Having a bad record for a few years in a row tends to stretch out into having a bad record for close to a decade. It's not where a team ever wants to be, rebuilding or otherwise. You can't use the Colts as the example because they were 2-14 exactly once and haven't been below 10-6 in other year in the last decade. They just picked the right year when the right guy was out there and then they out-tanked everybody else who was going for him. They marketed "Suck for Luck" to keep their fans from rioting in the process.
At the end of the day it comes down to QB play. This isn't a team that's so loaded with talent that it can win in spite of the QB. I do think that it's a team that could be a contender with a top tier QB. However, they're nowhere near having such a thing. They have a mediocre QB and as a result, they're a mediocre team. The only shot the Jets have is 1. Petty becomes a star, 2. They get lucky a draft a top tier QB with a mid 1st round pick. Both are possible, but the Jets have had terrible luck with QBs for a long long long long time.
Yeah but SD wouldn't have traded Eli if Giants didn't have the 4th overall with which SD could get Rivers, so the same point applies. What's the difference how you do it, the point is these teams set themselves up for a decade by being bad for some period of time. Being bad for multiple years if anything improves your chances at landing those blue chippers. It's just that with the parity in the NFL, if you snag a good young QB like Manning or Luck, it's pretty hard to stay really bad, so those teams improved. Because Lions have had really bad GMs and coaches during that span. Matt Millen was one of the worst GMs ever, and whoever they have now isn't much better. If you have a truly terrible group of people upstairs, there is no approach that will help you, but in terms of pure talent, the Lions were loaded during that time. Suh, Fairley on defense, Calvin Johnson and Stafford on offense. If they had better management/coaching, they could've become an elite team.
I'll ignore your insults and trying to diminish our perspective by attacking us except to say that it is sad and pathetic. It's what losers do who have nothing else to offer. You're obviously blind and ignorant of NFL history. Over the years, I've seen it happen, and I distinctly remember reading articles about that, and hearing announcers during games talk about how much easier it was for teams that had won 4-5 games or less to turn things around than it was for teams who had won 7-9 games. They cited examples and there were numerous examples they gave. It's also just plain common sense that a team who is drafting in the top of each round, has more players to choose from, and thus has a greater chance of getting the talent they want and need to turn things around. The key components or wild card factors that you're missing in the equation are the owner, GM and CS, and probably even the QB. With really bad teams they are usually really bad because their GM has failed to find a quality starting QB and the other necessary talent, and/or the HC and CS are awful and failed to develop or properly use the talent the GM provided, and usually after an awful season or two, changes are made. With teams who are in the 6-10 to 9-7 area, the HCs and GMs are usually given a longer time to fix things. If the team makes good hires, with the infusion of young talent, they can turn things around quickly. Have you forgotten Jets history? Parcells turned things around quickly from Kotite with the infusion of some young talent and veteran hold the fort types. The problem is that hiring GMs and HCs and their staffs is a crap shoot. Teams have to be lucky. Quality candidates have to be available, or they have to choose between the lesser of evils or "reach" for a candidate. The experienced or veteran GMs and HCs that are available are usually available because they failed miserably with their previous team. That means that teams have to hire rookie GMs and HCs. As we all know, just because someone was a very successful collegiate HC or a successful coordinator in the NFL doesn't mean that they will become successful HCs in the NFL. We also know that there are clueless owners in the NFL like Daniel Snyder, Woody, and for a long time, the owner of the Bengals. They are more likely to make poor decisions on who to hire, not be patient and give those new hires time to succeed, or force moves upon them in order to sell tickets or garner publicity, but which undermine the team's progress. Results can be, and are skewed when owners stick with poor GMs or HCs for too long, when they meddle and dictate moves to the GM and/or HC, make poor hires, or if the GM just has a bad draft or two at a critical time. The fact remains that when you pick at the top of each round, whether a GM drafts strictly from a BPA perspective or addresses needs, he has a MUCH better chance of getting better players and addressing needs than one who is picking in the area of 15-25. The QB position is just one shining example of that. Look at how many teams need QBs, and how often the top QB prospects go early, as do the top pass-rushing prospects and top WR prospects and top LT prospects. That doesn't mean that one can't find very good players lower in rounds or even in lower rounds, but the odds are much less, and it happens with much less frequency. As we all know, there have been high profile busts, but that doesn't change anything. Players in all rounds and in all parts of rounds fail. The Jets really need a franchise QB. They had no realistic shot to get Mariota or the kid from FSU last year. While neither of them was considered a Luck-type "can't miss" prospect, they were certainly heads and shoulders above the rest of the QBs in the class. I would gladly trade 1-2 of the 4 wins the team had last year to have Marcus Mariota as our QB. Draft position is critical. It isn't the only factor that can affect a team and it's success or lack thereof, but it can't be ignored or dismissed as unimportant if one has any understanding of the game.
I don't know of any NFL team that has had 4 wins or less for a decade. The problem is that following a really bad year or two, they usually make changes in leadership, and the young talent they acquire makes them just good enough to hang around in the 6-9 wins a season area. That's why they stay bad. They didn't get enough good talent, or make the right hires to get over the hump, then they're stuck in mediocrity. Why can't you? It on only took one bad season. That doesn't dismiss the fact that they got both Manning and Luck following awful seasons and they have been competitive because of those QBs. It's on the GMs who failed to surround Manning and Luck with talent that they haven't won multiple SBs. I never heard any accusations of Indy tanking or marketing "Suck for Luck." I saw Jets fans here or wherever I was posting at the time advocating it, but never anything from the Colts organization.
There are many teams that have hovered between 2 and 8 wins for a decade trending to the low side. Those are the teams that have back to back to back terrible seasons. Teams don't have two or three really terrible seasons in a row and then bounce back to win a lot of games. It takes a long time to get over the hangover of being terrible for several seasons in a row. It's easy to say the Jets should have gone 2-14 last year and gotten the QB, but we could easily have gone 2-14 this year and then 4-12 next year if the QB got injured, etc, etc. The Titans got Mariota and for that they're following up 2-14 with 2-7 and they just fired their coach. Think about it.
That's because of their clueless owner and poor hires for the GM and HC positions. They had one of the best DLs in the NFL, mismanaged their cap, and wound up losing two of their best players.
If they were smart, they'd have put a minimum turnover clause on Revis' contract. No receiver would have gotten off the line. Instead we have him learning on the job how to bait QBs for happybucks.
I didn't think it was moronic at all. You can think what you want..but if you wanna throw around names I can do it w/ the best of them. Shove it, dick.
