Bowles and McCagnan have been at odds for years.

[ZachEY]

8 minutes ago, JiF said:

 So, it's not the coach or his staffs fault the offense cant move the ball and havent scored a TD in 7 quarters?  It's not the coaching staff's fault for being too scared to throw the ball on 3rd and 5 to ice the game in a lost season?  Simply unable to get 1st downs?  They had 15 first downs before the 4th quarter, what changed?  It's not on coaching to adjust?

 Come'on now...

Adjust to what?  The fact that our offensive line cannot open up holes?

No, it's a talent issue.  We can't move the ball, because when push comes to shove, we don't have the horses to win at the point of attack.

Other teams don't have super secret smart plays that work and we simply don't know them.  We can't execute because we suck.  We suck because we haven't invested in offense  in almost a decade outside of the guy sitting on the bench with the possibly fake foot injury.

[Creepy Lurker]

6 minutes ago, Rexorcism said:

Nope, I don’t see it that way. I see an awful HC and his latest hire, Bates, an awful OC. If Bowles had kept Johnnie Morton I think Darnold wouldve had a much better rookie year. But I think its a blessing in disguise for us because it will cost him Bowles his job.

Well if you think that the offensive roster/talent or way it was constructed is acceptable, I don’t even know what to say to that. I agree it would be better with coaching but only so much and there is a serious issue with how poorly Mac constructed it for 4 years in lieu of drafting the inevitable young FQB. 

[Bleedin Green]

2 hours ago, JiF said:

lol - that's your fault for responding to such lunacy.

That said, I do think a half halfway decent coach could have beaten Brock Osweiler and Matt Barkley...and probalby at least finishes out that Titans game.  In that scenario, is 5-6 wins "fixing" anything?  I dont think so.

Bowles sucks and deserves to be fired, but there is seriously faulty logic in arguments like this.  The concept of "finishes out that Titans game" is based on the assumption that the Jets obviously would have gotten the same 10 points out of defense and special teams under any circumstance, in order for them to have ever even had a lead to hold onto.  Don't get me wrong, Bowles deserves plenty of criticism for how the game ended once it was in his hands, but this isn't all happening in a vacuum.  The entire basis of how much better the Jets would be with nothing but different in coaching is fully dependent on the concept that absolutely all of the team's (admittedly few) successes would remain static, while coaching would only ever positively influence individual situations that weren't successful.

None of this is even meant as the slightest bit of defense of Bowles, but rather simply pointing out the flawed logic in using such isolated examples about the potential of a roster completely devoid of talent.  I mean, after all, I don't see anyone making an argument about the brilliance of Bowles' coaching that he even got them out to a lead against a team that was heavily favored.  Now of course he doesn't actually deserve any such praise, but the point is people are making up arguments on the basis of nothing but what happens to fit their own narrative.

[Beerfish]

5 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Bowles still not naming Darnold the starter has to be a FU to the front office right?

Reason #7,543 why he should have been fired at the bye week.  The packers and the browns did it right.  "We are going to fire this guy at years end, lets do it now, get a start on the search and not let the coach do any more damage than he has done."  The Jets  "Oh, I think it is classy to not fire a coach in mid season even if he is messing with what talent we have."

[Rexorcism]

lol - that's your fault for responding to such lunacy.
That said, I do think a half halfway decent coach could have beaten Brock Osweiler and Matt Barkley...and probalby at least finishes out that Titans game.  In that scenario, is 5-6 wins "fixing" anything?  I dont think so.

I agree, we’d be right with the majority of the NFL with an ordinary coach, 5-7/6-6/7-5

[Warfish]

22 hours ago, Joe W. Namath said:

Maccagnan is given credit(?) for the decision to burn a 2016 second-rounder on quarterback Christian Hackenberg, who never played a snap for the Jets, and that might have been because he was no good and it might have been part of a petty point-proving by the coaches who didn’t want him.

If this is remotely true, Bowles should never coach in the NFL again, period.

Regardless, I fire both if it's my call, and start fresh.  New GM first, who hires his new Head Coach who reports to him.

 

[KRL]

I hate these planted finger pointing stories that come out before people
lose their jobs.  Unfortunately this will go on for the rest of the year
and Bowles will get destroyed because Maccagnan has a good relationship
with the media.  Maccagnan planted this story but it shows he needs to get
a backbone.  Because if your scouts have been researching a draft class for
over a year, why at the last minute would you let your mind be changed by
the coaching staff?   

[ZachEY]

6 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

 Bowles sucks and deserves to be fired, but there is seriously faulty logic in arguments like this.  The concept of "finishes out that Titans game" is based on the assumption that the Jets obviously would have gotten the same 10 points out of defense and special teams under any circumstance, in order for them to have ever even had a lead to hold onto.  Don't get me wrong, Bowles deserves plenty of criticism for how the game ended once it was in his hands, but this isn't all happening in a vacuum.  The entire basis of how much better the Jets would be with nothing different in coaching is fully dependent on the concept that absolutely all of the team's (admittedly few) successes would remain static, while coaching would only ever positively influence individual situations that weren't successful.

 None of this is even meant as the slightest bit of defense of Bowles, but rather simply pointing out the flawed logic in using such isolated examples about the potential of a roster completely devoid of talent.  I mean, after all, I don't see anyone making an argument about the brilliance of Bowles' coaching that he even got them out to a lead against a team that was heavily favored.  Now of course he doesn't actually deserve any such praise, but the point is people are making up arguments on the basis of nothing but what happens to fit their own narrative.

yes

[playtowinthegame]

Our Jets rewarded/enabled Toilet Bowles and Mike Hackagnan each with 2 year extensions for their internal discord after a 2nd straight 5-11 season. The return on investment thus far has been a 3-9 record 3/4 of the way through the 2018 season, and make no mistake the Jets are headed for 3-13 riding a 10 game losing streak. Let's give Mac another 2 year extension, afterall, he drafted Darnold. Lmao

[JustInFudge]

17 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Adjust to what?  The fact that our offensive line cannot open up holes?

No, it's a talent issue.  We can't move the ball, because when push comes to shove, we don't have the horses to win at the point of attack.

Other teams don't have super secret smart plays that work and we simply don't know them.  We can't execute because we suck.  We suck because we haven't invested in offense  in almost a decade outside of the guy sitting on the bench with the possibly fake foot injury.

The Jets vs. the Titans were up 22-13 and had 15 first downs going into the 4th quarter.  Crow was averaging 4.7 ypc.  The Jets out ran the Titans on the day.  The Jets had a Defensive TD, a blocked kick, a 59 yard kick return and were steadily dominating the game for 3 quarters.  So the talent was good enough to dominate for 3 quarters but that same talent wasnt good enough to finish out the last quarter when all they needed was 5 yards to win the game? 

Actually, other teams do have creative play calls and the balls to call them.  Acting like all coaching and playbooks are the same, no offense, is the dumbest sh*t this board has ever tried to push.  

[Stark]

22 hours ago, Untouchable said:

Just over the last 2 months we’ve seen Bowles opt to punt while down by 2 scores late in a game...twice...

The guy makes in-game coaching gaffs that are just mind boggling.

He also is in control of the gameday roster. Bowles is the one who decided to sit Darnold for the last 3 weeks. Bowles is the one who kept Long out there as the starting center when he was repeatedly sending snaps over Sam’s head and at his feet multiple games in a row. Bowles is the one who refused to bench a guy like Skrine in favor of Roberts/Nickerson...

I’m all for completely cleaning house, but I’m not sure why so many are acting as if Bowles is some sort of scapegoat and Macc is the main culprit.

Macc certainly has his faults and you won’t see me boo-hooing if they kick his ass out the door as well, but to me it’s clear that Bowles is the head turd in this sh*t sandwich.

Agree. And the article says Mac thought the price to trade up for Kamara was too high. Not that he thought Kamara was no good. Kamara in our offense would be Powell. He has the luxury of the greatest passing QB and system in last decade.  I’m not saying Kamara is not a damn good back but he has a lot working in his favor in New Orleans. 

Bowles is a moron. Been making the same moronic Decisions/mistakes since he’s been here. 

[UntouchableCrew]

35 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

Bowles sucks and deserves to be fired, but there is seriously faulty logic in arguments like this.  The concept of "finishes out that Titans game" is based on the assumption that the Jets obviously would have gotten the same 10 points out of defense and special teams under any circumstance, in order for them to have ever even had a lead to hold onto.  Don't get me wrong, Bowles deserves plenty of criticism for how the game ended once it was in his hands, but this isn't all happening in a vacuum.  The entire basis of how much better the Jets would be with nothing different in coaching is fully dependent on the concept that absolutely all of the team's (admittedly few) successes would remain static, while coaching would only ever positively influence individual situations that weren't successful.

 None of this is even meant as the slightest bit of defense of Bowles, but rather simply pointing out the flawed logic in using such isolated examples about the potential of a roster completely devoid of talent.  I mean, after all, I don't see anyone making an argument about the brilliance of Bowles' coaching that he even got them out to a lead against a team that was heavily favored.  Now of course he doesn't actually deserve any such praise, but the point is people are making up arguments on the basis of nothing but what happens to fit their own narrative.

I think you're making it too literal (i.e. butterfly effect, changing this changes everything else etc.)

I think Bowles is a bad coach and I see multiple close losses this year (Browns, 2nd Dolphins game, Titans game) where it's clear the loss wasn't because we were badly out-manned in terms of talent. In all three of those games we either outplayed them or were gifted a lead -- and were so incompetent we gave the game away. It's hard to convince me that's not largely a product of coaching and that with a better coach (regardless if that coach has certain inefficiencies Bowles doesn't posses) we win them outright.

I just don't think there's any way that a Jets team with a good offensive mind running the show scores 3 TDs in 5 games. We know for a fact that it's not an issue of the talent being totally limp and pathetic because they've had explosive scoring games this very year. You expect up and downs with a rookie QB but there's just no excuse for an NFL offense to fail to produce anything during an era of unheard of offensive production. 

[ZachEY]

8 minutes ago, JiF said:

The Jets vs. the Titans were up 22-13 and had 15 first downs going into the 4th quarter.  Crow was averaging 4.7 ypc.  The Jets out ran the Titans on the day.  The Jets had a Defensive TD, a blocked kick, a 59 yard kick return and were steadily dominating the game for 3 quarters.  So the talent was good enough to dominate for 3 quarters but that same talent wasnt good enough to finish out the last quarter when all they needed was 5 yards to win the game? 

 Actually, other teams do have creative play calls and the balls to call them.  Acting like all coaching and playbooks are the same, no offense, is the dumbest sh*t this board has ever tried to push.  

We blocked a punt... Cool!  And Mariota made a stupid decision... Cool!  Other than that, we did almost nothing.  The score was in our favor for a little bit, but like most things, on a long enough time frame, it regressed to it's natural tendencies, and the significantly better team won.

Not every playbook is identical, but ultimately running for 1st downs is running for 1st downs.  Pretending like football is rocket science is fan fiction.  Teams either can or can't.  I'm not sure we ought to be throwing "dumbest sh*t" around when we're calling not scoring a single offensive touchdown, domination.

[JustInFudge]

16 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

Bowles sucks and deserves to be fired, but there is seriously faulty logic in arguments like this.  The concept of "finishes out that Titans game" is based on the assumption that the Jets obviously would have gotten the same 10 points out of defense and special teams under any circumstance, in order for them to have ever even had a lead to hold onto.  Don't get me wrong, Bowles deserves plenty of criticism for how the game ended once it was in his hands, but this isn't all happening in a vacuum.  The entire basis of how much better the Jets would be with nothing different in coaching is fully dependent on the concept that absolutely all of the team's (admittedly few) successes would remain static, while coaching would only ever positively influence individual situations that weren't successful.

None of this is even meant as the slightest bit of defense of Bowles, but rather simply pointing out the flawed logic in using such isolated examples about the potential of a roster completely devoid of talent.  I mean, after all, I don't see anyone making an argument about the brilliance of Bowles' coaching that he even got them out to a lead against a team that was heavily favored.  Now of course he doesn't actually deserve any such praise, but the point is people are making up arguments on the basis of nothing but what happens to fit their own narrative.

My "narrative" is they both suck equally and should be fired.  

If you dont think situational Football is a problem under Todd Bowles, then I'm just not sure what team you've been watching.  And the Titans game, was just another example in a long list.

Ironically, this whole conversation started with me agreeing with you that there is no reason to point the finger.  They both suck. 

Thinking a better coach could not have beaten Matt Barkley, Brock Osweiler and finished out the Titans game, isnt a stretch.  It's the difference between a good coach and bad coach.  And yes, there is a difference despite this board thinking every single coach is created equal. 

[JustInFudge]

10 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I think you're making it to literal (i.e. butterfly effect, changing this changes everything else etc.)

I think Bowles is a bad coach and I see multiple close losses this year (Browns, 2nd Dolphins game, Titans game) where it's clear the loss wasn't because we were badly out-manned in terms of talent. In all three of those games we either outplayed them or were gifted a lead -- and were so incompetent we gave the game away. It's hard to convince me that's not largely a product of coaching and that with a better coach (regardless if that coach has certain inefficiencies Bowles doesn't posses) we win them outright.

I just don't think there's any way that a Jets team with a good offensive mind running the show scores 3 TDs in 5 games. We know for a fact that it's not an issue of the talent being totally limp and pathetic because they've had explosive scoring games this very year. You expect up and downs with a rookie QB but there's just no excuse for an NFL offense to fail to produce anything during an era of unheard of offensive production. 

Thank you.  We've lost to the Dolphags twice, once led by Brock Oswelier, we played the Bills led by Matt Barkley - these teams are not significantly more talented than the Jets. 

 

[Rangers9]

MM-fake news? 

[JetPotato]

This just further proves how worthless the Johnsons are.

[JustInFudge]

26 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

We blocked a punt... Cool!  And Mariota made a stupid decision... Cool!  Other than that, we did almost nothing.  The score was in our favor for a little bit, but like most things, on a long enough time frame, it regressed to it's natural tendencies, and the significantly better team won.

Not every playbook is identical, but ultimately running for 1st downs is running for 1st downs.  Pretending like football is rocket science is fan fiction.  Teams either can or can't.  I'm not sure we ought to be throwing "dumbest sh*t" around when we're calling not scoring a single offensive touchdown, domination.

So 3 quarters of Football holding your opponent to 12 points, with a 9 point lead going into the 4th quarter was just a fluke?  

Ever wonder why Jeremy Bates hasnt called a Football play in 8 years? 

[DonCorleone]

23 hours ago, jetscrazey said:

"for years?"  They've only been here 4 seasons.  Exactly when did they turn on each other???

Also, Woody Johnson is a root cause of this problem by messing up the accountability structure.  The GM needs to hire the head coach, not the owner.

You nailed it. Woody is easily the worst owner in the league. Neither Parcells nor Belichick wanted any part of it. They were wiser than we ever knew. I wish we could fire Woody Johnson. 

[NoBowles]

Im not sure what this article proves? They both suck.. Its like the pro Bowles crew is trying to say, see, Bowles wanted offense....

I'd feel much more that way if it were about offensive linemen or WR's then RB. We know Bowles wants to run, its why he fired a halfway decent OC last year, because he liked the forward pass, and replaced him with a run heavy downgrade of an OC.

Both Mac and Bowles suck and need to go. But the defense of Bowles is laughable at best. He does literally nothing good. He has among the worst staffs in football, every year, has a terrible 1985 philosophy of how to win, is terrible in game management and on and on.

So now because he wanted a RB who is decent, this is a case that its all on Maccagnan, and not on Bowles, GTFO with this crap

 

[ZachEY]

28 minutes ago, JiF said:

So 3 quarters of Football holding your opponent to 12 points, with a 9 point lead going into the 4th quarter was just a fluke?  

Ever wonder why Jeremy Bates hasnt called a Football play in 8 years? 

We haven't been able to close a game since 2010, and we struggled even then, largely due to Sanchez - we're now going to pretend like this is a Bates thing or even a 2018 thing?

In this particular game, yes, us having a lead was kind of flukey.

[ZachEY]

45 minutes ago, JiF said:

Thank you.  We've lost to the Dolphags twice, once led by Brock Oswelier, we played the Bills led by Matt Barkley - these teams are not significantly more talented than the Jets. 

 

We're the Josh McCown/Rookie Sam Darnold led Jets.  Why is that better than teams led by Oswelier and Barkley, that wins should just be assumed?

[Rexorcism]

Well if you think that the offensive roster/talent or way it was constructed is acceptable, I don’t even know what to say to that. I agree it would be better with coaching but only so much and there is a serious issue with how poorly Mac constructed it for 4 years in lieu of drafting the inevitable young FQB. 

IMO, rosterwise the Jets are an average team, average on offense, average on defense. This upcoming season is and was supposed to be Macc’s big opportunity to upgrade our roster into an above average top tier team. Did you expect a team in our position to be any more than that? I think alot of you fans live in fantasy football lala land. Macc has this roster right where I thought he did. Bowles is getting worse game by game and the players are losing confidence in him.

[NoBowles]

16 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

We're the Josh McCown/Rookie Sam Darnold led Jets.  Why is that better than teams led by Oswelier and Barkley, that wins should just be assumed?

Oh, wins are not assumed at all, as a matter of fact, I think one could argue it was excellent coaching when we lost to the Bills 437 to 3, with their super secret weapon, the 3rd string QB who, one is not allowed to gather film on.

[Bleedin Green]

1 hour ago, JiF said:

My "narrative" is they both suck equally and should be fired.  

If you dont think situational Football is a problem under Todd Bowles, then I'm just not sure what team you've been watching.  And the Titans game, was just another example in a long list.

Ironically, this whole conversation started with me agreeing with you that there is no reason to point the finger.  They both suck. 

Thinking a better coach could not have beaten Matt Barkley, Brock Osweiler and finished out the Titans game, isnt a stretch.  It's the difference between a good coach and bad coach.  And yes, there is a difference despite this board thinking every single coach is created equal. 

Of course they both suck, but suggesting what success they could have with nothing but different coaching is ultimately saying quite the contrary.  If this team should allegedly have been able to double the number of wins, that's either suggesting you either think there's talent on this roster that I simply do not see, or you think there's another half dozen or more coaches out there just as incompetent as Bowles, so even a mediocre coach could have beaten their superior teams.  The point is simple: either conclusion, I would ultimately disagree with.

[NoBowles]

Just now, Bleedin Green said:

Of course they both suck, but suggesting what success they could have with nothing but different coaching is ultimately saying quite the contrary.  If this team should allegedly have been able to double the number of wins, that's either suggesting you either think there's talent on this roster that I simply do not see, or you think there's another half dozen or more coaches out there just as incompetent as Bowles, so even a mediocre coach could have beaten their superior teams.  The point is simple: either conclusion, I would ultimately disagree with.

Its funny, the too cool for school crew basically wants to argue that you can't judge Bowles because Maccagnan is so bad at his job that he has provided a roster of bums that would be impossible to coach, and therefore can't be judged.

Yet, Bowles has been able to judge 2 prior OC's enough to fire them, with the same personnel provided by the awful GM, and judged that they need to go and be replaced, and is now on his 3rd OC in 3 years.

This argument is as stupid as the argument one could make as to say you can't judge Mac with a coach as bad as Bowles.  Both are equally idiotic arguments.

Both are very bad at their jobs. Arguing which one is worth is pointless and futile. They both suck and both need to be gone.

 

[Pac]

2 hours ago, dbatesman said:

Do you have a list of the players he requested? Feels like that would be helpful here

Most recently Trumaine Johnson.

[JustInFudge]

36 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

We haven't been able to close a game since 2010, and we struggled even then, largely due to Sanchez - we're now going to pretend like this is a Bates thing or even a 2018 thing?

In this particular game, yes, us having a lead was kind of flukey.

What does 2010 have to do with 2018?

34 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

We're the Josh McCown/Rookie Sam Darnold led Jets.  Why is that better than teams led by Oswelier and Barkley, that wins should just be assumed?

What did Sam Darnold or Josh McCown have to do with getting blown out by a Matt Barkley led offense?  Are the Bills with a street FA QB significantly more talented than the Jets? 

 

[JustInFudge]

16 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

Of course they both suck, but suggesting what success they could have with nothing but different coaching is ultimately saying quite the contrary.  If this team should allegedly have been able to double the number of wins, that's either suggesting you either think there's talent on this roster that I simply do not see, or you think there's another half dozen or more coaches out there just as incompetent as Bowles, so even a mediocre coach could have beaten their superior teams.  The point is simple: either conclusion, I would ultimately disagree with.

I'm not saying anything about doubling wins.  I'm saying, beat the bad teams led by bad QB's.  I do not believe that the Dolphags or Bills are more talented than the Jets.  All 3 rosters are terrible but somehow they consistently beat the Jets. 

So basically what you're saying is; no coach could have made the Jets more successful vs. a Matt Barkley led Bills team and a Brock Osweiler led Dolphags team?  No matter who was coaching the Jets, they were losing those game?  That's your position? 

[Bleedin Green]

1 hour ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I think you're making it too literal (i.e. butterfly effect, changing this changes everything else etc.)

I think Bowles is a bad coach and I see multiple close losses this year (Browns, 2nd Dolphins game, Titans game) where it's clear the loss wasn't because we were badly out-manned in terms of talent. In all three of those games we either outplayed them or were gifted a lead -- and were so incompetent we gave the game away. It's hard to convince me that's not largely a product of coaching and that with a better coach (regardless if that coach has certain inefficiencies Bowles doesn't posses) we win them outright.

I just don't think there's any way that a Jets team with a good offensive mind running the show scores 3 TDs in 5 games. We know for a fact that it's not an issue of the talent being totally limp and pathetic because they've had explosive scoring games this very year. You expect up and downs with a rookie QB but there's just no excuse for an NFL offense to fail to produce anything during an era of unheard of offensive production. 

Once again, this entire premise is dependent on the assumption that all poor outcomes are strictly the fault of the coaching, while all positive ones had absolutely no influence by coaching at all.  Don't get me wrong, Bowles is a horrible coach.  That still doesn't change the fact, verses the Titans, that a few slightly differently calls by even a vastly superior coach could have easily wiped their only TD of the game, and multiple FGs, off the board, which is all that gave them a lead to lose in the first place.  Pick 6s, blocked punts, and long returns are not exactly common occurrences.  So in a situation like that, the entire basis of the supposed talent level being equivalent is dependent on the Jets happening to have a few statistical outliers all bunched together in a single game.

Your attempt to qualify identifying such holes in the logic as "too literal" is rather curious, considering your entire argument is dependent on the score of a single game being at all close as a reliable indicator that the teams have a comparable talent level.  Following that type of logic would of course ultimately suggest that the Jets have vastly superior talents to the Lions and Broncos, while an immeasurably small fraction of the talent of the Bills, a series of arguments that I wouldn't expect to be coming.

Bottom line, if the assumption is that every single successful play has all just been in spite of Bowles, there's absolutely no reason to not similarly assume that every single successful player has been in spite of Maccagnan.

[Bleedin Green]

4 minutes ago, JiF said:

I'm not saying anything about doubling wins.  I'm saying, beat the bad teams led by bad QB's.  I do not believe that the Dolphags or Bills are more talented than the Jets.  All 3 rosters are terrible but somehow they consistently beat the Jets. 

So basically what you're saying is; no coach could have made the Jets more successful vs. a Matt Barkley led Bills team and a Brock Osweiler led Dolphags team?  No matter who was coaching the Jets, they were losing those game?  That's your position? 

You said they should have won 3 more games.  They have actually won 3.  You are therefore suggesting they should have won 6.  6 is double 3.

Can we just agree that they all suck, without exception?

[ZachEY]

20 minutes ago, JiF said:

What does 2010 have to do with 2018?

What did Sam Darnold or Josh McCown have to do with getting blown out by a Matt Barkley led offense?  Are the Bills with a street FA QB significantly more talented than the Jets? 

 

I think I made my point about talent over the years sufficiently, no reason to argue for the sake of arguing.

Youre saying these teams are crap - I’m saying so are ours.

[Gas2No99]

Rich Cimini ESPN Staff Writer 

Coach Todd Bowles was clearly not pleased with a New York Daily News story that said philosophical differences have created friction between him and GM Mike Maccagnan. Speaking to SNY's Jeane Coakley, Bowles said: "I'm not big on responding to articles, but there's never been any tension with me or anybody else in this building. It's a professional place. There are a lot of good people here. We treat people the same way. It's unfortunate someone has their own agenda in mind. ... Usually the first (person who) throws the first stone is usually the culprit. They're probably trying to protect or hide something. Most of the organization is not like that. It's unfortunate we had that said."

[dbatesman]

44 minutes ago, Pac said:

Most recently Trumaine Johnson.

Cool! Who else?

[Pac]

3 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Cool! Who else?

Marcus Maye.