Why are Darnold & Rosen givens?

[Sperm Edwards]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I reject this outright.  WR's know how to run routes.  QB's know how to throw footballs.  They've both been doing it for ~10-14 years before they hit the NFL.

Yes, both have to learn the system they'll be in, but so does any newcomer.  

I'm not resigning McCown so the "WR's can get a fair look" and I'm not resigning Kerley so the "young QB can get a fair look".  

You sign the players who are best for where your organization is and let the best of them play, age is an irrelevancy bad coaches and bad GM's hide behind because they're more afraid to get fired than they are of being honest with their owners.

It's about time THIS franchise was forced, i.e. was not GIVEN "someone else to play" because the "someone else to play" concept has been an endless failure here.

I fire Bowles because he's a bad NFL Head Coach.  Not because he played kids.

What I DO is this:

Resign Macc for 5 years guaranteed, no possibility of being fired.

Let Macc hire HIS Head Coach, who will report directly to him, not to the Owner.  Also a 5-year deal, also guaranteed/unfireable.

Then I tell them THIS:  Be a legit contender by year 5, or you're both gone.  Till then, do anything and everything as YOU pros see best.  I, Mr. Owner, am out.

In five years, if the 5-year resume isn't good enough and they're not a competitor, I fire them all and try again.  If they ARE good/copmpetative, I resign them all for five more years.

Five Year Plans.  Like Stalin, only football.

 

You can reject it, but it's not accidental that WRs get better and more reliable over time, compared to how they looked as rookies. 

They tried putting Stewart on the field, and now it seems Hansen has leapfrogged him. Even with Kerley out we hardly see Stewart. It isn't likely despite his doing well behind the scenes; more likely the opposite.

I don't disagree at all about who the coaches play. They want to win games to preserve their employment. The thing to do is to not give them the opportunity to play a Josh McCown by not picking him up in the first place.

While I get the idea behind job security and agree generally a GM should be hiring his own HC, extending Macc after 3 years of failure makes no sense at all. He's done little to nothing that shows he's up to the task; he can barely bring in talent on the field, which was supposed to be his qualification. He doesn't know who's worth keeping and letting go. He plays it ultra-safe in round 1 with players that won't make much of a difference, with whom SB teams can easily do without.  To trust him with hiring a HC makes no sense to me. He's terrible at his job, just like Bowles. He'd require 3x the draft picks and 3x the cap space, compared to contenders, for the Jets to be one as well. This Maccagnan team without Josh McCown is even worse than the 5-6 win team it is are with McCown, which is why he's playing in the first place.

Macc's the guy we just ended up with because of the dopey Jets' GM-HC power structure, and because Woody retained his friend to find our GM; he's not some great evaluator of talent that we should be sticking with for a decade. 

8 years of Maccagnan. You must be ****ing with me. If you are, then you got me.

[#27TheDominator]

22 minutes ago, Warfish said:

What I DO is this:

Resign Macc for 5 years guaranteed, no possibility of being fired.

Let Macc hire HIS Head Coach, who will report directly to him, not to the Owner.  Also a 5-year deal, also guaranteed/unfireable.

Holy sh*t!  I'll take Stalin.  

Can your genius GM fire the coach or is he truly "unfireable?"  This seems like the answer to the question: What could possibly be worse than what they have been doing all these years?

[Paradis]

You guys need to drop this “they shouldn’t have hired McCown in the first place” bullsh*t.
Take your ball cap off and put your business glasses on. Hack and Petty have shown NOTHING behind the scenes or on Sunday to give us a reason not to bring a journeyman in. End of story. You think Macc wants to admit defeat with his QBs?? HE HAD TO. Fcking calamity between those two. We weren’t rolling for 16 games with 2 Nathan Petermans.

We’re on to April.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blackout]

they both look like trash.  totally overhyped.

[Beerfish]

Darnoold and Rosen  are still my top 2 picks then a large gap between them and mayfiled and jackson et al.

[Warfish]

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You can reject it, but it's not accidental that WRs get better and more reliable over time, compared to how they looked as rookies. 

You know where players don't get better and more reliable......on the bench watching scrub-JAG veterans drop passes and throw incompletions.

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

They tried putting Stewart on the field, and now it seems Hansen has leapfrogged him. Even with Kerley out we hardly see Stewart. It isn't likely despite his doing well behind the scenes; more likely the opposite.

Kearse is our #1.  Anderson is our #2.  A.S.J. is our #3 target and plays alot.  We throw to RB's a ton.  And yes, Hanson > Stewart so far.

But Stewart is our #3/4 WR.  He's been thrown to 10 times, only caught 5.  Hanson, on the other hand, has only been thrown to 8 times, with 5 catches.  Pretty similar really.  Our #2 TE, Tomlinson, has been thrown to about the same (9).  

Those 27 wasted targets to Kerley should have gone to Hanson and Stewart in I were GM.

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't disagree at all about who the coaches play. They want to win games to preserve their employment. The thing to do is to not give them the opportunity to play a Josh McCown by not picking him up in the first place.

Agreed.

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

While I get the idea behind job security and agree generally a GM should be hiring his own HC, extending Macc after 3 years of failure makes no sense at all.

Macc didn't fail, he did exactly what Ownership wanted.  He sold out to compete in 2015 and 2016, one year almost worked, one year failed utterly and everywhere.  We fans may not like it, but he did as ordered.

Macc's failure is finding a future QB.  I.e. one pick made (Hack) and one pick not made (Watson).  Beyond those two picks, he''s a generally adequate GM.

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

8 years of Maccagnan. You must be ****ing with me. If you are, then you got me.

Grass is always greener.  But for christsake, we cannot fire everyone every year, it's a losers proposition.

Bowles deserves his firing he's a horrible gameday coach leading a team more talent than it's results, and who has failed utterly to have a motivated and disciplined team.  He must go.

Macc came into a bad spot, with someone elses Coach, who didn't report to him, and doesn't have to play who he wants, and who (IMO) meddles in the draft picks too.  I change THAT before I fire Macc.

At some point we have to let someone run this team for multiple years (5-7 minimum) to build some consistency and stability here.  If it's not Macc, it'll have to be the next guy, but we both know the next guy will be hated five minutes after he arrives too.

There is no easy one-trick-fix instant fix solution here.

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Warfish said:

You know where players don't get better and more reliable......on the bench watching scrub-JAG veterans drop passes and throw incompletions.

Kearse is our #1.  Anderson is our #2.  A.S.J. is our #3 target and plays alot.  We throw to RB's a ton.  And yes, Hanson > Stewart so far.

But Stewart is our #3/4 WR.  He's been thrown to 10 times, only caught 5.  Hanson, on the other hand, has only been thrown to 8 times, with 5 catches.  Pretty similar really.  Our #2 TE, Tomlinson, has been thrown to about the same (9).  

Those 27 wasted targets to Kerley should have gone to Hanson and Stewart in I were GM.

Agreed.

Macc didn't fail, he did exactly what Ownership wanted.  He sold out to compete in 2015 and 2016, one year almost worked, one year failed utterly and everywhere.  We fans may not like it, but he did as ordered.

Macc's failure is finding a future QB.  I.e. one pick made (Hack) and one pick not made (Watson).  Beyond those two picks, he''s a generally adequate GM.

Grass is always greener.  But for christsake, we cannot fire everyone every year, it's a losers proposition.

Bowles deserves his firing he's a horrible gameday coach leading a team more talent than it's results, and who has failed utterly to have a motivated and disciplined team.  He must go.

Macc came into a bad spot, with someone elses Coach, who didn't report to him, and doesn't have to play who he wants, and who (IMO) meddles in the draft picks too.  I change THAT before I fire Macc.

At some point we have to let someone run this team for multiple years (5-7 minimum) to build some consistency and stability here.  If it's not Macc, it'll have to be the next guy, but we both know the next guy will be hated five minutes after he arrives too.

There is no easy one-trick-fix instant fix solution here.

Players also practice. They don't nap all season long if they aren't first string.

Ownership does not command him to do anything. People love saying it, but there's no evidence and there never has been. The GM (or GM/HC) combo get to do as desired, other than the GM can't fire the HC without his stupid say-so.

Macc has far more failures than merely finding a future QB. He stinks. Conservatively, 80% of his transactions/picks are outright failures or relative failures. The most successful among them are his big mehs 1st round selections that a SB contender could easily do without.

I don't see how firing Macc after 3 years = firing everyone every year. 

Macc actually didn't come into a bad spot, other than the HC, and he agreed to it before coming here. It is nothing more than a guess that Bowles wouldn't be the HC he'd have hired if it was fully his choice to make anyway. He came in with lots of flexibility in terms of high draft picks, lots of cap room, low expectations after the Idzik/Rex firings, and pretty much any position could be seen as an improvement. He chose to stay pat and take a DE-DT, the one position he was set at, and the player's just pretty good not JJ Watt II as he was billed by some. Then he filled the roster with a bunch of stopgaps that performed fine for 1 year but he paid them 3 years' worth of salary instead of using that $ on younger players with an actual future past the 2015 season. 

We only have to let someone run the team for that long if they're doing a good job. I didn't take you for advocating social promotion to make the GM feel good. 

His replacement may not be better, but that's not a reason to not try to improve over a proven failure.

[Warfish]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

His replacement may not be better, but that's not a reason to not try to improve over a proven failure.

We'll have to agree to disagree that Macc is a failure.  He has made mistakes, unquestionably.  But I do not agree he is a failure. 

This team is more talented than it's record, and has been every year Macc has been GM.  That's not the record of a failed GM, thats the recrod fo a failure of a Head Coach.

Regardless, the QB position, Macc's biggest failing to-date, must be fixed.

Sadly, we're both likely to be unhappy in a few weeks, as both Bowles (who I want fired) and Macc (who you want fired) will almost assuredly be retained for 2018.

[Sperm Edwards]

9 minutes ago, Warfish said:

We'll have to agree to disagree that Macc is a failure.  He has made mistakes, unquestionably.  But I do not agree he is a failure. 

This team is more talented than it's record, and has been every year Macc has been GM.  That's not the record of a failed GM, thats the recrod fo a failure of a Head Coach.

Regardless, the QB position, Macc's biggest failing to-date, must be fixed.

Sadly, we're both likely to be unhappy in a few weeks, as both Bowles (who I want fired) and Macc (who you want fired) will almost assuredly be retained for 2018.

We can agree to disagree, then. I think the team is worse than its record, has been propped up by another sucky QB unexpectedly having a career year far better than anyone could have hoped for, and you've simply forgotten about the multitude of outright stupid whiffs and blunders he's made outside of Hackenberg.

Agree on the last part. Sadly I think they're both probably safe, but I prefer both of them entering lame duck years than extending them both and prolonging the error.

[HessStation]

Arguing over who you think is the best 2 Qbs is completes irrelevant. The Effin point is these crap wins will now most possibly net them the third or fourth  best QB ranked and or possibly having to reach given the odds. Now I have to hope for luck which is foreign to me as a jets fan 

[Warfish]

Just now, HessStation said:

Arguing over who you think is the best 2 Qbs is completes irrelevant. The Effin point is these crap wins will now most possibly net them the third or fourth  best QB ranked and or possibly having to reach given the odds. Now I have to hope for luck which is foreign to me as a jets fan 

Hi, I'm Ten Weeks Ago, pleased to meet ya!

Hate to break it to you my friend, but the Jets were never getting the #1 or #2 pick.  Not in this timeline, not in this reality, and not in any other.

So lamenting it doesn't serve alot of purpose. 

Unless, of course, you actually bought in to the media's laughably naive and ill informed "this year's Jets will be historic bad" narrative.......if so, wow.  

[HessStation]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Hi, I'm Ten Weeks Ago, pleased to meet ya!

Hate to break it to you my friend, but the Jets were never getting the #1 or #2 pick.  Not in this timeline, not in this reality, and not in any other.

So lamenting it doesn't serve alot of purpose. 

Unless, of course, you actually bought in to the media's laughably naive and ill informed "this year's Jets will be historic bad" narrative.......if so, wow.  

I appreciate you for being strange and oblivious to my my point. 

[Dinamite]

7 hours ago, Warfish said:

Had I been the GM thats exactly what I'd have done.

No McCown, Hack and/or Petty would start.

No Kerley, Stewart and Hanson would get those snaps.

We must stop filling our holes with broke down old castoff veterans, and start developing our own talent.

The interesting question is whether Kerley will get reps now that he is back or if they will just give them to the rookies as they should.

[Warfish]

40 minutes ago, Dinamite said:

The interesting question is whether Kerley will get reps now that he is back or if they will just give them to the rookies as they should.

That would be very Jetsy. 

Survey says!!!.......yep, probably.

[Philc1]

On 12/12/2017 at 8:45 AM, Hitman Harris said:

They are not. Jonny Football was a given. Just like Tim Tebow

 

#iremember

Comparing those two clowns to a drop back qb like Darnold is flat out wrong

[Hitman Harris]

10 hours ago, Philc1 said:

Comparing those two clowns to a drop back qb like Darnold is flat out wrong

The hype fits... and the result is more than likely gonna be pretty similar 

is what i meant

[BigO]

On 12/8/2017 at 12:42 PM, Stark said:

So 2 years is now the official window on grading a player? lol

Nice rant. I expect us to overpay Cousins and win 7-8 games a year for 2-4 more years wasting what little talent is on the team currently. 

Well in all fairness you never know. Sheldon was ROY. Now look at him. He may be driving UBER at 100 mph in a couple years. 

[68JET11]

On 12/12/2017 at 10:56 AM, Sperm Edwards said:

Show me a team that pays equal attention to the backups as they do to the starters, and I'll show you a team that sucks even though they occasionally promote one younger player a little faster.

Only Gailey is Gailey. He had his own reasons, motivations, etc. It's unfair to pin his actions (or inactions) on others.

I'm totally sympathetic that you and others want to see them play instead of McCown. So do I. The answer is you don't put McCown on the roster in the first place (or Fitzpatrick before him, or McCown/other for next year). Bowles is a weak presence as it is; it's a rare coach who can make the team suffer through a season of Hackenberg when the whole locker room knows they'd be winning a bunch of games - and they'd look better on the field themselves - with McCown out there instead. 

It's not a video game. The coaches and the rest of the players have personalities, goals, and things that motivate or de-motivate them. You want to see Petty/Hackenberg out there? Don't sign McCown or Fitz. Or on the receiving end, you want to see Stewart or Hansen out there? Don't bring in Kearse and Kerley.

It's really that simple. You can't really expect a HC or OC to want to play a bad player instead of a player they believe gives them a far better chance of winning games. Wins keep them employed, not tanking or shots in the dark that a player who can't throw straight with a red jersey on will suddenly put it all together when defenders are trying to remove his head from his torso.

This I agree with completely. Macc should have never signed him. Good read thanks.

[RESNewYork]

On 12/12/2017 at 7:57 AM, 68JET11 said:

Figures RES would react possitively.  Sperm, I don't necessarily disagree with you about fans and how they can determine what is seen behind the scenes, however I do recall reading something, that basically stated that once the season started, (either Gailey or Morton) that the backups, don't have as much of their attention as they do in preseason. We all complained about Gailey not even working with Hack or Petty I seem to remember. Anyway, I guess most fans just want to see what they have before committing to the trash bin.

It figures I would react positively to someone who makes a concise logical post? Guilty.