I knew it was not you 81 and that there were people out there NOT INDICTING the coach . This was it , my only questions does DefensewinsChampionships feel the same way here and now = heres his post "No need to close this thread. Tom Landry: 9-28 after first 3 years (.243%). Chuck Noll: 12-30 after first 3 years (.285%). Weeb Ewbank: 13-22 after first 3 years (.371%) Marv Levy: 19-29 after first 3 years (.395%). Jimmy Johnson: 19-29 after first 3 years (.395%). Dick Vermeil: 18-26 after first 3 years (.409%). Bill Belichick: 20-28 after first 3 years (.416%). Same exact record as Todd Bowles. Bill Walsh: 21-27 after first 3 years (.437%). Mike Shanahan: 16-20 after first 3 years (.444%). Bill Parcells: 22-25 after first 3 years (.468%). All speak for itself. And so does two bust QB's in Bryce Petty and Christian Hackenberg along with two career loser JAG QB's in Ryan Shitztragic (48-70) (.406%) and Josh freaking McCown (23-50) (.315%). Not to mention the roster purge in which he's been forced to coach under since day one, consisting of roster turnover after roster turnover all while his GM hasn't really been in position to draft him an O-Line or a top rated pass rushing outside/edge rusher. It's just funny to me."
So many of those coaches are from a bygone era. Things are very different now, of course. With the level of scrutiny being what it is today, most of those guys wouldn’t have lasted as long as they did. I understand their point, but the bottom line is you can only be a loser in a major metropolitan area for so long before you lose your job. If only ownership worked that way.
I hear you 81,,,,,,and agree. on another note , the thing that has to actually scare Woody and Chris is " how in the hell do they pick a new coach " ,,,,do they just trust Mac which I would think we all agree on and is the move or do these guys who know nothing about football bring in an outside agency ? Regardless I never thought Todd is or was safe the entire year , its not about wins and losses its about HOW you win or lose and in this case coach ,,,at least thats my opinion
Well when we lose week #4 to the Jaguars , Clueless Todd Bowels will have the honor of looking up in the standings at Ritchy Kotite.----- Kotite had a winning percentage of 416% and after Bowels loses to the Jags he will be at 404 % , take a bow coach Todd you have worked hard to earn this honor .
FYI I posted this elsewhere in another thread but Rich Kotite had a winning percentage of 416% and after we lose to the Jags Bowels will be at 404 % he is currently at 421 %
To his credit, Idzik is having some success as an assistant GM with the Jags. I’m sure he’s licking his chops right now waiting for next Sunday. Not sure what the answer is, though. My company also uses the recruiting company the Jets used to find Idzik, and we’ve been quite successful with it.
Here's a question, when was the last time a Jets HC was fired and replaced and it actually worked out? The Jets even screwed up the Parcells/BB hire.
That's exactly the problem Cman...low expectations>>>>everyone picks up a check and is on cruise control High Expectations eg even just saying "I want to see a winning season" would be better A slob like Bowls is jus taking advantage of this to be lazy..seriously PEOPLE RESPOND TO THE EXPECTATIONS YOU PUT ON THEM
There are 32 NFL Head Coaches. There are about 4 who are good and 1 who is elite. From my POV a great HC is one who can consistently win with decent not great overall talent. The Jets have had decent overall talent on a comparative basis a handful of times. None in the Todd Bowles era.
First, I think your number is too low, and there are way more than 5 good coaches in the NFL, in part because I think your definition of being a good head coach is far too restrictive. To me a good head coach is one who consistently puts his team and players in the best possible position to win. A coach can be a good (or great) head coach if they take poor talent and get the most out of it, even if that means .500 or less. A coach can be a good (or great) head coach if they take decent talent and consistently get to the playoffs with it. A coach can be a good (or great) head coach if they take elite talent and win Super Bowls with it. We also shouldn't forget that the head coach is directly responsible for his coaching staff, particularly his coordinators. A head coach who refuses to replace a bad coordinator is a bad coach. A head coach who continually replaces coordinators and they're all bad is a bad coach. Bowles has done both. The fact that Bowles has not had particularly talented teams does not in any way mean that he automatically gets a pass, or that we can't say if he's a good coach or not until he gets good talent. There are plenty of clues to whether a coach is good or not, and they work whether he has good talent or bad. What I see as a fundamental problem in your analysis is that you're taking as the implication of your claim that the difficulty in finding a good head coach means that you shouldn't keep trying. The correct statistics to look at are the winning percentages of good coaches versus not good coaches, or the percentage of the time good coaches take their team deep in the playoffs versus that of not good coaches. I believe that those percentages differ greatly, since good coaches do things that make teams move up (however good they currently are) and not good coaches don't. You keep looking for a good head coach for the same reason you keep looking for a franchise quarterback - they're really hard to find, but if you do find one you can be set for years (recognizing also that eventually teams tend to tune out even good coaches and they need to move on). In my view there is very little evidence that Bowles is a good coach, and loads of evidence that he isn't. That's not proof, but when he willfully refuses to address things that are clearly not working, whether in the moment (the defense that worked against Taylor isn't working against Mayfield, we need to try something else or we're going to lose) or longer term (players are repeatedly making the same "inexcusable" mistakes (his word) when I do nothing publicly to punish them, I need to change that approach to see if they'll respond differently), he's making it easier and easier to believe that he's incapable of improving, and that means the team is better off if he's gone.
If you're going to write a post try and bring something intelligent to the argument. This was a lazy effort..seriously.
An article ... After handing the Browns their first win since 2016, Todd Bowles isn't ready to give up on the Jets. The Jets lost 21-17 on Thursday night as Baker Mayfield made his maiden voyage on an NFL field, leading the Browns on a thrilling comeback victory. "We're a tough-minded team," Bowles said Friday, via Newsday. "I know we got good character, and I know we'll fight and I know we have a decent team. I just got to cut down and fix some things." No. 3 overall draft pick Sam Darnold was bettered by No. 1 pick Mayfield. Darnold went 15-for-31 for 169 yards with no touchdowns and two interceptions. "He's competitive and he tries to win every game and he has a fire within that you really can't see," Bowles said. "But in all, I thought he competed his butt off. I thought \ was one of his better ballgames from a mental standpoint, from a toughness standpoint and a grit standpoint." Bowles also believes his rookie QB 'grew' on Thursday night, just his third NFL start. "I thought he grew a lot last night. Going in and watching the schedule, after he won the starting job, I thought this would be his toughest game from a scheme-coverage standpoint because of the things they do on that side of the ball. I thought he handled it well." Darnold and the Jets go again next Sunday against the Jaguards. lololololol
I agree with all of that. All of it is subjective. There is nothing to indicate that Bowles hasn't done everything a good coach should do or a bad coach should do. I have no problem firing Bowles and Mac. I have no vested interest in either of them. We need to try something else isn't a plan of improvement and it doesn't make the team better off if he's gone. With no HC or a worse HC the results may be much worse in the long run. We've both seen that play out. When you tell me who and why get back to me. Otherwise it's a bitch fest by fans who think they're entitled to win.
