Hard to believe that people can’t see past this. They try to justify it ten ways to Sunday but the bottom line is the Jets were losers for the majority of his tender.
that's called rebuilding. u also don't think injuries and coaching had a part either? look at the roster now, do you not think it's a million times better then the one he started with? the only player i can really think of that was on the roster mac got right now that is a above average starter is Q.
you don't think there is progress? this is only the 3rd offseason of a rebuild. this year will be season 3 of the rebuild. what if we go say 10-6 and make the playoffs? then the guy who built the roster was already fired lol you don't think out roster is much better then it was when he took over? we lost 2 years because of a dumb win now mandate so we could have 1 10 win season and still miss the playoffs cause fuck the jets luck lol
Take away the free agent spending (Idzik would've spent if we kept him after firing Rex) and the current team isn't really an improvement. Except for Darnold, I give Mac credit for that.
I know tomdeb pointed this out already, but it's so ironic that you would not understand that the TRUE "big picture" is Wins and Losses, not the cherry picking of stats that you've been posting. "You are what your record says you are". Bill Parcells It doesn't get any more plainer that that.
Source please. Where was that attributed to the owners? We can argue over the details and whether the team is better, but the only thing that matters is: how many playoff appearances have they had under Macc? On paper they seem to have more talent than they've had, but keep in mind that's only based on stats and projections, not actual results. How well that talent plays together is another significant aspect. It could be that some players don't mesh well; it could be that the schemes ad roles they're asked to play don't fit their skill set; it could be too many of one type of player - interior DL for instance - and not enough of another kind. And the reason all of this is in doubt is because Macc showed no blueprint or pan that he was building to. If the reports are true that he and Gase disagreed on almost all the players Macc acquired, how can that be a successful plan? And it lends credence to the theory that Macc didn't listen to Bowles either, and that he and Bowles weren't on the same page. So if there is a common denominator in the teams failures, it's Macc.
Biggs already answered this in another pot, but I agree with his rule of thumb: a good/decent GM should be able rebuild a losing team - meaning get them to the playoffs - by Year 3, given the high draft position and the fact that the winning teams have to cut lose good players because they can't afford them all, so between those good draft picks and access to quality players, a good GM should be able to substantially remake the team in three years. A "fair" GM should make the playoffs by Year 4. A GM who hasn't made the playoffs in five years? They suck and deserve to be fired.
wow....that was really good. The way Francesa describes Gase (I guess it's pronounced Gays!) Gase sounds EXACTLY like Bill Parcells. The whole Alpha Male, my way or the highway, describes Bill to a T. If Parcells didn't like a player, IT WAS OVER. If Gase can get in a players face on the sidelines, ANY PLAYER, ane rip them a new asshole the way Parcells did I'll be impressed. We've put ALL OUR EGGS in one basket, and were driving 100mph. If it's the right basked, we'll go far. We'll either start winning SBs or we'll crash and burn in spectacular fashion. There's no inbetween. Hold on!
This sounds like a 100% correct assessment. The only difference is one is Bill Parcells, and the other is Gays... Here's to hoping
One reason I can see Gase not being 'thrilled' to get Bell, is Gase is a new HC trying to develop a young team and Bell might be a me-first top RB/WR that will demand the game flows through him and he gets his 25-30 touches a game (about half the plays). And if Bell doesn't, the fans will. And if the fans don't, the owner who just paid Bell $12M a year will. Mac paying Bell near QB money solidified Bell as the top offensive threat/weapon that Gase HAS to use, and use some more. If Mac has landed Bell for a better price ($5-6M per), it would be easier for Bell to be seen as a roll player who support Gace's game plan, not the other way around. Gase may have had a different view our our budding offense that included Sam taking a big step and a better balance of running plays, TE plays, Crowder plays, Anderson plays, Q plays, etc. Bringing Bell in and paying him so much jack, Mac kind of tied Gase's hands into a run first offense that Rex Ryan would have LOVED. Gace, perhaps, not so much. Just speculative.
I think this is a great analysis! I was a proponent of signing Bell because he will provide a legitimate threat that defenses have to plan for, which means they can't just plan to stop Sam. I still think that. But I can see where Gase might not want to be forced to have to use him so much. But frankly, if I'm Chris and Gase told me "It's either me or Bell", I'd tell Gse to not let the door hit you on your ass on the way out.
I understand, but if Gase has a huge ego and an Alpha Male like we're being told, then the LAST thing Gase would want is for his game plan to be predetermined, even a little bit, by a stud like Bell who will become the face or our offense. You and me would be thrilled that our life has just been made easier with Bell, but Gase might have seen it differently. Who knows? And ya, this might be Gase's last job as a HC.
Yup, but I don't think Gase will tell Chris "It's me or Bell!" (although he DID yell something similar to the Phin's owner!). I think it's more that Gase felt threatened by the thought of Bell coming in and taking over the face of the team. Of course all the anti-Bell talk might just be BS that sports writers come up with. I hope it's fake news, because I really don't want my HC being against bringing in one of the premier players in the league over his ego.
