FireChan

Yep. It's a total "damned if you do" scenario. That being said, unless it's a HoF coach, I'm taking 3 perennial ProBowlers and All-Pros over a middling HC.

Is that not what we used to draft him?

So you still can't give me a reason? Is it because constant coaching changes lead to unnecessary roster turnover due to scheme change?

I'm asking why. Tell me why it's a bad thing.

We've drafted offensive players with our last 3 first round picks, so not really. Also, the Pegulas thinking "we have a good defense with talent so Rex is a good fit" is exactly why their decision was stupid.

John, why is changing coaches every year a problem?

And All-Pro 3-4 DE's? Or HoF CB's?

Changing the argument? The argument is which coach & scheme would best set the team for a perpetually strong defense and winning program. Rex has had perpetual strong defenses. Not perpetual winning programs. Because of reasons stated above. My argument is that Jim could have maintained stronger defensive performances if he got the assets allocated to his defenses like Rex did. Also, Jim Schwartz took over the worst team in NFL history as an HC. Rex took over a 9-7 roster. Let's not pretend like they had equal circumstances.

In football, it's kinda easy to be labeled a "defensive genius" when you are constantly handed great players on defense at the expense of the rest of the team. And surprise surprise, what unit sucked year in and year out of Rex's tenure in NY?

No. I'm just arguing that Rex has no history of perpetual success, due to a variety of factors, one of the major ones being that he fields top defenses by funneling huge amounts of valuable draft picks into it. And without checking to see if that was also the case during Schwartz's tenures, maybe that would've helped him maintain more top defenses.

Who is everyone? The rest is the usual nonsense. Merry Christmas.

Well, let's break that down. The argument is which coach & scheme would best set the team for a perpetually strong defense and winning program. If we're using Schwartz' history, we should also use Rex's. He has no history of a perpetual winner. Usually having strong defenses, I'll give you, but that comes with the cost of drafting or signing HoF talent, as well as the continuous use of high picks on the defense. Go look at Jets drafts from 2010 to 2014. Defensive players in the first and/or second round every year. In 2013, they drafted two in the first round. So the benefits of being able to allocate resources by having a perpetually strong defense doesn't apply to a RR regime. Compared to Schwartz, the costs for maintaining a DL in a Rex regime is at least 2 first rounders and their eventual extensions. Not so different, huh? You are always better off giving the big free agent money to guys you develop in your own scheme. Signing big ticket FAs rarely works out for the new team, because chances are the signee is there for the paycheck more than the team. I can sympathize with this view point, but almost all players are in it for the paycheck. Let's not delude ourselves. Just by "developing" players doesn't mean they aren't trying to get paid. I'll close with the argument that a big free agent can be the difference between a playoff push and 8-8. That's what Lesean McCoy was supposed to be this season. He wasn't an FA, but he was a marquee player we signed to a huge extension. Maybe it'll work out and maybe it won't, but without signing him, our offense would've been in even more trouble this year, which would've doomed a potentially good defensive season. Sometimes, you gotta roll the dice.

You could've kept one happy (probably Mario) and replaced Kyle if need be.

And instead we got a collapsing defense this year, with all the same dead money. Not ideal. With Rex? Or with retaining a 4-3?

And probably 9-7 or higher this year. Oh no!

Restructure Mario and you'd be fine. Cut McK. Draft another LB and we'd be cooking again.

When you have 4 All-Stars on the DL and they're all under contract, yeah. Sustainable enough to make a playoff/SB run for 2-3 years. Yes, the argument is that the Schwartz D would've been much better this season. And perhaps it would've taken a step back or so with the loss of Kyle and the other guys. But I'd have bet it'd still be top 10, and top 10 in sacks, etc etc. Especially with the addition of Darby. Speaking of that, how sad is it that our defense sucks with arguably two top ten CB's on it? Yep. GG is saying it's not sustainable, but if Mario was having another career year, do we really think he wouldn't be more likely to restructure and stay? Meanwhile, we had Hughes and Dareus locked up, Kyle on a two year deal, and 2 more years of Mario. 2 years+ of sustainability is pretty good.

I realize that, but we didn't lose Dareus this year so it's kinda weird to assume the loss of Bradham or AW would've hurt Schwartz's scheme as much as Dareus' loss last year. They averaged 3.9 YPC on the ground that game. Our season average this year is 4.2 YPC allowed. Our season average in 2014 was 4.1 YPC allowed. Our 2014 passing yards allowed was 205 YPG. So, we lost Dareus and still hit our averages. Unlike the Rex defense this year with his injuries. I think it's safe to assume the loss of Kyle wouldn't have been felt nearly as much as Dareus. Unless you think Kyle is more important to Schwartz's scheme than Dareus. I hope that's not the case, because that's dumb. Plus, our defense was weak before the injuries occurred this year. Whereas a healthy Schwartz defense was doing fine.

You keep saying this, but Schwartz' system was predicated on the front four and he lost arguably the most talented player on that front four. Not sure the loss of Bradham or AW would've hurt him as bad as that. Also, he had lost McK for the season at that point, no? And what "happened" to his vaunted D when Dareus went out was 204 passing yards, with a 50% completion rating and 3.9 YPC allowed. Not exactly the worst defensive performance of all time.

EJ did not score 18 points in the 4th Q. We got a pick six to take the lead.

I know I always feel like my life is threatened surrounded by about 50 police officers and being watched by millions of folks.

Should read: 4-12, 6-10, 6-10, 6-10, 9-7, 6-8. #Whaley

Yep. I disagree with the assertion that the locker room would've broke if Schwartz was still the DC too. If we had 3-4 Pro Bowlers and the defense was ranked in the top 5, you'd find some happy campers on the defensive side of the ball, IMO.

Tyrod's receivers drop percentage was right around league average or lower last time I checked.

Yep.