I'm really getting annoyed at people responding to threads about Jets players or potential acquisitions by saying that they aren't "Mangini players." First of all, how do we know what kind of person they are, unless we actually know them personally? Aside from a few exceptions, such as players with arrest records, most of these 'attitude problems' we hear about are trumped up by the media or taken out of context. Second of all, what makes Eric Mangini so different from every other coach? I think his first priority is winning, and to do that you need talent. The mark of a great coach and leader is to be able to motivate and get something out of players that other coaches couldn't. I have enough faith in Mangini to believe that he could get so-called 'problem' players to contribute adequately. It seems to me that saying that he shouldn't even try to go after certain players because of percieved attitude problems isn't giving Mangini enough credit as a leader. Most of the time, it seems fans are just using the term "not a mangini player" to explain why they don't like certain players without legitimate cause.
Look no further than Mangini explaining the Cotchery extension & you will see that the Mangini guy is not a made up media creation. It came right from the horse's(or in this case Penguins) mouth.
?Jerricho Cotchery exemplifies everything we are looking for in our players. He is smart, tough, hardworking, selfless, competitive and football is important to him." quoted from mangini.
How is that different from what every coach says about the players they give big money to? For fans to judge potential acquisitions based on some vague concept of their temperement is just plain dumb. Look no further than the people who say that Laveranues Coles, who has thrived under Mangini, is for some reason not a "Mangini Guy."
Great go and piss another poster off. You two guys are creating dissension in this forum. You are clearly not "Mangini" type posters. I hope he cuts you both! I am calling for a moderator. On behalf of TGG crew I sincerely apologize for these non "Mangini" types for the aggravation they may have caused. Also I apologize for pointing out non "Mangini" posters.
I couldn't have said better myself....nice job Vision. People on this board who think we are drafting a player like Tank Tyler..... just don't get it. I'd rather keeping hear the "Mangini Player" credo than....drafting players in the Bengal's mode. You win with Character and hard working dedicated players.......just like in the real world.
See, this is what I mean. Now instead of arguing about the merits of players, or why Tank Tyler wouldn't be a good pick, people are just throwing out the phrase "Mangini Player" as if that settles the matter, and everyone who doesn't agree "just don't get it."
I agree with the treadstater , fuck is "Mangini player" unless Mangini states that himself that he wouldnt have a specific player he would want on his team everybody is a "Mangini player".
In all of the reports ive read on Tyler, it questions his work ethic, and motor. I go by what I got. Im not going to go to his mothers house and ask her if he used to play nice with the neighborhood kids.
how interesting that you opened your own thread to talk about your pet peeve. Mangini players are selfless, teamfirst, dedicated and hardworking individuals who dont have a history of attitude or run ins with the law...
You started this thread, and your logic is making this thread "sink like a rock", no sense arguing with you.
I guess I'll take exception to your post by saying that character counts and often (but not always) transfers to the playing field. But as an aside, I don't think we've ever heard of the Jets discounting a player simply because it's been speculated by the media that he has an "attitude problem." I don't necessarily think that Mangini tosses consideration aside based on heresay, at least I'd like to hear from you if you're aware of any of that. so pardon me for saying this, but it's a little simplistic to assume that Mangini acts on innuendo or heresay about "attitude" problems. After all, Coles is a "Mangini Guy," and many would say he has an "attitude problem," yet Mangini has nothing but praise for Coles. Mangini may not be different than any other coach but he is certainly different than some coaches. Coaches like Andy Reed and Bill Parcells sometimes access a Terrell Owens, for example, and figure they can control the obsessive, compulsive misbehaior and not have it affect the rest of the team. They're willing to take that chance. They often feel that they'll be able to control the guy, or that it won't come to that because after all, he'll listen to me and my approach is different. But more often than not, it backfires and then they're left trying to sort our morale problems and locker room bickering instead of game-planning for the next opponent. Look at how the Eagles damn-near self-destructed between McNabb and Ownes two years ago. I thank God Mangini discounts discipline-problem players and would prefer to avoid them, which is probably the best thing for the team and ultimately increases our chances of winning. Distractions are not welcome while you're preparing a team for the next opponent. While I agree with you that we both have enough faith in Mangini to know that he could probably motivate so-called "problem players," the point is, why? You may be making the wrongful assumption (as many sometimes do) that "problem players" are also the most gifted and talented and the most productive on the field. They're somehow more focused and they manifest they're untouchable talent by constantly stirring up shit on the team, but they make big plays, so the behavior needs to be tolerated. While this may be so in some instances (as with Owens, for example) the off-field headaches, locker room disruption and destruction of inter-personal relationships on the team (McNabb-Ownes) is sometimes just the thing that may even prevent you from winning because your team is at odds with one another. This then becomes the antithesis of "teamwork." Can you imagine a Pennington-Owens fiasco? I can't, nor do I want to. So, sure, Mangini could probably handle these situations, the point is, why get yourself into that to begin with? Given the choice between hiring two players of equal talent, ambition, work ethic and drive, why wouldn't you want the "Mangini Guy" as opposed to the Terrell Ownes' of the world. It's just common sense.
I have to do your Homework for you too! Geez.............http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/496919.html He's the Anti-Cotchery...wouldn't you agree?
I have my own pet peeve but didn't feel like starting a new thread. I can't stand it when people address topics like "Is New York the type of place a free agent wants to go" or says things like "I guess no one wants to be in Camp Mangini." This type of mentality is backwards, in my opinion. Players just go after the most money - everything else is inconsequential. Maybe if the difference in offers was like $100,000 but it's never that tight. Take for example the Adalius Thomas story. There was a quote where he says that part of what interested him in New England was playing for Bellicheck in the Pro Bowl. That's just a catchy soundbite. It's not true. He only went to New England cuz they ponied up the most cash. Everything else is just window dressing. Can we please put this kind of talk to rest?
