Did I say that? I have no recollection of such a preposterous bullshit. I did include Belicheat. Obviously you missed him. Look above. You will easily find it. That said - if we all have this gift of foresight, we should know if we are firing a future Kotite or not. Do we? No. Thus the question: given the limited sample space of 4 years, how do we know we are not firing future Belichick? Moreover, it is the improvement that we should be focusing on, which this team has shown plenty of as of this year. Remember Rex Ryan era? The team kept getting worse year after year. Under Bowles, they did have a few inconsistencies early on, thanks to you-know-who, but by now the defense comes out fighting, and gives the offense at least a puncher's chance every game. Not only that, the offense - namely, Darnold - is improving by each week. Isn't that enough for this year? If not, did you expect this team to set the league on fire? How?
Please explain your understanding of the meaning of "improvement." Illustrating what you mean by showing actual examples that would help us to understand how you view things so differently than many of us here would be illuminating. If any unit or player is "improving by each week" that would indicate that their week two performance was better than their week one performance and their week three would be better than week two. That would continue each week and would mean that their week seven performance was better than week six and each prior week. You seem to be saying that the offense was better on October 21 than at any other time this season and we all know there is absolutely no factual basis for such a claim. The New York Jets do not need nor want a defense that comes out fighting to the extent that they are called for three penalties costing 35 yards in the first 98 seconds of the game. That is not improvement and is not indicative of good coaching. You mention Rex Ryan, apparently because you believe he is somehow relevant to the success of the Jets today. He is not. You imply that the current Jets coaching is not "getting worse year after year" when going from 10 - 6 to 5 - 11 twice is definitely a sure sign of getting worse. The team is now on a path that a repeat of 5 - 11 or the third year running might be a stretch. Mr. Bowles has shown that neither he nor the key members of his staff are up to the challenge of preparing a team for competition in the National Football League or orchestrating their performance in a game. The sooner Bowles and his staff are replaced the better the future will be for the Jets.
Wow, touched a nerve, did I? What idiotic hostility to a simple and obvious reaction to the absurd notion that the early record of Belichick and Landry has even the slightest relevance for the career of Bowles. That is moronic. And try reading - I told you not to include Belichick because his winning percentage in his first 55 games was about sixty percentage points better than Bowles' has been. How many coaches with the terrible record of Bowles after 3 1/2 seasons have ever had long-term success? One? Two? Well that's certainly a valid reason for keeping him. The notion that the Jets are getting better under Bowles is hardly clear. It's also not the point; the point is whether Bowles has gotten better, and that notion is so utterly preposterous that it doesn't even require refutation. He makes the same exact strategic mistakes he made four years ago, such as in clock management, using timeouts, and using challenges. In-game adjustments are almost never seen. The players make the same fundamental errors they did four years ago, whether they're stupid penalties or not knowing to jump on a potentially live ball. There is wild inconsistency in execution week to week, which speaks to preparation, not talent. The defense, which is his specialty, plunged after one year and has hardly gotten any better. (Wow, they come out fighting - how impressive that in the first two months of the season the defense hasn't started mailing it in, something they did do under Bowles in 2016.) The fact that Darnold has gotten better (which is hardly a proven fact, by the way) would say something about Darnold, and something about Bates, but would hardly say something about a coach who has very little to do with his development (that's how it should be, by the way - Bowles shouldn't have much to do with Darnold's development at this point, since he has lots of other things to worry about, including being the acting DC while Rodgers was sick). Darnold is a rookie QB, so wild swings in execution are expected from lack of experience; how about all of the veterans who can't find consistency in performance? Getting that is the sign of a good coach. There is no evidence to suggest that Bowles is anything special as a coach, and plenty of evidence to suggest that he should be a defensive coordinator, not a head coach. And speaking of preposterous bullshit, no one is impressed with the ridiculous straw man of accusing people of having unrealistic wins/losses expectations this year. No reasonable person expected a winning season this year. You're the one who keeps bringing up won/loss records, somehow arguing that a bad one is evidence that a coach shouldn't be fired because there exists a good coach or two who got off to a bad start. The fact that Bowles' won/loss record is poor is only one bit of evidence that supports what is easy to see - that there is nothing to suggest that he is the guy who can lead the team to the Super Bowl.
Sure, there has been some improvement, but is that because Bowles is a good HC? I'd say not. First, while Maccagnan's record is mediocre, at best, he has added different players, presumably with the idea of them being better players. Obviously not all of them have been better, but some have, and there is the Branch Rickey Rule of "Addition by subtraction" effect where getting rid of bad players by itself improves a team, so improvement was expected. Second, adding a future FQB in Darnold has energized the team, especially the offense, and even when he plays like the rookie he is, there is always a positive vibe, unlike previous years where mistakes were always met with "Here we go again!". That represents immense improvement having nothing to do with Bowles. Third, the defense has improved, apparently due to Bowles taking over the coaching of that unit. If this is true - and I believe it is - then kudos for his FINALLY waking up to the fact that his BFF Rodgers wasn't qualified to by a DC. Which of course means it's Bowles's fault that this change wasn't made sooner, like 3 years ago. Meanwhile, the problems that plague Bowles: poor game management; lack of a feel for when to take a chance and when not to (usually erring on the side of NEVER); in-game adjustments ("Well they took away what we like to do best..."), are STILL problems for him after almost 4 years! I could go on, but if you don't see that 4 years is AMPLE time invested in a guy who will NEVER be a SB-caliber HC, then you probably won't ever see it.
Yeah, whatever. Must be really great in your world. Hey, I can't wait for your next driveby pointless post. Inquiring minds don't care!!
1. Hostile? Where did you pick that up? Wanna give me a hint later? 2. I chose to go off with the W/L record [simply because someone else claimed Bowles won't be a good HC based on W/L after 4 years.] Why would I start with that to begin with? [I rarely do.] 3. I get that Bowles improving can be a contentious issue - I will agree to disagree with you. I'll just leave it at that. Maybe he is indeed a bad coach. What do I know? 4. Unrealistic W/L? Strawman argument? I don't know about that - I even saw [50% of this fan base is satisfied with mediocrity!] a short while ago. You think that's not preposterous, but this is? [Just in case - yes, the string of postings was in a way a reaction from that bullshit.]
If you don't care about wins and losses, why did you bring them up not once, but twice, trying to somehow "trick" someone into saying that Belichick and Landry aren't good coaches? If you don't think your first sentence ("Did I say that? I have no recollection of such a preposterous bullshit.") is hostile I don't know what to tell you. Is that a good enough hint? If someone else says something you think is stupid reply to them - don't reply to me about it. And yes, I do think thinking that half the fan base is satisfied with mediocrity is preposterous, but guess what, no one who said that accused me of saying preposterous bullshit, so I don't feel any need to respond to it. Don't want a strong response back? Don't be a jerk in your original response. Want to make a general post about an entire thread? Don't make it an obnoxious response to a particular post.
Dam girl, need some midol? If it helps, I can start using more than one sentence to show you when you are wrong.
YES ...very well said Add to that the free pass the owners give him for "no mandate for. Playoffs" This is the easiest 3 Mil a year any NFL coach can milk us for Bowles is doing a great job.!!!!...at filling out Deposit Slips..lol As I've posted before the J and J had NO BUSINESS extending TB...when that happened Bowles felt reinforced to carry on his mismanagement CHAMP Is RIGHT this ownership is just DUMB DUMB DUMB
I really am at a loss about your comments? Maybe you better go back and re-read both posts. One by ZACH and my response before you jump into the fray my friend. Your making yourself look like a fool.
"Well if I am not mistaken BB got fired didn't he? And if your going to compare try comparing how his team played then vs how the JETS play now. Browns played discipline ball but lost …. there in lies the difference between BB and TB." This is part of your post is what I responded to..anyone trying to compare BB and Bowles
Excellent post .. But convincing FJF 101 and Zach is just an exercise in futility.. Just wait till the Sundays down the road when the Jets and defensive genius Bowles bite the dust to Buffalo or Miami. Some posters will just look stupid
