Joe Douglas is not a "Terrible GM"

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Scott Dierking said:

I just looked up GM's Jason Licht's first 6 years and the Bucs record. Know what that was Matt? 34-62.

I wonder if on the Buccaneers site they had some raving, fanatical zealot ranting on their fan site to fire Licht after that abomination? 

In your research, how many GM's did you find with similar losing records after 6 seasons, who were retained or hired elsewhere and didn't improve their W/L much or win any titles?

Surely you're you're not cherry picking a single exceptional and unusual example in order to claim it's a norm or somehow indicates a favorable odds going forward for here, are you?

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Dunnie said:

There is absolutely a crew that has said repeatedly Draft Doesn't Matter ... I pretty much auto skip their posts.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

Can you name a few of this "crew"?  Because I have to say I don't know who you're referencing either.

[Biggs]

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

Their records over their first 5 seasons are rather similar. Douglas 27-56. Licht  27-53. Statistically, from a vantage point of determining if one GM is superior to another, a small variance with little support of a premise. 

Granted, there is more than this needs to be taken into account for a true assessment. Far more. 

I was just pointing out the silly hill that Matt decided to plant his "draft picks are the be all of everything" mantra flag, by pointing out the subject of his said flag has an incredibly similar record as Douglas does, at the same points in their career. 

That is all. Of course it is much more than this.

I think more important than the drafts was hiring Arians who restructured TB team and was a big part of their great drafts.

[SomebodytoAnybody47]

Let's just call him average at this point, no?

Not terrible, not great...just alright.

[bicketybam]

4 minutes ago, Warfish said:

In your research, how many GM's did you find with similar losing records after 6 seasons, who were retained or hired elsewhere and didn't improve their W/L much or win any titles?

Surely you're you're not cherry picking a single exceptional and unusual example in order to claim it's a norm or somehow indicates a favorable odds going forward for here, are you?

He didn't cherry pick him, Matt did.

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

In your research, how many GM's did you find with similar losing records after 6 seasons, who were retained or hired elsewhere and didn't improve their W/L much or win any titles?

Surely you're you're not cherry picking a single exceptional and unusual example in order to claim it's a norm or somehow indicates a favorable odds going forward for here, are you?

My response, if you read the post here, was entirely related to the post Matt made about the Buccaneers GM and his prolific draft record of  roster spots retained by said draftees over the last 3 years.

My "research" pointed directly to that said GM (Licht) over a period similar to the Jets GM (Matts subject of his comparison, I assume) Point/counterpoint to the issue brought up by that post.

Any research that you choose to do on top of that and the NFL universe of GMs as a whole, I would welcome and you can have it. 

[Scott Dierking]

7 minutes ago, Biggs said:

I think more important than the drafts was hiring Arians who restructured TB team and was a big part of their great drafts.

This, much like the question of how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop, the world may never know. 

[Warfish]

2 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

My response, if you read the post here, was entirely related to the post Matt made about the Buccaneers GM and his prolific draft record of  roster spots retained by said draftees over the last 3 years.

My "research" pointed directly to that said GM (Licht) over a period similar to the Jets GM (Matts subject of his comparison, I assume) Point/counterpoint to the issue brought up by that post.

Any research that you choose to do on top of that and the NFL universe of GMs as a whole, I would welcome and you can have it. 

Fair enough, but your implication in that reply surely seemed clear that "Licht did it, so JD is likely to do it", which is logically flawed. 

JD's future outlook is entirely separate from Licht.  The odds of JD 'turning it around' will be closer to the average of all GM's that started with a similarly poor overall W/L record, rather than the single case of Licht.  

I don't feel any need to do further research, I'm quite sure that the vast bulk of NFL GM's who start at or similar to JD's record never find real success, while a small portion do.  We'll simply have to hope JD is one the exceptions who does, at least for this year. 

[JiFtheOracle]

13 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

Fair Enough ... discounting the draft because 'that pats did it with crappy drafting' kind of rings 'draft doesn't really matter', or JD should be able to build the team without a draft. If you are looking for a word by word match .. I honestly don't recall. Its semantics to me. But fair enough ... if you are looking for an exact sentence 'the draft doesn't matter' i really don't know.

 

 

I've never seen it said but if anyone has said, "the Pats suck at drafting and are successful therefore, draft doesnt matter" are patently wrong in both cases.  During the BB era, the Patriots have draft at least, 6 HOF players.  Brady, Seymour, Wilfork, Samuel, Jones, McCarthy.  and there is probably a case for a few more.  

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

Anytime Saleh is asked a real question, he has no real answer -- just starts rambling non-sequitur cliche-type nonsense.

For instance, Cimini or whoever asked him just now how he thinks he's improved as a HC over the last 4 years.

[Scott Dierking]

Just now, Warfish said:

Fair enough, but your implication in that reply surely seemed clear that "Licht did it, so JD is likely to do it", which is logically flawed. 

JD's future outlook is entirely separate from Licht.  The odds of JD 'turning it around' will be closer to the average of all GM's that started with a similarly poor overall W/L record, rather than the single case of Licht.  

I don't feel any need to do further research, I'm quite sure that the vast bulk of NFL GM's who start at or similar to JD's record never find real success, while a small portion do.  We'll simply have to hope JD is one the exceptions who does, at least for this year. 

I agree, it is entirely flawed, as I was being facetious. It guarantees nothing. 

Of course JD's outlook is entirely separate from Licht. Matt was the one that brought him into it, and I made an observation of their early year trajectories. The NFL is like the stock market though, as poast performance are not indicative of future results. But it seems cute that they are so close, and we can hope (from a Jet fan standpoint) that the signing of a future HOF qb brings the same result.

Let's not make this out more than it is. My personal view, and I have been on record with this, is that if the Jets do not make the playoffs this year, JD is canned. The rest of the blather here is just pre-season sing-song. 

 

[Scott Dierking]

3 minutes ago, JiFtheOracle said:

I've never seen it said but if anyone has said, "the Pats suck at drafting and are successful therefore, draft doesnt matter" are patently wrong in both cases.  During the BB era, the Patriots have draft at least, 6 HOF players.  Brady, Seymour, Wilfork, Samuel, Jones, McCarthy.  and there is probably a case for a few more.  

BB was excellent at getting guys that he targeted. He threw it in the face of fans and GM's that hug draft position by trading down in the draft at least 30 times. Eschewing position, getting value of multiple picks, and targeting guys that fit his system.

Now, that failed him a little bit at the end, but his record speaks for itself. 

[slimjasi]

Just now, JiFtheOracle said:

I've never seen it said but if anyone has said, "the Pats suck at drafting and are successful therefore, draft doesnt matter" are patently wrong in both cases.  During the BB era, the Patriots have draft at least, 6 HOF players.  Brady, Seymour, Wilfork, Samuel, Jones, McCarthy.  and there is probably a case for a few more.  

I think the mistake people make is that they focus on the misses. The Pats had a LOT of misses over the years and they have gotten ridiculed for that, but when they hit, they really hit (your list). Every GM has a lot of misses because the draft is about predicting the future and humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future. 

[Biggs]

3 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

BB was excellent at getting guys that he targeted. He threw it in the face of fans and GM's that hug draft position by trading down in the draft at least 30 times. Eschewing position, getting value of multiple picks, and targeting guys that fit his system.

Now, that failed him a little bit at the end, but his record speaks for itself. 

BB had the greatest eraser for mistakes in the modern era, Tom Brady.

[Scott Dierking]

Just now, Biggs said:

BB had the greatest eraser for mistakes in the modern era, Tom Brady.

No doubt. He also drafted Brady and developed him.  That counts for something. 

[JiFtheOracle]

21 minutes ago, Biggs said:

I think more important than the drafts was hiring Arians who restructured TB team and was a big part of their great drafts.

This.  His drafts were abysmal and riddled w/ first round busts prior to Arians.  He carried over 4 players to their rosters from his drafts prior to Arians arrivals.  Mike Evans (his only first round hit), Ali Marpet, Lavonte David and Donovan Smith,

[Warfish]

49 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

The NFL is like the stock market though, as poast performance are not indicative of future results.

Not sure I'd fully agree with that statement.

Past performance is not always indicative of future results.

But in most cases, it is.

This concept has come up regularly and often in our various QB debates in the Sanchez, Geno, Darnold, Wilson Era.

The same claim, that past performance didn't indicate these QB's futures would be poor, was used then as well.

But in reality, their past performance was indicative of their futures, at least in the several years after leaving the Jets.

Sanchez was never good.  Geno took most of a decade to grow up and become something in Seattle.  Darnold is similar and is TBD in a great spot this year in Minny.  We all know where and what Wilson is going into 2024, too early to judge his future just yet.

We've also had several poor GM's.  Their past performances were pretty indicative of how they did (or if they even got a shot to do) post-Jets.

The exceptions do happen, 100%.  But for the majority, if you aren't good (however we wish to define it) in your first several/many seasons in a job, you're not likely to ever become great.  But once in a while one does.  

49 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

But it seems cute that they are so close, and we can hope (from a Jet fan standpoint) that the signing of a future HOF qb brings the same result.

Absolutely.  We all want a title.  All of us.

49 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Let's not make this out more than it is. My personal view, and I have been on record with this, is that if the Jets do not make the playoffs this year, JD is canned. The rest of the blather here is just pre-season sing-song. 

I'm in agreement with you.  If we fail to make the playoffs, I believe Woody will go in another direction, aye.

[Biggs]

Just now, Scott Dierking said:

No doubt. He also drafted Brady and developed him.  That counts for something. 

I'm of the opinion that he didn't develop Brady.  Brady developed Brady.  Brady forced BB hand not the other way around.  

[Dunnie]

55 minutes ago, JiFtheOracle said:

I've never seen it said but if anyone has said, "the Pats suck at drafting and are successful therefore, draft doesnt matter" are patently wrong in both cases.  During the BB era, the Patriots have draft at least, 6 HOF players.  Brady, Seymour, Wilfork, Samuel, Jones, McCarthy.  and there is probably a case for a few more.  

Like I said .. i am really bad at finding old posts .. but literally a 30 second search ...

https://forums.jetnation.com/topic/178676-bill-belichick/?do=findComment&comment=6011734

there was even talking about the guy not drafting a pro bowler for a decade.

 

Edited August 27 by Dunnie

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Biggs said:

I'm of the opinion that he didn't develop Brady.  Brady developed Brady.  Brady forced BB hand not the other way around.  

Brady himself credits Belichick:

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/tom-brady-credits-bill-belichick-for-developing-him-in-clip-from-new-documentary/

"I had Coach Belichick there to teach me," Brady said, over footage from his meeting in Belichick's office during the 2009 season. "Every Tuesday, we would meet and go through the entire defensive starting lineup, and their strengths and weaknesses, what we could attack, what he was watching, and how I could see the things that he saw, so I could gain confidence and anticipate."

"When I look back at that time, it was a really growth stage part of my career," he said. "It was a development of myself as a player, but also as a person off the field. And I was soaking up all the information."

[Biggs]

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

Brady himself credits Belichick:

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/tom-brady-credits-bill-belichick-for-developing-him-in-clip-from-new-documentary/

"I had Coach Belichick there to teach me," Brady said, over footage from his meeting in Belichick's office during the 2009 season. "Every Tuesday, we would meet and go through the entire defensive starting lineup, and their strengths and weaknesses, what we could attack, what he was watching, and how I could see the things that he saw, so I could gain confidence and anticipate."

"When I look back at that time, it was a really growth stage part of my career," he said. "It was a development of myself as a player, but also as a person off the field. And I was soaking up all the information."

Ball licking by Brady.  Brady was going to out work, out hustle, out think, out study no matter who was the HC.  Some players are so competitive and so locked in that they are going to force their will on the team and the organization.  Brady was one of those guys.  

BB without Brady is another good not great HC.  

 

[JiFtheOracle]

7 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

BB was excellent at getting guys that he targeted. He threw it in the face of fans and GM's that hug draft position by trading down in the draft at least 30 times. Eschewing position, getting value of multiple picks, and targeting guys that fit his system.

Now, that failed him a little bit at the end, but his record speaks for itself. 

His ability to find mid to late round talent that fit their schemes, was equally as impressive as drafting 6+ HOF'ers during his tenure. 

5 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

I think the mistake people make is that they focus on the misses. The Pats had a LOT of misses over the years and they have gotten ridiculed for that, but when they hit, they really hit (your list). Every GM has a lot of misses because the draft is about predicting the future and humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future. 

For sure but the one thing about him, is he rarely had a full on, useless draft pick, he would typically at least get some small short term return out of his picks.  Obviously there a few big misses but for the most part, he milked them for what he could

[JiFtheOracle]

17 minutes ago, Dunnie said:

Like I said .. i am really bad at finding old posts .. but literally a 30 second search ...

https://forums.jetnation.com/topic/178676-bill-belichick/?do=findComment&comment=6011734

there was even talk about the guy not drafting a pro bowler for a decade.

 

Did you read this thread you linked?  There isnt a single comment about the draft not being important.  Not a single one.

1 poster said, "oh yes, that's what his team needs, BB drafting"....how you extrapolated that to mean - the draft is not important, is beyond me when it quite literally, holds the exact opposite implication.  lmfao 

[nycdan]

4 minutes ago, JiFtheOracle said:

His ability to find mid to late round talent that fit their schemes, was equally as impressive as drafting 6+ HOF'ers during his tenure. 

For sure but the one thing about him, is he rarely had a full on, useless draft pick, he would typically at least get some small short term return out of his picks.  Obviously there a few big misses but for the most part, he milked them for what he could

I find that completely unsupportable.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/draft.htm

Look at his drafts.  Most years he got 1-2 good or great players.  But like every other GM, there was plenty of crap.  For example, unless I'm missing someone (and I might be), his best draft pick from 2017-2020 was possibly Braxton Berrios.

 

 

[slimjasi]

9 minutes ago, nycdan said:

I find that completely unsupportable.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/draft.htm

Look at his drafts.  Most years he got 1-2 good or great players.  But like every other GM, there was plenty of crap.  For example, unless I'm missing someone (and I might be), his best draft pick from 2017-2020 was possibly Braxton Berrios.

 

 

Maybe Wynn or Onwenu? 

But yea, that is a brutal stretch. Oof

[JiFtheOracle]

1 minute ago, nycdan said:

I find that completely unsupportable.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/draft.htm

Look at his drafts.  Most years he got 1-2 good or great players.  But like every other GM, there was plenty of crap.  For example, unless I'm missing someone (and I might be), his best draft pick from 2017-2020 was possibly Braxton Berrios.

 

 

What part cant you support?   

[nycdan]

Just now, JiFtheOracle said:

What part cant you support?   

"For sure but the one thing about him, is he rarely had a full on, useless draft pick,"

Every GM.  Even the 'best' have lots and lots of useless draft picks.

[JiFtheOracle]

Just now, nycdan said:

"For sure but the one thing about him, is he rarely had a full on, useless draft pick,"

Every GM.  Even the 'best' have lots and lots of useless draft picks.

Oh, I worded that wrong...meant he rarely wouldnt get something out of a draft class.

 

[Dunnie]

30 minutes ago, JiFtheOracle said:

Did you read this thread you linked?  There isnt a single comment about the draft not being important.  Not a single one.

1 poster said, "oh yes, that's what his team needs, BB drafting"....how you extrapolated that to mean - the draft is not important, is beyond me when it quite literally, holds the exact opposite implication.  lmfao 

Sarcasm ... "Oh yes BB drafting is what this team needs" - sarcastically means BB sucks at drafting, and therefore Jets don't need that .. I assumed it was in response to someone thinking hiring BB (who sucks at drafting) was a good idea ... its subtext man. I don't have time to re-read the entirety of a necro'd thread from two years ago. I don't even know why I am responding to this thread. Its pointless. We get it .. you think no one ever said you don't need to build through the draft or whatever. Ok then ... that's fine. I honestly didnt mean to make a thing out of it.

Edited August 27 by Dunnie

[Scott Dierking]

1 hour ago, Biggs said:

Ball licking by Brady.  Brady was going to out work, out hustle, out think, out study no matter who was the HC.  Some players are so competitive and so locked in that they are going to force their will on the team and the organization.  Brady was one of those guys.  

BB without Brady is another good not great HC.  

 

Brady has no reason to "lick" the balls of BB  The world knows and acknowledges that Brady was a great QB, regardless of head coach. 

As a matter of fact, reportedly Brady left in some bad terms with the Pats and BB, looking to forge his way outside the shadow. 

The quotes I provided were made well after Brady left the Pats organization. What you are offering is just speculation on your part. 

[Biggs]

19 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Brady has no reason to "lick" the balls of BB  The world knows and acknowledges that Brady was a great QB, regardless of head coach. 

As a matter of fact, reportedly Brady left in some bad terms with the Pats and BB, looking to forge his way outside the shadow. 

The quotes I provided were made well after Brady left the Pats organization. What you are offering is just speculation on your part. 

Brady is out of the NFL.  He's likely to be on shows with BB in the future.  There is no downside in repairing damage for him.  Everyone knows BB record without Brady and Brady's record without BB.  

[Scott Dierking]

21 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Brady is out of the NFL.  He's likely to be on shows with BB in the future.  There is no downside in repairing damage for him.  Everyone knows BB record without Brady and Brady's record without BB.  

We are spinning on a wheel here. We will need to agree to disagree.

[Rich Thornburgh]

22 hours ago, sciond said:

I still think Woody stuck his nose in the middle of that one

Ofcourse he did.  Zach had no business being on the roster last season let alone starting

[Rich Thornburgh]

3 hours ago, Biggs said:

BB had the greatest eraser for mistakes in the modern era, Tom Brady.

Belichick as a drafter is Macagnan-esque

[BCJet]

3 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

Brady himself credits Belichick:

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/tom-brady-credits-bill-belichick-for-developing-him-in-clip-from-new-documentary/

"I had Coach Belichick there to teach me," Brady said, over footage from his meeting in Belichick's office during the 2009 season. "Every Tuesday, we would meet and go through the entire defensive starting lineup, and their strengths and weaknesses, what we could attack, what he was watching, and how I could see the things that he saw, so I could gain confidence and anticipate."

"When I look back at that time, it was a really growth stage part of my career," he said. "It was a development of myself as a player, but also as a person off the field. And I was soaking up all the information."

It always amazes me how many offensive coordinators have "their" playbook and simply try to make everyone execute their plays regardless of the circumstances (sadly I think that Hackett is in this category).  If you could simply call plays, then anyone could be a good offensive coach if they had access to Bill Walsh's playbook.

Good coordinators change what they do each week depending on who they are playing and what they can attack.  BB was the master at this but you see guys like McVay and Shanahan do it and its crazy to me how guys like Gase and Hackett get hired when its clear "their" offense only works when its run by a HOF QB