Bucs defense shifts to attack mode under Todd Bowles

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

59 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The D did play better. You're trying to make the case that they didn't because of stats piled up in garbage time while two starting CBs were off the field.

He still deserved to get fired because his job title was HC not DC, and the Rodgers hire was all Bowles.

The #1 problem with the team was the roster. The D performed, for the most part, when the roster was far better in 2015 (that's even with Bowles as HC and Rodgers as DC). 

The most important position on a franchise is GM. Not HC, not FQB, and certainly not DC. Teams are perfectly capable of winning .500 or worse ball even with a FQB in his prime and a SB-winner HC (e.g. Packers, Saints, etc.).  It's not enough. You need a GM or head or operations or pick the job title of whomover it is that's bringing in the talent (on-field talent or sideline talent). There are rare exceptions like Brady/Beli but for pretty much every team every season, this is how it goes.

The discussion had nothing to do with the GM.  Of course players have a lot to do with success vs. failure.  That is not a  revelation.  The discussion was based on one premise and one only.  Whether there was significant improvement with the defensive play over the two weeks that Kasey Rodgers was out and Todd Bowles took over the defensive "play calling".  I didn't see any significant change or improvement.  You claim they did.  We don't agree.  It is as simple as that.

[Sperm Edwards]

4 hours ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

The discussion had nothing to do with the GM.  Of course players have a lot to do with success vs. failure.  That is not a  revelation.  The discussion was based on one premise and one only.  Whether there was significant improvement with the defensive play over the two weeks that Kasey Rodgers was out and Todd Bowles took over the defensive "play calling".  I didn't see any significant change or improvement.  You claim they did.  We don't agree.  It is as simple as that.

It has to do with importance to the team and what has disparate impact (who's calling the plays, who's on the field for us, who's on the field for them, weather conditions, and game scenarios).

I'm saying there were plenty of good reasons to fire Bowles. The D allegedly having bad performances vs Denver and Indy, due to bad coaching, aren't among them. 

Denver's offense - the pass offense in particular - got the snot beat out of them by our pass defense despite it being shorthanded.

• You want to argue otherwise because of a garbage time 150 yards and 9 first downs against a prevent defense - with 2 of the team's 3 starting corners off the field with injuries no less.
• You'd further want to make the claim this is all-telling when the D was soft on plays in front of them because they knew there wasn't enough time for Denver to win unless they got a single 80-yard pass on the first set of downs.
• You ignore further still that the latter of the 2 drives resulted in giving back 100 yards because of an interception return.
• So, 77 yards in dumpoffs vs a prevent defense = significant; 105 yard interception return to end the game = insignificant, because statistically it doesn't erase passing yards even though it obviously moves the ball backward more than their offense had moved the ball forward.

It's a tough argument to make. As is the Indy game:

• Similarly shorthanded due to 2 starting CB injuries against Andrew Luck in arguably his best season.
• Why is this still sucky? omg 301 passing yards, even though a 60-yard TD drive came in garbage time when the Jets were up by 15 points with 3 minutes left in the game.
• Also rendered meaningless are the 3x Luck was picked off before it was garbage time, including a pick-6 to open the game, and another that was returned into FG range before Darnold even snapped the ball.
• 80 negative-yards for Indy's passing offense = meaningless because of the way stats are kept
• So that's 10 points that was directly due to the defense. The D's 4th turnover was also meaningless.

If you want to think the D looked about the same, go ahead. The reality is they played better, but weren't going to play elite because they didn't have the players to be elite. No consistent edge rusher, no starting #1 corner, no starting slot corner, and they're supposed to get more than 4 turnovers (3 of them picks) against the Colts. 

A good game here or there any team can have, though. It's why there are upsets. To perform consistently they need a better team not a fictitious magical wizard DC who turns garbage into gold; it doesn't exist. They need a consistent pass rusher on the DL so they can keep their defensive backs in the defensive backfield. Either that or they need to score the **** out of it on offense with similar consistency where the D is of far more limited importance. 

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

31 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If you want to think the D looked about the same, go ahead. The reality is they played better, but weren't going to play elite because they didn't have the players to be elite. No consistent edge rusher, no starting #1 corner, no starting slot corner, and they're supposed to get more than 4 turnovers (3 of them picks) against the Colts. 

A good game here or there any team can have, though. It's why there are upsets. To perform consistently they need a better team not a fictitious magical wizard DC who turns garbage into gold; it doesn't exist. They need a consistent pass rusher on the DL so they can keep their defensive backs in the defensive backfield. Either that or they need to score the **** out of it on offense with similar consistency where the D is of far more limited importance. 

I get your point  We all know they need better players,  a better pass rush, better coverage, better schemes, and a better coaching staff.  Let's hope we have one.  If they played better on defense, the improvement was marginal not significant.  When the Jets hired Todd Bowles, the perception was that he was an elite defensive mind.  We saw no evidence of that in the four years he was here.  Blaming Kacy Rodgers is weak.  That's how I feel.  Regards.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

I get your point  We all know they need better players,  a better pass rush, better coverage, better schemes, and a better coaching staff.  Let's hope we have one.  If they played better on defense, the improvement was marginal not significant.  When the Jets hired Todd Bowles, the perception was that he was an elite defensive mind.  We saw no evidence of that in the four years he was here.  Blaming Kacy Rodgers is weak.  That's how I feel.  Regards.

I think blaming Rodgers is weak because he was only here because of Bowles. It's not like there was some long line of teams just itching to have him as their DC. 

That said Bowles may be a good DC when (a) that's all he has to concentrate on, and (b) when there's a HC above him that doesn't get walked on like a doormat. We endlessly heard the players say ad nauseam that they weren't executing, which is saying the play call was there but the players screwed it up. Poor discipline and/or poor practicing doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing. 

My understanding is there were a lot of power struggle issues with him, especially the last 2 years, and it affected how he coached. 

Personally I was never impressed with him here, but given the significant injury handicap to his secondary I'd be lying if I didn't give him credit for those games. Basically I don't think citing yardage compiled in garbage time is a knock on the performances overall. 

As I said in another thread, I'd rather Gase & co. had an adequate roster so we don't have to debate the validity of the coaches' excuses. I don't really think there's a world of difference among most coaches. A couple are probably truly top tier and every year a couple are appropriately fired because they're just trash as HCs no matter the team, but I think most would be double-digit game winners with an adequate roster and the truth is for all his faults Bowles probably falls within that +/-1 SD. We went 1-1 vs NE in 2015, might have been a fumble & a penalty away from 2-0 in a Brady-Fitz shootout. FFS we saw 10-game winners from Bowles, Herm, Mangini, Rex, and friggin' Walton. Barry Switzer won a SB. So did Chucky. So did Dungy. None were genius HCs, but given a good enough roster they were capable of beating anyone. Caldwell went 14-2 and might have pulled off a SB win if the onside kick went the other way. Two years later he went 2-14. You're going to tell me the difference was coaching?

I think you're going to be disappointed if you think it's all about the coach in charge. Most of them look like geniuses or fools purely because of the rosters they're coaching. 

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

24 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think blaming Rodgers is weak because he was only here because of Bowles. It's not like there was some long line of teams just itching to have him as their DC. 

That said Bowles may be a good DC when (a) that's all he has to concentrate on, and (b) when there's a HC above him that doesn't get walked on like a doormat. We endlessly heard the players say ad nauseam that they weren't executing, which is saying the play call was there but the players screwed it up. Poor discipline and/or poor practicing doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing. 

My understanding is there were a lot of power struggle issues with him, especially the last 2 years, and it affected how he coached. 

Personally I was never impressed with him here, but given the significant injury handicap to his secondary I'd be lying if I didn't give him credit for those games. Basically I don't think citing yardage compiled in garbage time is a knock on the performances overall. 

As I said in another thread, I'd rather Gase & co. had an adequate roster so we don't have to debate the validity of the coaches' excuses. I don't really think there's a world of difference among most coaches. A couple are probably truly top tier and every year a couple are appropriately fired because they're just trash as HCs no matter the team, but I think most would be double-digit game winners with an adequate roster and the truth is for all his faults Bowles probably falls within that +/-1 SD. We went 1-1 vs NE in 2015, might have been a fumble & a penalty away from 2-0 in a Brady-Fitz shootout. FFS we saw 10-game winners from Bowles, Herm, Mangini, Rex, and friggin' Walton. Barry Switzer won a SB. So did Chucky. So did Dungy. None were genius HCs, but given a good enough roster they were capable of beating anyone. Caldwell went 14-2 and might have pulled off a SB win if the onside kick went the other way. Two years later he went 2-14. You're going to tell me the difference was coaching?

I think you're going to be disappointed if you think it's all about the coach in charge. Most of them look like geniuses or fools purely because of the rosters they're coaching. 

It's not all about the Coach. Just like it's not all about the GM or even the players.  When it works it is because it is a "collaborative effort".  That's what team sports is.  I don't think "chemistry" is overrated.  For whatever reason these Jet teams did not have that.  At all.  That is the responsibility, and at the end of the day, "fault" of the Coach.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 minutes ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

It's not all about the Coach. Just like it's not all about the GM or even the players.  When it works it is because it is a "collaborative effort".  That's what team sports is.  I don't think "chemistry" is overrated.  For whatever reason these Jet teams did not have that.  At all.  That is the responsibility, and at the end of the day, "fault" of the Coach.

I'm not saying it's all about the coach so I don't understand why you led with that statement. If you read any of my repeated replies to you I've been stating the exact opposite.

It's mostly NOT about the coach. It's mostly about the roster, which is overwhelmingly the responsibility of the GM. 

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm not saying it's all about the coach so I don't understand why you led with that statement. If you read any of my repeated replies to you I've been stating the exact opposite.

It's mostly NOT about the coach. It's mostly about the roster, which is overwhelmingly the responsibility of the GM. 

I led with that statement as a response to your assertion that " I think you're going to be disappointed if you think it's all about the coach".  Are you so focused on making your point that you fail to recognize when someone acknowledges it?  It is mostly about a collaborative effort, coaching , players, and front office.  For any long term success it is imperative. That is my hope for the Jets. Cherry picking a sample of "successful"  NFL "dunces" does not sway my belief in that.  The axe you have to grind when it comes to Mike MacCagnon  is the common thread throughout most of your posts.  I get it.  I'm not crazy about the job he's done either.  But to blame him almost to the exclusion of all others, is unfortunate, given your obvious knowledge of football and the Jets.

[Sperm Edwards]

10 minutes ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

I led with that statement as a response to your assertion that " I think you're going to be disappointed if you think it's all about the coach".  Are you so focused on making your point that you fail to recognize when someone acknowledges it?  It is mostly about a collaborative effort, coaching , players, and front office.  For any long term success it is imperative. That is my hope for the Jets. Cherry picking a sample of "successful"  NFL "dunces" does not sway my belief in that.  The axe you have to grind when it comes to Mike MacCagnon  is the common thread throughout most of your posts.  I get it.  I'm not crazy about the job he's done either.  But to blame him almost to the exclusion of all others, is unfortunate, given your obvious knowledge of football and the Jets.

It is mostly the roster. The coaching is important, but nowhere near as important as the roster. That isn't to the exclusion of coaching, but rather that the coaching is irrelevant without a minimum baseline of a roster. That's the case with every HC around the league every year. 

If Gase has shown anything it's that without a really good roster he's a one-side-coaching over promoted coordinator, just like Bowles. 

Maccagnan is easily the #1 reason the Jets have sucked. Bowles sucks in his own right, but he was a distant second in that there isn't a HC in the league that was coaching the Jets to the playoffs and beyond with these sucky rosters (let alone Gase).

If the GM gives Gase a good roster, unlike the last ones he gave Bowles, then we won't have to pontificate about what-ifs with yet another failed Jets HC.

Lastly, I have no football knowledge. I just like arguing with people. I'm also moderating 31 other teams' fan boards with my personal brand of lovable pessimism.

[JoeWillieWhiteShoesHOF]

14 hours ago, joewilly12 said:

Don't get the feel good situation involving Todd Bowles and all those who defend him in my opinion he sucks at football. 

You don’t get it?  I do.  All part of “fake news”, which has now even infected the sports pages and broadcast media.

When I heard Bill Polian gushing accolade upon accolade on the guy a few weeks ago, it disgusted me, guy lost lots of credibility with me.

i guess sports now are just like lots of things, some are allowed to be criticized and some are not, and those in the media are handed talking points that are virtually indistinguishable from each other.  You could hear 99 broadcasters working for 99 different stations....all saying the same thing....that almost totally contradict what has been seen and what happened.

[JoeWillieWhiteShoesHOF]

14 hours ago, Philc1 said:

Not since Scott Layden have I seen someone so obviously horrible at their job get such kid glove treatment by the media

This was way way worse.  

In this day and age you pretty much expect it now outside of sports....which of course is despicable.

But the beauty of sports is its supposed to be a refuge from the bs....everyone either succeeds or fails based on their personal takents...not anymore.

[nyjunc]

7 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It is mostly the roster. The coaching is important, but nowhere near as important as the roster. That isn't to the exclusion of coaching, but rather that the coaching is irrelevant without a minimum baseline of a roster. That's the case with every HC around the league every year. 

If Gase has shown anything it's that without a really good roster he's a one-side-coaching over promoted coordinator, just like Bowles. 

Maccagnan is easily the #1 reason the Jets have sucked. Bowles sucks in his own right, but he was a distant second in that there isn't a HC in the league that was coaching the Jets to the playoffs and beyond with these sucky rosters (let alone Gase).

If the GM gives Gase a good roster, unlike the last ones he gave Bowles, then we won't have to pontificate about what-ifs with yet another failed Jets HC.

Lastly, I have no football knowledge. I just like arguing with people. I'm also moderating 31 other teams' fan boards with my personal brand of lovable pessimism.

Bowles was #1 by a thousand miles why the team sucked.  It's amazing how there was always enough talent to get leads but not enough talent to hold them.  He had a playoff roster year 1 w/ a weak schedule and couldn't get it done.  Year 2 the roster got old but they didn't even compete, years 3 and 4 were rebuilding but they should have won 3-4 more per season w/ a competent coach.

The stories we will hear later this season is how everyone didn't realize how much talent we actually had on this roster b/c of how they were being utilized under the last HC.  Be patient, those stories are coming

 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

Bowles was #1 by a thousand miles why the team sucked.  It's amazing how there was always enough talent to get leads but not enough talent to hold them.  He had a playoff roster year 1 w/ a weak schedule and couldn't get it done.  Year 2 the roster got old but they didn't even compete, years 3 and 4 were rebuilding but they should have won 3-4 more per season w/ a competent coach.

The stories we will hear later this season is how everyone didn't realize how much talent we actually had on this roster b/c of how they were being utilized under the last HC.  Be patient, those stories are coming

 

That's why the same head coaches with the same QBs go from multiple seasons with losing records to multiple playoffs seasons and even a SB win.

The difference between a 4-win Jets team and a 12-win playoffs team was Todd Bowles. Gotcha. 

[nyjunc]

41 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That's why the same head coaches with the same QBs go from multiple seasons with losing records to multiple playoffs seasons and even a SB win.

The difference between a 4-win Jets team and a 12-win playoffs team was Todd Bowles. Gotcha. 

The team underachieved every single season with him but you are right, he was great.  It was just all that awful talent.  Watch what happens this year and beyond.

[DonCorleone]

On 1/25/2019 at 6:10 PM, peebag said:

I wonder how many times the D will quit on him.

Only when it matters. 

[Sperm Edwards]

30 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

The team underachieved every single season with him but you are right, he was great.  It was just all that awful talent.  Watch what happens this year and beyond.

Every post in these exchanges - never mind over his entire tenure here - I've communicated in multiple ways I thought he was a bad HC who should have been fired, and yet you come back with this lame reply.

This is why pretty much no one likes you.

[nyjunc]

5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Every post in these exchanges - never mind over his entire tenure here - I've communicated in multiple ways I thought he was a bad HC who should have been fired, and yet you come back with this lame reply.

This is why pretty much no one likes you.

 

If that's the case then why are you making excuses for him?  If he had no talent how do you even know if he was a bad coach?

 

The last sentence was completely unnecessary simply because I know more than you and disagree with you.  Act like an adult for a change

[JetFaninMI]

3 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

 

If that's the case then why are you making excuses for him?  If he had no talent how do you even know if he was a bad coach?

 

The last sentence was completely unnecessary simply because I know more than you and disagree with you.  Act like an adult for a change

Speaks for itself.

[Sperm Edwards]

17 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

 

If that's the case then why are you making excuses for him?  If he had no talent how do you even know if he was a bad coach?

 

The last sentence was completely unnecessary simply because I know more than you and disagree with you.  Act like an adult for a change

Me: Bowles sucked as HC

Your reply: You're claiming Bowles was great!

This is you acting like an adult, lol.

[nycdan]

Todd Bowles demonstrating his 'attack formation'

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Me: Bowles sucked as HC

Your reply: You're claiming Bowles was great!

This is you acting like an adult, lol.

Banging your head on a table is more productive than how you just spent the last hour of your life. 

[nyjunc]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Me: Bowles sucked as HC

Your reply: You're claiming Bowles was great!

This is you acting like an adult, lol.

I had no clue how you felt about Bowles, I responded to a post where you were making excuses for Bowles and putting all the blame on the GM.  I simply corrected that nonsensical point and you didn't like it so you hurled a childish insult.

 

[nyjunc]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Banging your head on a table is more productive than how you just spent the last hour of your life. 

If jetsfan80 agrees with you then you know you are wrong

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

I had no clue how you felt about Bowles, I responded to a post where you were making excuses for Bowles and putting all the blame on the GM.  I simply corrected that nonsensical point and you didn't like it so you hurled a childish insult.

 

You had no clue how I felt about Bowles, which is why you replied with your "you think Bowles was great" post after you quoted a post of mine that literally said, "Bowles sucked in his own right." 

So much unchildish adulting, just dripping with intellectual honesty. Teach us how to do it.

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You had no clue how I felt about Bowles, which is why you replied with your "you think Bowles was great" post after you quoted a post of mine that literally said, "Bowles sucked in his own right." 

So much unchildish adulting, just dripping with intellectual honesty. Teach us how to do it.

Actually the quote below was what I quoted but please go on.

That's why the same head coaches with the same QBs go from multiple seasons with losing records to multiple playoffs seasons and even a SB win.

The difference between a 4-win Jets team and a 12-win playoffs team was Todd Bowles. Gotcha. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, nyjunc said:

Actually the quote below was what I quoted but please go on.

That's why the same head coaches with the same QBs go from multiple seasons with losing records to multiple playoffs seasons and even a SB win.

The difference between a 4-win Jets team and a 12-win playoffs team was Todd Bowles. Gotcha. 

Liar

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Liar

Except for the little fact that wasn't the post where I said that.

 

[nyjunc]

This is fun

[nycdan]

Can we just get back to the part where we all agree that Bowles was a generally lousy HC?

[Philc1]

8 hours ago, JoeWillieWhiteShoesHOF said:

This was way way worse.  

In this day and age you pretty much expect it now outside of sports....which of course is despicable.

But the beauty of sports is its supposed to be a refuge from the bs....everyone either succeeds or fails based on their personal takents...not anymore.

Outside of Joe Beningo NOBODY in the NY local media called out Bowles

[Sperm Edwards]

4 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Can we just get back to the part where we all agree that Bowles was a generally lousy HC?

I don't think there's much disagreement on that front.

[Sperm Edwards]

10 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Except for the little fact that wasn't the post where I said that.

 

Right, I have to keep repeating every part of every post even after you've already quoted it this morning lest you quote one without it.

Adultism. This is you. 

[Philc1]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't think there's much disagreement on that front.

That’s because none of us work for the Daily News, New York Times or New York Post

[nyjunc]

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Right, I have to keep repeating every part of every post even after you've already quoted it this morning lest you quote one without it.

Adultism. This is you. 

You are doing a great job of acting like an adult.

Thanks.

 

[nyjunc]

7 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

That’s because none of us work for the Daily News, New York Times or New York Post

Some folks are making excuses for the coach, telling us he had no chance because of the talent when he had playoff talent with a weak schedule in year 1 and failed. After that he never had playoff talent again but there was much more than 4-5 wins a season.  We'll see what that talent looks like with a real head coach.  That was my point this morning, the GM hasn't been Ozzie but he's done a much better job than it appears and we'll begin to see that this season.

 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

3 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

That’s because none of us work for the Daily News, New York Times or New York Post

Lol no doubt.

This past month, iirc the biggest disagreement (among those primarily interested in Jets success) seems to come from Jamal Adams.