It is just too soon a for poll like this for Herm. The negative feelings torwards him are too fresh in peoples minds. 10 years from now it will probably be a little more balanced than it will be today. With that said, he is unfavorable in my eyes..
Don't know what to pick here. He did get us to the playoffs a few times,and minus one bad decision he could have gotten us a championship game. But that one decision is why i am leaning towards voting unfavorable. That,and his love for killing Curtis martin.
We enjoyed post season football through most of his tenure as coach. I do not think any coach could have had a winning season during Herm's last season here. He was not perfect, but God knows we had much worse (Rich Kotite) so I look upon him favorably. Mangini, enjoyed a healthy team and a soft schedule, I hope we are as successful this season. I have a feeling that we may take a step back. Our running attack was not great nor was our run defense Lets see what the additions do and one more year in the 3-4 does for the defense. I for one am not ready to annoint Mangini the savior of the franchise.
Anybody who could get us to the playoffs 3 out of 5 years should be a fav and it should had been 4 out of 5 if we didn't have all those injuries has last year. As for him walking out on the team that just plan BS. He has to think of his furture just like everybody else.
I agree on it being too early. We need to see what the future post-Herm holds before we can accurately assess what his tenure produced. Joe Walton would have been in a similar situation when he left the Jets. At the time it was not clear what his overall contribution to the team was and how he ranked with Walt Michaels as an example. A decade later it became apparent that the Jets had not had a good coach between Michaels and Parcells. Walton had already diminished in stature as we were able to see clearly who (Klecko and McNeil) the successful run in the 80's really hinged on.
The reason Herm will never will the big one is because he refuses to take personal responsibility for all aspects of his organization. You can't fix what is wrong if you blame other for your short comings. This will always be Herms undoing. This is why I have an ultimately unfavorable view of him.
I'm torn on this. Overall Herm's record here was good and the Jets always seemed to be in a positive way with Herm in charge, except the last year when everyone got hurt. The run we made in 2002 was the best thing I've seen this side of 1998. The players always seemed to respond to him, and I think everyone respected the way Herm worked his way up from an undrafted free agent to a head coach in the NFL. You can't argue with that, and I think that resonates with players. On the flip side, I think that having Chad Pennington at QB covered up a lot of Herm's shortcomings with regard to the clock and managing the game. The minute Chad went out suddenly we couldn't run two plays without burning timeouts, and of course the end of half/game disasters. The knee in Pittsburgh was a true Joe Walton moment and the way he left after all that preacher bullshit about telling the truth was inexcusable. That's what turned me against him.
I think it's favorable, pretty easily. "You play to win the game! You don't play to just play it!" He really won me over when that speech actually worked. I do understand why people don't like him, but he seemed like a nice guy and he led us to the playoffs 3 out of 5 years. That's enough for me.
Not torn he is an absolute horrible in-game manager. When did you ever feel a Herm Edward coached team would outsmart the other team? Use the Pats as an example................. When did you ever feel comfortable about the last minute of a game and his "outstanding" time management skills? When did you feel comfortable about young players getting a shot and promoting fair competition? These are just some of the examples of why I always thought he was/is a horrid coach. Sure he got the Jets into the Playoffs 3-5 years. It is amazing what backing in twice can do for a coaches legacy ................... good riddance.
These points are hard to refute. My wife and I, avid Herm supporters since the beginning, always thought he was the man for the job and continued to support him even when many others started calling for his head. Making the playoffs during this time helped convince me he was worth supporting. The turning point for me was Lamont Jordan. I loved the guy. He was in his prime and caused immense damage (5.5 yards p/carry) when used as an alternate to Curtis... But no. Herm had some kind of hard-on for Lamont and actually engaged in an on-camera tirade over his insertion one afternoon, which I remember well and as many will remember. He did this with other talented bench-warmers as well. Couple that with the ever-increasing, no-clue Clock Management Issues (even despite the use of Dick Curl to specifically aid Herm in this deficiency) and you had the start of some serious doubts for me. The end came when Herm started saying one thing and reversing his actual behavior during games, the most memorable being, "You play to win the game," despite his having played it way too close to the vest and playing not to lose. The beginning of the end for me. Don't let the goal post hit you in the ass.....
He backed in all three times (if you include 2001 when we needed a 50+ yd FG by John Hall as backing in like I do) however he got the team in position to be in the playoffs.
Backing into the playoffs is nonsense, you either make it or you don't. Kicking a 50-yard FG at Oakland with the clock ticking down to 0:00 to get in is the exact opposite of "backing in". The other two times in they won the first round, which automatically negates any notion of backing in. You're going to have to do better than that one. And in most cases players win games, so I never looked at it like we have to outcoach or outsmart the other team. You have to make plays, make kicks, tackle guys, etc. The best coach in the world can't do that because he's not in the game.
This is the biggest fallacy of pro football. Coaches teach, create expectations and hold players accountable to a certain level of play. To say the coach does not have major role in winning games leaves a big void in any explanation of a winning coach vs a losing one.
This post is good. When it comes to football, coaches are a MAJOR reason why teams win and lose. Other sports? Not so much.
