Did Bowles really not Challenge the Safety in 1Q??

[jgb]

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

And if he was animated fans would want a HC who wasnt. 

We wanted Herm after his first presser then he was preacher Herm and had to go.  Got Mangini and he was praised for his serious nature until he was hated.  Got Rex and loved his personality until he became a buffoon, we were initially happy that Bowles was the anti Rex now..... 

Different circumstances call for different reactions. Bowles only has one speed. But most importantly the results have been poor. And there is constant talk of referee conspiracies against the Jets. Yet there Bowles remains... unchanging as the stars in the night sky. Definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing... and always getting the 6th pick in the NFL Draft.

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, jgb said:

Different circumstances call for different reactions. Bowles only has one speed. But most importantly the results have been poor. And there is constant talk of referee conspiracies against the Jets. Yet there Bowles remains... unchanging as the stars in the night sky. Definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing... and always getting the 6th pick in the NFL Draft.

The results have nothing to do with his demeanor. 

The rest is filler, we know he's not growing.  

[jgb]

27 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

The results have nothing to do with his demeanor. 

The rest is filler, we know he's not growing.  

correct. They have to do with lack of growth. How is growth defined? By the evolution of one’s behaviour. 

[jgb]

4 hours ago, Maxman said:

I didn't bring up Bobby Knight though.

Oh right Bobby Knight is a Basketball coach, right? My bad. It’s almost like I was using an analogy or somethin.

[Maxman]

2 hours ago, jgb said:

Oh right Bobby Knight is a Basketball coach, right? My bad. It’s almost like I was using an analogy or somethin.

Oh man, Bobby Knight isn't a basketball coach, he is retired. Total burn after burn for you in this thread.

[jgb]

2 hours ago, Maxman said:

Oh man, Bobby Knight isn't a basketball coach, he is retired. Total burn after burn for you in this thread.

Now I see why you ignored my suggestion to add an eye roll reaction  

[slats]

10 hours ago, jgb said:

Different circumstances call for different reactions. Bowles only has one speed. But most importantly the results have been poor. And there is constant talk of referee conspiracies against the Jets. Yet there Bowles remains... unchanging as the stars in the night sky. Definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing... and always getting the 6th pick in the NFL Draft.

He's not gonna change who he is. 

I agree with the general sentiment that he should be arguing bad calls from the sidelines if only to point out to the ref that he recognized a bad call and maybe putting it in the ref's head to give one back to the Jets down the line. He doesn't even have to get too firey to do that. But throwing the challenge flag is a different thing. You throw that when you feel like you have a good chance of winning your case. He had no chance of overturning that non-safety call. Cousins' knee was down with the ball in the field of play. Play over. 

[jgb]

2 minutes ago, slats said:

He's not gonna change who he is. 

I agree with the general sentiment that he should be arguing bad calls from the sidelines if only to point out to the ref that he recognized a bad call and maybe putting it in the ref's head to give one back to the Jets down the line. He doesn't even have to get too firey to do that. But throwing the challenge flag is a different thing. You throw that when you feel like you have a good chance of winning your case. He had no chance of overturning that non-safety call. Cousins' knee was down with the ball in the field of play. Play over. 

Quick someone cue the orchestra, slats and I agree

[Jet Nut]

12 hours ago, jgb said:

correct. They have to do with lack of growth. How is growth defined? By the evolution of one’s behaviour. 

No it's not.  I'm defining it by learning from ones mistakes, correcting them and not making the same mistakes again.  Ranting and raving on the sidelines to appease fans who can't make up their minds what they want isn't part of the equation.  It serves no function and wouldn't change a thing 

[jgb]

21 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

No it's not.  I'm defining it by learning from ones mistakes, correcting them and not making the same mistakes again.  Ranting and raving on the sidelines to appease fans who can't make up their minds what they want isn't part of the equation.  It serves no function and wouldn't change a thing 

Let's just agree to disagree on this one. You'd prefer to debate what you want me to be saying, not what I am.

Good luck to the Jets this week. Hopefully we can agree on that at least.

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, jgb said:

Let's just agree to disagree on this one. You'd prefer to debate what you want me to be saying, not what I am.

Good luck to the Jets this week. Hopefully we can agree on that at least.

It's ok, want them to convince anyone, other than to explain where I think he falls short

[Dcat]

18 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

And if he was animated fans would want a HC who wasnt. 

We wanted Herm after his first presser then he was preacher Herm and had to go.  Got Mangini and he was praised for his serious nature until he was hated.  Got Rex and loved his personality until he became a buffoon, we were initially happy that Bowles was the anti Rex now..... 

end result of all the above is that Bowles is a BAD NFL head coach.  No matter how you slice it and no matter how much irrelevant crap you dredge up from the past, it is undeniable. Bowles is awful.

[Jet Nut]

Just now, Dcat said:

end result of all the above is that Bowles is a BAD NFL head coach.  No matter how you slice it and no matter how much irrelevant crap you dredge up from the past, it is undeniable. Bowles is awful.

Learn how to read, I'm not disputing his coaching abilities.  I didn't bring up anything irrelevant to dispute that.  Just saying the ridiculous idea that his stiffness has anything to do with it.  

[Dcat]

26 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Learn how to read, I'm not disputing his coaching abilities.  I didn't bring up anything irrelevant to dispute that.  Just saying the ridiculous idea that his stiffness has anything to do with it.  

I read quite well thank you.  I read what you said accurately.  It's you who couldn't comprehend myy original point.   I never said his "stiffness" has an impact on his horrible coaching. His horrible coaching is an independent entity.   I said it would be nice and suggested that perhapsit would be a bit inspirational for fans and his players to see a little fire on the sidelines.  Reciting opinions of past head coaches was entirely irrelevant to the issue and utterly useless. 

[Jet Nut]

18 minutes ago, Dcat said:

I read quite well thank you.  I read what you said accurately.  It's you who couldn't comprehend myy original point.   I never said his "stiffness" has an impact on his horrible coaching. His horrible coaching is an independent entity.   I said it would be nice and suggested that perhapsit would be a bit inspirational for fans and his players to see a little fire on the sidelines.  Reciting opinions of past head coaches was entirely irrelevant to the issue and utterly useless. 

You clearly said I wad bringing up things to defense him.  You can't read. His sh*tty coaching had to do with him being a shltty coach.  You responded and claimed I meant something different.   You don't see that.  Fine.  It's ridiculous but I'm not going to argue this nonsense because youre bored and just can't admit that you too it wrong.  

[Dcat]

3 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

You clearly said I wad bringing up things to defense him.  You can't read. His sh*tty coaching had to do with him being a shltty coach.  You responded and claimed I meant something different.   You don't see that.  Fine.  It's ridiculous but I'm not going to argue this nonsense because youre bored and just can't admit that you too it wrong.  

You are the one who is wrong. As usual. And you can take your "learn how to read"  stupid insult from your other post and find a nice warm orifice on your body to shove it.

[phill1c]

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 12:43 PM, jgb said:

He should’ve at least screamed holy hell and showed some emotion out there. I for one would’ve liked to see him ejected for standing up for his boys in what was an egregious call against HIS TEAM.

 Screaming at a call that was actually a good call? Why? because he's Todd Bowles and anything he does is not the right thing for some.

I personally think Bowles is a humble and decent man. I respect that about him. I respect his defensive playcalling ability. I think the players respect him and play hard for him. Where we part ways is his offensive philosophy and his conservatism.

Offensive philosophy quibbles:

He cares about running the football. So much!! Why??? It's the least productive way to score. I understand the Old School "run to win; defense wins championships" but that just isn't true. Sure, when typical game scores were 17-10; 21-14; 6-3, running the ball is imperative. But when scores are like 34-20; 48-14; 50-47, most of those scores are TD passes. So, the most important offensive focus should be on passing. If you can run, great, but you better be able to pass. So I part ways with Bowles on that.

Conservatism quibbles:

And I'd really like to see the Jets employ [any] trick plays. I bet most defensive coordinators know exactly what the Jets offense play calling is going to be: run first, then short passes, then ONE long pass, then back to running. I say they should start with the intermediate/deep balls first. Get the defense playing the entire field and then dial it back. The Jets OL rarely can be effective if the defense knows what it's trying to do. When the Jets were effective, it was when they passed on first down, ran wheel routes with Powell (last year) early in the game. Typically when the Jets won last year it was when they got a few chunk plays in the 1st quarter, got up by two scores early.

Of course, because of Bowles conservatism, they always let teams back in it after going up two scores. That is a character flaw. I would love it Bowles would look at how Dan Quinn runs his offense: Always looking to score!! Now, Darnold is not Matt Ryan yet. But I think the best way to help the young QB is to get the field stretched early so that defenses can't play with everything in front of them. And, isn't it easier to pass when they think you're going to run???

[phill1c]

4 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

end result of all the above is that Bowles is a BAD NFL head coach.  No matter how you slice it and no matter how much irrelevant crap you dredge up from the past, it is undeniable. Bowles is awful.

I disagree: His teams believe in themselves and when he had talent he won with it.

Not the kind of guy I would like, but I can't say "awful" when he's never had a QB and offensive talent at the same time (well, except when they finished 10-6). I think Bowles is building a decent culture and he seems to motivate his guys. And the defense is playing pretty well. I disagree with his conservatism but that doesn't make him awful. In fact, when you don't have the players, it's hardly the worst thing to lose a couple games you might have won or tied because the HC is being conservative. Maybe, when the Jets actually get better Bowles will have more trust in them in those situations.

[Jet Nut]

2 hours ago, Dcat said:

You are the one who is wrong. As usual. And you can take your "learn how to read"  stupid insult from your other post and find a nice warm orifice on your body to shove it.

Man, some are just thick and no matter what will argue for the sake of arguing.  Youre dead wrong, unless you can find one line i typed in the post that is what you read as me making excuses for his bad coaching.  Its on you that you cant distinguish excuses for me saying I dont think his bad coaching is due to being to quiet on the sideline.  You wang to run with that, go for it.  Youre still really wrong and obviously incapable of admitting it.  So F it.

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, phill1c said:

I disagree: His teams believe in themselves and when he had talent he won with it.

Not the kind of guy I would like, but I can't say "awful" when he's never had a QB and offensive talent at the same time (well, except when they finished 10-6). I think Bowles is building a decent culture and he seems to motivate his guys. And the defense is playing pretty well. I disagree with his conservatism but that doesn't make him awful. In fact, when you don't have the players, it's hardly the worst thing to lose a couple games you might have won or tied because the HC is being conservative. Maybe, when the Jets actually get better Bowles will have more trust in them in those situations.

Might have to weed through this and rework it.  Its not my post, I never typed that.  

[phill1c]

2 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Might have to weed through this and rework it.  Its not my post, I never typed that.  

Yep, sorry. That was not you; it was Dcat.

My mistake.

[jgb]

7 hours ago, phill1c said:

 Screaming at a call that was actually a good call? Why? because he's Todd Bowles and anything he does is not the right thing for some.

I personally think Bowles is a humble and decent man. I respect that about him. I respect his defensive playcalling ability. I think the players respect him and play hard for him. Where we part ways is his offensive philosophy and his conservatism.

Offensive philosophy quibbles:

He cares about running the football. So much!! Why??? It's the least productive way to score. I understand the Old School "run to win; defense wins championships" but that just isn't true. Sure, when typical game scores were 17-10; 21-14; 6-3, running the ball is imperative. But when scores are like 34-20; 48-14; 50-47, most of those scores are TD passes. So, the most important offensive focus should be on passing. If you can run, great, but you better be able to pass. So I part ways with Bowles on that.

Conservatism quibbles:

And I'd really like to see the Jets employ [any] trick plays. I bet most defensive coordinators know exactly what the Jets offense play calling is going to be: run first, then short passes, then ONE long pass, then back to running. I say they should start with the intermediate/deep balls first. Get the defense playing the entire field and then dial it back. The Jets OL rarely can be effective if the defense knows what it's trying to do. When the Jets were effective, it was when they passed on first down, ran wheel routes with Powell (last year) early in the game. Typically when the Jets won last year it was when they got a few chunk plays in the 1st quarter, got up by two scores early.

Of course, because of Bowles conservatism, they always let teams back in it after going up two scores. That is a character flaw. I would love it Bowles would look at how Dan Quinn runs his offense: Always looking to score!! Now, Darnold is not Matt Ryan yet. But I think the best way to help the young QB is to get the field stretched early so that defenses can't play with everything in front of them. And, isn't it easier to pass when they think you're going to run???

Disagree—I don’t dislike anything he does. I dislike one thing he does: be a bad Football coach. If he was a good coach, no one would criticise his demeanour. But he stinks so we are left to hypothesise possible solutions, and not being psychic, unfortunately my information is confined to the realm of observable behaviour. Demonstrating the unproductivity of your statement, it could easily be flipped: some won’t criticise him no matter what he does. And with two 5-11 Seasons under his belt and us staring down the barrel of another sub .500 season... the objective evidence sure does back “da haterz” over “da jocksniffahs,” if you prefer to talk in extreme black and white terms for ease of understanding. Fact is most fans are in the grey zone—disappointed but want him to succeed—thus the endless threads about specific actions or decisions he could’ve done better. Dismiss people as just auto-haters if it wish but it demonstrates a lack of nuanced thinking, respectfully.

My belief: If it’s broke, do fix it. Or—if reasonable hope is lost—bin it. Ignoring the problem, or summarily dismissing those that acknowledge the problem, is the realm of the irrational. 

[phill1c]

18 hours ago, jgb said:

Disagree—I don’t dislike anything he does. I dislike one thing he does: be a bad Football coach. If he was a good coach, no one would criticise his demeanour. But he stinks so we are left to hypothesise possible solutions, and not being psychic, unfortunately my information is confined to the realm of observable behaviour. Demonstrating the unproductivity of your statement, it could easily be flipped: some won’t criticise him no matter what he does. And with two 5-11 Seasons under his belt and us staring down the barrel of another sub .500 season... the objective evidence sure does back “da haterz” over “da jocksniffahs,” if you prefer to talk in extreme black and white terms for ease of understanding. Fact is most fans are in the grey zone—disappointed but want him to succeed—thus the endless threads about specific actions or decisions he could’ve done better. Dismiss people as just auto-haters if it wish but it demonstrates a lack of nuanced thinking, respectfully.

My belief: If it’s broke, do fix it. Or—if reasonable hope is lost—bin it. Ignoring the problem, or summarily dismissing those that acknowledge the problem, is the realm of the irrational. 

It's lazy on your part to suggest that "be a bad football coach" is something that can't be quantified. I mentioned two discrete aspects of being a football coach. You offer nothing beyond the vague notion of being a bad coach.

So, cool, in your mind he's a bad football coach. But couldn't you at least entertain us with some instances and why you think this is being a bad coach? There certainly are many instances available. No, you won't do that because if you did, you'd see that they really don't establish definitively that he's a bad coach because of them.

I've disagreed with a lot of decisions Bowles has made. But I have to admit that he's got them playing hard and believing and improving individually. That's an aspect of GOOD coaching you're refusing to see or accept.

[jgb]

17 minutes ago, phill1c said:

It's lazy on your part to suggest that "be a bad football coach" is something that can't be quantified. I mentioned two discrete aspects of being a football coach. You offer nothing beyond the vague notion of being a bad coach.

So, cool, in your mind he's a bad football coach. But couldn't you at least entertain us with some instances and why you think this is being a bad coach? There certainly are many instances available. No, you won't do that because if you did, you'd see that they really don't establish definitively that he's a bad coach because of them.

I've disagreed with a lot of decisions Bowles has made. But I have to admit that he's got them playing hard and believing and improving individually. That's an aspect of GOOD coaching you're refusing to see or accept.

1. Write a book

2. Be called "lazy" by people who hate your opinion

3. Move on from thread

[phill1c]

I didn't call YOU lazy. I called your not quantifying your assertion lazy.

But, it's cool. I'm sorry my language was harsh.