NFL News Jets Have Informed Gase He'll Be Fired After Sunday's Game

[Kontradiction]

So if Lawrence gets injured, the jags make terrible draft picks and free agent signings, hire a bad coach and do not win anything for 5 years it settles the argument for tanking?
The jets aren’t an example of anything other than incompetence.
But go on thinking that both of their futures are now in stone because tanking decides everything and no other variable matters.

The jags stink, they didn’t lose because they yanked they lost because they are terrible.

They literally lost that Bears game on purpose. I’m sure you haven’t watched a single game of theirs all year, but you should go back to that game, end of the first half, and watch the formation they lined up in on defense. That’s knowing you stink and deciding to tank. As for the rest, that’s why you weigh both teams after 1/3/5 etc seasons. Moreover, for someone who didn’t want to consider the “other reasons” before, you sure seem willing to consider them now. You dropped teams that had toxic cultures to begin with to try and make the point that tanking for a “generational talent” didn’t work. But now, you’re considering those other reasons. Maybe it’s because the side you were taking now applies to the Jets and not the Patriots? Or is it because you’re now aware that you took the wrong side in the first place? Either way, this will be a very fun topic to keep visiting. I expect the Jets to have a quick turnaround next year. They didn’t “embrace a culture of losing.” I expect the Jags to continue to suck in spite of drafting Lawrence because they did embrace that culture. There’s also this, from Schefter...

Sources: Jacksonville Jaguars, with potential to draft Trevor Lawrence, become attractive destination for GM, head coach candidates

GM and potential head-coaching candidates are paying close attention to the Jaguars, who are getting closer to securing the No. 1 overall draft pick and the opportunity to select Trevor Lawrence.

www.espn.com

Funny that, even after winning two absolutely worthless games and not embracing a culture of losing, your words, we don’t hear the same positivity about the upcoming vacant coach position with the Jets.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I literally have never seen hatred before or after like Denver had for McDaniels. I lived in Philly for 12-years and attended many an Eagles game.

Also check out the Indianapolis threads or comments. They hate McDaniels too but also so glad they got Reich instead. I'm personally torn. I'm all for McDaniels leaving but I also feel bad about the franchise about to be destroyed. I guess in my own self interest I'd prefer he land a job elsewhere and the Pats get a new OC.

.

 

[Ring 6]

They literally lost that Bears game on purpose. I’m sure you haven’t watched a single game of theirs all year, but you should go back to that game, end of the first half, and watch the formation they lined up in on defense. That’s knowing you stink and deciding to tank. As for the rest, that’s why you weigh both teams after 1/3/5 etc seasons. Moreover, for someone who didn’t want to consider the “other reasons” before, you sure seem willing to consider them now. You dropped teams that had toxic cultures to begin with to try and make the point that tanking for a “generational talent” didn’t work. But now, you’re considering those other reasons. Maybe it’s because the side you were taking now applies to the Jets and not the Patriots? Or is it because you’re now aware that you took the wrong side in the first place? Either way, this will be a very fun topic to keep visiting. I expect the Jets to have a quick turnaround next year. They didn’t “embrace a culture of losing.” I expect the Jags to continue to suck in spite of drafting Lawrence because they did embrace that culture.

The jags don’t have to try to lose to a playoff caliber team that blew them out.

My comment was that there are many variables that affect football franchises and no one is proof of anything.
You disagreed with that. That’s ridiculous.

As far as you trying to bring other conversations into this, all of my discussions were around suggestions that the patriots should tank. If you have no culture and are firing everyone, it doesn’t much matter. Whether a disaster of a franchise wins 1 or 2 games, on purpose or not they have many issue to solve that 1 draft pick won’t do by itself.

 

[Kontradiction]

The jags don’t have to try to lose to a playoff caliber team that blew them out.

My comment was that there are many variables that affect football franchises and no one is proof of anything.
You disagreed with that. That’s ridiculous.

As far as you trying to bring other conversations into this, all of my discussions were around suggestions that the patriots should tank. If you have no culture and are firing everyone, it doesn’t much matter. Whether a disaster of a franchise wins 1 or 2 games, on purpose or not they have many issue to solve that 1 draft pick won’t do by itself.

You’re talking in circles here. You’re also moving the goal posts from prior conversations. If the bold is true, how could you say definitively that tanking for a generational talent does not work? If there were truly too many variables to consider, you would have no way whatsoever to know whether tanking works or doesn’t work. You either don’t believe the part in bold, or you need to admit that you have no proof that tanking does or doesn’t work, and that the next 1-5 seasons of comparison between Jax and the Jete will be as close to solving that argument as one gets.

So, now that you’ve just argued yourself into a corner without even realizing it, which one is it? Are there too many variables to consider and, therefore, you have zero evidence that tanking doesn’t work, as you’ve stated in the past? Or will the past still ring true with the Jags sucking more than the Jete, going forward, because the Jete didn’t adopt your culture of losing?

 

[Love The Drake]

 

[Ring 6]

You’re talking in circles here. You’re also moving the goal posts from prior conversations. If the bold is true, how could you say definitively that tanking for a generational talent does not work? If there were truly too many variables to consider, you would have no way whatsoever to know whether tanking works or doesn’t work. You either don’t believe the part in bold, or you need to admit that you have no proof that tanking does or doesn’t work, and that the next 1-5 seasons of comparison between Jax and the Jete will be as close to solving that argument as one gets.

So, now that you’ve just argued yourself into a corner without even realizing it, which one is it? Are there too many variables to consider and, therefore, you have zero evidence that tanking doesn’t work, as you’ve stated in the past? Or will the past still ring true with the Jags sucking more than the Jete, going forward, because the Jete didn’t adopt your culture of losing?

I am not talking in circles at all

you said

Who is better one year, three years, five years out will settle that debate once and for all.

I said

There are too many variables in competitive sports for any single item to be resolved once and for all by one example.

Of course that is true. I’m not diving into the games you want to play surrounding it. Have a happy new year.

 

[Kontradiction]

I am not talking in circles at all

you said


I said

Of course that is true. I’m not diving into the games you want to play surrounding it. Have a happy new year.

Probably the best decision you’ve made since the search history function on this forum is excellent. I’ll go ahead and show you what I mean since I guess I’ll have the last word since you’ve said you’re done here.

PostGame Thread - Post Game Thread- Bills beat the Pats

No, no it is not. What in the world are you talking about? You think being a loser 3-13 team is better than being a competitive 8-8 team? That makes absolutely no sense

www.patsfans.com

Then we disagree because I see zero examples of teams tanking and it working.

PostGame Thread - Post Game Thread- Bills beat the Pats

No, no it is not. What in the world are you talking about? You think being a loser 3-13 team is better than being a competitive 8-8 team? That makes absolutely no sense

www.patsfans.com

There are many teams that had 3-13 or the like seasons and never recovered. Specifically who tanked and succeeded?

And finally...

PostGame Thread - Post Game Thread- Bills beat the Pats

Kept Manning? Again, yes you are using hindsight because you’re assuming Luck wouldn’t have retired at 30. He was having his best seasons before retiring. The question is did it work, not could it work in an alternate universe. The only example you have didn’t work and you want to count it as...

www.patsfans.com

The question is did it work, not could it work in an alternate universe. The only example you have didn’t work and you want to count it as working because of an excuse. That’s the exact loser mentality that creates tanking and ensures it fails.

And now, back to the point. If there are truly “too many variables to consider” when discussing how the Jags future vs the Jets future will settle the “to tank or not to tank” argument, how could you then say, back in November, and with authority, that tanking for a player/higher pick doesn’t work and there are numerous examples of it? Those supposed variables would make that an impossible conclusion to come to. So, you either don’t believe there are too many variables (which would logically line up with your previous posts in that November thread), or you have no way of knowing whether tanking for a player works or not because of said variables. Which one is it?

 

[Ring 6]

Probably the best decision you’ve made since the search history function on this forum is excellent. I’ll go ahead and show you what I mean since I guess I’ll have the last word since you’ve said you’re done here.

PostGame Thread - Post Game Thread- Bills beat the Pats

No, no it is not. What in the world are you talking about? You think being a loser 3-13 team is better than being a competitive 8-8 team? That makes absolutely no sense

www.patsfans.com

PostGame Thread - Post Game Thread- Bills beat the Pats

No, no it is not. What in the world are you talking about? You think being a loser 3-13 team is better than being a competitive 8-8 team? That makes absolutely no sense

www.patsfans.com

And finally...

PostGame Thread - Post Game Thread- Bills beat the Pats

Kept Manning? Again, yes you are using hindsight because you’re assuming Luck wouldn’t have retired at 30. He was having his best seasons before retiring. The question is did it work, not could it work in an alternate universe. The only example you have didn’t work and you want to count it as...

www.patsfans.com

And now, back to the point. If there are truly “too many variables to consider” when discussing how the Jags future vs the Jets future will settle the “to tank or not to tank” argument, how could you then say, back in November, and with authority, that tanking for a player/higher pick doesn’t work and there are numerous examples of it? Those supposed variables would make that an impossible conclusion to come to. So, you either don’t believe there are too many variables (which would logically line up with your previous posts in that November thread), or you have no way of knowing whether tanking for a player works or not because of said variables. Which one is it?

Because I didn’t say that. Not a single one of those comments mean the straw man you are using.

I said there are variables in the success or failure of a football team that make it impossible for any one event to be “proven”. You seem to disagree, so the jags can feel confident they can blow every draft pick, hell I guess they don’t even need to practice.
Obviously you were trolling for an argument but to disagree with my statement is ridiculous.

 

[Kontradiction]

Because I didn’t say that. Not a single one of those comments mean the straw man you are using.

I said there are variables in the success or failure of a football team that make it impossible for any one event to be “proven”. You seem to disagree, so the jags can feel confident they can blow every draft pick, hell I guess they don’t even need to practice.
Obviously you were trolling for an argument but to disagree with my statement is ridiculous.

I thought you were done? Those comments show you trying to make a definitive argument that tanking doesn’t work. Just over a month ago. Now that the Jets have won their way out of the first overall pick and the Jags have it, becoming the best example of to tank or not to tank, you say there are too many variables. If there are truly too many variables, how could you have possibly said in November that tanking for a player doesn’t work? You either didn’t believe that then or you don’t believe there are too many variables to say that it definitively doesn’t work. There are no other ways around this, which is probably why you said you were done. You should have taken your own advice before and just dropped out, leaving me the last word. You’re getting waxed, and you argued yourself into a tight corner.

So, back to the topic at hand, which one is it? Can you say definitively that tanking doesn’t work? Or will you say that there are too many variables to consider and, therefore, you have no way whatsoever of proving that it does or doesn’t work? You can’t have both.

 

[Doctor DDS]

The majority of tanking arguments here were stating that the Pats should have tanked right out of the gate vs what happened with the Jets. Major difference between not putting your best foot forward to close out a season when you are already 0-13 vs purposely blowing off an entire season before it started. Not sure there is even an agreement on what tanking means anyways so it is a hard topic to debate.

 

[Chevy]

I thought they would pull an Initech and Milton him to the basement.

 

[Kontradiction]

The majority of tanking arguments here were stating that the Pats should have tanked right out of the gate vs what happened with the Jets. Major difference between not putting your best foot forward to close out a season when you are already 0-13 vs purposely blowing off an entire season before it started. Not sure there is even an agreement on what tanking means anyways so it is a hard topic to debate.

In the Jags case, it was starting an inferior QB on purpose, sitting their #1 and OROY candidate RB, and calling defenses that made things easy on Trubisky. See also their alignment before the half. The Bears only needed 4-5 yards to get into FG range. The Jags played Quarters with everyone 15-20 yards off the ball to give them the FG.

The players themselves will never tank. You can, however, put an inferior team on the field to all but guarantee a loss.

 

[Ring 6]

I thought you were done? Those comments show you trying to make a definitive argument that tanking doesn’t work. Just over a month ago. Now that the Jets have won their way out of the first overall pick and the Jags have it, becoming the best example of to tank or not to tank, you say there are too many variables. If there are truly too many variables, how could you have possibly said in November that tanking for a player doesn’t work? You either didn’t believe that then or you don’t believe there are too many variables to say that it definitively doesn’t work. There are no other ways around this, which is probably why you said you were done. You should have taken your own advice before and just dropped out, leaving me the last word. You’re getting waxed, and you argued yourself into a tight corner.

So, back to the topic at hand, which one is it? Can you say definitively that tanking doesn’t work? Or will you say that there are too many variables to consider and, therefore, you have no way whatsoever of proving that it does or doesn’t work? You can’t have both.

There is not a single comment I made that said it definitively doesn’t work. The comment you posted were comments such as “show me when it has worked” and “plenty of 3-13 teams stay bad”.
Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of definitive. If I said something like “there is no way tanking can ever work” that would be definitive.
My opinion is that tanking has a tremendously negative impact upon the culture of a franchise. Now, like Jacksonville will probably do, you can wipe the slate clean and dump the culture and bring in a new one. SINCE THESE CONVERSATIONS WERE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PATRIOTS TANKING that would do more harm than good.
Perhaps instead of trying to find an “I got you” by twisting something I said into something it was not, you may want to actually listen to what I say.
It appears you are more interested in trying to take what people say out of context, misrepresent it, and “prove” their opinions are inconsistent. Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree there.
Look if you want to have a reasonable conversation, go for it, but if you are going to dismiss all intellectual honesty to try to look like you are scoring points, move on.
I don’t need you to misinterpret what I say to tell me what I say now conflicts with what you misunderstand.

Back to the point. The one point that I engaged you on:
No, I do not believe the next 5 years of these teams success of failure is solely based upon who got the first pick. Not even close. But if that’s your opinion ok.

 

[Kontradiction]

There is not a single comment I made that said it definitively doesn’t work. The comment you posted were comments such as “show me when it has worked” and “plenty of 3-13 teams stay bad”.

You conveniently forgot this one...

PostGame Thread - Post Game Thread- Bills beat the Pats

Kept Manning? Again, yes you are using hindsight because you’re assuming Luck wouldn’t have retired at 30. He was having his best seasons before retiring. The question is did it work, not could it work in an alternate universe. The only example you have didn’t work and you want to count it as...

www.patsfans.com

That’s the exact loser mentality that creates tanking and ensures it fails.

That sounds very definitive to me. You also asked earlier in the thread for examples of tanking that worked.

Here’s another definitive post from later on in the thread...

PostGame Thread - Post Game Thread- Bills beat the Pats

The minute you stop playing to win, you destroy the culture in your organization. I think most people in the Patriots organization are a bit more matured than that.

www.patsfans.com

No. They are where they are because they value competing. Losing on purpose destroys that. Bad teams that fight to the end get better. Bad teams that give up don’t

You didn’t seem to be too concerned about variables back then and, yet, you are now. These are posts which strongly signal a definitive belief that tanking does not work. So, therefore, according to your logic, the Jets should be better in the immediate future than the Jaguars. Right? After all, they fought until the end and the Jags gave up.

Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of definitive. If I said something like “there is no way tanking can ever work” that would be definitive.
My opinion is that tanking has a tremendously negative impact upon the culture of a franchise. Now, like Jacksonville will probably do, you can wipe the slate clean and dump the culture and bring in a new one.

Both teams will be doing that. The Jags will be doing it with Lawrence while the Jets will be doing it with Darnold or another rookie. The reported interest in the Jags jobs is hotter than the reported interest in the Jets job. Tanking appears to have zero net negative effect on the Jags organization as we see it right now. Marrone was always a dead man walking after the season

SINCE THESE CONVERSATIONS WERE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PATRIOTS TANKING that would do more harm than good.

Yes, I’m fully aware that your argument changes when it’s the Pats we’re talking about vs another team (in this case, the Jets). That’s called logical inconsistency. Now you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel to get out of a corner you argued yourself into. There’s nothing here for you but frustration

Perhaps instead of trying to find an “I got you” by twisting something I said into something it was not, you may want to actually listen to what I say.
It appears you are more interested in trying to take what people say out of context, misrepresent it, and “prove” their opinions are inconsistent. Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree there.

I didn’t misrepresent anything you said. I just literally copied and pasted your words from a past thread, in which you were adamant that tanking doesn’t work, and showed you how that argument doesn’t jive with this new “too many variables” argument you’re trying to make in order to dispute that the “to tank or not to tank” argument will be settled by comparing two teams after the draft at set points in time in the future. If anything, you’re now misrepresenting your former self from that thread back in November.

Look if you want to have a reasonable conversation, go for it, but if you are going to dismiss all intellectual honesty to try to look like you are scoring points, move on.
I don’t need you to misinterpret what I say to tell me what I say now conflicts with what you misunderstand.

Back to the point. The one point that I engaged you on:
No, I do not believe the next 5 years of these teams success of failure is solely based upon who got the first pick. Not even close. But if that’s your opinion ok.

Right. Because “variables.” So you’re admitting now that you have no definitive proof that tanking does or does not work? For, if there are too many variables to consider, how could you possibly know whether or not it works? Or are you still saying that tanking definitely does not work and destroys the culture of whatever team does it, as you said before? If it’s the former, then I’ll just say “fair enough,” and leave it at that. If it’s the latter, you’re being logically inconsistent since said “variables” would make the success or failure of tanking absolutely impossible to discern.

 

[Ring 6]

You conveniently forgot this one...

PostGame Thread - Post Game Thread- Bills beat the Pats

Kept Manning? Again, yes you are using hindsight because you’re assuming Luck wouldn’t have retired at 30. He was having his best seasons before retiring. The question is did it work, not could it work in an alternate universe. The only example you have didn’t work and you want to count it as...

www.patsfans.com

That’s the exact loser mentality that creates tanking and ensures it fails.

That sounds very definitive to me. You also asked earlier in the thread for examples of tanking that worked.

Here’s another definitive post from later on in the thread...

PostGame Thread - Post Game Thread- Bills beat the Pats

The minute you stop playing to win, you destroy the culture in your organization. I think most people in the Patriots organization are a bit more matured than that.

www.patsfans.com

You didn’t seem to be too concerned about variables back then and, yet, you are now. These are posts which strongly signal a definitive belief that tanking does not work. So, therefore, according to your logic, the Jets should be better in the immediate future than the Jaguars. Right? After all, they fought until the end and the Jags gave up.


Both teams will be doing that. The Jags will be doing it with Lawrence while the Jets will be doing it with Darnold or another rookie. The reported interest in the Jags jobs is hotter than the reported interest in the Jets job. Tanking appears to have zero net negative effect on the Jags organization as we see it right now. Marrone was always a dead man walking after the season


Yes, I’m fully aware that your argument changes when it’s the Pats we’re talking about vs another team (in this case, the Jets). That’s called logical inconsistency. Now you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel to get out of a corner you argued yourself into. There’s nothing here for you but frustration


I didn’t misrepresent anything you said. I just literally copied and pasted your words from a past thread, in which you were adamant that tanking doesn’t work, and showed you how that argument doesn’t jive with this new “too many variables” argument you’re trying to make in order to dispute that the “to tank or not to tank” argument will be settled by comparing two teams after the draft at set points in time in the future. If anything, you’re now misrepresenting your former self from that thread back in November.



Right. Because “variables.” So you’re admitting now that you have no definitive proof that tanking does or does not work? For, if there are too many variables to consider, how could you possibly know whether or not it works? Or are you still saying that tanking definitely does not work and destroys the culture of whatever team does it, as you said before? If it’s the former, then I’ll just say “fair enough,” and leave it at that. If it’s the latter, you’re being logically inconsistent since said “variables” would make the success or failure of tanking absolutely impossible to discern.

You should put all the energy this took into something that matters. As I said of you want to have an adult, intellectually honest discussion that’s fine, but it appears you do not.
Im not going to waste 20 minutes dissecting how you misrepresent my opinions.
You should have discusssions with someone else.

I will leave it as I entered and say it’s ridiculous to assume that one example of one draft choice decides anything once and for all, and the 105 other players on the 2 teams matter.
Again have a happy new year. Hopefully you can find something better to do with your time than making up arguments, attributing them to others and thrm arguing them, while trying to insult the other person.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

Gosh - Jete can't even fire someone correctly....

 

[captain stone]

My eyes...they burn...

 

[patsfanfromoversea]

My eyes...they burn...

Good one Captain

 

[Brewskies]

The notice of "you will be fired regardless" is called "Work Incentive." Knowing this in advance of the game causes you to show up and give your best.....SURE

 

[Ochmed Jones]

With sarkisan off to Texas, Alabama needs a new offensive coordinator. I think gase would be the perfect candidate for saban and the rest of the crimson tide!