Jump to content

Some Points To Consider About The Rebuild


Recommended Posts

4. You know why the Browns are 0-6? Lack of heart. They just don’t want it enough. Culture. They have to be more like that guy from the Steve Hanft movie that Beck samples in “Loser.”

All right, they’re bad because they have crummy players. Some of them young and promising, but crummy (especially at quarterback). Which brings us to the core of this whole computer-generated, draft-pick-hoarding rebuild: Can you take a group of young players, break them in on teams that lose 13-plus games every season, and ever turn it around? As we’re reminded of on a weekly basis, the difference between, say, the NFL’s fifth-best team and 25th-best team is razor-thin. If you have Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers, or if you have a historically great defense as a whole, you can consistently win. Otherwise . . .

But I think there’s something to be said for the psychological beatdown of getting your butt handed to you on a weekly basis, something that causes players to lose a little bit of that edge, to trust guys around them just a little less than they should (Do Your Job!) and figure out ways to lose games that they should win. It's something that, for the lack of more specific reasoning, makes the core of a franchise rotten. The Browns are going to be really bad this year. They’ll probably be bad next year. They’ve been collecting all these draft picks, stockpiling talented young players, but even if they’re ready to compete for a playoff spot in three years (an optimistic timetable) these guys are going to be coming off their rookie deals. Are they going to flush out large parts of the team when that happens and replace them with more of those stockpiled draft picks? If they do that, will they ever surround their next franchise quarterback with a group of home-grown players who have done anything besides lose a lot of games? And if so, will they ever stop inspiring runs of poorly written rhetorical questions?

Maybe Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen is the next Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers, they single-handedly lift the franchise and then all this losing is forgotten forever. But, in all likelihood, the next quarterback’s ceiling will fall somewhere on that second tier, someone who needs a strong team around him. And then what do you have? (I ask that rhetorically.)

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/21/week-7-brett-hundley-first-start-packers-saints-atlanta-falcons-tom-brady-super-bowl-rematch

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very often in sport, winning is a habit and psychological. Had we gone the season 0-16 we may very well have been able to have picked up the QB (or safety) of our choosing but it also would have meant that the rest of the team were rubbish, gutless and used to losing. I’m not sure it would necessarily have been a good thing for this group.

There’ve been some good positives this season imo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dbatesman said:

What happened to 1, 2, and 3?

They are skipped to symbolically represent the wasted opportunity of each win we have this season.  Kind of like a football version of the missing man formation.  At least that's how I'd read it.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going 0-16 for a qb is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It builds a culture of losing and to think one player is going to be Jesus walking on water amazess me. I feel a lot of jet fans are just desperate, reaching for something that will save them instead of properly building a team around a qb. Oh by the way remember Aaron Rodgers? Yea things can happen quick. Never put your eggs in onE basket 

  • Thumb Down 1
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to see young players making plays for this team. Yes we have a 38 year old journeyman starting games but guys like Adams and Maye are showing flashes of being really good players. I think thats a positive regardless of record. They've helped us win some games which can't be a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebuilds don’t take 3-5 year. It’s a farce perpetuated by suckers. There is no plan for how to improve the team, only a plan for how Mac and Bowles keep their jobs just long enough to be way too long.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kevinc855 said:

Going 0-16 for a qb is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It builds a culture of losing and to think one player is going to be Jesus walking on water amazess me. I feel a lot of jet fans are just desperate, reaching for something that will save them instead of properly building a team around a qb. Oh by the way remember Aaron Rodgers? Yea things can happen quick. Never put your eggs in onE basket 

Yeah, those silly Green Bay Packers! They look so foolish having drafted Rodgers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bickering about tanking and whether or not a QB needs to be found at #1 overall is so unimaginative. The reality is the Hets are poised to keep a nucleus of leadership in place that has taken 3 years to make the team worse than Idzik, Rex and Tammy left it. That selected Hacjenburg 10 rounds too early. That has used 3 high picks on what amounts to three safeties (Kee, Adams, Maye). That has managed to screw up the only depth we had on DL, despite being handed Williams in the draft, and the trio of Mo, Shel, and Snacks. That lost the team last year, made scapegoats out of assistants and veterans, and is on the verge of losing the team again. Before mid season.

So, the next time you contemplate your tank rhetoric, just remember, the leadership isn’t changing... so, neither are the outcomes. Regardless of when we pick in the draft or if we “learn to win” (another farce) this year.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

Would it be fair to say that the last two games were best case scenario for the Jets in the long term. They were competitive and played well but lost them both, so draft status wasn’t hurt

Yes, and is your glass still half full?

P.s A female Doctor Who sucks. The PC brigade ruin everything .

Link to post
Share on other sites

0-16 didn't work out for the colts and they got the QB of the decade. I don't suggest tanking, but at some point you have to know what you have in Petty and Hack. If they are sure that they suck then there is NO reason to keep Petty as he is gone next year anyway and should have traded him even for a 6th or 7th when there was interest. If he is worth hanging onto this year, he is worth giving him a shot - and not wit the last 2 games of the year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

Rebuilds don’t take 3-5 year. It’s a farce perpetuated by suckers. There is no plan for how to improve the team, only a plan for how Mac and Bowles keep their jobs just long enough to be way too long.

This x1000. Last offseason started with failed attempts to to bring back Marshall and give a billion dollars to Tony Jefferson and Dont'a Hightower. The idea that there's some long-term plan falling into place is nonsense. These two dolts just woke up one morning and realized that cutting everyone and selling it as doing things the right way would provide easy cover for the fact that they've been here two-plus years and haven't improved the team in any appreciable way. The sad thing is, it's working.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

This x1000. Last offseason started with failed attempts to to bring back Marshall and give a billion dollars to Tony Jefferson and Dont'a Hightower. The idea that there's some long-term plan falling into place is nonsense. These two dolts just woke up one morning and realized that cutting everyone and selling it as doing things the right way would provide easy cover for the fact that they've been here two-plus years and haven't improved the team in any appreciable way. The sad thing is, it's working.

What's frustrating about all of this(and yoou're 100% right) taking Watson would have erased a lot of dumb sh*t.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

What's frustrating about all of this(and yoou're 100% right) taking Watson would have erased a lot of dumb sh*t.

It fits. Almost all the good stuff they've done has been the result of dumb luck, so that was bound to turn at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

Rebuilds don’t take 3-5 year. It’s a farce perpetuated by suckers. There is no plan for how to improve the team, only a plan for how Mac and Bowles keep their jobs just long enough to be way too long.

 

ok I'll play along......can you identify a team that rebuilt in 2 years? Rebuilt is defined as a 7 game swing in wins and consistently winning thereafter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Matt39 said:

What's frustrating about all of this(and yoou're 100% right) taking Watson would have erased a lot of dumb sh*t.

Nobody wanted Watson leading up to the draft remember? He was too inconsistent, threw too many interceptions, his arm wasn't strong enough for our stadium and ......well...he's black :-) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

ok I'll play along......can you identify a team that rebuilt in 2 years? Rebuilt is defined as a 7 game swing in wins and consistently winning thereafter. 

Most teams win between 4-8 games each season. So, in order for a rebuild to be official, by your definition, it would require at least 11 wins. The least insulting thing I can say about how you’re framing your argument is that it’s naive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Most teams win between 4-8 games each season. So, in order for a rebuild to be official, by your definition, it would require at least 11 wins. The least insulting thing I can say about how you’re framing your argument is that it’s naive. 

Most teams on a "rebuild" arent winning 6-8 games the prior year so realistically we are talking about teams that are between 1 and 5 game winning teams. So any team winning 8+ games are the teams that fit into the criteria. I read most of your posts, you hardly comment on anyone's post without being insulting so I have low expectations for you anyway. It was a simple question, if you cant answer it, thats fine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

Most teams on a "rebuild" arent winning 6-8 games the prior year so realistically we are talking about teams that are between 1 and 5 game winning teams. So any team winning 8+ games are the teams that fit into the criteria. I read most of your posts, you hardly comment on anyone's post without being insulting so I have low expectations for you anyway. It was a simple question, if you cant answer it, thats fine. 

The Jets, a team everyone here agreed needed to rebuild “properly”, were a 4 win team when everyone first asked for this, then this past year they were a 5 win team.

So, either the Jets didn’t really need to rebuild, or the parameters that you pulled from your bum are naive and unrealistic.

All of the REAL ULTIMATE REBUILD guys are the same... they gave these fake qualifiers they use to argue, and it’s like shooting fishin in a barrel making silly out of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

The Jets, a team everyone here agreed needed to rebuild “properly”, were a 4 win team when everyone first asked for this, then this past year they were a 5 win team.

So, either the Jets didn’t really need to rebuild, or the parameters that you pulled from your bum are naive and unrealistic.

All of the REAL ULTIMATE REBUILD guys are the same... they gave these fake qualifiers they use to argue, and it’s like shooting fishin in a barrel making silly out of them.

I didn't ask you about the Jets, if you have been a fan of this team for any length of time then you know a proper rebuild would have happened during the Pennington era or even before but never did. We havent had back to back seasons of double digit wins since 85, 86 so we have never done this "properly".

I'm not sure who the "everyone" is you are referring to but it's not relevant to what I asked. Everyone here cant agree on any one subject, never have, never will.  

If you need to rebuild your squad essentially you are saying that you cannot make due with patching in players to fill holes and you have to start from the bottom. That is not usually a team that has up and down seasons over a 5 year period, that is usually a team that has had a consistent pattern of performing poorly. There are not "levels" of rebuilding, either you are or you are not. There is no such thing as the REAL ULTIMATE REBUILD. 

So basically you cannot name a team that has done a rebuild in 2 years? Fair enough, let's drop it to a 5 win differential and consistently winning? If you think 2 years is the right amount of time then name a team who has done it. Why do we have to be the first team in history that has done it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jetspenguin said:

I didn't ask you about the Jets, if you have been a fan of this team for any length of time then you know a proper rebuild would have happened during the Pennington era or even before but never did. We havent had back to back seasons of double digit wins since 85, 86 so we have never done this "properly".

I'm not sure who the "everyone" is you are referring to but it's not relevant to what I asked. Everyone here cant agree on any one subject, never have, never will.  

If you need to rebuild your squad essentially you are saying that you cannot make due with patching in players to fill holes and you have to start from the bottom. That is not usually a team that has up and down seasons over a 5 year period, that is usually a team that has had a consistent pattern of performing poorly. There are not "levels" of rebuilding, either you are or you are not. There is no such thing as the REAL ULTIMATE REBUILD. 

So basically you cannot name a team that has done a rebuild in 2 years? Fair enough, let's drop it to a 5 win differential and consistently winning? If you think 2 years is the right amount of time then name a team who has done it. Why do we have to be the first team in history that has done it?

lol, so I respond to you with acutuap examples... and they just suddenly don’t qualify as examples of the qualifiers you just made up.

The Jets went from 4 wins to 10 wins. After a draft and FA spending spree. But you guys have dubbed that not a real rebuild. So a 5 win swing is also a naive qualifying variable for this.

the term for this style of argument, I think, is intellectual dishonesty.

ive said for years that rebuilds don’t exist. It’s marketing a loser. I invalidated your naive qualifiers for a “proper rebuild”. now you’re asking me for more tangential examples of nothing.

The Patriots won the SB. The Patriots also were the most aggressive team in the offseason to add talent. Every team, every year tries to get better. When they doing, they’ve ‘rebuilt’. When they don’t, they’re ‘still rebuilding’.

It’s marketing. You either believe it, or not. 

So yea... REAL ULTIMATE REBUILD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...