an honest question about Rex
 

It's pretty obvious Rex is a defensive guy and always will be and it got me to thinking-If for some strange reason we ended up having a relatively pisspoor defense this season but our offense turned out to be stellar and won us a superbowl would Rex actually be completely satisfied? I'm gonna be honest while I am sure he'd be thrilled that we won a SB and boast about it for the next 10 years, I really think it would eat away at him a bit that his D was not part of the equation. I like the guy as a coach, I really do. I think he can definitely be a superbowl caliber coach but I really have to wonder if he'll ever be a true advocate of the offense. This is where I really think Tanny is failing us in the last couple years. Rex is and always will be a defensive guy. Rex will always want to draft D and get the best players he can on D. Rex will always choose to sacrifice on offense to strengthen the defense. This is ok to be honest because most HC's do tend to favor their strength, however in this case it's the GM's job to to spread the ingredients evenly and address the other side. Tanny is not doing that. He's complying with Rex's "wants" on defense and to compensate he keeps trying to swing for cheap HR's on offense. Some work, some don't, but pretty much every move on the offensive side of the ball with the exception of Sanchez has been a low cost high risk/reward move. Braylon Edwards- CLE's problem child. Holmes= PIT's problem child. LT-old but inexpensive. Plaxico-no explanation needed. Otah-again a big swing for the fences at little cost.

I guess this post became a twofold rant more than the original question, but Tanny really needs to step in on this team and tell Rex that he may have to make do with a top 10 defense instead of top 5 so the offense can get some help.

If we win a Superbowl, do we really care if Rex is fully satisfied or not?

And, it is not the GMs job to "spread the ingredients evenly". It's to produce a winning team. Most winning teams are dominant on one side of the ball, not "good" on both. It makes perfect sense to focus a disproportionate percentage of assets on defense - that's where the Jets have an advantage.

So are you psychic or do you want all the psychics on the board to chime in and tell you what Rex would think under this scenario?

Love how it's pretty obvious that the Jets have a policy of BPA when the draft. If its an O player it means nothing, if its a D player its the HC wanting one.

Who was the last BPA offensive player we drafted in the first or second round when we didn't really have a need?

so true. But the crap that's on the field so far will not win much. The issue is over paying for below average players on both sides of the ball . The money the Jets spend on the o is amazing and crazy. Why sign a pot smoking head case like Santonio, after what he did in Miami, that was not worthy of the big contract he got. Same with Brick, he's been more like a pebble. Over paying Scot, Thomas, Pace andChomartie.

I agree, the Jets have not spent money wisely.

But, I have no problem with the philosophy of focusing a disproportionate amout of assets (be they financial, high draft draft picks, free agent signings, etc.) on the defensive side of the ball.

Of course, you have to be at least competent on offense. Which I'm not sure the Jets are at this point. But, I think they could be - even with the current personnel - if they have an OC who is creative enough.

I also believe all teams should be disproportionate to a degree. We're obviously a defensive team, but our offense is flat out neglected. Look at other similar teams-SF, offense has Gore and Davis. BAL-Ray Rice and Boldin. PIT-Wallace, Mendenhall, Brown, Miller. We have Holmes, who I believe is a decwnt #1 WR and a great #2 followed by peanuts. Greene is average, slow, and goes down easily for his size. Hill is a rookie. Keller is great sometimes, then disappears for weeks. Bottom line is if you're going to field a stellar defense, you still need one or 2 stars on the offensive side of the ball to be competitive.

I feel the opposite on this. I think by having a great defensive mind like Rex that we can always have a top-5 or at least top-10 defense regardless of personnel. Our #1 ranked 2009 defense wasn't all that talented for example.

I think we should've gone heavy on offense the past few drafts. The line isn't good enough and we don't have any elite playmakers.

I don't think Rex is a HC, but a DC dressed up in HC clothing. He has no knowledge of offense or ST, both of which are a complete and utter mess on this team by the way, and has no business being a HC. The proof is being played out as we watch weekly, and the proof is in the lack of talent we have on offense. To me, it is ridiculous quite honestly how a HC & GM can be so offensively blind. How could they possibly believe they could get away with going into an NFL regular season with this offense? It is mind boggling, absolutely mind boggling.

If nothing changes, mark my words, this will be the worst offense perhaps in NY Jet (if not NFL) history.

Yeah but our 2009 offense moved the ball "enough" to keep the D off the field enough. This 3 and out O is gonna kill us on both sides of the ball.