This is really the only thing getting me through this offseason. Doesn't matter how good of a draft we have or who we sign. Adam Gase is still the head coach. I still want to have the best draft possible and land all the right pieces in FA because whoever takes over will hopefully know what they are doing and will have the right pieces to do it.
I really don't know why you're trying to make this an all or nothing game and that's what's been so annoying. It's completely logical that Gase could have done a horrible job, which he did, but also other factors are in play. The biggest of which being the OL. That's exactly what I'm saying but it seems like you have no desire to take anything else into account other than Bell sucking.
Because you try to step back and act objective about the situation when you clearly have a vendetta against the coach. Since you hate him and you've made that clear. They are all obviously connected. It's not condemning Bell for not performing with the same putrid offensive line as much as it is saying that there wasn't any egregious misuse of the player. The entire offense sucked because of the offensive line. Bell sucked equally. But I've still yet to hear about a better use of the player beyond splitting him out more and leaving Sam out to dry in the backfield with two other runningbacks who can't pass protect as well. Blaming the bottom three worst offensive line in NFL history is a lot more logical than blaming the coach who tried to coach around it. If you think he did a terrible job using the back, then I employ you to tell me what you think should've been done differently that would've completely turned around his horrible season. That's why I find it hard to really gauge the coach. I've never watched a Jets season that saw the QB need to immediately retreat away from a free rusher, as often as Darnold did.
You're doing it again. No shit I hate him. He's a coach with a bad track record and to anyone with a set of eyes, he made some bad coaching decisions this year. That doesn't mean NOTHING else is at play which I've said 3-4 times now. I asked you to show me where I blamed literally every bit of Bell's struggles on Gase and all you did was quote a post and bold a part where I specifically said it wasn't all Gase.
Ok! You retreated into "there are other factors at play." Not sure why you needed me to admit that to further the fucking discussion.
This is stupid. I said days ago our failures weren't all on Gase. I can't help that you want to play all or nothing. If that's your definition of a discussion, have it with someone else. Just don't resort to name calling when they don't see it your way.
I really can't believe how up in the air you are over the fact that I called someone else a prick 4 pages back, but if that's the reason you'd like to bow out of this discussion then by all means go ahead.
Apologies. No I wasn't talking about you with the last line in my comment, I just added it because it occurred to me that most who are ripping Bell are also defending Gase and using the same "proof" to support their POV.
This here (bold) is why I tend to not try to engage with you at this point. I implore ( I assume that's the word you meant when you said "employ", unless you're offering to pay me for my insight) you to provide one example of me making claims that using Bell in a better way would have "completely turned this horrible season around" - and I'll even give you full credit for finding anything I said that was remotely close to this. It will likely do no good, but I'll restate my opinion about how Bell wasn't used properly. In the games I watched, he was often given the ball on plays designed to go up the middle. Now some have said, "What's the problem with that? That's what RBs are often called on to do, and in particular, Bell has often made big yardage on plays like that in the past". Here's the problem: Our OL sucked and couldn't open holes with a flamethrower. We agree on that, right? So why do you and others blame Bell for not being able to make yardage like he used to? And why do you absolve Gase for not knowing he has a shit OL from the beginning and trying to do something to offset that problem? Specifically, how about using multiple RB sets, or taking a blocking TE and use him in the backfield and split Bell out as a receiver more? How about changing the play calling to be less predictable? These are minimum and basic things he might have tried, but which I saw no sign of him doing. And then to hear him admit that he had no clue how to use Bell, and would have to look at how the Steelers used him, despite the fact that he knew for 9 months that Bell would be his lead RB! Again, all this is not to say that Bell has no responsibility in how he performed, or that maybe he has indeed slowed down, but to apply your justification for waiting to decide how Gase did, how about we use that same justification for Bell to see how he does when he has a decent OL and a HC that knows how to use his strengths before we toss him on the scrap heap?
If you're going to criticize someone's use of a word, you better be damn well sure that your criticism is correct. Employ can be used as a verb in the way I used it. It doesn't only indicate a payment. You're right. I used it to the extreme. But isn't the statement that Gase did a bad job using Bell, indicate that he would've had a much better season if used correctly? I'll correct my verbage so there is no misinterpretations. How often do you see tightends put into the backfield and block a run through linebacker? Very seldom and for good reason. Any blitzing linebacker worth their skin will eat up that tightend based on foot speed. Don't forget that we tried lining up Wesco (heralded for his blocking out of college supposedly) three different teams against the edge rusher vs. The Ravens. He flat out missed his block on two bootlegs, and got absolutely burned by Judon on the straight drop back. All touches vs. the Bills: https://www.newyorkjets.com/video/highlights-every-le-veon-bell-touch-from-his-jets-debut A lot of 11 personnel. Probably the wrong strategy in retrospect given the speed of the Bills linebackers. But he ran pretty well in this game even if the statistical output wasn't good. All touches vs. The Eagles: Primarily two tightend sets. A couple of I-Form runs and play actions. Have to do it with the backup quarterback. Not isolating you, but this was a big Gase complaint was that there supposedly weren't enough of these? All touches vs. The Browns: He caught four different variations of screen passes here for maybe ten yards if that. One was lined up as a receiver. He took two of those shotgun tosses he likes for maybe 8 yards total? Probably should've came back to these a bit more. Good mix of 21 and 11 personnel here. Some 4 receiver sets. He gets a wild cat look and a receiver look in 5 wide. I'll look for some more. These are good watches. We're in our base offense a lot as most teams are. Shelling up into the two tightend looks at the end of the year with Wesco and Daniel Brown didn't exactly improve the output a ton.
Well it's stretching the use of the word to get that meaning, but ok. I'll take a look at these when I get a chance, so I'll hold off on any other comments until then.
It's really not. The definition I quoted gives examples of the use of the word I used in the same exact way. And that's the golden standard for dictionaries. But back to the topic at hand. Compare those three game highlights to the one below. Note that he only had two catches in the game below that aren't shown. The execution by our line as compared to the interior of the Steelers offensive line is fucking despicable. But the play design is the same. It gives a lot of good aerial looks of the inside zone concept that we ran. And showed the correct way to run in. Guard-Center-Guard all step to the play side. If the nose tackle slants either way the backside guard pushes and moves up to the backer. If he stays where he is, in a perfect world the center is supposed to allow the backside guard to push through and overtake the nose tackle to go get the backside backer. While the front side guard gets the front side backer on a combo block with the tackle. It doesn't always work that way though. Zone concepts is to push defenders where their moment is taking them and use it against them. But make sure you cover them up with bodies. Our line was a disgrace in zone blocking this year. These are virtually the same array of plays we used. Our line just didn't block to the point where Bell got two seconds behind the line untouched before he could pick his lane. Easy to be patient with that time and no run throughs. The only play I wish we added was that draw where Ben runs towards the RB. That's the only different use I really see though. A ton of 11 personnel as well.
1. Do not allow yourself to think you know what's in my mind. 2. Do not allow yourself to believe that I care one iota whether or not you like me; you're certainly not a factor in anything. 3. Speak for yourself, not others. 4. When adults are trying to discuss something they stand by what they wrote, correct their errors and support their contentions or withdraw them. They do not change the subject midstream; they do not put words in the mouths of others. If they say there is no inside source and their own citation shows an inside source they don't suddenly change the conversation to one stating there is no new information when that is not the topic at hand. They do not resort to profanity. 5. Do not assume that an opinion different than yours is a personal attack that needs defending. 6. If you would like to be in charge of determining who can comment and what can be said or what constitutes derailing of a thread apply to be a moderator. You might then permit yourself the luxury of juvenile name calling which serves to only detract from whatever else you may have to say.
The bold is funny because you've never once supported any of your speculation with any sort of fact or even speculative articles on such from people actually connected. This thread is littered with your posts doing such. But please stop detailing this into your usual pissing contest. It's annoying. And most importantly do not tell me what I can and cannot do. I have three posts on this page alone, two of which include video supporting any claims I've made. A couple pages back, I have a full post with quotes from players all over the NFL supporting the coach. Le'Veon Bell just came out and said there is no issue. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...ell-gase-relationship-blown-out-of-proportion If you'd like to discuss this, let's do so.
Look up speculation in a dictionary; it doesn't get supported. Perhaps you should read, and comprehend, what it is that you're citing. I notice that you're still ignoring that which got you riled up - your claim that there was nothing about insider information in the article you linked. If all this is too much for you to deal with, do us all a favor and just put me on ignore.
So the same thing was reported by different people around the league. Because someone who shares the same agent as Bell said it, it makes it insider information? If you have time, go back and re-read the article and find me what was said that hasn't been reported 10 times over already. Your definition of insider information varies from mine, I suppose. That's OK. Moving on.
There you go again. The problem apparently lies in your reading comprehension. He did not say that there is no issue; he did not say there never was an issue. You made that up. He said "things were blown out of proportion," as reflected in the very title of the piece you cite. That's what any working person in America would say when questioned about a problem with his boss when he knew his answer was going to be published. He said that the topic was "water under the bridge. I'll save you the exertion of looking that up - it means that nothing that happens going forward will change that which has already happened." Bell said that his exit meeting was "fine." Half the people in the United States use that precise word when things are the exact opposite - ask any guy who is married. You apparently think this was a great article to prove your point so what do you have to say about the part that says "As he is due $8.5 million in base salary, Bell and the Jets might be a forced marriage for one more season, so it behooves the sides to speak glowingly of one another, for now." What about the last paragraph that equates the relationship to a "forced marriage?" You might want to reconsider taking this article as a ringing endorsement of Adam Gase by Le'Veon Bell.
And your criticizing my reading comprehension? I never said there was never an issue. I said there is no issue. You try to read in between the lines way too much to support your claims, when the words are laid out pretty clearly in front of us. Water under the bridge. We fine, we good. Not sure what this means to you. But what it means to me is that any issue there was is over with and we're going to move forward. If you would like to interpret that differently then by all means. That's your perogative. He's not exactly the type of player who seems shy of controversy. He sat out for 21 months over a contract dispute. What does it matter if it's a forced marriage or not? If they're both going to agree to work together without issue, then that's the important part. If you interpret differently, then again that's up to you. The bottom paragraph is speculation by a staff writer. He includes the contract situation that basically forces the two to get along. There's not much of a choice of either of them. Bell isn't scared to be a disgruntled employee. He's done it before. I don't think he'd shy away from doing so at his album launch party when blindsided by TMZ.
