The grade of D- is too harsh a call, IMO. And to base that overall grade on the 3-4 vs. 4-3 debacle is also unfair even though I do see the argument about the round peg/square hole thing. However, nobody, including some of the best coaches the NFL could put on the field, nobody could have forseen how putrid our O-line would be this year. Yes, the Pete Kendall thing smacked of "stubborness" also, but no one (including the genius' that came out with this "grade," predicted or could have predicted how awful our Offense would be as a result of the O-line affecting Penny's play. And the consequences of that had Chad stinking up the field unmercifully, so much so that it had us on our heels right from Game One. The grade also doesn't take into consideration the development of guys like Harris and Reavis and continuing development of Cotchery and guys like Washington and Jones. There WERE some positives on the field this year that we can take into next year, so I feel a grade of D- is just another way of beating up on the NY Jets. A fair grade would be a D+ or C-, IMO.
Any team that is well below .500 deserves a grade that low. The reasoning behind these grades are the only thing that really bothers me. Trying to imply that the defensive scheme was the reasoning behind our 4-12 season is moronic. IMO. We simply did not have the players in the trenches (on both sides of the ball, IMO) to contend with most of the teams we faced. Even being out matched almost every game, we still put up the best fight we could, and almost won 7-8? of those games that we did lose. So sure, a record like that deserves no rewarding grade, but I honestly feel Mangini had these guys playing above and beyond the grade that was given.
I agree with what you say, except for the boldened sentence. The rest is extremely accurate... we did not have the players in the trenches. Mangini doesn't deserve a D- because he fielded the best offensive team (including QB) he could with the roster he had. How could he (or anyone else) have known how abysmal that would perform, particularly the O-line? The TEAM deserves a D-, but I'd give Mangini a C+. And a C+ is still low, mind you, because I do still fault him for not recognizing the weaknesses and for a certain degree of "stubborness." That all being said, the best we can hope for is that Eric Mangini won't be getting anymore cameos on The Sopranos any time soon for being the "Mangenius," and that he realizes there's a whole hell of a lot more to winning in NY with the Jets besides getting his face out there on HBO television.
The Jets offense averaged 16.8 points per game this season. There was one defense in the league that gave up fewer points per game. The Jets defense averaged giving up 22.2 points per game this season. There were 17 teams that scored less than that per game. edit: i've had a few and I'm not sure what point this makes, but our offense was absolutely worse than our defense IMO. :drunk:
John Madden switched the Raiders from a 4-3 in 1975 to a 3-4 in 1976 and it resulted in a 13-1 regular season and a Super Bowl victory. (I can check this, but I think the change actually was made after their 48-17 loss to New England early in the 1976 season.) Bill Parcells, Jets 1997: 3-4 1998: 4-3 1999: 3-4 Those are two examples. Good coaches will change the system if the talent is suited for a change.
Very true. Any good coach is flawless from Day 1. Mangini has been flawFUL and we have full evidence that there is no hope for him.
I think you are forgetting how terrible our Defense was the first half of the season. Teams ran the ball all over us. I am not talking about gashing us for 25 or 30 yard gains once or twice a game. I am talking about basically handing the other team 5 yards every time they ran the ball. This is much more demoralizing than even getting gashed. Other teams would have 8-9 minute drives and then the o would come in and if they didn't score it would be another 8 minute drive. Talk about crappy football to watch.
Manweenie = F- Let me put something out there for all the Jets fans out there that maybe you haven't considered... The Jets went 10-6 LAST season because they were still, basically, a Hem Edwards team, which was still basically Bill Parcells' team. They knew what it takes to win football games. One year removed? Under Manweenie and Tannenbomb? They forgot. In 2007, we saw the effect of Tangini pushing veteran football players too hard through summer camp by a guy who hasn't exactly won anything or paid his dues... Eric Mangini's plan to wear out his welcome came to fruition as he lost the team! Yes, he HAD to make the move to Kellen Clemens (thus exposing how bad he and Tannenbaum are in choosing daft choices)... I, for one, am looking forward to the next regime. Tangini will never win anything.
Let me ask you a question: what other coach in the NFL do you think would have appeared on the Sopranos in a guest role after his first season as a head coach? Who would have spent his offseason, losing weight to look better, actively seeking out endorsements to increase his income, and signing retired free agents to look-see contracts so he wouldn't actually have to do the hard lifting of convincing people who were actually good players to come play for him? The Jets had a lot of cap space to work with last off-season. There was nothing at all pre-ordained about them heading into this season with the same misfit toys in the same key positions (Anthony Clement? Really? That was the best the Jets could do?) that caused the same failures that were evident last year. Why exactly did Eric Mangini go take a ride on the personality cult train last offseason when there was so much work still to do to get the Jets to the point they could compete with the Pats? Doesn't that sound like a very premature victory lap that blew up in his (and our) faces?
Even worse! Have you seen the commercial that depicts Manweenie as an absolute loser? I can't recall exactly who he filmed it for, or what the message was, but... Come ON! There's no way Parcells, Belichek, Lombardi, Jim Fassel or even Kotite would have appeared in a TV commerical that mocked their ability to win football games... If I owned the Jets, I would have fired Mangini right there and then... But, then again--this might be our problem as Jets fans--we have an owner as dumb as Dolan!
But those changes were made starting a new season. Both coaches had history on their side. You are talking about a coach in his second season with a team. Most importantly and I do completely understand your point, on many occasions the Jets lined up 4-3. Secondly, without a defensive end who can pash rush....he almost had to stick with using his linebackers (thomas etc) as his 4th rusher because the team has been without a defensive end who can get any pressure on the qb. His personal, incredibly, was actually more suited for a 3-4. Those that throw out there "what about Sean Ellis" had better get over it...Sean Ellis was doing squat before the transition. I think people are calling for the return to a 4-3 just because of the worst pass rush we have seen in decades. I guess my point is that the front 3 or 4 or 6..whoevers on the roster..is just not that good anyway you line them up. So if the long term is the 3-4...just keep sticking with it and get the personal you need.
I personally thought it was hilarous. It was a commercial for the razor phone. I did not take any affence to it at all. It was a marketing thing, that meant nothing. We all know what situation we are in right now, so why try to pretend otherwise? Obviously instead of focusing on camera time, he could be focusing on the holes in our team. Although I think being able to be realistic about the situation and showing awareness towards our flaws is a step in the right direction. Even if it is in a commercial. Now we just have to hope we do something about those flaws. It is a better approach then trying to "pretend" like we are something we aren't.
No, I remember how bad they were in the first half. The difference is that the defense played significantly better in the second half of the season. The offense never improved.
