Disagree with the first sentence period. Coaching or not, Favre was simply awful and we could have done much better with Clemens or Ratcliff. Brett should go with the CS so we can get a team first attitude again.
The worst part of the collapse was the lack of in game changes. Mangini should have been doing a better job of that. Bottom oine is that once we beat Tennesee the other teams began to gun for the Jets. I think if the Jets lost that game they would have made the playoffs.
I keep hearing how Mangini couldn't motivate his players? These are professional athletes. They are well paid. NO motivation is necessary. They should already be motivated enough. bottom line : Mangini didn't throw one pick or TD, run, block, or play defense. The players did. P.S. - Has anyone here thought of the fact that Mangini's hands were tied with coaching this team because of Favre? That fact has become glaringly obvious in recent weeks.
This is just glaringly wrong. Let me explain why. Assuming that all players are professional athletes who need no motivation but that a good coach can add additional motivation to get them playing at a high level, which clearly some coaches can, then having a coach incapable of motivating players is a huge weakness. Having a coach who can motivate players is a huge strength. After 2006 Mangini appeared to be incapable of motivating the players to play at a high level on a consistent basis. For every surprise game like the wins against the Pats and Titans this year there were two falldown games like the games against the Chargers, Raiders, the 49ers and the Seahawks. Going into a playoff race with a coach incapable of motivating the players to play at a high level really handicapped the Jets this year. The teams that leapfrogged them in the AFC East over the final 5 weeks of the season were teams driven by Bill Parcells (through his proxies) and Bill Belichik, both of whom have reputations for motivating players to play at the highest levels. The Jets were like a junior varsity team in the coaching department and that sunk them in the end. The idea that in the NFL you can get by with weak coaching if you have strong players is just not even remotely possible. Everything needs to be clicking to have a chance in the competition and if the head is slowly rotting the body will be right behind it.
While this is true..Im sure it had nothing to do with the fact that journeymen/horrible/rookie qb's were having career days against us..or that a team that was in the top 5 against the run traded in the cheddar cheese for swiss cheese. Im sure it had nothing to do with bringing in a qb that likes to spread a defense while not giving him any deep threats. Or perhaps it had something to do with a rookie tight end with speed that the league raved about...but would run button hooks 5 yards out for his claim to fame. Perhaps it was playing most of the season with 3 converted lineman playing the linebacker position...AND THEN DRAFTING ANOTHER ONE. While Favre sucked...this team was coached poorly...and sucked on both sides of the ball for 5 straight crucial games.
If a guy warrants firing you fire him. you do not keep him because you don't have a stud to replace him.
The question is, did a 9-7 season with this team warrant a firing? Its debateable. I certainly don't fire a guy unless I'm sure of an improvement with a replacement or if the guy is an unbearable pain in the ass(this is the same owner that didn't fire Herm and still has Bradway on the payroll). I'm not sure the next guy can do better with this group, unless the guy was Cowher. We know Sutton was a goner.So the question now becomes, are we better off with Eric and a new DC? or the options of Marty, Rex ,Schwartz or Spags. Also remember we have to compete for these guys with Detroit, Cleveland, Denver and possibly Dallas. Would you take this situation as your first pick, if you were a first time HC? I'd run to Denver or Detroit first. Denver has a franchise QB and Detroit was 0-16. You can only do better. The only guy on that list that would take us first is Marty. To me he is the least desireable on the list.
