How did they in so much? Really Junc? 4 seasons out of 14 with double digit wins with him as either GM or head of college scouting. 3 seasons with 9 wins (1 game over .500), 2 seasons at exactly .500, and 5 seasons under .500. During his time as GM, 2001-2005, the team was 39 and 41. During his full tenure with the team as either GM (2001-2005), overseeing and running the draft 2006-2008, and head of college scouting, (2009-2014) 108-116. the team NEVER won more than 11 games during that 14 year span and only had 11 wins once. How did they win so much? really? tey weren't even over .500 during his 5 years as a GM.....
Bradway was assistant GM at that time, he didn't move to director of college scouting until Rex was hired
do you forget the serious injury he had? w/ Coles no team had ever signed RFA w/ the tender we gave him. that was the first time EVER. Wash overpaid and didn't improve, we slid Moss in and won again. starters helping teams reach title games must be at least decent, right? Greene was not a franchise back but he did help us win a bunch of games. ok and he helped build teams that for the first time in our history reached multiple title games. You prefer meaningless pro bowl apps over winning. Got it. I prefer winning. There was not one wildcard in that era. There were 2 until 1990 I believe when they added a 3rd which was how we made the playoffs at 8-8 and in that era you could host a WC game which was how we hosted playoff games in 1981, 1985 and 1986(losing 2 of the 3 by the way but I guess that is better than winning road playoff games). also, in 1982 there was a strike and 8 of the 14 AFC teams made the playoffs. 6 postseasons in 14 seasons, 43% Previous 41 seasons? 8 postseasons, 20% 6 postseason wins, won postseason game in 43% of seasons previous 41 years? 6 postseason wins, 15% you need double digit win seasons? someone tell the giants to give back their 2011 SB trophy. as GM the team made playoffs 3 of 5 years, 60% won a div title, only 2nd AFC East title in our history
"I think the last 4 years of bad football and the majority of bad first round draft picks dating back to the Gholston pick have been a complete organizational failure, not just one man doing a bad job." Well, duh. Any organization that retains an employee with a history of mismanagement and dubious skill at the primary responsibilities he's been employed to manage should be criticized. However, the arguments made to support Bradway's performance have been absurdly myopic. He has not distinguished himself as a GM: the Washington fiascos and Dwayne Robertson drafting proves that. He's not distinguished himself as a talent evalutator: the recent and numerous whiffs in the low rounds prove that. I mean, not to continue to harp on the 1986 team, but that team was littered with probowlers, all over the roster. The Jets average, recently, ONE probowler a year, and that probowler seems to primarily be Mangold. Now, sure, maybe not winning has a negative effect, but there doesn't seem to be any question that this team is not among the most talented in the league...and hasn't been during the entire time Bradway has been associated either with managing it, as GM, or as a significant contributor to its scouting. I understand the need to win an argument. But the argument that Bradway has done a good job in his roles, by mentioning specious distinctions (Dwayne Robertson was a good use of the 4th overall pick) and myopic rebuttals (Justin McCareins was as good as Al Toon) just diminishes the arguments in favor of Bradway.
I don't know how good or bad TB has been, what I do know is we have been very successful on the field and that doesn't happen w/o talent. Talent which he helped acquire. It is laughable to ignore that and focus on every bad move made as if he had nothing to do w/ success and is totally responsible for failure. I keep hearing how bad Rex is, how bad TB was, how bad Tannenbaum was, Sanchez, Schottenheimer, etc... how the heck did we win as much as we did w/ all these inept players/coaches/FO people?
Not enough; You can be content with all these losing seasons and defending from top to bottom. Point being is shit was not working and we were trending downward since 2011... suck it up
lol, comparing an era where there are muliple divisions and wildcards to an era where there was once only 2 divisions and no wild cards? Skewing your stats again I see junc and taking out of context. And yes, double digit win seasons are important, they show you're not just slipping in under the vastly expanded playoff format with 6 teams from each conference reaching the playoffs each year and watering down the pool of who reaches it. And since your focus is on winning that should be important. And since you make a big deal out of the post season wins....there's only one post season win that matters......The Superbowl baby....
The QB's will wash that often until one preforms. When we are at the bottom of the league for offense year after year you have to shake things up. The only constant in this entire shit show of 4 years + is none other then your boy REX RYAN
what are you talking about? only pre '69 were there 2 divisions and no WCs, so only the first 9 seasons of our existence. Removing those 9 years and we still made it at a much higher rate w/ Bradway than pre-Bradway. % goes up to 25 as far as making, 19% as far as playoff wins.
4-12 is successful? 4 consecutive non-winning seasons is successful? ZERO home playoff games is successful? TWO pro bowl selections is a sign of a talented roster? Again, the Count of Low Expectations has defined success for the NYJets.
so only the last 4 years count w/ an emphasis on 2014? it's not about low expectations, it's about crappy fans that root for our team. Fans that do not deserve a winner.
As usual Junc you're factually only partially correct, you're practicing faux facts. in the current format you have 4 divisional winners and 2 wildcard teams. Total 6 six playoff spots per conference. From 1960-1969 2 playoff spots from each conference. from 1970-1977 4 teams from each conference made the playoffs. from 1978-1989 5 teams from each conference made the playoffs The current 6 team format has only been in practice for 24 seasons. it's also worth noting that until 1978 only one non divisional winner made the playoffs. The playoffs became more accessible to teams also because of the increases in divisions, more divisions means more ways to control you're own destiny in to the playoffs, prior to the 4 division +2 wildcard format you never had subpar teams making the playoffs. With the 3 division format you suddenly had a weak division, and that's gotten worse with the 4 conference system. The current 4 division +2 wildcard format is a very diluted format that allows subpar teams to reach the playoffs. Basically Junc you're arguing because Bradway teams were 'average' they were great....yeah...uh huh.....
1960-68 2 in the AFL made the playoffs, both div winners. 1969 4 made it. Look at it this way. we made the playoffs in 1968 and 1969. 1968 2 teams out of 10 teams made the playoffs. 20% chance to make it, of course we made it w/ 2nd place team being a .500 team which made it easier on us. 1969 4 teams out of 10 made playoffs, 40% chance fast forward to 2014: 16 teams in the AFC and 6 teams make it, 38% chance which was lower than 1969. add in we have a DYNASTY team in our division which basically means we are playing for the WC. there are 12 teams competing for 2 WC spots, 17% chance
The present and recent past would appropriately seem to count the most. So, because I as a fan do not accept 'meh' I don't deserve a winner? I don't think I deserve to be insulted because you can't win an unwinnable argument.
So, because there is excellence in our Division, the criterion for success should be diminished for the rest of the teams in the division? Pardon the insult, but you're getting more moronic as you drag this absurd argument to its eventual resting place next to "the earth is flat" and "i'm good enough, i'm smart enough, and, gosh darn it, people like me"...
