FIRE MACCAGNAN!!!!!!!

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

2 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Why not?

Are you just going to change the direction of the argument whenever you get backed into a corner?

[Matt39]

3 minutes ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

Are you just going to change the direction of the argument whenever you get backed into a corner?

Trading up for a QB not knowing which one would be there because he desperately needed a QB because he drafted a safety over one last year is exactly what happened. This isnt a plan. It's a hail mary.

Considering this regime treats the fanbase like Dignam treats the feds, who even knows which ones he liked and which ones he didnt. There's no way all 4 were ranked equally.

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

Just now, Matt39 said:

Trading up for a QB not knowing which one would be there because he desperately needed a QB because he drafted a safety over one last year is exactly what happened. This isnt a plan. It's a hail mary.

Considering this regime treats the fanbase like Dignam treats the feds, who even knows which ones he liked and which ones he didnt. There's no way all 4 where ranked equally.

You are either trolling or being obtuse. Which one is it? 

I'll try this again, because you're being obstinate. He traded up to 3 in order to guarantee that he comes away with one of the top 3 QB's. There was a 100% chance that either Darnold, Mayfield, or Rosen was going to be there at 3.  I'm not sure how this is even an argument. 

 

[Creepy Lurker]

3 hours ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

You are either trolling or being obtuse. Which one is it? 

I'll try this again, because you're being obstinate. He traded up to 3 in order to guarantee that he comes away with one of the top 3 QB's. There was a 100% chance that either Darnold, Mayfield, or Rosen was going to be there at 3.  I'm not sure how this is even an argument. 

 

Mac should get credit for getting in the top 3 for QB. It’s just not as groundbreaking as making sure you get your guy and 100% have control over the pick. He was fine with any of the top 3 and it worked out great. That involved luck.

This was one of his better moves but I think what @Matt39 is trying to say is that it was not a sure thing that he’d get “his guy” and even though he traded up before the draft which probably saved on cost, it still cost a decent amount of resources which could have been avoided. All he had to do was draft a QB in 2017 where 2 prospects dropped.

I don’t like playing the hindsight game and I have no issue if Mac liked the 2018 class better. The problem with that is that he and the head coach aren’t on the same page and as Bowles tried playing for his job and winning, it hurt our draft position for 2018.

Mac should not have signed McCown if he wanted a top QB in 18. So Mac must have been trying to win as well or honestly trying to evaluate the rest of the offense by having “competent” QB play. There are pros and cons to doing that.

Clearly those extra wins and culture did not carry over to this year and we lost a decent amount of picks. This is lack of vision and a plan. 

[joewilly12]

Mike Maccagnan did a few good things here and a lot of bad things. 

A GM should be judged by the teams success. 

FIRE MIKE MACCAGNAN 

[dbatesman]

9 hours ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

One situation has nothing to do with the other. 20/20 hindsight says we should have drafted Mahomes, but we can play the hindsight game all the way back to when we passed over Dan Marino.

Macc turning three second rounders into a potential franchise QB is a great move, no matter how much you want to bring irrelevant information into the argument. 

What? The two situations have everything to do with each other. If he hadn’t passed on Watson and Mahomes, he could have gotten a franchise QB and kept all three of the second rounders. 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

5 hours ago, Creepy Lurker said:

Mac should get credit for getting in the top 3 for QB. It’s just not as groundbreaking as making sure you get your guy and 100% have control over the pick. He was fine with any of the top 3 and it worked out great. That involved luck.

This was one of his better moves but I think what @Matt39 is trying to say is that it was not a sure thing that he’d get “his guy” and even though he traded up before the draft which probably saved on cost, it still cost a decent amount of resources which could have been avoided. All he had to do was draft a QB in 2017 where 2 prospects dropped.

I don’t like playing the hindsight game and I have no issue if Mac liked the 2018 class better. The problem with that is that he and the head coach aren’t on the same page and as Bowles tried playing for his job and winning, it hurt our draft position for 2018.

Mac should not have signed McCown if he wanted a top QB in 18. So Mac must have been trying to win as well or honestly trying to evaluate the rest of the offense by having “competent” QB play. There are pros and cons to doing that.

Clearly those extra wins and culture did not carry over to this year and we lost a decent amount of picks. This is lack of vision and a plan. 

We are going to have to disagree about Macc getting lucky by trading up to 3. While we agree that he didn't have 100% control of his pick,  he put himself in the position to get a highly regarded prospect. Lucky is Darnold falling to 6. Being fortunate that the Browns fancied Mayfield instead of Darnold was part of the gamble. Luck is when preparation meeting opportunity. 

Matt39 wasn't interested in having a rational debate. He wanted to an opportunity to mention that Macc took two safeties. After saying in multiple posts that I was only discussing the trade to move up to get Darnold, he still wanted to talk about safeties. 

The three of us are in complete agreement that Macc has done a bad job at drafting. This doesn't change the fact that trading three 2nd round picks for the opportunity to land a top QB prospect was a genius move, irrespective of previous failures. 

[Creepy Lurker]

5 minutes ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

We are going to have to disagree about Macc getting lucky by trading up to 3. While we agree that he didn't have 100% control of his pick,  he put himself in the position to get a highly regarded prospect. Lucky is Darnold falling to 6. Being fortunate that the Browns fancied Mayfield instead of Darnold was part of the gamble. Luck is when preparation meeting opportunity. 

Matt39 wasn't interested in having a rational debate. He wanted to an opportunity to mention that Macc took two safeties. After saying in multiple posts that I was only discussing the trade to move up to get Darnold, he still wanted to talk about safeties. 

The three of us are in complete agreement that Macc has done a bad job at drafting. This doesn't change the fact that trading three 2nd round picks for the opportunity to land a top QB prospect was a genius move, irrespective of previous failures. 

I’ll be more clear. It wasn’t “all luck”. It involved luck that Sam (his guy) dropped to him. It was definitely a really good move to move up into the top 3, especially before the draft to keep the cost down.

I will disagree that it was “genius”. It was really good but not something so good that it should save him. His body of work is ATROCIOUS.

That’s just my specific opinion on the situation and probably the only credit that I can give him at this point. 

[KINGDIRK]

5 minutes ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

We are going to have to disagree about Macc getting lucky by trading up to 3. While we agree that he didn't have 100% control of his pick,  he put himself in the position to get a highly regarded prospect. Lucky is Darnold falling to 6. Being fortunate that the Browns fancied Mayfield instead of Darnold was part of the gamble. Luck is when preparation meeting opportunity. 

Matt39 wasn't interested in having a rational debate. He wanted to an opportunity to mention that Macc took two safeties. After saying in multiple posts that I was only discussing the trade to move up to get Darnold, he still wanted to talk about safeties. 

The three of us are in complete agreement that Macc has done a bad job at drafting. This doesn't change the fact that trading three 2nd round picks for the opportunity to land a top QB prospect was a genius move, irrespective of previous failures. 

Dear Macc,

Your Saint Patrick’s Day trade to send three 2s to the Colts was brilliant! Thank you very much. However your overall draft record has been unacceptable. You’re fired. Thanks again for Darnold but you’re still fired. We’re going to bring in a far more capabale GM to finish the job off.

thanks!

[Creepy Lurker]

3 minutes ago, KINGDIRK said:

Dear Macc,

Your Saint Patrick’s Day trade to send three 2s to the Colts was brilliant! Thank you very much. However your overall draft record has been unacceptable. You’re fired. Thanks again for Darnold but you’re still fired. We’re going to bring in a far more capabale GM to finish the job off.

thanks!

Pretty much. 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

12 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

What? The two situations have everything to do with each other. If he hadn’t passed on Watson and Mahomes, he could have gotten a franchise QB and kept all three of the second rounders. 

The ole fallacy of the predetermined outcome. If you change one thing about the past, every else changes too. We don't know if Macc still would have traded Richardson for a 2nd round pick and Kearse if they drafted Mahomes or Watson. Do you know why? Every other pick would have changed not only for the Jets, but for the rest of the NFL. This is why playing what if in this situation is useless. 

We live in the real world and not the 20/20 hindsight world.  Macc trading three second rounders for the opportunity to draft a franchise QB is one of his shining moments. I'm not defending Macc's body of work, but I'm not going to be a fool and pretend that everything he did was wrong. 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

4 minutes ago, KINGDIRK said:

Dear Macc,

Your Saint Patrick’s Day trade to send three 2s to the Colts was brilliant! Thank you very much. However your overall draft record has been unacceptable. You’re fired. Thanks again for Darnold but you’re still fired. We’re going to bring in a far more capabale GM to finish the job off.

thanks!

From your mouth to Woody's ears. I have no problem with sending Macc off to the scrap heap.

[dbatesman]

22 minutes ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

The ole fallacy of the predetermined outcome. If you change one thing about the past, every else changes too. We don't know if Macc still would have traded Richardson for a 2nd round pick and Kearse if they drafted Mahomes or Watson. Do you know why? Every other pick would have changed not only for the Jets, but for the rest of the NFL. This is why playing what if in this situation is useless. 

We live in the real world and not the 20/20 hindsight world.  Macc trading three second rounders for the opportunity to draft a franchise QB is one of his shining moments. I'm not defending Macc's body of work, but I'm not going to be a fool and pretend that everything he did was wrong. 

So now we can’t criticize Maccagnan because of the butterfly effect. At least it’s novel.

[#27TheDominator]

30 minutes ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

The ole fallacy of the predetermined outcome. If you change one thing about the past, every else changes too. We don't know if Macc still would have traded Richardson for a 2nd round pick and Kearse if they drafted Mahomes or Watson. Do you know why? Every other pick would have changed not only for the Jets, but for the rest of the NFL. This is why playing what if in this situation is useless. 

We live in the real world and not the 20/20 hindsight world.  Macc trading three second rounders for the opportunity to draft a franchise QB is one of his shining moments. I'm not defending Macc's body of work, but I'm not going to be a fool and pretend that everything he did was wrong. 

So, if we drafted Watson or Mahomes we wouldn't have 3 starter level 3-4 ends when only 2 could play at a time?  He traded Richardson because he drafted another to add to Wilkerson and Richardson, and then still elected to (over)pay Wilkerson.  Also because Bowles could not handle Richardson in the locker room.  None of those things change even slightly by drafting Watson or Mahomes. 

You want to say we wouldn't have ended up with 37 and 49?  Big deal.  They still would have had some combo of Cortland Sutton, Christian Kirk, DJ Chark, Pettis, Turay, Giuce, Connor Williams, Brandon Parker, Donte and/or Josh Jackson.  I also don't give two ****s about Kearse who we could have picked up off waivers a week later, same as Demario Davis.

[Jetsfan80]

Bump.

 

Macc fired yet??

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

9 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

So, if we drafted Watson or Mahomes we wouldn't have 3 starter level 3-4 ends when only 2 could play at a time?  He traded Richardson because he drafted another to add to Wilkerson and Richardson, and then still elected to (over)pay Wilkerson.  Also because Bowles could not handle Richardson in the locker room.  None of those things change even slightly by drafting Watson or Mahomes. 

You want to say we wouldn't have ended up with 37 and 49?  Big deal.  They still would have had some combo of Cortland Sutton, Christian Kirk, DJ Chark, Pettis, Turay, Giuce, Connor Williams, Brandon Parker, Donte and/or Josh Jackson.  I also don't give two ****s about Kearse who we could have picked up off waivers a week later, same as Demario Davis.

We could speculate about what would have happened, but since we will never know, why bother rehashing the past? We agree. Macc sucks.

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

9 hours ago, dbatesman said:

So now we can’t criticize Maccagnan because of the butterfly effect. At least it’s novel.

Criticize Macc all you want. I'm not defending him.

[#27TheDominator]

17 minutes ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

Criticize Macc all you want. I'm not defending him.

Then what the **** are you doing?  I mean, other than trying to stifle all discussion? 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

10 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Then what the **** are you doing?  I mean, other than trying to stifle all discussion? 

Exaggerate much? I'm not stifling "all" discussion. I'm responding to the onslaught of straw man arguments because I dare to single out a good move by the GM. It's possible to think that Macc is not a good GM, but also acknowledge that he has made a good move. Imagine that, a nuanced opinion. The tired NPC narrative of "Macc bad. Macc draft safety. Macc not draft Mahome!" We get it. He is awful at scouting. 

[playtowinthegame]

[#27TheDominator]

12 minutes ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

Exaggerate much? I'm not stifling "all" discussion. I'm responding to the onslaught of straw man arguments because I dare to single out a good move by the GM. It's possible to think that Macc is not a good GM, but also acknowledge that he has made a good move. Imagine that, a nuanced opinion. The tired NPC narrative of "Macc bad. Macc draft safety. Macc not draft Mahome!" We get it. He is awful at scouting. 

What was the good move?  Trading up?  It looks like it worked out, but it was far from a sure thing - we get 3rd choice and gave up those 2nds. The point being made is that the trade up was a good move, but it was necessitated by the prior moves which were sketchy at best. 

As I said, literally zero factors leading to the Richardson trade relate to QB, so why did you list that in your when things are different, they are different mantra? 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

3 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

What was the good move?  Trading up?  It looks like it worked out, but it was far from a sure thing - we get 3rd choice and gave up those 2nds. The point being made is that the trade up was a good move, but it was necessitated by the prior moves which were sketchy at best. 

As I said, literally zero factors leading to the Richardson trade relate to QB, so why did you list that in your when things are different, they are different mantra? 

I never once argued about the poor moves that lead up to the trade. The trade itself, irrespective of the events leading up to it was good. It seems that some people, not all, refuse to say a kind thing about Macc because the totality of his body of work with the Jets has been a failure. 

The point I am making about the Richardson trade is in response to a what if scenario. If the Jets selected Mahomes or Watson, every other draft pick for every team would have been drastically altered. We have no idea how things would have played out. The Seahawks may have drafted a DE, and Richardson gets traded to another team for a 3rd round pick. It's the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. In this instance, it's the fantasy of the predetermined outcome. 

[Creepy Lurker]

I wonder when the media will start speaking up. If Sunday is a disaster (I don’t see how it can’t be) maybe the blame shifts to Mac finally. 

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

Criticize Macc all you want. I'm not defending him.

 

11 hours ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

Macc trading three second rounders for the opportunity to draft a franchise QB is one of his shining moments. 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

2 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

 

Nice try. Praising a single move, and defending a guy are two different things. 

Gif of a guy wagging his finger and saying nice try. 

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

Exaggerate much? I'm not stifling "all" discussion. I'm responding to the onslaught of straw man arguments because I dare to single out a good move by the GM. It's possible to think that Macc is not a good GM, but also acknowledge that he has made a good move. Imagine that, a nuanced opinion. The tired NPC narrative of "Macc bad. Macc draft safety. Macc not draft Mahome!" We get it. He is awful at scouting. 

Defending a move by ignoring all the things that made it necessary isn’t nuanced, it’s dumb as sh*t. Yes, the Darnold move is fine in a vacuum. But it didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened in a world where Maccagnan either had Adams rated higher than Watson and Mahomes or felt good about Hackenberg, and was forced to spend four picks on a QB instead of one. That’s bad.

 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

Just now, dbatesman said:

Defending a move by ignoring all the things that made it necessary isn’t nuanced, it’s dumb as sh*t. Yes, the Darnold move is fine in a vacuum. But it didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened in a world where Maccagnan either had Adams rated higher than Watson and Mahomes or felt good about Hackenberg, and was forced to spend four picks on a QB instead of one. 

You eat a lot of lead paint chips as a child? 

 

[dbatesman]

2 minutes ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

You eat a lot of lead paint chips as a child? 

imagine that, a nuanced opinion

[Creepy Lurker]

Mac moving up and drafting Darnold: some think it’s a good move, others think great.

Mac’s body of work: Complete sh*tshow and most agree he is trash and needs to go.

We don’t all have to completely agree on every little aspect of what he has done to arrive at the same conclusion that he is trash and needs to go.

I don’t think it’s worth running around in circles over such a small part of the whole picture. Grab those pitchforks and focus on the real enemy haha. 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

Just now, dbatesman said:

imagine that, a nuanced opinion

You have shown that you are completely incapable of having a nuanced opinion. So, again, I'll say it. Imagine that, a nuanced opinion.

Your turn. 

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

1 minute ago, Creepy Lurker said:

Mac moving up and drafting Darnold: some think it’s a good move, others think great.

Mac’s body of work: Complete sh*tshow and most agree he is trash and needs to go.

We don’t all have to completely agree on every little aspect of what he has done to arrive at the same conclusion that he is trash and needs to go.

I don’t think it’s worth running around in circles over such a small part of the whole picture. Grab those pitchforks and focus on the real enemy haha. 

Thank you. I'm tired of having this "debate". It's actually not a debate. The consensus is that Macc is awful. 

[#27TheDominator]

Nuanced? Yeesh. What's next? Math?

[Obrien2Toon]

What’s the longest a GM has gone without making the playoffs, and not lost his job?

Especially to start his career

[Creepy Lurker]

23 minutes ago, Obrien2Toon said:

What’s the longest a GM has gone without making the playoffs, and not lost his job?

Especially to start his career

I’d love to know this. 

[#27TheDominator]

27 minutes ago, Obrien2Toon said:

What’s the longest a GM has gone without making the playoffs, and not lost his job?

Especially to start his career

 

4 minutes ago, Creepy Lurker said:

I’d love to know this. 

I'm not sure, but Matt Millen was President in Detroit for 8 years.  2001-2008.  The last 6 he was also GM. 2003-2008.  They never had a record better than 7-9 while he was there.  Worse they were 9-7 the year before he took over, then dropped to 2-14.  They had made the playoffs in 6 of the 10 years prior to his arrival. Sanders retired in 1998.