"In common parlance, the term a "devil's advocate" describes someone who, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further' ***just for you special morons who have been asking. =)
I'm gonna love looking back at this when we're 1-5 and remember when toolbags were saying we'd be 3-3.
If the Jets fire their head coach after just 2 seasons when the team was in turmoil when he came in then I'm leaving the Jets.... You can not build a winning team changing coaches ever 2 years.
In general, I agree that one can't build a winning team changing coaches every 2 years. That said, how long do you think it takes or should take for a HC to bring order out of the chaos and turmoil? Also, how do you justify the HC regressing in his 2nd year? He was making more and better adjustments last year, and the team was more disciplined, playing smarter, tougher football than this year. How do you explain that? How is that acceptable? If the HC is regressing and has no answers to the team's problems in the secondary (when that is his specialty), and if he can't get the team to focus, quit running the wrong routes, dropping passes, turning the ball over, etc., how do you justify giving him a 3rd year?
What makes Mac qualified to assess the performance of the coaches? He's not an X's and O's guy who can determine game strategy, adjustments, or even motivational levels of the players. Woody should have other football pros on staff advising him (like a permanent Wolf and Casserly), and independently assess the coaches and the front office on job performance, while working within the framework of a consistent organizational strategy. That way individual parts can be replaced if needed, while maintaining some level of consistency.
Because that's part of the GM's normal job. Since he knows talent and secures it for the team, he's the logical person to assess whether the HC is getting the most out of that talent and is putting it in position to succeed. The owner certainly isn't. Your obsession with a dysfunctional set up to the organization is bizarre. You really need to get that out of your head, because it's dumb. You're a smarter, more knowledgeable fan than that. It doesn't work, and certainly wouldn't here with Woody making those decisions.
so the guy bringing in the talent gets a built in scapegoat as to whether the coaching is the problem, or the talent is the problem? a guy who knows nothing about coaching no less. which do you think he will chose? that's a dysfunctional setup you are advocating for. I agree it shouldn't be Woody making those decisions either btw.. That's why i'm suggesting a board of advisors, made up of a couple football lifers, as the ones defining the strategy and assessing the performance of both the coaches and the FO every year. that's a much more functional approach than some linear hierarchy because it is perceived as some 'norm', which hasn't worked, and has led to organizational inconsistency here. If you didn't have a problem with Wolf and Casserly advising the last search, why would there be a problem with guys like that advising Woody every year?
Team chemistry is a tricky thing. It's painfully obvious that Bowles doesn't have the full attention of the players on this team. I thought he'd be a better leader. Looks like that's the role that Fitz is filling.
I agree but even against Seattle we were marching down the field to tie it up and then Fitz throws the pick which basically took us out of it. I realize that's not on the head coach but I feel like we were somehow even in the Seattle game. I'd rather us just get plain beat, not see some freakshow every week. The jets could run a seminar on "How to lose in a new way every week."
Apparently Chip was causing problems in the locker room, so the Eagles had some justification for firing him besides impatience.
