The Board Just Got Very Funny

[redlichtie]

3 hours ago, KRL said:

Last week the "pro tank crew" was in full voice about how awful it was that the team
was winning.  And how we were doomed to mediocrity unless we put a full effort into losing
games and getting the highest pick possible.  But now after a frustrating loss to NE those
very same people (who will go nameless) are in an uproar on how/why we lost the game.  So
do you want the team to lose or not???  I'm confused  

LOL so true....my personal favourite is that when we beat the Browns it’s dismissed as beating a load of scrubs but when DeShaun Watson does it.......

 

BTW KRL your posts are the first I look for after every game...great work fella

[Jets Voice of Reason]

13 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Culture of Losing (tm) seems to be a popular idea amongst some.

Losing begets losing and continued decline.  Competitiveness begets improvement.

People want an easy button.  There is no easy button in the NFL. 

Sam Darnold will not turn this team into a "20 year" 12 win a year team like some seem to think.  If only it were that easy.

Fans should reject the culture of losing IMO. 

It IS better to be mediocre (i.e. 8-8) and try to build on that than perennially be 2-12 and praying THIS year the draft will save us/be the miracle/etc.

 

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/teams.nsf/histories/jets/

We haven't had less than 4 wins since 1996. We also have won more than 10 wins 4 times as a franchise since 1960. 

Winning culture is important but it's not going to happen unless they draft better. Plain and simple. 

 

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, KRL said:

Last week the "pro tank crew" was in full voice about how awful it was that the team
was winning.  And how we were doomed to mediocrity unless we put a full effort into losing
games and getting the highest pick possible.  But now after a frustrating loss to NE those
very same people (who will go nameless) are in an uproar on how/why we lost the game.  So
do you want the team to lose or not???  I'm confused  

I've never changed my viewpoint.  Every win in a season where Josh McCown is your QB.....is bad.  If in the pursuit of winning, we discovered we really had a QB, the wins would be great.  But they're not.  Josh McCown will not be on this team, or ANY NFL roster, by 2019 or 2020.  And if Petty and Hackenberg are not franchise QB's, we need to find one who WILL be our franchise guy entering 2019 or 2020.  

I'm rooting for us to get a franchise QB.  Plain and simple.  The chances of finding one when you're picking at # 1 are much, much, better than when you're picking at 6 or later.  What's more, if you don't like the QB's at the top of the draft, you can trade a top 2 pick for a boatload of future picks.  This has been proven time and again.  So either way, having a top pick in any draft expands your chances of finding one, whether in the current draft, following year's draft, or the one after that. 

Hitting on a relative lottery ticket outside of the top picks is a fine idea.  IF your organization can get on board with the right guy.  We had our chances on Russell Wilson, Derek Carr, and DeShaun Watson and passed.  What confidence does anyone have that the current regime will land someone like that?  Even if Macc were to get fired this offseason (unlikely), the same scouts would mostly be left behind for the new regime.  And even if you think they CAN land a QB outside of the top few picks, having the first or 2nd pick in every round allows you to stock up on talent.  Or, again, you can trade a top 2 pick and get a boatload of other picks to advance the mission of the franchise.  For a franchise that has no more than 1 or 2 elite or potentially elite players, and definitely not a single one at a premium position, that sounds like a good outcome to me.

Are we clear here?  Or do we need to rip the tank crowd every single week?

[redlichtie]

3 hours ago, ChuckkieB said:

THIS.  This game would have had a different outcome if the Jets had better players at the skill positions on offense.  Too many holes on the team at key positions 3 years into Mac's tenure = bad job.

So it’s down to good coaching then?

[Fantasy Island]

2 hours ago, BrickTamland said:

It was exciting to have the lead against the Pats.

But the reality is the Pats can put up points almost at will. Especially when they need to most. And with those horrendous calls going in their favor, the Pars are not done being the league darling just yet.

Meanwhile our team needs "a play dead bilal! play" or an implosion by the opposing team in order for us to win. 

The exciting news is that I just learned that the Colts have two wins already. And the Giants finally got their first win. And the Niners have come close a few times and are bound two win a couple. Maybe they can make it to three wins. The Browns are all kinds of horrendous but I think even they will win one or two.(they really stink though)

In other words, the fat lady has not yet sung on the Rosen/Darnold/best qb sweepstakes! 

The Dolphins winning next weekend would really kill the "jets are actually kind of good" thinking and put the dolphins into a place where they get more and more comfortable with their stinking qb situation. Sorry Jets, it's for the best-- Go Fish.

I hope we beat the dolphins by 20 pts.

[redlichtie]

2 hours ago, ASH1962 said:

Disagree play calling. How many 3rd and 1's did we miss? How many runs into the middle of the LOS on first down for 1 yard were called after taking a 14-0 lead? I agree play calling is better than last year but still way too conservative a times and that has Mr. Bowles signature on it all day.

I dunno, sometimes the guy calling the plays a has to have faith that having picked up 7 or 8 yards on 1st down they have to trust their guys to execute a short yardage run for the first down. It’s always a bad call if it doesn’t work but sometimes players just don’t execute and occasionally the other teams guys just make a play. 

[Larz]

You weren't expecting cheaters week to be different? 

[NYJ37/12]

I just want a fair game decided by the plays and players, not officials.

[RESNewYork]

I have many a Giant and Patriot fan as friends. If I quit drinking, I would probably not chill with them anymore.

That being said, that fan who was waving that Jet Darnold jersey at USC was embarrassing. I was getting so much sh*t for it. 

Now those friends who are Patriot fans are telling me the Jets got hosed yesterday. 

[redlichtie]

14 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I've never changed my viewpoint.  Every win in a season where Josh McCown is your QB.....is bad.  If in the pursuit of winning, we discovered we really had a QB, the wins would be great.  But they're not.  Josh McCown will not be on this team, or ANY NFL roster, by 2019 or 2020.  And if Petty and Hackenberg are not franchise QB's, we need to find one who WILL be our franchise guy entering 2019 or 2020.  

I'm rooting for us to get a franchise QB.  Plain and simple.  The chances of finding one when you're picking at # 1 are much, much, better than when you're picking at 6 or later.  What's more, if you don't like the QB's at the top of the draft, you can trade a top 2 pick for a boatload of future picks.  This has been proven time and again.  So either way, having a top pick in any draft expands your chances of finding one, whether in the current draft, following year's draft, or the one after that. 

Hitting on a relative lottery ticket outside of the top picks is a fine idea.  IF your organization can get on board with the right guy.  We had our chances on Russell Wilson, Derek Carr, and DeShaun Watson and passed.  What confidence does anyone have that the current regime will land someone like that?  Even if Macc were to get fired this offseason (unlikely), the same scouts would mostly be left behind for the new regime.  And even if you think they CAN land a QB outside of the top few picks, having the first or 2nd pick in every round allows you to stock up on talent.  Or, again, you can trade a top 2 pick and get a boatload of other picks to advance the mission of the franchise.  For a franchise that has no more than 1 or 2 elite or potentially elite players, and definitely not a single one at a premium position, that sounds like a good outcome to me.

Are we clear here?  Or do we need to rip the tank crowd every single week?

The franchise guy thing doesn’t work, it’s just not that simple. What has Andrew Luck done in this league?...what has Matthew Stafford achieved?....Matt Ryan is what? 32 and only once he got a decent D to go along with all those offensive weapons did he squeak a SB appearance. What has having a franchise QB and one of the all-time great passsers done for San Diego in the Philip Rivers era?....Sam Bradford?...Alex Smith?

Meanwhile Derek Carr was a 2nd rounder with many, many question marks(hence the reason absolutely nobody was screaming for him back when he got drafted), Russel Wilson lasted until the 4th....Big Ben was a mid first rounder, Flacco the back end of the first and guys like Dalton were 2nd rounders, even Aaron Rodgers was a late first rounder and never saw the field for 2 years

You don’t need a top 2 pick to guarantee success in the league.

[whodeawhodat]

10 minutes ago, Fantasy Island said:

I hope we beat the dolphins by 20 pts.

Exactly, **** the ******* fish and **** every ******* opponent that steps on the field against us.

[56mehl56]

29 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Culture of Losing (tm) seems to be a popular idea amongst some.

Losing begets losing and continued decline.  Competitiveness begets improvement.

People want an easy button.  There is no easy button in the NFL. 

Sam Darnold will not turn this team into a "20 year" 12 win a year team like some seem to think.  If only it were that easy.

Fans should reject the culture of losing IMO. 

It IS better to be mediocre (i.e. 8-8) and try to build on that than perennially be 2-12 and praying THIS year the draft will save us/be the miracle/etc.

 

That's a societal problem today. Kids play video games and if they're not winning they just restart, its the culture they are growing up in, if its not easy or I can't win, i'm not interested.

[jetrider]

26 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I've never changed my viewpoint.  Every win in a season where Josh McCown is your QB.....is bad.  If in the pursuit of winning, we discovered we really had a QB, the wins would be great.  But they're not.  Josh McCown will not be on this team, or ANY NFL roster, by 2019 or 2020.  And if Petty and Hackenberg are not franchise QB's, we need to find one who WILL be our franchise guy entering 2019 or 2020.  

I'm rooting for us to get a franchise QB.  Plain and simple.  The chances of finding one when you're picking at # 1 are much, much, better than when you're picking at 6 or later.  What's more, if you don't like the QB's at the top of the draft, you can trade a top 2 pick for a boatload of future picks.  This has been proven time and again.  So either way, having a top pick in any draft expands your chances of finding one, whether in the current draft, following year's draft, or the one after that. 

Hitting on a relative lottery ticket outside of the top picks is a fine idea.  IF your organization can get on board with the right guy.  We had our chances on Russell Wilson, Derek Carr, and DeShaun Watson and passed.  What confidence does anyone have that the current regime will land someone like that?  Even if Macc were to get fired this offseason (unlikely), the same scouts would mostly be left behind for the new regime.  And even if you think they CAN land a QB outside of the top few picks, having the first or 2nd pick in every round allows you to stock up on talent.  Or, again, you can trade a top 2 pick and get a boatload of other picks to advance the mission of the franchise.  For a franchise that has no more than 1 or 2 elite or potentially elite players, and definitely not a single one at a premium position, that sounds like a good outcome to me.

Are we clear here?  Or do we need to rip the tank crowd every single week?

Great post, except you forgot to mention how Macc force-fed two safeties and an OLB down Bowles' throat when Bowles pounded the table for a stud QB. Everybody knows you can't win dick without a legit QB. Poor Todd Bowles, every draft is like Christmas except he never gets to sit on Santa's lap and deliver his wish list. It's all a surprise. Jolly old St. Macc locks himself in the toy shop for months and arranges HIS draft board the way HE wants it all by HIMself for Mike Maccagnan. That undercover trip they made to State College to work out Christian, well, Bowles went along only for the buffalo wing lunch. He stayed in the van and sang Allentown with Gailey while Macc privately met with the QB. The mission was so top secret nobody but Macc knew he was meeting Hackenberg. 

 

[Gastineau Lives]

4 hours ago, KRL said:

Last week the "pro tank crew" was in full voice about how awful it was that the team
was winning.  And how we were doomed to mediocrity unless we put a full effort into losing
games and getting the highest pick possible.  But now after a frustrating loss to NE those
very same people (who will go nameless) are in an uproar on how/why we lost the game.  So
do you want the team to lose or not???  I'm confused  

Yeah, if we can figure out if we are the team that got, in essence,  destroyed by the Browns or the team that was killing  the Patriots, that would be great.

[Jetsfan80]

16 minutes ago, redlichtie said:

The franchise guy thing doesn’t work, it’s just not that simple. What has Andrew Luck done in this league?...what has Matthew Stafford achieved?....Matt Ryan is what? 32 and only once he got a decent D to go along with all those offensive weapons did he squeak a SB appearance. What has having a franchise QB and one of the all-time great passsers done for San Diego in the Philip Rivers era?....Sam Bradford?...Alex Smith?

 

Having a franchise QB gives you a shot. 

Every Super Bowl since 2004 (when the rules began to shift) has featured at least one of these QB's:  Brady (6), Peyton (4), Ben (3), Eli (2), Wilson (2), Brees (1), Rodgers (1).

The others were McNabb (1), Ryan (1), Newton (1), Delhomme (1), Hasselbeck (1), Flacco (1), Kaepernick (1), Grossman (1).

Let's say every QB in that 2nd group are NOT elite QB's.  That still means that, of the last 28 Super Bowl QB's, 19 of them were elite (68 %).  

No, you don't need a top 2 pick to get an elite guy.  But you certainly maximize your chances of finding one.

Having command of the board puts you in better position than the Jets have ever been by picking no earlier than 6th.  (And that one time we picked in the top 5, we got D'Brickashaw Ferguson, a franchise LT for a decade). 

What we've been doing hasn't worked.  We missed out on Matt Ryan in 2008.  We traded up for Sanchez, and it failed.  We waited until the 2nd round and took Geno Smith, and it failed.  We took Hackenberg in the 2nd, and it's clearly a failure.  We doubled down on Sanchez, Geno, and Hackenberg, and missed out on Wilson, Carr and Watson as a result.

Let's try something different.  What do we have to lose?  If you finish 2-14 or 6-10, they're both failed seasons.  But the former at least gets you an awful lot of draft capital to play with.  

[Lupz27]

44 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Sam Darnold will not turn this team into a "20 year" 12 win a year team like some seem to think. 

While he might not, there is also evidence to suggest IF he is Luck, Peyton talent (this season has not made it look like he is like I thought before it started), and you put the right talent around this type of QB he easily turns your team from 1 win to 11+, the Colts won 14-15 games in 09, 10-11 games in 2010, no Peyton 2011 they win 1, get Luck in 2012 win 11, shame the management has done nothing to surround Luck with talent once the older vets from the 09-12 teams got older, left, or retired.

You put rookie Andrew Luck on this Jets team they win 11 games no problem, Luck completes it deep to Anderson would be a common phrase on Sundays.

[David Harris]

Guilty.

 

I am Pro-Tank. Been mostly mad about every TD we made this year but my hate for the Pats trumped all that (no pun) - didn't even retaliate it until the game was on but I wanted the jets to win like crazy.

now that they lost it a little relieved and am full tank again.

[JetsFanatic]

4 hours ago, Matt39 said:

The Jets not having longterm solutions at the most important positions is a bit of an issue. Claiborne, as a bandaid has been nice I guess.

He doesntt have to be a bandaide, he is only 26.

[JetFreak89]

1 hour ago, redlichtie said:

LOL so true....my personal favourite is that when we beat the Browns it’s dismissed as beating a load of scrubs but when DeShaun Watson does it.......

 

BTW KRL your posts are the first I look for after every game...great work fella

You really don't understand the difference between barely beating the Browns with a 38 year old Josh McCown and Kizer playing the first half versus DeShaun Watson, a rookie, who we had the chance to draft, destroying them? Really? 

[Awesumtenor]

59 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

You put rookie Andrew Luck on this Jets team they win 11 games no problem

When he can stay on the field. IND's cupboard was nearly as bare as ours when they moved on from Peyton Manning.  Yes; they got Luck and yes; he immediately improved their record his rookie year... but the fact that they never improved the defense, never got a running game and had an o-line that made him a target is the reason he has spent more time injured than not last couple of years and  when his shoulder heals enough for him to play...none of those things are fixed. Having an elite QB doesn't help you if the rest of the team only hastens his demise because the D  cant stop anyone and the o-line cant block worth a damn. GB has been playing russian roulette with Rodgers' health since they won the SB he has receivers but o-line is garbage and no running game means he is all they have... a team so one dimensional they can't even have their play fakes respected by opposing defenses.

We dont want to get an elite QB and then get him killed or concussed out of the league in 4 years or less which is what will happen if we cant build or buy an o-line that can both run and pass block. No matter how elite the  quarter back  we get might be.

[RESNewYork]

1 hour ago, jetrider said:

Great post, except you forgot to mention how Macc force-fed two safeties and an OLB down Bowles' throat when Bowles pounded the table for a stud QB. Everybody knows you can't win dick without a legit QB. Poor Todd Bowles, every draft is like Christmas except he never gets to sit on Santa's lap and deliver his wish list. It's all a surprise. Jolly old St. Macc locks himself in the toy shop for months and arranges HIS draft board the way HE wants it all by HIMself for Mike Maccagnan. That undercover trip they made to State College to work out Christian, well, Bowles went along only for the buffalo wing lunch. He stayed in the van and sang Allentown with Gailey while Macc privately met with the QB. The mission was so top secret nobody but Macc knew he was meeting Hackenberg. 

 

Why is it everything the fans don't like about the Jets is blamed on Bowles? I'm sure Bowles doesn't want the GM and all the scouts to draft a "franchise QB". Even though that is the something that would help cement his career and give him an easier path to success.

And I bet you can't even get this board to agree what exactly is a "franchise QB"

Also is there a consensus can't miss QB prospect in this upcoming draft? There is no Andrew Luck can't miss "franchise QB" right?

[Philc1]

5 hours ago, KRL said:

Last week the "pro tank crew" was in full voice about how awful it was that the team
was winning.  And how we were doomed to mediocrity unless we put a full effort into losing
games and getting the highest pick possible.  But now after a frustrating loss to NE those
very same people (who will go nameless) are in an uproar on how/why we lost the game.  So
do you want the team to lose or not???  I'm confused  

Fair is fair the jets got robbed

 

That said time to get back to business 

[redlichtie]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Having a franchise QB gives you a shot. 

Every Super Bowl since 2004 (when the rules began to shift) has featured at least one of these QB's:  Brady (6), Peyton (4), Ben (3), Eli (2), Wilson (2), Brees (1), Rodgers (1).

The others were McNabb (1), Ryan (1), Newton (1), Delhomme (1), Hasselbeck (1), Flacco (1), Kaepernick (1), Grossman (1).

Let's say every QB in that 2nd group are NOT elite QB's.  That still means that, of the last 28 Super Bowl QB's, 19 of them were elite (68 %).  

No, you don't need a top 2 pick to get an elite guy.  But you certainly maximize your chances of finding one.

Having command of the board puts you in better position than the Jets have ever been by picking no earlier than 6th.  (And that one time we picked in the top 5, we got D'Brickashaw Ferguson, a franchise LT for a decade). 

What we've been doing hasn't worked.  We missed out on Matt Ryan in 2008.  We traded up for Sanchez, and it failed.  We waited until the 2nd round and took Geno Smith, and it failed.  We took Hackenberg in the 2nd, and it's clearly a failure.  We doubled down on Sanchez, Geno, and Hackenberg, and missed out on Wilson, Carr and Watson as a result.

Let's try something different.  What do we have to lose?  If you finish 2-14 or 6-10, they're both failed seasons.  But the former at least gets you an awful lot of draft capital to play with.  

Don’t get me wrong, finding a QB who you can commit to long-term is absolutely desirable in the modern NFL , I’m with you there....my argument is you are every bit as likely to find that guy outside the top ten picks in the draft. Tanking is non-sensical on that basis, you need talent across the board and as Warfish points out in another post we are as likely to build long-term sustainable success(and we both want that)by bringing a young QB into a strong, disciplined, winning environment than ripping the thing down and hoping that 1 guy can turn a sh*t-show around on his own. We need an elite pass-rusher, an elite OT, an elite RB too, I’d rather we pick a great player high than reach for a mediocre QB just because it’s a passer(your mentioning of D’Brick is prescient because that year an awful lot of momentum was behind us picking Cutler, in my opinion Brick proved himself way more worthy of that pick than Cutler).

There’s no question we've failed to pick the right QB when the time has come but then we are not alone, most of the league has got a story to tell of QB failure (and I’d include those top 5 pick QB’s with the best part of 10 years in the league who’ve failed to win the big one...Ryan, Stafford, Bradford, Luck etc) Hell Brady and Wilson were 6th and 4th round picks!...not only did every team in the league pass on them but so did the Patriots and Seahawks, the Pats had no clue Brady was turning into Brady otherwise they wouldn't have passed over him 5 times. Just look at Washington, mortgaged their franchise to RG3 but it turns out the guy they drafted as an almost afterthought in Rd 4 that year was in fact the actual ‘franchise’ leader....is RG3 even in the league?

Picking high is fine if you draft the right player and the position you need filling has a difference making talent worthy of such a high pick but it’s not the be all and end all, you need to build your roster AND a winning culture through more than simply the QB position

just my opinion

By the way, the draft next April is shaping up to have no slam dunk obvious ‘franchise’ QB a la Ryan or Luck but instead there could be a 1983 style first round with as many as 5 or 6 QB’S getting first round consideration, that is partly a symptom of the premium that is now put on the position around the league and the desperation of teams to get ‘their guy’ but it might  actually be the Jets decent luck for a change to not be god awful in a year where a number of Derek Carr like prospects might be available to a team picking out with the top 5 picks in April

all is not lost

[peebag]

6-10 seasons are fun and lead to championships.

 

true story.

[SenorGato]

6 hours ago, KRL said:

Last week the "pro tank crew" was in full voice about how awful it was that the team
was winning.  And how we were doomed to mediocrity unless we put a full effort into losing
games and getting the highest pick possible.  But now after a frustrating loss to NE those
very same people (who will go nameless) are in an uproar on how/why we lost the game.  So
do you want the team to lose or not???  I'm confused  

I don't know about these other guys you're talking about but yesterday was best case scenario. Beautiful loss, need 10 more like it 

 

[UnitedWhofans]

YEsterday was the best of both worlds. They played well and they lost the game. Nobody should be whining about it, when it comes to the long term aspect of the result

[SpartanJet]

Huh?

Only the #realfan crew is upset.  I mean the tank dream is over, doesn't matter if they win or lose at this point they already lost over the long hall.  Nobody is outtanking the browns or 49'ers.

[Matt39]

The overall lack of young talent on the roster coupled with starting a 38 year old QB is not ideal. The new safeties have a combined 1 interception between them and have both been burned for multiple touchdowns. Williams has been invisible all year. Hansen and Stewart are behind Kearse and Kerley. Mauldin and Jenkins are stiffs. Burris was just benched for an UDFA. This is year 3 and there are bandaid players all over the roster on short contracts with zero promising players behind them. Not to mention, passing on Watson.

And then there's even the two second rounders who have given completely nothing aside from a backbreaking fumble 2 years ago against Buffalo.

The win variance right now is out of wack. Mccown is a good dude and I like having him here, but what the hell are we actually doing? Poor drafts, no QB, a massive contract to a player who turned into a Haynesworth,  a coach who still cant manage the clock correctly. Pardon the negativity I guess.

[BrickTamland]

10 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

The overall lack of young talent on the roster coupled with starting a 38 year old QB is not ideal. The new safeties have a combined 1 interception between them and have both been burned for multiple touchdowns. Williams has been invisible all year. Hansen and Stewart are behind Kearse and Kerley. Mauldin and Jenkins are stiffs. Burris was just benched for an UDFA. This is year 3 and there are bandaid players all over the roster on short contracts with zero promising players behind them. Not to mention, passing on Watson.

And then there's even the two second rounders who have given completely nothing aside from a backbreaking fumble 2 years ago against Buffalo.

The win variance right now is out of wack. Mccown is a good dude and I like having him here, but what the hell are we actually doing? Poor drafts, no QB, a massive contract to a player who turned into a Haynesworth,  a coach who still cant manage the clock correctly. Pardon the negativity I guess.

What is this negativity you're bringing? Thinking like that is so silly, and stuff like that. No way man! We beat the Dolphins, Jaguars and Browns. We even had a lead against the Pats! Refs, grr! We got this. We might even get 6 wins! We might even slow down Julio Jones in two weeks. Imagine we only lose to the chiefs by 10! Wow. McCown is the only one who can possibly help the young players develop!

[jetscrazey]

7 hours ago, KRL said:

Last week the "pro tank crew" was in full voice about how awful it was that the team
was winning.  And how we were doomed to mediocrity unless we put a full effort into losing
games and getting the highest pick possible.  But now after a frustrating loss to NE those
very same people (who will go nameless) are in an uproar on how/why we lost the game.  So
do you want the team to lose or not???  I'm confused  

I'm confused: You think going 6-10 to 8-8 with McCown actually gets this franchise anywhere????

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

19 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

The overall lack of young talent on the roster coupled with starting a 38 year old QB is not ideal. The new safeties have a combined 1 interception between them and have both been burned for multiple touchdowns. Williams has been invisible all year. Hansen and Stewart are behind Kearse and Kerley. Mauldin and Jenkins are stiffs. Burris was just benched for an UDFA. This is year 3 and there are bandaid players all over the roster on short contracts with zero promising players behind them. Not to mention, passing on Watson.

And then there's even the two second rounders who have given completely nothing aside from a backbreaking fumble 2 years ago against Buffalo.

The win variance right now is out of wack. Mccown is a good dude and I like having him here, but what the hell are we actually doing? Poor drafts, no QB, a massive contract to a player who turned into a Haynesworth,  a coach who still cant manage the clock correctly. Pardon the negativity I guess.

This makes nobody angry. The call on the fumble yesterday? Oh, the humanity. This? Crickets.

[CanadaSteve]

6 hours ago, southparkcpa said:

Yesterday aside, the bullship calls, at least the WHOLE team is trying except MO.

 

Fixed

[ZachEY]

7 hours ago, MDL_JET said:

We get it. You hate Mac. The WRs are enough. ASJ is good. McGuire can play. It’s the QB. Mccown is keeping this team at a stand still with his average play. 

And who's fault is it that Josh McCown is the best option at QB?

[ZachEY]

25 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

This makes nobody angry. The call on the fumble yesterday? Oh, the humanity. This? Crickets.

People are dumb.  This is news?

[T0mShane]

"This Josh McCown- and Demario Davis-led team has totally validated Macccf through six games haterz!!!"

 

Signed,

Goldfish