Jets have a 21 year old QB with 14 starts under his belt as a rookie. In some regards, his rookie season was better than Peyton Mannings.
And he finished his last quarter of the year with 6 TDs/1INTs, 64% completion %, and a 99 QB rating.
Its early - indeed. But the Jets are a lot closer to solving their long term QB issue than we are.
If you mean long term of mediocrity, then yes, they will have that at QB for the next 5-10 year.s
The Jets have more work to do in terms of adding more parts. They are obviously far from a finished product.
But if you cant see the skill set of Darnold, and it appears you think hes not going to be anything special, than we dont have much to discuss. I think Darnold is a QB to bank on...
Does that mean the Jets arrow is pointing up? Heck, Shurmur is made out to be the worst coach in the league, so wouldn't being marginally better just mean that both teams suck??
When the Rhule thread was going on, you literally had posters saying that the Jets have all their shit together and it will be dark days for Big Blue. They fuck that up completely and now it is still being said.
If the Giants had a shitshow like this, the board would go completely apeshit. Would hold it against Gase and the ownership from the get-go.
Sort of the way some asswipes still treat Gettleman like he's Mara's lackey because of a "fake GM search".
I do truly wonder why some of you miserable fucks continue to watch the team.
Does that mean the Jets arrow is pointing up? Heck, Shurmur is made out to be the worst coach in the league, so wouldn't being marginally better just mean that both teams suck??
When the Rhule thread was going on, you literally had posters saying that the Jets have all their shit together and it will be dark days for Big Blue. They fuck that up completely and now it is still being said.
If the Giants had a shitshow like this, the board would go completely apeshit. Would hold it against Gase and the ownership from the get-go.
Sort of the way some asswipes still treat Gettleman like he's Mara's lackey because of a "fake GM search".
I do truly wonder why some of you miserable fucks continue to watch the team.
In 2 days, it will be 50 years since the Jets SB. Arrow is trembling
So in that regard, the Jets are closer to a brighter future than Jints Central.
Its easy to mock this Gase hire, but we have Shurmur, not Shula (Don).
Barkley isn't your typical running back though. He is a weapon in the passing game as well. I could make the point that Barkley makes it easier to find a qb because he makes their job a lot easier. With Barkley perhaps the other positions can be "good enough". I think he is that good
Are you serious? Guys that that took a legitimate position that he would have been a good pick for the Giants and still believe after his first year that he s going to be pretty dam good, are groupies!
That s pathetic man.
You one of those guys that cant tolerate opposite points of view? Come on, anyone with an ounce of objectivity has to admit Darnold has a chance to be pretty good.
Your wrong though because I wouldve picked a QB myself. I just cant stand all the so called Giants fans who are still obsessed with Darnold.
I disagree. Who has Gase developed? Tim Tebow? Ryan Tannehill? And say what you want about McCarthy, but Aaron Rodgers became a HOF candidate under him. I'm not suggesting that McCarthy had everything to do with that, but why wouldn't he get any credit? At the very least, he didn't screw Rodgers up!
I think Gase is a decent offensive coach, but there is no track record of him developing young QB's.
I disagree. Who has Gase developed? Tim Tebow? Ryan Tannehill? And say what you want about McCarthy, but Aaron Rodgers became a HOF candidate under him. I'm not suggesting that McCarthy had everything to do with that, but why wouldn't he get any credit? At the very least, he didn't screw Rodgers up!
I think Gase is a decent offensive coach, but there is no track record of him developing young QB's.
Who has he had to develop? He was never in a position to pick a QB. He had no say in picking Tebow or Tannehill Tannehill is an average, not great, NFL starter. Tebow wasn't an NFL quarterback. Does anyone think Ryan Tannehill has a bunch of potential a coach just needs to unlock? I'd say he got what he should have got out of Tannehill.
In terms of offensive fit, I just don't think Darnold does anything that fits what McCarthy coaches.
10-6 and went to the playoffs with Tannehill and Matt Moore. His roster in Miami for 3 years was pretty awful and they were mostly competitive. He's a good coach.
is a better HC than Shurmur. Odds are Both will never pan out since to me it seems very difficult to find an NFL head coach who can build a consistent winning program.
Both guys have coached three seasons and Gase has had a winning season and his teams have always cracked five wins. If the Giants win even six next year that is a career year for Shurmur. I know he was With the Browns, but the Giants are like the Browns now so who knows.
It took balls for the Jets to hire Gase. I mean he was just fired by a division rival. One that has been a joke of a franchise for almost two decades now. Most likely outcome is both the Giants and Jets are looking for another coach in two or three years.
Another thing I agree with is it is silly to pick a HC because a QB likes him. The head man needs to set the vision, build the program, manage the culture and make the calls on gameday. I also would not touch a coach who wanted to call the plays. I know some have had success doing it, but I don't think it is a good idea.
This is a ballsy move by the Jets, it will likely fail, but I can appreciate the moxy to bring him in if they think he is the guy.
In 1996 the Yankees hired Torre, I think a headline the next day was Clueless Joe, so media reaction is meaningless if you win.
Barkley isn't your typical running back though. He is a weapon in the passing game as well. I could make the point that Barkley makes it easier to find a qb because he makes their job a lot easier. With Barkley perhaps the other positions can be "good enough". I think he is that good
I dont deny Barkley is special. But, and Ive said this so many times this year that Im on the verge of carpal tunnel syndrome, a team can be just as effective with a player 85-90% of Barkley. And cheaper. Teams are doing it right now. I can find capable running backs on Amazon right now.
As Zeke and Gurley are ready to take the field together - the Cowboys in the playoffs a year after Elliott was suspended and missed time due to injury, they both seem to be pretty damn important to their teams.
How'd LA look with Gurley out? Melvin Gordon makes the Chargers a completely different team when he's in there.
And with immortal QB's like Foles, Bortles, Keenum, Prescott, Mariota and Taylor taking the playoff field in the past two years, maybe Amazon is having a sale there too.
Looks like 85-90% of Rodgers got a few guys into the postseason.
Barkley isn't your typical running back though. He is a weapon in the passing game as well. I could make the point that Barkley makes it easier to find a qb because he makes their job a lot easier. With Barkley perhaps the other positions can be "good enough". I think he is that good
I dont deny Barkley is special. But, and Ive said this so many times this year that Im on the verge of carpal tunnel syndrome, a team can be just as effective with a player 85-90% of Barkley. And cheaper. Teams are doing it right now. I can find capable running backs on Amazon right now.
You are only looking at the situation surface level. Production comes in many forms and is achieved differently. A system rb can certainly churn out production. I would be willing to bet a back like Barkley gets a lot more attention from defenses than your typical amazon Prime rb. That allows other players to make plays. Barkley can beat you so many ways, North south runner, cutback runner, draws not to mention in the passing game. Defenses have to watch out for everything with him. The scary part is if barkley's teammates miss a block or two or three and the defense plays him correctly he is capable of burning them anyway. Look what he did with no qb (your opinion), a bottom ol in his first year at the highest level. He makes it easier to construct a roster, even if he is expensive.
Zeke, Gurley are good examples. Fair examples. Just as one could turn around and point to Jacobs and Bradshaw throwing up crazy rushing years as a committee after Tiki Barber, a singularly great RB retired.
The RB doesn't have to be the MVP. If you have a great line you can create a RB that's good enough to win with too. Hell, Shanahan proved that decades ago.
As Zeke and Gurley are ready to take the field together - the Cowboys in the playoffs a year after Elliott was suspended and missed time due to injury, they both seem to be pretty damn important to their teams.
How'd LA look with Gurley out? Melvin Gordon makes the Chargers a completely different team when he's in there.
And with immortal QB's like Foles, Bortles, Keenum, Prescott, Mariota and Taylor taking the playoff field in the past two years, maybe Amazon is having a sale there too.
Looks like 85-90% of Rodgers got a few guys into the postseason.
Serious question - gun to your head, which model are you going for?
a. Bargain basement RB paired with top tier QB.
b. High priced RB paired with average plus QB.
neither scenario matters unless you know the relative strength of the rest of the team.
With a poor OL and defense, flip a coin. On a team with a great D, I'm probably going with the RB because of the cap implications of the QB. If there's a mediocre D but solid OL, I'm going with the QB
Gun to my head, either scenario will work and either will fail depending on the parts around it.
RE: There's more than one way to get to the playoffs
Zeke, Gurley are good examples. Fair examples. Just as one could turn around and point to Jacobs and Bradshaw throwing up crazy rushing years as a committee after Tiki Barber, a singularly great RB retired.
The RB doesn't have to be the MVP. If you have a great line you can create a RB that's good enough to win with too. Hell, Shanahan proved that decades ago.
It certainly isn't easy to assemble a "great" line in my opinion. Perhaps barkley's ability allows a team the luxury of not needing a great OL.
I do think it's easier to find a collection of good players
that can play great on an OL than it is to find a singularly great QB. Everyone's chasing a QB. The NFL garbage dump is littered with head coaches and GMs who either couldn't find that guy, or thought they had that guy, but really didn't.
You can build a good offensive line if you're willing to spend the draft picks for it. Guards aren't hard to find. Centers aren't hard to find. Right tackles aren't hard to find. And if you're strong at those positions, you can with without a world beater at LT.
If you don't fall into the trap of "Well he's really good, but is a C or Guard good value as a top 10 pick", you can have a great line. That's a separate debate to me, but if its a choice between a dominant OL and an exceptional RB, I think I'd want the OL. It affects so much and so many other areas of the team to a higher extent than just the RB.
Does that mean the Jets arrow is pointing up? Heck, Shurmur is made out to be the worst coach in the league, so wouldn't being marginally better just mean that both teams suck??
When the Rhule thread was going on, you literally had posters saying that the Jets have all their shit together and it will be dark days for Big Blue. They fuck that up completely and now it is still being said.
If the Giants had a shitshow like this, the board would go completely apeshit. Would hold it against Gase and the ownership from the get-go.
Sort of the way some asswipes still treat Gettleman like he's Mara's lackey because of a "fake GM search".
I do truly wonder why some of you miserable fucks continue to watch the team.
In 3 years as HC Gase went 10-6 (I guess he wasn't on the Shurmur plan on year 1), 6-10, and 7-9. Not great, but all better than Shurmur has ever reached.
And remember, the only reason Shurmur is still the coach is "you don't fire a coach after 1 year". That's the only thing going for him to this point.
As for why still follow the Giants, that's what being a fan is. I'm a Mets fan too, so I know what a poorly run team looks like. But what can I do, switch to being a Yankee fan in baseball and an Eagle fan in football? Unthinkable, obviously, so I'm stuck. My hope with the Giants is they'll snap out out of this. I have no such hope with the Mets, but you can't switch, so what can you do?
that can play great on an OL than it is to find a singularly great QB. Everyone's chasing a QB. The NFL garbage dump is littered with head coaches and GMs who either couldn't find that guy, or thought they had that guy, but really didn't.
You can build a good offensive line if you're willing to spend the draft picks for it. Guards aren't hard to find. Centers aren't hard to find. Right tackles aren't hard to find. And if you're strong at those positions, you can with without a world beater at LT.
If you don't fall into the trap of "Well he's really good, but is a C or Guard good value as a top 10 pick", you can have a great line. That's a separate debate to me, but if its a choice between a dominant OL and an exceptional RB, I think I'd want the OL. It affects so much and so many other areas of the team to a higher extent than just the RB.
My whole point is I believe Barkley is good enough to not need a great qb or great OL. If you can get those things then great, but I'm not sure it's needed. A good qb, a decent run blocking OL with Barkley would be a pot for defenses to ha've in my opinion
and one can still have better results than the other. There is an in between. Pat Shurmur's never had a winning season. If not for playing some tomato can backup QBs, he might not even have 5 wins THIS season.
And it's not like Gase has been blessed with star studded talent at any level of the roster.
neither scenario matters unless you know the relative strength of the rest of the team.
With a poor OL and defense, flip a coin. On a team with a great D, I'm probably going with the RB because of the cap implications of the QB. If there's a mediocre D but solid OL, I'm going with the QB
Gun to my head, either scenario will work and either will fail depending on the parts around it.
I don't think you need to know the other variables to make a choice.
Here is what you know - long term consistency and competitiveness in this league is directly correlated, largely, to having a great QB. I struggle to recall a team that has been consistently good without a top tier QB. Maybe the Chiefs under Schottenheimer?
It's not 100% guaranteed, but it's your greatest odds for that type of sustained success. So you want to solve for that most important X.
You can't win the SB unless you make it to the tournament. So I want the greatest number of shots to get to that tournament. That's what the great QB model creates.
By most accounts on BBI, especially this year, Rives is one of the best QB's in the league and he missed the playoffs 7 out of 8 years.
The times he's made the playoffs has predominantly been with a top RB
How many times with Calvin Johnson and no RB did Stafford make the playoffs?
The two top correlations to making the playoffs remain overall defense ranking and overall team health. The fortunes of even the great QB's rest on those variables too.
Does that mean the Jets arrow is pointing up? Heck, Shurmur is made out to be the worst coach in the league, so wouldn't being marginally better just mean that both teams suck??
When the Rhule thread was going on, you literally had posters saying that the Jets have all their shit together and it will be dark days for Big Blue. They fuck that up completely and now it is still being said.
If the Giants had a shitshow like this, the board would go completely apeshit. Would hold it against Gase and the ownership from the get-go.
Sort of the way some asswipes still treat Gettleman like he's Mara's lackey because of a "fake GM search".
I do truly wonder why some of you miserable fucks continue to watch the team.
In 3 years as HC Gase went 10-6 (I guess he wasn't on the Shurmur plan on year 1), 6-10, and 7-9. Not great, but all better than Shurmur has ever reached.
And remember, the only reason Shurmur is still the coach is "you don't fire a coach after 1 year". That's the only thing going for him to this point.
As for why still follow the Giants, that's what being a fan is. I'm a Mets fan too, so I know what a poorly run team looks like. But what can I do, switch to being a Yankee fan in baseball and an Eagle fan in football? Unthinkable, obviously, so I'm stuck. My hope with the Giants is they'll snap out out of this. I have no such hope with the Mets, but you can't switch, so what can you do?
Didn't you switch from being a NJRB guy to a Timbers guy?
Typical Jets, how they can blow this one is amazing, you have a proven Super Bowl winning head coach saying he wants to come here and they ignore it. They deserve everything that happens to them.
I mean, if they wanted a retread, McCarthy has the pelt on the wall and is a proven, if uninspired, hire. He would have worked with Darnold and brought stability and respectability to the Jets.
Rhule seemed like a promising hire - at least from what it showed his one year with the Giants.
But Gase? What's he ever done? In Denver (his claim to fame), Peyton installed the offense and called the plays. What did Gase actually do there?
He did nothing in Miami. Whoever said earlier "this would be like the Giants hiring Jay Gruden" was spot on, except Jay Gruden has actually done more in the league than Gase has.
RE: There's more than one way to get to the playoffs
Zeke, Gurley are good examples. Fair examples. Just as one could turn around and point to Jacobs and Bradshaw throwing up crazy rushing years as a committee after Tiki Barber, a singularly great RB retired.
The RB doesn't have to be the MVP. If you have a great line you can create a RB that's good enough to win with too. Hell, Shanahan proved that decades ago.
I mostly agree with you, but Shanahan is a bit of an asterisk to the argument. Sure, Shanahan could manufacture 100 yard rushers out of thin air, but he only won the Superbowl with Terrell Davis - who was the only RB special enough to crack 2,000 in the Shanahan system.
Does that mean the Jets arrow is pointing up? Heck, Shurmur is made out to be the worst coach in the league, so wouldn't being marginally better just mean that both teams suck??
When the Rhule thread was going on, you literally had posters saying that the Jets have all their shit together and it will be dark days for Big Blue. They fuck that up completely and now it is still being said.
If the Giants had a shitshow like this, the board would go completely apeshit. Would hold it against Gase and the ownership from the get-go.
Sort of the way some asswipes still treat Gettleman like he's Mara's lackey because of a "fake GM search".
I do truly wonder why some of you miserable fucks continue to watch the team.
In 3 years as HC Gase went 10-6 (I guess he wasn't on the Shurmur plan on year 1), 6-10, and 7-9. Not great, but all better than Shurmur has ever reached.
And remember, the only reason Shurmur is still the coach is "you don't fire a coach after 1 year". That's the only thing going for him to this point.
As for why still follow the Giants, that's what being a fan is. I'm a Mets fan too, so I know what a poorly run team looks like. But what can I do, switch to being a Yankee fan in baseball and an Eagle fan in football? Unthinkable, obviously, so I'm stuck. My hope with the Giants is they'll snap out out of this. I have no such hope with the Mets, but you can't switch, so what can you do?
Don't take this the wrong way, i don't see the point of your fanhood. Are you waiting for the team to be 13-3 before you're happy? You won't even allow the slightest bit of happiness if someone performs well because the team lost?
What can you do? Fall in love with the journey. This is what being a fan is. I'm young btw. I am only really used to the Giants performing well. I never envisioned them going downhill as they did. But why complain about it? Why not just have faith in the team? They have proven when they make mistakes, they figure it out. Some teams never do. The Giants do. It make time. It may take failure. Isn't that life though?
You've already determined Gettleman and Shurmur are not right for the job. In your mind, this team is doomed until they make a switch. Why come on here and reiterate this point ad nauseum? Everyone knows hows you stand, and everyone is very aware of the possibility they may fail.
But why focus on that? Why not focus on the fact we had a great draft? That team cancers are gone? What if we have 3 stellar drafts in a row and the roster turns around, but Shurmur leaves? Is the sky falling? We have a good nucleus of young players right now. Why is that so hard to admit? No, it doesn't mean we'll be good in 2 years. It also doesn't mean the sky is falling.
The possibility of failure is very apparent. You acknowledge it all the time and it seems like you feel others ignore it. I don't think that is the case. People just don't feel the need to bring it up all the time.
not only are we told ad nauseum that the team sucks, when it was posted that the Jets signed Rhule as their coach, we were treated to the admonishment that the Jets know how to run things while the Giants will continue to suck.
Then, after they fuck it up and sign Gase, not only is that statement not backtracked on, it is still considered that the hired a good coach.
Meanwhile, Gettleman who has been a proven winner everywhere he's been is lambasted for the way he was hired, his age and everything else under the sun.
not only are we told ad nauseum that the team sucks, when it was posted that the Jets signed Rhule as their coach, we were treated to the admonishment that the Jets know how to run things while the Giants will continue to suck.
Then, after they fuck it up and sign Gase, not only is that statement not backtracked on, it is still considered that the hired a good coach.
Meanwhile, Gettleman who has been a proven winner everywhere he's been is lambasted for the way he was hired, his age and everything else under the sun.
not only are we told ad nauseum that the team sucks, when it was posted that the Jets signed Rhule as their coach, we were treated to the admonishment that the Jets know how to run things while the Giants will continue to suck.
Then, after they fuck it up and sign Gase, not only is that statement not backtracked on, it is still considered that the hired a good coach.
Meanwhile, Gettleman who has been a proven winner everywhere he's been is lambasted for the way he was hired, his age and everything else under the sun.
B.J. Hill was a 3rd round pick defensive tackle. He had 5.5 sacks. Will he be an all pro? Probably not. Is that a reason for a fan not to be happy a rookie defensive tackle had 5.5 sacks? How many draft pundits screaming about B.J. Hill?
...and FMiC, i like Rhule but he needs time. I like his demeanor, i like that wasn't he afraid of the Baylor job. A lot of NFL executives like him too. He is the leader of men that many clamor for.
But in hindsight, i think the Jets were smart to demand some say on his staff. I don't think he has the connections yet. Needs some seasoning. I'm keeping an eye on his QB, Charlie Brewer. Junior next year who looked real impressive against Vandy.
RE: RE: There's more than one way to get to the playoffs
Zeke, Gurley are good examples. Fair examples. Just as one could turn around and point to Jacobs and Bradshaw throwing up crazy rushing years as a committee after Tiki Barber, a singularly great RB retired.
The RB doesn't have to be the MVP. If you have a great line you can create a RB that's good enough to win with too. Hell, Shanahan proved that decades ago.
I mostly agree with you, but Shanahan is a bit of an asterisk to the argument. Sure, Shanahan could manufacture 100 yard rushers out of thin air, but he only won the Superbowl with Terrell Davis - who was the only RB special enough to crack 2,000 in the Shanahan system.
Even leaving out Terrell Davis, that offensive scheme has churned out thousand yard rushers year after year after year with varying levels of RB talent You know what you're getting when you run that scheme.
In 2008 when the Giants were steamrolling the league on the ground, they featured two 1000+ yard rushers on the same team.
Great players can be great players. Anyone denying Barkley's talent is a knucklehead. But to sit here and suggest that's a must have to win anything, it's just not honest. You can win plenty of ways. Jamal Lewis rushed for 2000 yards one season. He doesn't have a fraction of Barkley's talent. He didn't need to.
Jets have a 21 year old QB with 14 starts under his belt as a rookie. In some regards, his rookie season was better than Peyton Mannings.
And he finished his last quarter of the year with 6 TDs/1INTs, 64% completion %, and a 99 QB rating.
Its early - indeed. But the Jets are a lot closer to solving their long term QB issue than we are.
If you mean long term of mediocrity, then yes, they will have that at QB for the next 5-10 year.s
The Jets have more work to do in terms of adding more parts. They are obviously far from a finished product.
But if you cant see the skill set of Darnold, and it appears you think hes not going to be anything special, than we dont have much to discuss. I think Darnold is a QB to bank on...
Does that mean the Jets arrow is pointing up? Heck, Shurmur is made out to be the worst coach in the league, so wouldn't being marginally better just mean that both teams suck??
When the Rhule thread was going on, you literally had posters saying that the Jets have all their shit together and it will be dark days for Big Blue. They fuck that up completely and now it is still being said.
If the Giants had a shitshow like this, the board would go completely apeshit. Would hold it against Gase and the ownership from the get-go.
Sort of the way some asswipes still treat Gettleman like he's Mara's lackey because of a "fake GM search".
I do truly wonder why some of you miserable fucks continue to watch the team.
Does that mean the Jets arrow is pointing up? Heck, Shurmur is made out to be the worst coach in the league, so wouldn't being marginally better just mean that both teams suck??
When the Rhule thread was going on, you literally had posters saying that the Jets have all their shit together and it will be dark days for Big Blue. They fuck that up completely and now it is still being said.
If the Giants had a shitshow like this, the board would go completely apeshit. Would hold it against Gase and the ownership from the get-go.
Sort of the way some asswipes still treat Gettleman like he's Mara's lackey because of a "fake GM search".
I do truly wonder why some of you miserable fucks continue to watch the team.
In 2 days, it will be 50 years since the Jets SB. Arrow is trembling
So in that regard, the Jets are closer to a brighter future than Jints Central.
Its easy to mock this Gase hire, but we have Shurmur, not Shula (Don).
Barkley isn't your typical running back though. He is a weapon in the passing game as well. I could make the point that Barkley makes it easier to find a qb because he makes their job a lot easier. With Barkley perhaps the other positions can be "good enough". I think he is that good
If Chip Kelly or Jay Gruden were to be here would people be excited?
Just another case of people acting like other franchises are doing the right things and we just suck the tit of a decrepit nun.
That s pathetic man.
You one of those guys that cant tolerate opposite points of view? Come on, anyone with an ounce of objectivity has to admit Darnold has a chance to be pretty good.
Your wrong though because I wouldve picked a QB myself. I just cant stand all the so called Giants fans who are still obsessed with Darnold.
I disagree. Who has Gase developed? Tim Tebow? Ryan Tannehill? And say what you want about McCarthy, but Aaron Rodgers became a HOF candidate under him. I'm not suggesting that McCarthy had everything to do with that, but why wouldn't he get any credit? At the very least, he didn't screw Rodgers up!
I think Gase is a decent offensive coach, but there is no track record of him developing young QB's.
Their arrow is pointing up though...
- They do have some good players
- They have TONS of cap space going into free agency.
- High draft picks.
- They have a young QB with some potential.
Quote:
.
I disagree. Who has Gase developed? Tim Tebow? Ryan Tannehill? And say what you want about McCarthy, but Aaron Rodgers became a HOF candidate under him. I'm not suggesting that McCarthy had everything to do with that, but why wouldn't he get any credit? At the very least, he didn't screw Rodgers up!
I think Gase is a decent offensive coach, but there is no track record of him developing young QB's.
Who has he had to develop? He was never in a position to pick a QB. He had no say in picking Tebow or Tannehill Tannehill is an average, not great, NFL starter. Tebow wasn't an NFL quarterback. Does anyone think Ryan Tannehill has a bunch of potential a coach just needs to unlock? I'd say he got what he should have got out of Tannehill.
In terms of offensive fit, I just don't think Darnold does anything that fits what McCarthy coaches.
He was all-in on McCarthy, wanted no part of Gase. Wonder how much time Roberts will need to spend talking him off the ledge?
Both guys have coached three seasons and Gase has had a winning season and his teams have always cracked five wins. If the Giants win even six next year that is a career year for Shurmur. I know he was With the Browns, but the Giants are like the Browns now so who knows.
It took balls for the Jets to hire Gase. I mean he was just fired by a division rival. One that has been a joke of a franchise for almost two decades now. Most likely outcome is both the Giants and Jets are looking for another coach in two or three years.
Another thing I agree with is it is silly to pick a HC because a QB likes him. The head man needs to set the vision, build the program, manage the culture and make the calls on gameday. I also would not touch a coach who wanted to call the plays. I know some have had success doing it, but I don't think it is a good idea.
This is a ballsy move by the Jets, it will likely fail, but I can appreciate the moxy to bring him in if they think he is the guy.
In 1996 the Yankees hired Torre, I think a headline the next day was Clueless Joe, so media reaction is meaningless if you win.
Quote:
they were not going to give Rhule control over his staff & he backed out. If the Giants flounder in 19, I could see Rhule coaching the Giants.
Are you fucking retarded? I keep seeing you say retarded things.
Out of line on so many levels.
Barkley isn't your typical running back though. He is a weapon in the passing game as well. I could make the point that Barkley makes it easier to find a qb because he makes their job a lot easier. With Barkley perhaps the other positions can be "good enough". I think he is that good
I dont deny Barkley is special. But, and Ive said this so many times this year that Im on the verge of carpal tunnel syndrome, a team can be just as effective with a player 85-90% of Barkley. And cheaper. Teams are doing it right now. I can find capable running backs on Amazon right now.
As Zeke and Gurley are ready to take the field together - the Cowboys in the playoffs a year after Elliott was suspended and missed time due to injury, they both seem to be pretty damn important to their teams.
How'd LA look with Gurley out? Melvin Gordon makes the Chargers a completely different team when he's in there.
And with immortal QB's like Foles, Bortles, Keenum, Prescott, Mariota and Taylor taking the playoff field in the past two years, maybe Amazon is having a sale there too.
Looks like 85-90% of Rodgers got a few guys into the postseason.
Quote:
Barkley isn't your typical running back though. He is a weapon in the passing game as well. I could make the point that Barkley makes it easier to find a qb because he makes their job a lot easier. With Barkley perhaps the other positions can be "good enough". I think he is that good
I dont deny Barkley is special. But, and Ive said this so many times this year that Im on the verge of carpal tunnel syndrome, a team can be just as effective with a player 85-90% of Barkley. And cheaper. Teams are doing it right now. I can find capable running backs on Amazon right now.
You are only looking at the situation surface level. Production comes in many forms and is achieved differently. A system rb can certainly churn out production. I would be willing to bet a back like Barkley gets a lot more attention from defenses than your typical amazon Prime rb. That allows other players to make plays. Barkley can beat you so many ways, North south runner, cutback runner, draws not to mention in the passing game. Defenses have to watch out for everything with him. The scary part is if barkley's teammates miss a block or two or three and the defense plays him correctly he is capable of burning them anyway. Look what he did with no qb (your opinion), a bottom ol in his first year at the highest level. He makes it easier to construct a roster, even if he is expensive.
The RB doesn't have to be the MVP. If you have a great line you can create a RB that's good enough to win with too. Hell, Shanahan proved that decades ago.
As Zeke and Gurley are ready to take the field together - the Cowboys in the playoffs a year after Elliott was suspended and missed time due to injury, they both seem to be pretty damn important to their teams.
How'd LA look with Gurley out? Melvin Gordon makes the Chargers a completely different team when he's in there.
And with immortal QB's like Foles, Bortles, Keenum, Prescott, Mariota and Taylor taking the playoff field in the past two years, maybe Amazon is having a sale there too.
Looks like 85-90% of Rodgers got a few guys into the postseason.
Serious question - gun to your head, which model are you going for?
a. Bargain basement RB paired with top tier QB.
b. High priced RB paired with average plus QB.
With a poor OL and defense, flip a coin. On a team with a great D, I'm probably going with the RB because of the cap implications of the QB. If there's a mediocre D but solid OL, I'm going with the QB
Gun to my head, either scenario will work and either will fail depending on the parts around it.
The RB doesn't have to be the MVP. If you have a great line you can create a RB that's good enough to win with too. Hell, Shanahan proved that decades ago.
It certainly isn't easy to assemble a "great" line in my opinion. Perhaps barkley's ability allows a team the luxury of not needing a great OL.
You can build a good offensive line if you're willing to spend the draft picks for it. Guards aren't hard to find. Centers aren't hard to find. Right tackles aren't hard to find. And if you're strong at those positions, you can with without a world beater at LT.
If you don't fall into the trap of "Well he's really good, but is a C or Guard good value as a top 10 pick", you can have a great line. That's a separate debate to me, but if its a choice between a dominant OL and an exceptional RB, I think I'd want the OL. It affects so much and so many other areas of the team to a higher extent than just the RB.
Quote:
With prior head coaching experience since 1997.
1999 if you count Bill
Heard this 1000 times today, it's wrong
It is technically wrong since Bowles was an interim HC for three games with Miami.
How do you pass up McCarthy for Gase???
Does that mean the Jets arrow is pointing up? Heck, Shurmur is made out to be the worst coach in the league, so wouldn't being marginally better just mean that both teams suck??
When the Rhule thread was going on, you literally had posters saying that the Jets have all their shit together and it will be dark days for Big Blue. They fuck that up completely and now it is still being said.
If the Giants had a shitshow like this, the board would go completely apeshit. Would hold it against Gase and the ownership from the get-go.
Sort of the way some asswipes still treat Gettleman like he's Mara's lackey because of a "fake GM search".
I do truly wonder why some of you miserable fucks continue to watch the team.
In 3 years as HC Gase went 10-6 (I guess he wasn't on the Shurmur plan on year 1), 6-10, and 7-9. Not great, but all better than Shurmur has ever reached.
And remember, the only reason Shurmur is still the coach is "you don't fire a coach after 1 year". That's the only thing going for him to this point.
As for why still follow the Giants, that's what being a fan is. I'm a Mets fan too, so I know what a poorly run team looks like. But what can I do, switch to being a Yankee fan in baseball and an Eagle fan in football? Unthinkable, obviously, so I'm stuck. My hope with the Giants is they'll snap out out of this. I have no such hope with the Mets, but you can't switch, so what can you do?
You can build a good offensive line if you're willing to spend the draft picks for it. Guards aren't hard to find. Centers aren't hard to find. Right tackles aren't hard to find. And if you're strong at those positions, you can with without a world beater at LT.
If you don't fall into the trap of "Well he's really good, but is a C or Guard good value as a top 10 pick", you can have a great line. That's a separate debate to me, but if its a choice between a dominant OL and an exceptional RB, I think I'd want the OL. It affects so much and so many other areas of the team to a higher extent than just the RB.
My whole point is I believe Barkley is good enough to not need a great qb or great OL. If you can get those things then great, but I'm not sure it's needed. A good qb, a decent run blocking OL with Barkley would be a pot for defenses to ha've in my opinion
And it's not like Gase has been blessed with star studded talent at any level of the roster.
Both could end up being career coordinators.
LOL. Breaking news, folks.
NYP: BENINGO GOES OFF ON GASE COACHING HIRE - ( New Window )
With a poor OL and defense, flip a coin. On a team with a great D, I'm probably going with the RB because of the cap implications of the QB. If there's a mediocre D but solid OL, I'm going with the QB
Gun to my head, either scenario will work and either will fail depending on the parts around it.
I don't think you need to know the other variables to make a choice.
Here is what you know - long term consistency and competitiveness in this league is directly correlated, largely, to having a great QB. I struggle to recall a team that has been consistently good without a top tier QB. Maybe the Chiefs under Schottenheimer?
It's not 100% guaranteed, but it's your greatest odds for that type of sustained success. So you want to solve for that most important X.
You can't win the SB unless you make it to the tournament. So I want the greatest number of shots to get to that tournament. That's what the great QB model creates.
By most accounts on BBI, especially this year, Rives is one of the best QB's in the league and he missed the playoffs 7 out of 8 years.
The times he's made the playoffs has predominantly been with a top RB
How many times with Calvin Johnson and no RB did Stafford make the playoffs?
The two top correlations to making the playoffs remain overall defense ranking and overall team health. The fortunes of even the great QB's rest on those variables too.
Quote:
Gase is better than Shurmur!
Does that mean the Jets arrow is pointing up? Heck, Shurmur is made out to be the worst coach in the league, so wouldn't being marginally better just mean that both teams suck??
When the Rhule thread was going on, you literally had posters saying that the Jets have all their shit together and it will be dark days for Big Blue. They fuck that up completely and now it is still being said.
If the Giants had a shitshow like this, the board would go completely apeshit. Would hold it against Gase and the ownership from the get-go.
Sort of the way some asswipes still treat Gettleman like he's Mara's lackey because of a "fake GM search".
I do truly wonder why some of you miserable fucks continue to watch the team.
In 3 years as HC Gase went 10-6 (I guess he wasn't on the Shurmur plan on year 1), 6-10, and 7-9. Not great, but all better than Shurmur has ever reached.
And remember, the only reason Shurmur is still the coach is "you don't fire a coach after 1 year". That's the only thing going for him to this point.
As for why still follow the Giants, that's what being a fan is. I'm a Mets fan too, so I know what a poorly run team looks like. But what can I do, switch to being a Yankee fan in baseball and an Eagle fan in football? Unthinkable, obviously, so I'm stuck. My hope with the Giants is they'll snap out out of this. I have no such hope with the Mets, but you can't switch, so what can you do?
Didn't you switch from being a NJRB guy to a Timbers guy?
Rhule seemed like a promising hire - at least from what it showed his one year with the Giants.
But Gase? What's he ever done? In Denver (his claim to fame), Peyton installed the offense and called the plays. What did Gase actually do there?
He did nothing in Miami. Whoever said earlier "this would be like the Giants hiring Jay Gruden" was spot on, except Jay Gruden has actually done more in the league than Gase has.
The RB doesn't have to be the MVP. If you have a great line you can create a RB that's good enough to win with too. Hell, Shanahan proved that decades ago.
I mostly agree with you, but Shanahan is a bit of an asterisk to the argument. Sure, Shanahan could manufacture 100 yard rushers out of thin air, but he only won the Superbowl with Terrell Davis - who was the only RB special enough to crack 2,000 in the Shanahan system.
Quote:
Gase is better than Shurmur!
Does that mean the Jets arrow is pointing up? Heck, Shurmur is made out to be the worst coach in the league, so wouldn't being marginally better just mean that both teams suck??
When the Rhule thread was going on, you literally had posters saying that the Jets have all their shit together and it will be dark days for Big Blue. They fuck that up completely and now it is still being said.
If the Giants had a shitshow like this, the board would go completely apeshit. Would hold it against Gase and the ownership from the get-go.
Sort of the way some asswipes still treat Gettleman like he's Mara's lackey because of a "fake GM search".
I do truly wonder why some of you miserable fucks continue to watch the team.
In 3 years as HC Gase went 10-6 (I guess he wasn't on the Shurmur plan on year 1), 6-10, and 7-9. Not great, but all better than Shurmur has ever reached.
And remember, the only reason Shurmur is still the coach is "you don't fire a coach after 1 year". That's the only thing going for him to this point.
As for why still follow the Giants, that's what being a fan is. I'm a Mets fan too, so I know what a poorly run team looks like. But what can I do, switch to being a Yankee fan in baseball and an Eagle fan in football? Unthinkable, obviously, so I'm stuck. My hope with the Giants is they'll snap out out of this. I have no such hope with the Mets, but you can't switch, so what can you do?
Don't take this the wrong way, i don't see the point of your fanhood. Are you waiting for the team to be 13-3 before you're happy? You won't even allow the slightest bit of happiness if someone performs well because the team lost?
What can you do? Fall in love with the journey. This is what being a fan is. I'm young btw. I am only really used to the Giants performing well. I never envisioned them going downhill as they did. But why complain about it? Why not just have faith in the team? They have proven when they make mistakes, they figure it out. Some teams never do. The Giants do. It make time. It may take failure. Isn't that life though?
You've already determined Gettleman and Shurmur are not right for the job. In your mind, this team is doomed until they make a switch. Why come on here and reiterate this point ad nauseum? Everyone knows hows you stand, and everyone is very aware of the possibility they may fail.
But why focus on that? Why not focus on the fact we had a great draft? That team cancers are gone? What if we have 3 stellar drafts in a row and the roster turns around, but Shurmur leaves? Is the sky falling? We have a good nucleus of young players right now. Why is that so hard to admit? No, it doesn't mean we'll be good in 2 years. It also doesn't mean the sky is falling.
The possibility of failure is very apparent. You acknowledge it all the time and it seems like you feel others ignore it. I don't think that is the case. People just don't feel the need to bring it up all the time.
Then, after they fuck it up and sign Gase, not only is that statement not backtracked on, it is still considered that the hired a good coach.
Meanwhile, Gettleman who has been a proven winner everywhere he's been is lambasted for the way he was hired, his age and everything else under the sun.
Learned a lot about Matt Rhule when he was an assistant offensive line coach? What?
Then, after they fuck it up and sign Gase, not only is that statement not backtracked on, it is still considered that the hired a good coach.
Meanwhile, Gettleman who has been a proven winner everywhere he's been is lambasted for the way he was hired, his age and everything else under the sun.
Who are you even talking about?
Then, after they fuck it up and sign Gase, not only is that statement not backtracked on, it is still considered that the hired a good coach.
Meanwhile, Gettleman who has been a proven winner everywhere he's been is lambasted for the way he was hired, his age and everything else under the sun.
B.J. Hill was a 3rd round pick defensive tackle. He had 5.5 sacks. Will he be an all pro? Probably not. Is that a reason for a fan not to be happy a rookie defensive tackle had 5.5 sacks? How many draft pundits screaming about B.J. Hill?
...and FMiC, i like Rhule but he needs time. I like his demeanor, i like that wasn't he afraid of the Baylor job. A lot of NFL executives like him too. He is the leader of men that many clamor for.
But in hindsight, i think the Jets were smart to demand some say on his staff. I don't think he has the connections yet. Needs some seasoning. I'm keeping an eye on his QB, Charlie Brewer. Junior next year who looked real impressive against Vandy.
Quote:
Zeke, Gurley are good examples. Fair examples. Just as one could turn around and point to Jacobs and Bradshaw throwing up crazy rushing years as a committee after Tiki Barber, a singularly great RB retired.
The RB doesn't have to be the MVP. If you have a great line you can create a RB that's good enough to win with too. Hell, Shanahan proved that decades ago.
I mostly agree with you, but Shanahan is a bit of an asterisk to the argument. Sure, Shanahan could manufacture 100 yard rushers out of thin air, but he only won the Superbowl with Terrell Davis - who was the only RB special enough to crack 2,000 in the Shanahan system.
Even leaving out Terrell Davis, that offensive scheme has churned out thousand yard rushers year after year after year with varying levels of RB talent You know what you're getting when you run that scheme.
In 2008 when the Giants were steamrolling the league on the ground, they featured two 1000+ yard rushers on the same team.
Great players can be great players. Anyone denying Barkley's talent is a knucklehead. But to sit here and suggest that's a must have to win anything, it's just not honest. You can win plenty of ways. Jamal Lewis rushed for 2000 yards one season. He doesn't have a fraction of Barkley's talent. He didn't need to.