TuscanyTile2 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I don't understand this number at all. I would have to think we'd be at least at 7 or 7.5. The only reason I can see to explain 6.5 is that our schedule is deemed to be difficult. To me that's ridiculous though because, in today's NFL, it's hard to predict SOS from year-to-year. For example, what if Peyton gets hurt and doesn't play the game we face Denver? Is that as difficult a game as it looks like on paper? Are Miami and Buffalo that tough? Heck, we've even been beating New England once a season in recent seasons. If the U/O is 6.5, I think the Jets going over is (seemingly) and easy call. http://www.betvega.com/nfl-teams-over-under-season-wins-total/ New York Jets 6.5 (Over -120) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC36 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 over. easy money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Stoked to necro this thread after we've won 7 games and people start crowing about "3-win talent" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 How many years was Tannenbaum the GM? Subtract those years and then we'll be caught up on how to actually evaluate NFL talent. Vegas doesn't lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Vegas overrates every other team in the league obv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Everyone else besides Jets fans on the Internet aren't betting anything higher than that. That's really all that matters when Vegas figures out the line. These aren't predictive models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoicsentry Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Idzik is a genius, right? He had double digit draft picks and almost half of our cap space to spend, right? So why is the over/under 6.5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Idzik is a genius, right? He had double digit draft picks and almost half of our cap space to spend, right? So why is the over/under 6.5? The only way Idzik could've altered that number is if he landed a Peyton Manning type free agent QB. A high-priced CB? Andre Johnson? Those moves don't move that number half a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Everyone else besides Jets fans on the Internet aren't betting anything higher than that. That's really all that matters when Vegas figures out the line. These aren't predictive models. Bingo. The way people try to extract some deeper meaning out of this is really pointless. The entire goal is for Vegas to balance out the betting on either side of each particular line. If everyone was going with the over, then they'd raise the line to balance it out. They don't give a crap how many games the team will actually win, they care what the general public seems to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Jets77 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Schedule is brutal. Someone please show me more than 7 wins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 lol In mid-July 2013 show me more than 7 wins. But before answering... - Throw in the advance knowledge that we're going to lose 1 of our games each to Buffalo and Miami, plus another loss to Tennessee, since (as of mid-July 2013) all of these would have had to be considered must-win games to reach 8-8. - And further, add in the knowledge that Smith would be starting all 16 games even though he didn't outperform Mark Sanchez for the job (who was bad himself in that pre-season). And he would finish the season, on balance, as pretty much the worst passer in the NFL all year. - Further still, then throw into the mix that every one of Smith's already-lowly receivers would miss multiple games with injuries (and for some games, every one of the starters injured at the same time). - Next, factor in that our matchup with the Panthers was going to be well into a run of theirs where they were 10-1 (not counting the Jets game, of course), including back to back wins against 2 teams that made it to their conference championship games. - Lastly, know that Ferguson will noticeably have a down year; next to him, Vladimir Ducasse will start the year and then will get replaced by a rookie who will be on par or arguably even worse for the next 2 months; that our only home run threat on offense (Goodson) will go on IR like 10 minutes after he comes off his 4 week suspension; that Coples - already at a new position on somewhat late notice - will break his foot right before the start of the season, will miss the first 2 games outright, and will then have that injury linger through week 10 (allegedly); that Barnes will go on IR after 1 month; that Milliner will go from awful to benched to injured over the first 3/4 of the season; and that Cromartie would have a nagging injury that will cause him to perform on par with the worst CB in the NFL. What, then, would our expected record be? 8-8? Yeah, right. Yet it happened anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De-Jet-Erate/Duane Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 lol In mid-July 2013 show me more than 7 wins. But before answering... - Throw in the advance knowledge that we're going to lose 1 of our games each to Buffalo and Miami, plus another loss to Tennessee, since (as of mid-July 2013) all of these would have had to be considered must-win games to reach 8-8. - And further, add in the knowledge that Smith would be starting all 16 games even though he didn't outperform Mark Sanchez for the job (who was bad himself in that pre-season). And he would finish the season, on balance, as pretty much the worst passer in the NFL all year. - Further still, then throw into the mix that every one of Smith's already-lowly receivers would miss multiple games with injuries (and for some games, every one of the starters injured at the same time). - Next, factor in that our matchup with the Panthers was going to be well into a run of theirs where they were 10-1 (not counting the Jets game, of course), including back to back wins against 2 teams that made it to their conference championship games. - Lastly, know that Ferguson will noticeably have a down year; next to him, Vladimir Ducasse will start the year and then will get replaced by a rookie who will be on par or arguably even worse for the next 2 months; that our only home run threat on offense (Goodson) will go on IR like 10 minutes after he comes off his 4 week suspension; that Coples - already at a new position on somewhat late notice - will break his foot right before the start of the season, will miss the first 2 games outright, and will then have that injury linger through week 10 (allegedly); that Barnes will go on IR after 1 month; that Milliner will go from awful to benched to injured over the first 3/4 of the season; and that Cromartie would have a nagging injury that will cause him to perform on par with the worst CB in the NFL. What, then, would our expected record be? 8-8? Yeah, right. Yet it happened anyway. There is way to much logic in this post for this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 There is way to much logic in this post for this board. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 The only way Idzik could've altered that number is if he landed a Peyton Manning type free agent QB. A high-priced CB? Andre Johnson? Those moves don't move that number half a game. naming vick the starter would move it to 7-7.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 naming vick the starter would move it to 7-7.5 Maybe, but as has already been discussed, this number is based on bettors' proclivities, not on actual expected results. So sure, you put a name brand in there that wasn't the worst QB in the league statistically last season, and that number probably does move a smidge. Doesn't make Vick the right choice this year, or more importantly, for the good of the franchise in the future. Idzik is building a young team for the long haul, and he needs a young QB to man it. He needs to find out for certain if that young QB is Geno, or if he's going back to the well next year. He already knows that QB isn't Vick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 naming vick the starter would move it to 7-7.5 I agree that's possible. Vick does have a reputation for being better than he is. Then again, these are bettors not casual fans, so they may be more aware of this than non-betting casual fans. Then again, how many figure him to last 16 games? But I think the point both of you are making is similar in that it would have to be a change at QB, from Smith to someone perceived by most as a significant upgrade, but they'd probably have to figure that upgrade to last for the whole season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Maybe, but as has already been discussed, this number is based on bettors' proclivities, not on actual expected results. So sure, you put a name brand in there that wasn't the worst QB in the league statistically last season, and that number probably does move a smidge. Doesn't make Vick the right choice this year, or more importantly, for the good of the franchise in the future. Idzik is building a young team for the long haul, and he needs a young QB to man it. He needs to find out for certain if that young QB is Geno, or if he's going back to the well next year. He already knows that QB isn't Vick. wasn't getting into whether he was the right choice or not (been covered extensively on the site) just making a comment about the line. personally i think 6.5 is just about right. i believe the jets will have a negative point differential again this year, and i don't see them turning that into 8-8 (or better) like last year. a negative point differential usually signals a below .500 team and i think the line feels right. anyone remember what it was last year before the season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I don't understand this number at all. I would have to think we'd be at least at 7 or 7.5. The only reason I can see to explain 6.5 is that our schedule is deemed to be difficult. To me that's ridiculous though because, in today's NFL, it's hard to predict SOS from year-to-year. For example, what if Peyton gets hurt and doesn't play the game we face Denver? Is that as difficult a game as it looks like on paper? Are Miami and Buffalo that tough? Heck, we've even been beating New England once a season in recent seasons. If the U/O is 6.5, I think the Jets going over is (seemingly) and easy call. http://www.betvega.com/nfl-teams-over-under-season-wins-total/ New York Jets 6.5 (Over -120) yeah well injuries can cut both ways. what if decker goes down? geno and vick get hurt like penny/fiedler a few years back? that's why it's called gambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 yeah well injuries can cut both ways. what if decker goes down? geno and vick get hurt like penny/fiedler a few years back? that's why it's called gambling. Ohhhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Ohhhhh you have seen my smart ass comment and raised with a sarcastic comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 wasn't getting into whether he was the right choice or not (been covered extensively on the site) just making a comment about the line. personally i think 6.5 is just about right. i believe the jets will have a negative point differential again this year, and i don't see them turning that into 8-8 (or better) like last year. a negative point differential usually signals a below .500 team and i think the line feels right. anyone remember what it was last year before the season? I feel pretty good about a turnaround with the point differential. The big driver in the point differential was the turnover differential (the Jets were 31st in the league in that category last year). That was driven from both directions. Geno's turnovers are well documented, but the Jets also only managed to recover a league-low two fumbles on defense. That's some bad luck ball bouncing right there. So if Geno (and/or Vick) can cut back on the giveaways, and the defense can move closer to the mean fumble recovery number of 9 or 10, the point differential should see a similar adjustment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I feel pretty good about a turnaround with the point differential. The big driver in the point differential was the turnover differential (the Jets were 31st in the league in that category last year). That was driven from both directions. Geno's turnovers are well documented, but the Jets also only managed to recover a league-low two fumbles on defense. That's some bad luck ball bouncing right there. So if Geno (and/or Vick) can cut back on the giveaways, and the defense can move closer to the mean fumble recovery number of 9 or 10, the point differential should see a similar adjustment. while there was some "bad" luck in the fumble recovery department, on balance the 2013 jets were exceptionally--even historically--lucky to turn a -97 point differential season into 8-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Bingo. The way people try to extract some deeper meaning out of this is really pointless. The entire goal is for Vegas to balance out the betting on either side of each particular line. If everyone was going with the over, then they'd raise the line to balance it out. They don't give a crap how many games the team will actually win, they care what the general public seems to think. Exactly. Vegas doesn't really handicap teams or games, they handicap what they think the general betting public's perspective of a game, or a team is. As BG said all they are really trying to do is balance the bets. That's where they make their money. On the vig. All the ESPN, and major talking heads have put Smith as the worst QB in the league. That of course influences the betting public. If Smith even turns into an average QB, the bet on the over is a gimmie. I've already made it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I agree that's possible. Vick does have a reputation for being better than he is. Then again, these are bettors not casual fans, so they may be more aware of this than non-betting casual fans. Fortunately for sharps, understanding football in any way shape or form is not a prerequisite for betting on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 As much as I knock Ryan, with his beloved defense the Jets are a lock to ferret out 6 tomato can games, given 4 vs. the Bills and Fins. figure another luck/low hanging fruit game and you get to 7. But I wouldn't bet over; it's no lock.As others have pointed out this number has more to do with the psychology of bettors than an econometric analysis. Stay away either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 econometric analysis is this some sorta gay thing or what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted July 17, 2014 Author Share Posted July 17, 2014 I feel pretty good about a turnaround with the point differential. The big driver in the point differential was the turnover differential (the Jets were 31st in the league in that category last year). That was driven from both directions. Geno's turnovers are well documented, but the Jets also only managed to recover a league-low two fumbles on defense. That's some bad luck ball bouncing right there. So if Geno (and/or Vick) can cut back on the giveaways, and the defense can move closer to the mean fumble recovery number of 9 or 10, the point differential should see a similar adjustment. Part of Geno's ints had to be him forcing it to WRs who weren't open (since we had crappy WRs). Part of it was also him being a rookie. This year he'll have some legit weapons (decker, jace, CJ2K) plus experience. And there's also the likelihood our D will recover more fumbles. Maybe I'm way off base but I think the Jets are a 9-10 win team this year. I'm convinced our D is going to be a force and our O will be decent (which would be a huge improvement from last year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Part of Geno's ints had to be him forcing it to WRs who weren't open (since we had crappy WRs). Part of it was also him being a rookie. This year he'll have some legit weapons (decker, jace, CJ2K) plus experience. And there's also the likelihood our D will recover more fumbles. Maybe I'm way off base but I think the Jets are a 9-10 win team this year. I'm convinced our D is going to be a force and our O will be decent (which would be a huge improvement from last year). ummm...I haven't been one of the Geno-killers here, but a lot of his bad throws (including picks, but not necessarily all of them) were off the mark. It's true they could have been on the mark and the receiver wasn't where he was supposed to be, but it happened so much. Even on completed passes, just like his predecessor. Now with Geno, I can write a little more off to nerves since he didn't customarily take snaps from center so he had a lot of footwork to practice/learn that every NFL QB should have gotten out of the way years earlier. Also the 2013 OL wasn't nearly the same caliber as the 2009 line, which was the class of the league. And yes, his receivers were pretty bad. But when they played, I think some guys in particular - like Holmes, Kerley, and Winslow - weren't so likely to be a yard or more off on their routes. On the flip side, though, if he didn't feel confident in his safety net (Ivory in particular, when it was him), he may have been inclined to force it when he shouldn't have. That's inexperience, for sure, which is no big deal from such a raw rookie QB. But if it's not just experience, like with Sanchez, it's a problem that isn't going to go away (or not so fast, anyway). There seemed to be a difference in the inaccuracy between the two, though. Where Sanchez was all over the map, Geno tended to be behind his receivers a lot. I don't know if that's bad routes or him just throwing it to where the receiver is rather than where he will be, but either is fixable. All over the place is probably harder to fix. Or it would seem so, anyway. Even though there are more exciting/talented/better players on the team, he's really the guy I'm most curious to see. Sure, I'm interested in seeing Coples play at 270-275. Want to see how much better Richardson is when he's not just a rookie. Milliner. McDougle. Chris Johnson. But improvement from none of the rest of these guys are going to matter nearly as much this year if Smith stinks. Vick isn't particularly good, for all his talent, and if history's any indicator he will probably get hurt anyway if he's starting. If we're going to have a shot at a title in these next 2 upcoming seasons, it's going to be Geno that has to make that huge stride forward. Vick won't get us there, and the next guy we try out - if Geno sucks a lot again - will be just a rookie himself next year so even a SB is little more than just a pipe dream no matter who it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenoandtheJets Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I say 10 wins and a wildcard spot clinched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 is this some sorta gay thing or whatMath; kinda gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I think they're going to be sh*t this year and I'd take over all day. They'll figure out a way to win 8 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kay_gee Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 The Jets will catch BS until Smith proves himself as a QB. Obviously this is an "if" more than a "when" situation. We can bank on the Patriots winning the division again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kay_gee Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 while there was some "bad" luck in the fumble recovery department, on balance the 2013 jets were exceptionally--even historically--lucky to turn a -97 point differential season into 8-8. point differential is usually a pretty good indicator stat but it can still be misleading. The Jets last three wins last season were the only ones won by more than 7+ points. The others were won by 6 or less. Meanwhile, they got blown out a lot, losing all but that first game against New England by 10 or more points. Hell, they lost to the Bengals by 40. If they'd lost some of those games by 3 or 7 rather than by 20-40 points in 4 of those games, point differential comes down a lot and it doesn't look quite so bad. Plus a lot of those points came off Geno turnovers, which hopefully will not be so much the case this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 point differential is usually a pretty good indicator stat but it can still be misleading. The Jets last three wins last season were the only ones won by more than 7+ points. The others were won by 6 or less. Meanwhile, they got blown out a lot, losing all but that first game against New England by 10 or more points. Hell, they lost to the Bengals by 40. If they'd lost some of those games by 3 or 7 rather than by 20-40 points in 4 of those games, point differential comes down a lot and it doesn't look quite so bad. Plus a lot of those points came off Geno turnovers, which hopefully will not be so much the case this season. All true. I am hoping for the best obviously, but not betting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 We have a tough schedule and still a decent amount of ? marks, at least to the national media. However, I think 6.5 is a bit absurd. I think we'll win 10 or 11 games, tough schedule and all. 5-5 start, 5-1 finish. The last six games are a laughing stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.