INTERESTING QUESTION RE: THE JETS. From Dan Cichalski of Edgewater, N.J.: "Think back to that day Bill Parcells resigned as Jets coach, leaving the job to Bill Belichick, who then abandoned the Jets to go to New England. Had Belichick stayed in New Jersey, could he have done the same thing with the Jets that he's done with the Patriots, or is New England's front office as much a part of the team's success as its head coach?"
King's answer: Remember something: If Belichick stayed, Scott Pioli would have stayed. And I believe Charlie Weis and Romeo Crennel would have been in place. And with the four first-round picks in 2000, why wouldn't the Jets have won at least one Super Bowl? Now, New York wouldn't have had Tedy Bruschi, Willie McGinest or a few others. But so much of New England's talent base was cultivated after Belichick and Pioli took over. If they stayed with the Jets, I believe they would have won big.
My answer: No, the Jets would have found a way to screw it up. More seriously, King is ignoring the impact Parcells would have had. He would have the final say on personnel: not Belichick and Pioli. I don't think Parcells has ever proven himself as a GM and since he's impatient, he's made many decision that slightly help the present and greatly hurt the future of a team. One last thought: with Parcells upstairs, every time Belichick would have a 2 game losing streak, rumors would start about Parcell taking over as coach. Knowing Parcells, he'd probably do it too.
1 comment:
At least I can I spell "preview." I don't know how you guys remember where we ate 7 years ago and discussions we had. I don't know what I did for lunch today. I do kwow that the criticism of Parcells' impatients hurting the future of a team has been said by legitmate journalists. Also, how in the world is this "ganging up." Peter King's article brought up an interesting question. I thought he forgot to mention how Parcells would affect everything. Now two people are offering different opinions.
Post a Comment