But, this is just so silly to me. He wasn't hired to run and improve our defense. He was hired to run and improve our team. He was hired to lead us to victory as the head coach. He wasn't hired to be the defensive coordinator. You can't keep harping about the defense without also harping about the offense (and, the special teams, for that matter). There's a reason the head coaches get the big bucks . . .
I would add QB as a constant. Though the name on the back of the jersey changed the play did not; some might say it got worse.
Other than the owner, none of those groups of people is directly responsible for the performance of the team, week in and week out. And, regardless of what you think of him, no one can fire the owner. So, there is no use in even bring it up. And the fans? Really? Really? . . . REALLY? How are they relevant to the team's performance? Are you Rex Stans just willfully silly people or what?
I get what you are saying but the name on the back of the jersey is all that counts. And Rex gets some share of the blame for the inability of his team to ever field an above average passing offense in 6 full seasons of service in a decidedly pass-happy league.
Well to me he did improve our team. He also brought a mindset to the locker room and the fanbase. Some coaches are hired to be the face of a team. Rex was just that. And the next team that hires him , will be hiring him to be that again. The teams that are looking for coaches now are also looking for a new identity. Just what the Jets were looking for after 2008.
I'm not as down on Tanny as you are, especially in hindsight. Idzik made me appreciate him a lot more than I did when he was here.
Um, gee, guy, why is it that nobody can take a small joke? I mean, really, you posit some bullshit correlation as if it equals causation and then insult someone. Fans ARE relevant to a team's performance. Jets fans, like Knicks fans, are booing basically after the National Anthem. It's called a hostile environment. And if the owner is somehow contributing to the lack of success, just because you can't do anything about it doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought up. In this case, the owner DID have an impact: he hired two non-football guys to be the GM, with predictable results.
I'm not so down on Tanny either. He had his uses. But once the Jets started to erode, talent-wise, he was NOT the right person for the job. Unfortunately, they chose a guy with none of the talents they needed: talent evaluator, negotiator. Idzik was neither.
But, at what point does the scapegoating stop? Why is it that Rex is the only one who gets to live off his success from 2009-2010 forever? Tanny certainly didn't that get luxury. And, as we know, neither did Sanchez. And the first GM of that know-nothing "TYPE" you choose to mock built the teams that Rex had his aforementioned success with in 2009 and 2010. Doesn't he get some credit for those teams? Or was it all Rex's magic? And if Rex won in spite of "don't know shit" GMing in 2009 and 2010, then what happened from 2011-2014? According to you Rex fanboys, Rex gets all of the credit for 2009-2010, none of the blame for losing either championship game, and none of the blame for the last four years of futility. Seems fair to me.
Tanny gambled and he got fucked because of it. Tanny was always a gambler, eventually it will come back to haunt you.
Again, you're lumping everyone who like(d) Rex Ryan into the same boat. I recognize Rex Ryan's limitations and mistakes. But not having a football guy make prudent personnel decisions--even if they go against what the coach wants--is not "scapegoating"; it's a legitimate reason to say that Rex wasn't well served. But I think Rex had many gaffes this year: stupid blitzes that didn't work and were not the right call for the down and distance; poor clock and challenge management; lack of accountability (Kyle Wilson among others); too chummy with the players. I like Rex. I think it's clear his time here had passed. But we still need a good GM if the Jets are ever going to win a SB.
Oh, so because it was moronic, it was a "joke?" Got it. So, anytime you post something that deserves ridicule, should we just assume that it was a "joke?" Also, for clarification, what about your post indicated that what you wrote wasn't meant to be taken seriously? Was the owner and scouting department part meant to be taken seriously? I'm just wondering. I want to be better prepared for your "jokes" in the future. I insulted you because your post was idiotic. Sue me. Oh please. These guys are making millions to play a game 5-7 months out of the year. If they can't handle boos, they need to get out of the business or grow a pair. The Yankees also play in the same giant, unforgiving media market. And the Yanks get booed plenty when they don't perform. They have seemed to manage just fine. He also hired Rex Ryan, and if you believe the media, insisted that the last GM agree to keep him as a prerequisite for the job. Woody was, by all accounts, just as enamored with Rex as his most devoted fanboys.
Because his defense is too good, it can't be beat unless it's Sunday between the hours of 1 and 4 pm.
If you can't recognize humor--especially in a football chatroom--perhaps you're the idiot. You may not be, but consider it. And it's poor form to insult a person for their opinion. Insult the opinion, you fucking moron!! And the Yanks get booed plenty when they don't perform. They have seemed to manage just fine. Newsflash: the Jets aren't the Yankees. Actually Woody hired Rex Ryan. You don't seem to be actually reading my opinions. You're so busy hating Rex Ryan that your mind is closed but your fingers keep typing.
I love Rex. He changed our identity and believed in his team. I loved that he was proud to be our coach and he made it a lot of fun to be a fan. I still thought it was time for him to go though. The issues went deeper than our inability to field a respectable offense in every year he was coach. The problem I had was that we made the same stupid mistakes year after year. We burned TOs early in halves, made bad challenges, blew assignments, committed endless penalties, couldn't execute a 2 minute drill, etc.. After every game, he'd shake his head and say "We're gonna get that fixed" but it never got fixed. We've been an undisciplined, mistake-prone team that has had to overcome its own errors to win and we just never had the talent to do it often enough. The talent gap is Idzik's fault, but let's not pretend that Rex was perfect.
No I'm not. You brought up the fact that we have had the same "don't know shit" type of GMing for the last four years, while conveniently ignoring the fact that the GM for the first two years of that four year stint was the same GM who built the team that Rex had all his success with in 2009-2010. I just think that's an enormous omission and one that permeates written defenses of Rex's tenure here. In essence, I think it's just as fair to suggest that this team has been poorly coached over the last four years as it is to suggest that this team has had a poor GM over the past four years.
Who, exactly, is pretending Rex is perfect? I can like the man, see his talents AND see his flaws. Only the Rex haters keep pretending that others can't see his flaws.
I'm not defending Rex Ryan's tenure here. You're putting an opinion on me that I never wrote. I think the two notions--that the team was poorly built and poorly coached--aren't mutually exclusive. That said, when the team had a modicum of talent, Rex Ryan coached them to the AFC Championship game twice. Then the GM fell down on the job and the new GM sat on his hands AND Rex Ryan's performance suffered.
How was inserting into a serious discussion on the merits of Rex Ryan's coaching career supposed to be humorous? Also, you went on to actually (and amazingly) argue that fans are somehow relevant to the team's performance. So, clearly, THAT wasn't meant to be humorous. So, I ask again: What, exactly, was meant to be humorous from the post cited above? That's my point! Both represent New York. Both get booed by a lot of the same fans when they under-perform. One franchise has had an illustrious history of success. The other, not so much. How does your point make sense again? That seems to be what I wrote when I wrote this: ?????? You don't seem to be able to read.
