your guess.

4. This is a simplistic view. The only player chosen that was arguably chosen to fit Bowles scheme is Darron Lee since he seemed to fit the way Bowles used Buchanon in Arizona, but then again, Lee was compared to Shazier... Does that mean the Jets are trying to run the Steeler's scheme. I use my eyes when I evaluate. Bowles D played man to man and brought extra pass rushers, and when in a 3-4 D bringing a 4th pass rusher in the form of one LB is not an extra pass rusher. So, based on what I see, this is not Todd Bowles D. Rogers is the DC. Not Bowles. Rogers call the D plays. Not Bowles. It is Rogers D. When the Jets hired Bowles they hired a HC, not DC. I, for one, want a HC who coaches the whole team, not just one side of the ball.  And I also want a HC that holds his assistants accountable for performance. Sadly, Bowles has not done that with Kacy Rogers.

As Bowles has practically nothing to do with the offense going on 3 seasons, boggles the mind how anyone could say that. 

[Sonny Werblin]

32 minutes ago, Bugg said:

As Bowles has practically nothing to do with the offense going on 3 seasons, boggles the mind how anyone could say that. 

Nothing to do with the offense. You are a funny man. 

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2017/03/jets_todd_bowles_says_hell_have_much_bigger_role_w.html

ps. I apologize if I offended you by assuming your gender.

[Mogglez]

3 hours ago, whodeawhodat said:

idk about this.  Is there legislation that an individual must divest all business interests for the post he was assigned?  I talk to my brother about most big decisions i make in my life.  If he handed over his business to me to run you bet your ass i would consult with him before any major decision was made for his company.

Actually, yes there is.  Woody is legitimately not allowed to be consulted or involved in any decisions regarding the Jets as long as he is the ambassador.  I think it was Brian Costello who wrote an article detailing the situation.

[flgreen]

10 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

Actually, yes there is.  Woody is legitimately not allowed to be consulted or involved in any decisions regarding the Jets as long as he is the ambassador.  I think it was Brian Costello who wrote an article detailing the situation.

Woody is allowed by law to run the Jets.  Trump has requested that he focus on being an ambassador 

How Woody Johnson becoming ambassador would change Jets

By Brian Costello

June 24, 2017 | 1:09am

 

Modal Trigger

Woody JohnsonEPA

MORE ON:

NEW YORK JETS

The Jets are not ready for the Dolphins' monster

 

The emotional moment the Deckers realized Eric was getting cut by Jets

 

Jets new owner would do well channeling a bit of Jerry Jones

 

Jets sticking with Darron Lee

The White House officially announced President Donald Trump was nominating Jets owner Woody Johnson to be the ambassador to the United Kingdom on Thursday night.

Johnson still needs to be confirmed by the Senate, but they already are anticipating his arrival in London.

“We are looking forward to working with the new U.S. ambassador once that is confirmed,” British Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokeswoman said Friday.

“His close personal relationship with the president shows the commitment of the administration to the special relationship between our two countries.”

Jets fans are anxious to know what this means for their team. Here are some questions and answers:

When does this go into effect?

The Senate needs to confirm Johnson. No one seems quite sure when that might happen. The Senate breaks for summer recess in two weeks, so it seems unlikely it will happen quickly.

Also, news broke of Trump’s intention to nominate Johnson in December. It took six months for it to actually happen.

This will happen at the pace set by Washington and right now Congress has a lot on its plate. This could drag on for a while.

Does Johnson have to sell the team?

No. He has to leave all of the NFL committees he is on, but he will still be the Jets’ owner, as he has been since January 2000.

Will Johnson still run the team?

Johnson will turn over day-to-day operations to his brother Christopher. Johnson will not be formally involved in any decisions — big or small — about the team during his term as ambassador, which could last up to four years. So, any hirings and firings will be done by Christopher. Now, they are brothers and it is naïve to think they won’t talk about the team, but ultimately the president wants Johnson to concentrate on his duties in London, not the team in New Jersey, so Christopher will be running the show.

Who is Christopher Johnson?

At 58, he is 12 years younger than Woody and has been a minority owner of the Jets. He sometimes comes to practices with Woody, so players, coaches and front office executives know who he is. Former quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick once referenced him in a press conference. He is one of Woody’s two living siblings, two others died. People who know him describe him as even-keeled and likely to be less hands-on than Woody.

What does this mean for Mike Maccagnan and Todd Bowles?

I don’t think this changes much in terms of their futures. Those are still ultimately going to be decided by the direction of the team. Some have suggested that Christopher might have more patience than his older brother, but that remains to be seen. He will face a decision in January because Bowles and Maccagnan both will be staring at the final years of their contracts in 2018. Traditionally, that is when teams either extend or fire their coach and general manager.

[Jetsplayer21]

On 9/20/2017 at 12:53 PM, TuscanyTile2 said:

How many teams have the owner pick the coach rather than the GM?  I'd much rather the owner hire/fire the GM but let the GM pick his own coach.

When you pick Scott hackenberg in the high second round you don’t get to make the big decisions anymore

[56mehl56]

17 minutes ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

When you pick Scott hackenberg in the high second round you don’t get to make the big decisions anymore

who the hell is Scott Hackenberg.

[flgreen]

18 minutes ago, 56mehl56 said:

who the hell is Scott Hackenberg.

[Bugg]

1 hour ago, Sonny Werblin said:

Nothing to do with the offense. You are a funny man. 

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2017/03/jets_todd_bowles_says_hell_have_much_bigger_role_w.html

ps. I apologize if I offended you by assuming your gender.

So now we are to be impressed that Bowles  goes to some   offensive meetings and tells the OC to throw the ball on 3rd down from time to time. Yes,Todd Bowles is a  regular Bill Walsh. You are either clueless or joking, cannot tell which. But doesn't really matter, Bowles is a Kotitian joke anyway. And once this disaster plays out he will be fired.   And from your own link, what a leader of men-

"Is coach Todd Bowles worried about his team's alleged issue with tardiness?

"It's part of it," Bowles said at the NFL owners meeting on Tuesday. "Sometimes you're late to work. It's life. It's not life threatening ... Sometimes your alarm clock isn't going to go off."" 

Yes, coach, pay them millions, watch them blow off their obligations and generally suck, no biggie. 

[56mehl56]

19 minutes ago, flgreen said:

But he has a blue shirt - I thought he was red shirted

[Sonny Werblin]

32 minutes ago, Bugg said:

So now we are to be impressed that Bowles  goes to some   offensive meetings and tells the OC to throw the ball on 3rd down from time to time. Yes,Todd Bowles is a  regular Bill Walsh. You are either clueless or joking, cannot tell which. But doesn't really matter, Bowles is a Kotitian joke anyway. And once this disaster plays out he will be fired.   And from your own link, what a leader of men-

"Is coach Todd Bowles worried about his team's alleged issue with tardiness?

"It's part of it," Bowles said at the NFL owners meeting on Tuesday. "Sometimes you're late to work. It's life. It's not life threatening ... Sometimes your alarm clock isn't going to go off."" 

Yes, coach, pay them millions, watch them blow off their obligations and generally suck, no biggie. 

LOL. You can just admit you do not have a good counter argument rather than make an outrageously silly assertion. No one was comparing Bowles to Bill Walsh. And anyone that thinks that Bowles is on the level of Rich Kotite is absolutely clueless. Kotite is on every list of worst coaches ever. My assessment of Bowles might be incorrect and he may very well legitimately be a bad coach, but by comparing him to Kotite, you lose any credibility you may have had.

[Sonny Werblin]

Oh wait.... I get it now. Posters don't "discuss" the Jets on this board, they "argue" about the Jets. Now it makes sense.  Ok, I'm up to speed now, I think.