"Shhhhhh, be vewwy vewwy quiet. I'm hunting Quawtabacks." -Cman60 OK, that was fckn horrible even by my low standards. Feel free to pelt me with pies. Make it Carvel ice-cream cake. It's hotter than Hades out there. Just make sure you say, "It's a whale of a cake . . . !" in your best Tom Carvel voice while you're doing that, or you'll disappoint me.
Sorry in advance for the long post. I am still trying to find all of the late season, meaningless, wins that the Jets had to screw up their draft position last year. To me it looked like they lost 9 out of their last 11 games, including their last four. The only wins they had after making it to 3-2 was against the Bills (9th game) and the Chiefs (12th game). The Chiefs especially were playing like shit when the Jets played them. I think that fans can hope for teams to have crappy records for multiple years in a row to have better draft positions. However, I don't think this has any reality to what goes on in an organizations and locker rooms. In football (unlike basketball) it takes many good players and coaches to succeed - even with the large effect of QB play in the league. Hence, one better draft pick alone (even over a couple of years) isn't going to save a franchise. Therefore, (apart from the lack of drive that some people may have) to think that coaches or players are not trying their utmost at all times to do their best while they are constantly being judged (either by their own organizations or others) is unthinkable in my book. Why would you not try to be the best player or coach you could be? Just to get a better draft pick for a team that you might or might not be on next year? It just does't make sense in my mind. Yes some players are lazier than others and that plays a huge part in long term success. However, I believe that more than 95% of all players are trying their hardest during the game. So if the Jets win a couple of more games than was originally thought by some people (actually I thought that 5-11 was close to the expected record) why call people who don't have a problem with that outcome as "short sighted"? IMHO the only possible cause for complaint of a meaningless win would be during the last 1-2 games of a really shitty year (ie. 0-2 wins) when there is a can't miss, all-world prospect at an important position of need (like QB) that would be guaranteed with the first pick of the draft. So without the scenaro described above I still find it hard to control players to somehow dial them down for the "long range good of the team". Therefore, I don't know how a fan can lament the fact that a team might win a couple of extra games above some perceived talent level. I mean, somebody has to win these games (yes a know every game can end in a tie).
Since 2003 the jets have gone 6-10 or worse 7 times.In 6 of those seasons they have won at least 2 games in the months of December & January.The cumulative record is 11-19.The number grows even higher when including the 8-8 seasons but i didnt include those due to the argument that they were theoretically in contention late in those seasons..though even tjat is debatable. Now imagine we shave off even one of those seasons w multiple wins..like say 2007..and we end up w Matt Ryan instead of Vernon Gholston.. the implications speak for themselves. And i dont really blame the team for this but for the mickey mouse parade after the contests when they should still be pissed off that their 4-12. For me im just sick of hearing fans act like those wins mean anything but a lameduck pat on the back & Relinquished draft position which im sorry DOES matter when youre a lousy team.How many years were we picking 6 & there were 5 Consensus blue chips in a given draft class or similar? You dont believe in the draft & wanna poo poo it on a one year sample size?Fair enough.6 times in 15 years? Thats a bit much,No?
I believe the year was 2008 when we picked that disgraceful excuse for a player. Ryan was picked third that year. Can I mention that we also managed to pass on Jonathan Steward, Joe Flacco, Rashad Mendenhall and Chris Johnson to select Vernor. So while a worst record could have given us Ryan, ( assuming we where smart enough to do so) we had plenty of super talent and difference makers at six left and we fucked it up. Position is important BUT SECOND ONLY TO KNOWING WHO TO PICK. We have been notoriously poor in that area, including over reaching all too hell for Sanchez. While we would have been so much better with a higher pick in 2007, or the year that Luck got picked, where I disagree with you is thinking that professional players or coaches would slow role the outcome of the game to get a better pick. That just is never going to happen. The Jets need to figure out a way to win when it counts and make better draft choices to improve our position. Plenty of teams that hardly ever sniffed the first few picks have been to the playoffs and SB far too often.
Just for clarification i dont expect the team to fold,not try or purposely lose in any way shape or form.Ive maintained that throughout this discussion. Where i get upset from the team perspective is in many of those years theyve come out w these stalwart performances in December after they laid in egg when they actually had a chance in the standings. Judging by gameplans,press leading up to kickoff & some of these performances it seems like the coaches & players care more about saving their jobs for the coming year than the fact that the team performed like garbage when it counted. Its like where was all this “we’re here to win” pull out all the stunts back in September?? Beyond that,my frustration is more chimed up to bad luck in not sucking hard enough & fellow fans whod rather go 5-11 than get a top 3 pick & are content being a wildcard contender once a decade. Folks saying tanking is unreasonable is a fair point but when it spans into late season moral victories,discouraging others whod rather lose for draft position or suggesting that draft position is meaningless when the team’s most recent 15 year existence says otherwise..thats where the contention stems
I share your frustration, I don't feel I have a second life time left in me for the Jets to get out of this mediocre and pathetic trend. I hope Sam is the beginning of a great new era. The time is now. This season will tell plenty which direction the Jets are going.
Kurt, you are one of the best posters on this board. However, I just don't see where fans crow about these late season wins. In the year that you mentioned (2007) the Jets beat a one win Miami and a four win Chiefs team win within the last six games. Again, somebody has to win. Yeah, the Jets would have been better off in the long run if they had drafted Ryan instaed of Gholston. However, long term IMHO the Jets haven't been stifled because of too many wins they have at the end of the season. They have failed because the FO, coaches, and players haven't performed up to par.
The last sentence in my opinion has been looming at the heart of our problem. Haven't performed up to par is putting it mildly. I would add to that, the total lack of focus and absolute ineptitude, draft position or not, to find a QB that gave us future hope. At least until this year.
excellent point. in looking to invest money in a mutual fund, you are told that past performance is no guarantee of future results. that is true. however, past performance gives you a pretty good indication of what management competance is. that being said. i was against drafting another usc qb. name the last one that won a championship in the nfl? only one i can think of was tom flores, a bacup qb with the raiders under jim plunkett. so, trading teddy makes no sense given mccown's age, durability, and darnold being anything but a sure thing. i kept hearing that the qbs in this draft were nowhere near the same level as luck, etc. and, let's not start fitting anybody for a bust in canton based on non-contact otas.
Appreciate the kind words.Much respect back at ya. I wouldnt use the word “crow” more like rationalization.Its like deep down they know the loss hurts some draft probabilities but theyll take any win they can get so they claim Itll be good for the team moving forward,the draft is a crapshoot etc.I know bc before 2007/08 I was one of them. But just got tired of seeing it hurt our chances on draft day & screwing up priorities heading into the offseason. “We went 4-12 but were really impressive those last few weeks..i keep watching that week 17 win & gettting goosebumps” Fans being that way is one thing but the team under Woody has loved patting itself on the back after these type of wins..as LAJets so eloquently waxed im tired of lifeless directionless mediocrity in some of the BETTER campaigns.if bottoming out provides the right persoective for self reflection than maybe 1-15 is what the team needs or needed. The draft is my passion,hobby so on & so forth.I started researching the 2019 class an hour after this past draft concluded.Youre never gonna convince me that draft position doesnt matter when a team is picking top 10. I dont believe its a crapshoot..just an inexact science that requires an artist just as much as it does a CEO.. when you are pushed outside the top 5 picks repeatedly following basically the same recipe or path its at least cause for discussion.I do however respect that others disagree w this notion & perhaps thats where the root of the disagreement lies. Now to your other point..i dont blame the jets failures on solely draft position. I blame a lackluster upper management that lends little direction which leads to poor leadership,drafting,critical decisions & player performance. But this team needs all the help it can get..drafting higher raises the probability for success..and again when youre talking about 7/15 years of this happening thats not a good pattern.Food for. thought: With all the awful football weve seen Over the last 15 years the Jets have drafted in the top 5 without having to trade up just once.2006 DBrickashaw
I'm certain that a whole team of players won't tank unless they have a Rich Kotite clone coaching them, and even then there will always be a few who bust their butts and refuse to go that route. I'm less certain about HCs, GMs and owners. If the owner assures the CS and GM that their jobs will be fine, but agrees that they are in definite need of talent, not likely to get better any time soon and there are some special players in the draft who could make a dent in the talent deficit, especially at QB or edge rusher, then they may be tempted. As far as your statements above that I bolded, you don't seem to realize that the teams drafting at the top of the 1st round also draft at the top of every other round, so it isn't just one draft pick or player (even over a couple of years) that will save the franchise, but multiple players every year. For a team with a good GM who can recognized talent that fits their system, he should be able to hit on around 70-80% of his draft picks every year for a few years and be able to significantly upgrade the talent of his team. Add in a few FAs, and possibly a trade down or two that brings additional picks/players to the team, and a team can turn things around (if they have a quality QB) pretty quickly. It also has little or nothing to do with "being the best coach one can be." In war, generals will retreat or launch a battle that they know they will wind up losing, because they know that it can help them win the war in the long run. As a HC, if you know that your team doesn't even begin to have enough talent and good players to be competitive, much less win your division or the LT, and that no matter if you coach your ass off, your team is going to wind up between 6-10 and 8-8, why wouldn't the smartest thing be to intentionally lose (if you know you have your owner's support), put your team in better draft position, and get more talent and players that can help you turn things around quicker? Anything else is just spinning your wheels, delusional thinking, and borderline insanity.
I disagree with the bolded. I wouldn't doubt if Al Davis had his HC tank or that others have. How about the Colts to get Luck? We know that our OC last season quit on at least one game, maybe more, and several people were hyping him as Bowles' possible replacement. The truth is that we have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors with NFL teams, just as we have little idea what goes on in government or business behind the scenes. As far as your last statement, those teams are the exception rather than the rule. They had one or a few great drafts that landed their core star level players (including QB) and they had a HOF coach, so they didn't need to draft high every season. The Niners had Walsh, Montana, Rice, Taylor, and Craig (and later Steve Young). The Steelers had Terry Bradshaw, Lynn Swann, Mean Joe Greene and a HOF HC. The Bills had Jim Kelly, a great RB, Bruce Smith and a HOF HC (Marv Levy). The Pats have had Brady, some great offensive and defensive players and Belichik. The Jets do need to make better draft choices. That is indisputable. But until we find a HOF-caliber HC and have our core in place, I'll be quite happy drafting in the top five for another season or two.
The first part of your last sentence is spot on. IMO, Sure, we can keep playing like bottom dwellers and drafting on the top four or five the next few years, but that wont guarantee diddle until we get a HOF-caliber HC in place. I'm not buying into the notion that we can play hard every game and still only win 4 games. To me a great HC is the common denominator to all winning teams. Point of fact, NE won a couple of SB against teams with arguable better talent across the 52 short of the QB, but a little luck and better coaching was the answer. Atlanta and Seattle come to mind. PS We might not know what goes on behind the scenes, but I have a hard time believing that any reputable organization will tank on purpose. Then again, we have seen plenty of shit come out of the NFL that casts a shadow on my belief.
On one hand, I can understand your having a hard time believing that any reputable organization will tank on purpose. On the other hand, however, I cannot. What makes the NFL so "reputable"? Sorry, I respect you and your opinion, and you're one of my favorite posters here, but the idea of NFL owners and teams being so reputable is laughable imo. People are people regardless of what organization they are in. People lie, cheat, steal, take shortcuts, and do any and every thing they can to get ahead of their competition. The NFL has had more than its share of scandals, has lied to its own players for decades about the dangers of the game, and did nothing to help protect the players. Just as in baseball, until FA was forced upon owners/teams, for decades the players were practically "slaves" at the mercy of the teams that held their contracts. The owners have colluded, just like they have in every major sport and industry. The Jets have lied to fans, season ticket holders and PSL holders. We know that NBA teams have tanked. We know that MLB owners have done all kinds of sorry crap. What makes them any less "reputable" or credible than NFL owners? We know that old man Hess cheated people in business and took advantage of them. We know that Kraft is a sleazeball. We know that Al Davis was as well. He cheated left and right and did what he damn well pleased. Yes, great HCs are or at least "may be" the common denominator for all winning teams. I can't think of a team that has been good over a number of years that didn't have at least a very good HC. The Eagles under Kotite may be an example. There are probably other teams where the level of talent was able to overcome the deficiencies of the HC and at least keep them one of the top teams in the NFL. The Chiefs under Marty Schottenheimer may be another example. Those were very talented teams and won a lot of games but always choked in the playoffs. I have a hard time believing it was the players on that team that choked. Some people have suggested that the Packers and Rodgers are held back by Mike McCarthy. Many folks have wondered over the years if the NFL was "rigged" or "fixed." We know how powerful and how much money is involved in sports betting. We also know how the mafia has infiltrated many industries and unions and manipulated things behind the scenes. I'm not saying that they have with the NFL, but sometimes it certainly seems like something was predetermined and things "fixed."
NC. As always your responses are well thought out and respectful. Your point on NFL owners brings to light the big grey area of ethical values versus the greed of the business and the lack of transparency that results. Sort of what we see with the tobacco business where human addiction and long term health effects are ignored. I have to be honest and admit, when I look at the Pats under Craft I immediately feel something is super shady. I have no proof, but if they are shady, so might be others. I hate to say it, but if we really knew what is going on behind the scenes we might be looking at the game completely differently, and not pour our heart and soul for any team.
To paraphrase Otto von Bismarck, professional sports leagues are like sausages - it is better not to see them being made.
I agree, my friend. We as fans still see the sport in terms of being "a game," as pure, and value sportsmanship, fair play, etc., but it is big business, and like most, if not all big business, they are rife with politics, corruption, focusing on the bottom line rather than morality or what is "right" or just. Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age, but I think that few business exist any more to "serve" humanity first and foremost, and are content with making a "decent" living. Most want to make every dollar they can and they don't care who they have to hurt, cheat or step on to do it.
I think the only thing that is remotely debatable in your statement is the implication that this has ever not been the case in the US. Unfettered capitalism has ever been thus. Just look at the horrors of the robber baron era - Astor, Carnegie, Gould, Mellon, Morgan, Hearst, Rockefeller, Stanford, Vanderbilt. The country was so awash with money in the post-World War II era that it was possible for business to be a bit less predatory, but as soon as things tightened up in the 1970s such notions pretty much went right out the window. By the 1980s the business ethic was very much that the responsibility of leadership is to shareholders, not to customers or society as a whole. That has certainly been the message in business schools for the past 40 years (I know - I've seen it up close). There have always been and will always be companies that are exceptions to this, but as a general pattern, this is the way it is.
I agree, but I think many were naive about that. I know that I was. That said, some of my father's friends have worked in the insurance industry for 50-60 years, and they say that it has definitely changed. They say that when they were young, more companies were privately owned and customer service was the priority. Over the years those companies became publicly-traded and the priority changed from customer service to servicing the stockholders (pun intended) and the CEOs and screwing the customers.
