Nix vs. Whaley, the final showdown

[The Big Cat]

That's what you came up with and you actually posted it? Well I'm convinced.

 

Yours is a special kind of belief perseverance.

 

Can always rely on you guys to add value wherever you strike.

[Jauronimo]

 

Can always rely on you guys to add value wherever you strike.

By adding value do you mean posting baseless speculations and then clutching at straws trying to defend my tenuous positions? Or are you referring to posting flippant nonsense and then taking all comers rather than retract? Do I add value by turning every thread into me vs the board?

 

I know you have a lot invested in these pages and what's left of your ego is riding on having the last word, but I wouldn't confuse your efforts lately with value add.

[The Big Cat]

By adding value do you mean posting baseless speculations and then clutching at straws trying to defend my tenuous positions? Or are you referring to posting flippant nonsense and then taking all comers rather than retract? Do I add value by turning every thread into me vs the board?

 

I know you have a lot invested in these pages and what's left of your ego is riding on having the last word, but I wouldn't confuse your efforts lately with value add.

 

You keeping using words like "baseless" and "specious" and "flippant" and "nonsense" as if just running counter to conventional wisdom and notions that 100% reasonable (that the HC would have a major say on his third overall pick and the largest contract in league history--and those links each show that he did) is all that takes.

 

Appreciate your concern for my ego. I assure you, no concern is necessary.

[Jauronimo]

 

You keeping using words like "baseless" and "specious" and "flippant" and "nonsense" as if just running counter to conventional wisdom and notions that 100% reasonable (that the HC would have a major say on his third overall pick and the largest contract in league history--and those links each show that he did) is all that takes.

 

Appreciate your concern for my ego. I assure you, no concern is necessary.

Ideas which are reasonable or plausible but otherwise unsupportable (i.e., ostensible) when used as the basis of forming a specific opinion is the definition of specious reasoning.

 

Those links demonstrate nothing on which to base a credible opinion as to degree of influence Gailey had in drafting Dareus or signing Mario. Yet you believe it true and can't accept that your argument is horribly flawed and its all because of your fragile ego. You built your opinion on specious reasoning and now you're trying to back fill that hollow shell of an argument with any and all links involving "Gailey" + "Dareus" + "Mario" and its obvious.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jauronimo

[The Big Cat]

Ideas which are reasonable or plausible but otherwise unsupportable (i.e., ostensible) when used as the basis of forming a specific opinion is the definition of specious reasoning.

 

Those links demonstrate nothing on which to base a credible opinion as to degree of influence Gailey had in drafting Dareus or signing Mario. Yet you believe it true and can't accept that your argument is horribly flawed and its all because of your fragile ego.

 

Yes they do. You're just being beligerent. I can't and won't help you further.

 

If you want to carry on believing the HC had no input on the no. 3 overall pick and the largest contract in league history, knock yourself out. In every sense. Please.

[FireChan]

Marrone urged Whaley to take EJ, you know. He said he talked to him about the offense and stuff. Whaley is free from the burden.

 

Yes they do. You're just being beligerent. I can't and won't help you further.

 

If you want to carry on believing the HC had no input on the no. 3 overall pick and the largest contract in league history, knock yourself out. In every sense. Please.

Straw man city, population you, bro.

Edited April 13, 2016 by FireChan

[The Big Cat]

Marrone urged Whaley to take EJ, you know. He said he talked to him about the offense and stuff. Whaley is free from the burden.

 

 

I don't think strawman means what you think it means.

[Jauronimo]

 

Yes they do. You're just being beligerent. I can't and won't help you further.

 

If you want to carry on believing the HC had no input on the no. 3 overall pick and the largest contract in league history, knock yourself out. In every sense. Please.

 

Who said no involvement? Cute attempt to shift the goal posts though.

 

I have no intention of pulling a Big Cat and vainly advancing arguments which are unsupportable by what was reported, which is why I'm not going to opine as to what level of influence Gailey had on the Dareus pick or Mario signing. In the absence of compelling evidence either way, I believe its most defendable that Gailey was not that involved. Especially when comparing to the Spiller pick for which we know he advocated.

 

Your original point was that Gailey was involved in the Dareus pick and Mario signing like Rex was in signing Taylor. Compare the garbage you linked to with the below and then tell me again that you think the arguments are of equal merit. I'm sure you will.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25229222/rex-ryan-hand-picked-tyrod-taylor-wanted-him-with-jets

[FireChan]

 

I don't think strawman means what you think it means.

Really? Shifting the argument to "Gailey had no involvement," to beat up on and easily refute is the definition of a straw man. Stick to out arguing 12 post count guys.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

your comment on Brown and Miller are really quite on point for me. Regardless of the subject at hand.

 

yep and nope

 

But I'm not dead yet ! bonk...

 

Have at you then !

 

i wonder what " I'm done here" really means ? because it does not seem to mean what i thought it meant.

 

Perhaps the meaning i have misunderstood, or perhaps been mislead to its true meaning is not the meaning i meant it to mean.

 

Meaningless i suppose, as the meaning intended was possibly never met although intended.

Meant well i guess

 

so you are wounded then?

Only a flesh wound there be no need to bring out our dead. Me mother was a hamster you see, we're survivors.

[Manther]

Marrone urged Whaley to take EJ, you know. He said he talked to him about the offense and stuff. Whaley is free from the burden.

 

Straw man city, population you, bro.

Is this Rex? He talked to him about the offense and stuff?

[Sisyphean Bills]

Nix was a scout. That is what he had been all his post-coaching career - he was not an admin guy. They brought Whaley in to assist him because they had just hired a 70 year old General Manager, you didn't have to been a genius to see that was not a long term move. The idea was hire one of the brightest young football minds out there and groom him as the successor.

 

There was nothing more to it than that.

 

 

An interesting point that struck me when commenting on the "worst recent draft moves" thread was that Gailey's influence was part of the reason I think the Bills shied away from taking a young Quarterback while Fitz was here. Gailey was pretty committed to Fitz as his starter.... I am not sure Chan was great at handling big personalities and a QB controversy would not have suited him.

 

There is an irony in your points about Nix and Whaley. Who hires a guy who has never held a position to "coach up" someone who has never held the position either? Maybe the thought process was more that with two greenhorns, the chances were better one of them would put the saddle on the horse the right way?

 

Chan's biggest flaw is his borderline masochistic disposition to see the good in any random stiff QB. He will grind and grind and grind away trying to turn every piece of tin he has at hand into gold. I'm actually wondering if he is telling people inside the Jets organization that he can fix Geno. I do think Chan is capable of wringing every last drop of production out of random stiffs at the QB position. It would be interesting to see him work with an elite talent at the position. What would happen if Chan tried to develop an Andrew Luck instead of the Tyler Thigpens?

 

Corollary: when Chan Gailey gives up on a QB, one might as well stick a fork in the guy. Trentative, here's one for you.

[Nihilarian]

 

There is an irony in your points about Nix and Whaley. Who hires a guy who has never held a position to "coach up" someone who has never held the position either? Maybe the thought process was more that with two greenhorns, the chances were better one of them would put the saddle on the horse the right way?

 

Chan's biggest flaw is his borderline masochistic disposition to see the good in any random stiff QB. He will grind and grind and grind away trying to turn every piece of tin he has at hand into gold. I'm actually wondering if he is telling people inside the Jets organization that he can fix Geno. I do think Chan is capable of wringing every last drop of production out of random stiffs at the QB position. It would be interesting to see him work with an elite talent at the position. What would happen if Chan tried to develop an Andrew Luck instead of the Tyler Thigpens?

 

Corollary: when Chan Gailey gives up on a QB, one might as well stick a fork in the guy. Trentative, here's one for you.

When you consider what Gailey has been able to do in the NFL with some stiffs at QB in terms of passing yardage. You would actually start to think this man really knows what he is doing. Then when you look at his win / loss record the reality sets in that he isn't even a very good offensive coordinator unless he has some star players that were already pretty good before he started coaching them. I can't think of one young QB or player that Chan Gailey coached up into a success story.

 

The 2015 NY Jets by all rights should have beaten the Buffalo Bills in that season finale if Gailey sets up his offense to support the QB rather then force him to try and win it with his arm. Jets RB Chris Ivory had 6 rushing attempts for 81 yards with the longest run of 58 yards. With that run the Jets were averaging 7.2 yards per run and yet Gailey kept calling passing plays. I think the fact that Gailey's failure at building a top rushing offense with decent talent offsets his ability to set up a decent passing game.

 

Sure, Gailey was good in Buffalo with Fitz at QB while utilizing a smoke and mirror passing attack. Meaning he ran five wide receivers sets with only one decent receiver and because Stevie Johnson had this knack for always getting open against most every defender. Then Gailey's passing offense worked well. Once opposing teams jammed Stevie at the line and double up on him that high-powered passing offense was basically useless. Same thing with using Spiller in his spread offense by running out of a passing formation. Once opposing teams stacked the box and didn't fall for the pseudo five WR set then Spiller went nowhere.

 

The biggest reason I think Gailey is a bad HC / OC is that when his team gets down by even three points over the course of a quarter of football he panics and goes pass happy instead of attempting to run more in a balanced offense. Fitz never did get comfortable in the pocket against the Bills and never developed into a solid passing rhythm. Gailey never noticed and called 37 pass attempts vs 17 rush attempts. That loss was more on the Jets OC then anything else in my view. The Jets ended their last three drives with an interception each drive. I'm glad Chan Gailey is the NY Jets OC.