Todd Bowles Says Some Things

[C Mart]

2 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

I take it as "I don't know how I would use him with our roster".  

Oh really........or perhaps Honey Badger wanted to start as a Safety

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, MDL_JET said:

But what's that have to do with "you got Chubb sitting there at 2"?? Seems kinda weird to say it like that. 

I think it's just saying that he's a good player that will be available after the 1st pick.

[ZachEY]

16 minutes ago, Warfish said:

With Petty, I agree. He got his chance.

With Hack I do not agree. We’ll never know what would have been if Hack was the starter at any point. McCown and Fitz were never long term options.

The franchise would be better off if Hack had started all of this year and more. No matter how bad he would have been.

I respectfully disagree. 

Why does Hack need a chance in games?  If he was so terrible in practice, what's the point?  Fans just want to believe they ought to be the final determinant of whether a QB can play or not.  The fact that we saw what Bryce Petty couldn't do doesn't mean the coaches didn't already know.  Now, lets extrapolate that to the guy who couldn't come close to beating out Bryce Petty, despite the coaching staff doing everything in their power to make that happen.  Literally, the only argument for Hack starting is his existence.  He's going to get cut this year, and then, just like now, Hack and I are likely to start exactly the same amount of NFL games.  The guy can't play, I don't need to see him flop in game to arrive at that conclusion.  The fact that he couldn't play in college, training camps, preseason, or practices is enough.

[Jet Nut]

5 minutes ago, C Mart said:

Oh really........or perhaps Honey Badger wanted to start as a Safety

Which would mean he doesn't know how to use him given we have two young players ahead of him.  

Do you people seriously think an ex-db, ex DC, defensive minded HC doesn't know how to use a defensive player?  One who he's already coached, successfully.  Lol

[Warfish]

I should also add, when I hear Todd Bowles speak, I never come away impressed with him, or what he said, or how he's said it.

While as a team rep. he is still ahead of the massive running joke that was Rex Ryan, I find him to be largely uninspiring and enjoyable as Head Coach of the NY Jets.  He's no Bill Bellichek, or Fat Turna, no matter how hard to pretends to speak like they do.

[C Mart]

1 minute ago, Jet Nut said:

Which would mean he doesn't know how to use him given we have two young players ahead of him.  

Do you people seriously think an ex-db, ex DC, defensive minded HC doesn't know how to use a defensive player?  One who he's already coached, successfully.  Lol

What? 

[Snell41]

Yeah but he locked away Hackenberg for two years. How do we KNOW Hackenberg sucks if Bowels is too SCARED and stupid to play him?

Well to his defense he also did this with people kicking and stomping for Petty. Then when we saw Petty it was pretty clear he was right. Based on his behavior Hack is even worse than Petty and I’m inclined to give Bowles the benefit of the doubt at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[JustInFudge]

1 hour ago, Maxman said:

He does. That he is responsible for. But you gave him crap for not knowing how to use a player that isn't on his roster based on words he didn't say.

Huh?  He said he didnt know how to get him on the field because he has 2 young safeties and he could start elsewhere.  Meaning, they didnt continue the pursuit because he couldnt figure out how to get him on the field when he could be a starter elsewhere. 

This isnt trivial. 

[Jet Nut]

1 minute ago, C Mart said:

What? 

Do you think Bowles wouldn't know how to use him?  

[C Mart]

1 minute ago, JiF said:

Huh?  He said he didnt know how to get him on the field because he has 2 young safeties and he could start elsewhere.  Meaning, they didnt continue the pursuit because he couldnt figure out how to get him on the field when h could be a starter elsewhere. 

This isnt trivial. 

he said the complete opposite........

Rich Cimini‏ @RichCimini 

Bowles on the Honey Badger: "You can never have enough good football players. I know how I would’ve used him, but ... he has a chance to go start. We just got two young safeties the year before, so that would’ve been tough for him to come here." #Jets

[C Mart]

Just now, Jet Nut said:

Do you think Bowles wouldn't know how to use him?  

JC I've been saying that..what's your point? HB wants to start..at safety

[FidelioJet]

6 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Which would mean he doesn't know how to use him given we have two young players ahead of him.  

Do you people seriously think an ex-db, ex DC, defensive minded HC doesn't know how to use a defensive player?  One who he's already coached, successfully.  Lol

He actually came out and said he had ways he could use him - but he wanted to be a "starter" and Bowles wasn't willing to give him a starting role - he would been a nickel cover guy...

[Warfish]

5 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Why does Hack need a chance in games?  If he was so terrible in practice, what's the point?

Serious answer:  Because live-fire games are not practice.  One can excel in one, and not the other.  

Because the crucible of live fire can change a player, and allow him a means of development practice reps as the #3 QB do not.

Because even in failure, that failure would have been more enjoyable and more productive than watching a 38 year old journeyman win 5 games.

Because as a 2nd round pick, you have to at least give the kid a shot.  Especially if the alternatives were what they were.  We didn't.

5 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Fans just want to believe they ought to be the final determinant of whether a QB can play or not.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

In our case, it's warranted.  Our Head Coach and GM have simply not shown themselves to be the best evaluators of talent, have they?  

They picked Hack after all, so they do not get credit for sitting him because he's "bad" AND trust of the fanbase to pick the next QB because they can evaluate talent, can they?

5 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Literally, the only argument for Hack starting is his existence.

The investment put into him, yes.

5 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

He's going to get cut this year, and then, just like now, Hack and I are likely to start exactly the same amount of NFL games.

A sin for which Macc should have been fired, frankly.  Not rewarded with the ability to pick the QB of our next half-decade.

5 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

The guy can't play, I don't need to see him flop in game to arrive at that conclusion.

We simply do not know that today.  We know he sucks in practice, and wasn't better than McCown in that area and didn't "give the Jets the best chance to win" as Bowles sees it. 

That's the extent of what we know for sure.

5 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

  The fact that he couldn't play in college, training camps, preseason, or practices is enough.

Respectfully agree to disagree.

McCown can't play either.  Never has been able to.  A career long loser.  One of the worst starting QB's in recent NFL history.  We KNOW he sure as hell "can't play", he has a resume long than my arm proving it.  We gained absolutely nothing playing this (by all accounts) nice guy.

So you're going to have a hard time using "sucks" as an excuse to not play Hack, when the starter we have is amongst the worst to ever start as many games as he has.  A 38 year old JAG journeyman of no material special talent.    

And we not only wasted a whole year playing that 38 year old, we've now doubled down and invested 10 million, vastly more than any other team would have, to have this 29 year old man as our QB again in 2019, barring the rise of Teddy Bridgewater.

So forgive me if I question Macc and Bowles judgement at the QB position.  It's is well document at this point to be rather sh*t.  So no, I don't trust them to make a call on Hack without seeing for myself in live-fire than Hack does, in fact, suck.  

I have no doubt the odds favor hack sucking.  Make no mistake.  But I wanted to see it, in a game that counts.  THIS is why not playing Hack as the last two seasons wound down was such a colossal failing by our Head Coach.  

 

[JustInFudge]

24 minutes ago, C Mart said:

Rich Cimini‏ @RichCimini 

Bowles on the Honey Badger: "You can never have enough good football players. I know how I would’ve used him, but ... he has a chance to go start. We just got two young safeties the year before, so that would’ve been tough for him to come here." #Jets

ie: didnt know how to get him on the field so it was better for him to sign somewhere else.

wtf? 

[pointman]

THAT ANSWER ON HONEY BADGER IS MAKING MY BLOOD BOIL. Bowles isn't qualified to be the JV assistant coach at Bosco, let alone an NFL team. He shoot be the head coach of the Browns. 

 

[Jet Nut]

9 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

He actually came out and said he had ways he could use him - but he wanted to be a "starter" and Bowles wasn't willing to give him a starting role - he would been a nickel cover guy...

I get that.  Some have made it sound like he was too stupid to know how to use him.  I agree, it's in the context of he wasn't starting here so if he wants to start...

[Jet Nut]

4 minutes ago, JiF said:

ie: didnt know how to get him on the field so it was better for him to sign somewhere else.

wtf? 

Yeah, because it totally sucks that he's not starting over the guys we have.  What we should have done was piss 7 Mil on him. 

I'm so mad....

[LIJetsFan]

1 minute ago, Jet Nut said:

I get that.  Some have made it sound like he was too stupid to know how to use him.  I agree, it's in the context of he wasn't starting here so if he wants to start...

Well, what about starting him here and using one of our other two sophomore safeties elsewise?

[RESNewYork]

38 minutes ago, Bugg said:

3 hours ago, RESNewYork said:

You posters realize when talking about the stupidity of Bowles, you come off as unintelligent whiny fans, full of contradictions. Which is fine, but just thought someone should let you know. 

Stupidity-like punting down 2 scores late in a game, or habitually wasting timeouts? 

See

[UntouchableCrew]

15 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Serious answer:  Because live-fire games are not practice.  One can excel in one, and not the other.  

Because the crucible of live fire can change a player, and allow him a means of development practice reps as the #3 QB do not.

Because even in failure, that failure would have been more enjoyable and more productive than watching a 38 year old journeyman win 5 games.

Because as a 2nd round pick, you have to at least give the kid a shot.  Especially if the alternatives were what they were.  We didn't.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

In our case, it's warranted.  Our Head Coach and GM have simply not shown themselves to be the best evaluators of talent, have they?  

They picked Hack after all, so they do not get credit for sitting him because he's "bad" AND trust of the fanbase to pick the next QB because they can evaluate talent, can they?

The investment put into him, yes.

A sin for which Macc should have been fired, frankly.  Not rewarded with the ability to pick the QB of our next half-decade.

We simply do not know that today.  We know he sucks in practice, and wasn't better than McCown in that area and didn't "give the Jets the best chance to win" as Bowles sees it. 

That's the extent of what we know for sure.

Respectfully agree to disagree.

McCown can't play either.  Never has been able to.  A career long loser.  One of the worst starting QB's in recent NFL history.  We KNOW he sure as hell "can't play", he has a resume long than my arm proving it.  We gained absolutely nothing playing this (by all accounts) nice guy.

So you're going to have a hard time using "sucks" as an excuse to not play Hack, when the starter we have is amongst the worst to ever start as many games as he has.  A 38 year old JAG journeyman of no material special talent.    

And we not only wasted a whole year playing that 38 year old, we've now doubled down and invested 10 million, vastly more than any other team would have, to have this 29 year old man as our QB again in 2019, barring the rise of Teddy Bridgewater.

So forgive me if I question Macc and Bowles judgement at the QB position.  It's is well document at this point to be rather sh*t.  So no, I don't trust them to make a call on Hack without seeing for myself in live-fire than Hack does, in fact, suck.  

I have no doubt the odds favor hack sucking.  Make no mistake.  But I wanted to see it, in a game that counts.  THIS is why not playing Hack as the last two seasons wound down was such a colossal failing by our Head Coach.  

 

I think it's pretty clear Hack is so bad that starting him would be irresponsible and insulting to his teammates. If he was even remotely close, like, in the same league as Petty who isn't an NFL QB, he undoubtedly would have started. He didn't because he was so far away that it wasn't a realistic option.

[SMC]

4 hours ago, TeddEY said:

Todd Bowles has played the best QB on the roster, by a large margin, every single season.  I'm not sure why it's his fault that those QBs were Ryan Fitzpatrick and Josh McCown?

This is an undeniable truth.  The fact that there wasn't a better QB on the roster is on Macc, not Bowles.

[afjetsfan]

Not sure if anyone actually thinks Todd is a good head coach, but if anyone reading this actually does think he is good, please if you could refute my concerns with his coaching I'd greatly appreciate it.  Maybe I'm just missing something.

1. Todd has failed to get the team ready week in and week out, some weeks they look hot, some weeks they look completely unprepared.  

2. He still doesn't know when to be aggressive and when to be conservative during the game or how to make in-game adjustments or manage the game clock/time outs.  Pretty much anything a head coach is supposed to do during the game, he sucks at. 

3. He is a poor communicator, part of the reason he hates talking to the media.  

4. Oh and the small fact that we don't win many games with him at the helm. 

If he can't fix these problems, why should we continue to support him?

[C Mart]

22 minutes ago, JiF said:

ie: didnt know how to get him on the field so it was better for him to sign somewhere else.

wtf? 

HB wants to start....at safety.  Why is this so difficult to grasp.  

[jack48]

5 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

Anything said at this point about the draft should simply be ignored.  He knows, we know, everyone knows the Jets traded up with 3 QB's in mind - nothing more, nothing less.

The draft is a month out.  I am worn out already.  I should go into a sensory deprivation tank and come out a week after it happens

[ZachEY]

18 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Serious answer:  Because live-fire games are not practice.  One can excel in one, and not the other.  

Because the crucible of live fire can change a player, and allow him a means of development practice reps as the #3 QB do not.

Because even in failure, that failure would have been more enjoyable and more productive than watching a 38 year old journeyman win 5 games.

Because as a 2nd round pick, you have to at least give the kid a shot.  Especially if the alternatives were what they were.  We didn't.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

In our case, it's warranted.  Our Head Coach and GM have simply not shown themselves to be the best evaluators of talent, have they?  

They picked Hack after all, so they do not get credit for sitting him because he's "bad" AND trust of the fanbase to pick the next QB because they can evaluate talent, can they?

The investment put into him, yes.

A sin for which Macc should have been fired, frankly.  Not rewarded with the ability to pick the QB of our next half-decade.

We simply do not know that today.  We know he sucks in practice, and wasn't better than McCown in that area and didn't "give the Jets the best chance to win" as Bowles sees it. 

That's the extent of what we know for sure.

Respectfully agree to disagree.

McCown can't play either.  Never has been able to.  A career long loser.  One of the worst starting QB's in recent NFL history.  We KNOW he sure as hell "can't play", he has a resume long than my arm proving it.  We gained absolutely nothing playing this (by all accounts) nice guy.

So you're going to have a hard time using "sucks" as an excuse to not play Hack, when the starter we have is amongst the worst to ever start as many games as he has.  A 38 year old JAG journeyman of no material special talent.    

And we not only wasted a whole year playing that 38 year old, we've now doubled down and invested 10 million, vastly more than any other team would have, to have this 29 year old man as our QB again in 2019, barring the rise of Teddy Bridgewater.

So forgive me if I question Macc and Bowles judgement at the QB position.  It's is well document at this point to be rather sh*t.  So no, I don't trust them to make a call on Hack without seeing for myself in live-fire than Hack does, in fact, suck.  

I have no doubt the odds favor hack sucking.  Make no mistake.  But I wanted to see it, in a game that counts.  THIS is why not playing Hack as the last two seasons wound down was such a colossal failing by our Head Coach.  

 

Rather than speak in platitudes about how one can excel in practice but not in games, can you name a correlate NFL QB?  What QB was unable to complete passes in college, training camp, practice, and preseason, that went on to be successful in games.  Where's the prescient for this logic?

For someone who has been anti-tank, playing Hackenberg is the same thing.  If you think he sucks as bad as it is clear that he does, you don't ask 52 other guys to go out there and play hard while he can't do anything.

As for McCown, he can play.  He cannot and will never be great.  But he's competent.  Hack is not.  There's a reason McCown has started as many games as he has, because, he can functionally do the job of an NFL QB.  Why do you think any team has had him start, because they think he's great?  Or, because when you don't have a QB, he's good enough that an offense can function with him at the helm, just as the Jets did last year?

I don't question Mac or Bowles's judgment as far as QB's they've had on the roster, I question Mac's ability to find a good QB.  This is very different.  The notion that they have a viable QB in Hackenberg on the roster and just don't know it, is speaking to levels of incompetence that, while the two of them are unsuccessful in their current positions, would exclude them from even working past water boy and mail room assistant.

Hack is terrible.  Sorry, it is what it is.

[Nixhead]

5 minutes ago, afjetsfan said:

Not sure if anyone actually thinks Todd is a good head coach, but if anyone reading this actually does think he is good, please if you could refute my concerns with his coaching I'd greatly appreciate it.  Maybe I'm just missing something.

1. Todd has failed to get the team ready week in and week out, some weeks they look hot, some weeks they look completely unprepared.  

2. He still doesn't know when to be aggressive and when to be conservative during the game or how to make in-game adjustments or manage the game clock/time outs.  Pretty much anything a head coach is supposed to do during the game, he sucks at. 

3. He is a poor communicator, part of the reason he hates talking to the media.  

4. Oh and the small fact that we don't win many games with him at the helm. 

If he can't fix these problems, why should we continue to support him?

Well said. Sorry but I just don't trust Bowles - to get anything right. I don't. 

[Jet Nut]

21 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

Well, what about starting him here and using one of our other two sophomore safeties elsewise?

You mean so we can then fall back to the other argument that Bowles only plays vets?  Yeah that would be the better shlt storm, lol

[jack48]

11 minutes ago, afjetsfan said:

Not sure if anyone actually thinks Todd is a good head coach, but if anyone reading this actually does think he is good, please if you could refute my concerns with his coaching I'd greatly appreciate it.  Maybe I'm just missing something.

1. Todd has failed to get the team ready week in and week out, some weeks they look hot, some weeks they look completely unprepared.  

2. He still doesn't know when to be aggressive and when to be conservative during the game or how to make in-game adjustments or manage the game clock/time outs.  Pretty much anything a head coach is supposed to do during the game, he sucks at. 

3. He is a poor communicator, part of the reason he hates talking to the media.  

4. Oh and the small fact that we don't win many games with him at the helm. 

If he can't fix these problems, why should we continue to support him?

His in-game adjustments are pathetic but you cannot argue with his inability to get the team ready to play week in and week out.  And don't forget how uninformative his press conferences are.  Just agreeing.  The biggest thing for me is that I always feel out tream is on the short end in the coach to coach matchup.  He is unsophisticated often makes wrong decisions and is disturbingly conservative in his game planning

[afjetsfan]

5 minutes ago, Nixhead said:

Well said. Sorry but I just don't trust Bowles - to get anything right. I don't. 

Ultimately, Todd's true test will be when he gets another chance with another team.  First, will a team be willing to give him that chance, and will he be able to learn from his mistakes with the Jets?  My hunch is no team will give him a Head Coach position after he is off the Jets.  He'll probably just go back and be a DC and do ok.

[afjetsfan]

6 minutes ago, jack48 said:

His in-game adjustments are pathetic but you cannot argue with his inability to get the team ready to play week in and week out.  And don't forget how uninformative his press conferences are.  Just agreeing.  The biggest thing for me is that I always feel out tream is on the short end in the coach to coach matchup.  He is unsophisticated and disturbingly conservative in his game planning

Exactly.  I've never watched the Jets and thought to myself "we are playing a better team, but Todd will find a way for us to win."

[Warfish]

24 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I think it's pretty clear Hack is so bad that starting him would be irresponsible and insulting to his teammates.

**** his teammates if they're "insulted".  They're paid professionals ffs. 

I'm tired of the "we have to manage the franchise and it's future to the most base expectations of the whiniest players" mentality of this Bowles Era.

Quote

If he was even remotely close, like, in the same league as Petty who isn't an NFL QB, he undoubtedly would have started.

Fact not in evidence.  Once again, Bowles and his QB staff have simply not earned the trust their evaluation is a quality one.

Quote

He didn't because he was so far away that it wasn't a realistic option.

Prove it with game film, with live-fire film.  You cannot do so.  Hence the problem.

No one, not us, not Bowles, not Macc, know what Hack would or could have done in a game that counted.  We all think he would have sucked.  I agree.  But that's not proof he did suck.

So white knight for Bowles all you like, but while doing so, explain why Hack couldn't have been played after Petty got hurt late in a long lost season?

[UntouchableCrew]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

**** his teammates if they're "insulted".  They're paid professionals ffs. 

I'm tired of the "we have to manage the franchise and it's future to the most base expectations of the whiniest players" mentality of this Bowles Era.

Fact not in evidence.  Once again, Bowles and his QB staff have simply not earned the trust their evaluation is a quality one.

Prove it with game film, with live-fire film.  You cannot do so.  Hence the problem.

No one, not us, not Bowles, not Macc, know what Hack would or could have done in a game that counted.  We all think he would have sucked.  I agree.  But that's not proof he did suck.

So white knight for Bowles all you like, but while doing so, explain why Hack couldn't have been played after Petty got hurt late in a long lost season?

So basically your attitude is "I, Warfish, didn't see it with my own two eyes so it isn't valid." Can't really do much with that. 

[Bugg]

44 minutes ago, pointman said:

THAT ANSWER ON HONEY BADGER IS MAKING MY BLOOD BOIL. Bowles isn't qualified to be the JV assistant coach at Bosco, let alone an NFL team. He shoot be the head coach of the Browns. 

 

The Bosco JV assistant 1. knows how a clock works and 2. is not punting down 2 scores late in the 4th. Bowles has zero strategic sense; he calls and runs plays on defense, that's about it. 

[bitonti]

4 hours ago, SAR I said:

I'd give it a 25% chance he is coaching here by Week 5.

 

that's excellent. Will you give me 3-1 on the over?

 

[Warfish]

15 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Rather than speak in platitudes about how one can excel in practice but not in games, can you name a correlate NFL QB?  What QB was unable to complete passes in college, training camp, practice, and preseason, that went on to be successful in games.  Where's the prescient for this logic?

Stories abound of players who were meh in practice and solid in games.  But like anything, they're mostly stories, not verifiable (since none of us are in any sports or teams practices).

15 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

For someone who has been anti-tank, playing Hackenberg is the same thing.  If you think he sucks as bad as it is clear that he does, you don't ask 52 other guys to go out there and play hard while he can't do anything.

McCown was a tank.  I don't see the difference you're making between playing one of the worst starting QB's in NFL history and a 2nd Round Pick QB you need to see in live-fire.  

15 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

As for McCown, he can play.  He cannot and will never be great.  But he's competent.  Hack is not.

Oh **** off with that, seriously.  McCown can play, holy hell, have our acceptance of dogsh*t suck this far?  He was horrible last year, like every year he's ever played near abouts, yet all I've heard is how "good" he was.

Bullsh*t.  He was horrid.

15 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

  There's a reason McCown has started as many games as he has, because, he can functionally do the job of an NFL QB.

Winning what, 10% of his starts along the way?  Yep, sure can play!

15 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

  Why do you think any team has had him start, because they think he's great?  Or, because when you don't have a QB, he's good enough that an offense can function with him at the helm, just as the Jets did last year?

Because Bowles loves old veteran QB's he can start, because they suit his all-Defense, no-risk-on-Offense, win 6-3 coaching style.

15 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

I don't question Mac or Bowles's judgment as far as QB's they've had on the roster

Then I can't take you seriously, it's been one mistake after another since they day the two arrived.

15 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

The notion that they have a viable QB in Hackenberg on the roster and just don't know it, is speaking to levels of incompetence that, while the two of them are unsuccessful in their current positions, would exclude them from even working past water boy and mail room assistant.

Well, once they're gone from here, we'll see if either ever get equivalent work again.  I don't think they will.

15 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Hack is terrible.  Sorry, it is what it is.

Don't be sorry for me.  Be sorry for the Head Coach and GM you appear to be white knighting for not bothering to even actually play their 2nd Round Draft Pick QB.