I'm not "freaking out" so I don't know where that comes from. I'm saying they looked crappy in limited action against starting QBs so far, and I said essentially ignoring the 60 yard play (by saying things like, "other than Atlanta's biggest gainer of the game...") effectively absolves them of having given up those yards, as though they wouldn't have still surrendered them. Absent the extra YAC, they still gave up a decent gainer to a freaking FB. Other than that 1 play there wasn't an opportunity for Atlanta to march down the field (with Ryan). So that remanded them to no-win situation from the fans' perspective. If they did well against Yates, it means nothing; if they did badly against Yates/other, then they really suck (worthy of this "freak out" you speak of).
What kind of pick would you think? Before the draft - meaning we'd have gotten picks prior to the 2015 draft, not a year later - the Jets' asking price for Mo was (allegedly) two 1st round picks. Considering that now a team doesn't have to give up picks until next year's draft, on paper that original asking price should only rise. Or are you thinking of trading him after the season's over? As in franchise tag Mo and then see what we can get? It's interesting, since the Jets should be in a position to tag him and not be stuck with a hot potato if they get no takers (and Mo has to play out 2016 for the Jets under the tag). But the year after that he's gone for nothing if we don't lock him up. He's not getting tagged by the Jets 2 years in a row (think he would then carry the QB franchise tag #).
Any of our sorry ass QBs (and those who guard their reputations like they were their own offspring) would have drooled over the built in excuse of having Chris Clark protect their blind side for 15 games. Probably would have uttered quotes like, "Even Peyton Manning wouldn't be able to do jack squat with that stiff protecting him."
True, but then again they lost Clady once before, without the benefit of an offseason from mid-May onward through the summer, to prepare for a season without him. Not that losing Clady is any type of advantage, or in any way good for them, but without him they scored 600 points as Peyton Manning had basically the best season in the history of seasons (until the Super Bowl, that is).
With the zillion dollar defense, they looked bad in their only exposure to an NFL starting QB. There is no other way to candy coat it. It's more accurate to say, "Lord only knows how much worse they'd have looked and how much worse they'd have been exposed if Atlanta didn't get so many yards in 1 chunk, followed by starting the next drive on the 4 yard line." Citing how few yards they gave up other than a 60 yard play is a cop-out because the short field meant the both that our defense couldn't be stretched out, and also that a short yard gain was the intended result. Citing how they did after Matt Ryan left the game is likewise a cop-out. The road to the Super Bowl does not go through T.J. Yates. They'll get better, but the week 1 rust should have been dusted off already. This was bad. Bad plays, bad protection, bad discipline, and I'm seriously concerned that our QB has an arm weaker than a post-op Pennington. Sure, they don't get any brownie points for style, the fan in me says they have the personnel to be top 5 if not top 10 on defense, and the fact is they don't get any wins or prizes for impressing casual fans on the internet. But this casual fan thinks the starters pretty much suck right now, outside of the #1/#2 RBs & Brandon Marshall.
My very point is they're being absolved of not giving up a 10 play drive because they gave up so much in 1 play (one short pass play to a fullback at that). If the 60 yarder came as the result of a deep pass where someone was out-leaped or slipped and allowed the WR to get an extra 1-2 yards of separation, then such a nothing-to-worry-about claim could be made. If not for giving up a full 60 yards, the pass still would have been completed for an easy first down, on their way to marching down the field. As to what happened on subsequent drives, well on the next drive they needed one yard and got 1 yard with Ryan still in there. On the one hand, one can say the glass is half full because we only gave up 1 more yard on the ensuing drive (also greatly impacting Ryan's ypc/ypa despite his perfect success on the drive). On the other hand, 1 yard was Ryan's best-case scenario, since it was a 1 yard TD pass. Beyond that, I take for granted Matt Ryan is their only starter-worthy QB so judging them positively against Yates QB'ing is not really reassuring.
Understood, but by saying "the rest of the game except for ___" you're removing all the other (potentially) bad plays they'd have made if the pass was a mere completion. At the rate they were going, they weren't stopping Atlanta even if they weren't spotted 60 yards to a freaking FB. What I'm saying is there's every likelihood they'd have still given up all 60 of those yards. It's just too convenient to look at only the other plays. I don't at all think they'll look like this all season long, but the delta is a lot larger than I figured it would be.
Well by his own logic, as soon as his sack numbers increase he will cease to be as good at the rest of his game. If he's doing the "dirty work" instead of getting sacks, it's only because he's doing what is asked of him. If another player is sacking the QB, it's because he can't do anything else. Pure genius. Glad he cleared all that up for the rest of us.
There is a huge problem with this line of thinking, as much as I'm sympathetic. Eliminating that 60-yard play doesn't merely look at everything else other than that play. It does something more, however inadvertent: it effectively credits them with a stop they didn't actually make by "deleting" it from the drives by which we are "permitted" to judge them.
It speaks to context, as anyone who rated your post (and the rest, who thought it even unworthy of their effort) can attest to.
Typing a person's name, whether it's one holding or running for political office, doesn't therefore make it a political post. People mention the president, too, in ways that are politically innocuous (e.g. a certain Super Bowl winning* QB showing his utter lack of class in skipping a ring ceremony with President Obama). It's one thing to type the president's (or any candidate's) name; it's another thing to say he's whatever positive or derogatory term for obvious politically-motivated/politically-biased reasons.
The earlier post you're referencing was neither pro- or anti- Trump. It was just a post alluding to a much-repeated line of his (think it went something like, "I wish Trump would make the Jets great again," and it was posted while the Jets were getting their asses handed to them for the 2nd week in a row, on the heels of a wealth of bad player publicity, and multiple crappy seasons before this one).
It was just a funny, clever comment that expressed neither like nor dislike of him as a presidential candidate or as a person. The latter comment, by a different poster, left little doubt and was glaringly out of place.
I can't imagine that you seriously don't see the difference.