Jump to content

CAMP TWEETS MONDAY OK


T0mShane

Recommended Posts

Hey professor, you do realize this is why I said it was arguable to begin with, no?

 

 

I am saying it's not arguable. We do not have a QB until proven otherwise. Odds are significantly better that we are in the QB market next year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No, not that early. Since day 3 of free agency or so. At that time, I was told to be patient, Idzik will definitely improve the team, yada yada yada. LOL, a lot of good that patience has done! All that money and all those picks and this team might actually be worse on paper. Idzik is a joke, a joke that isn't funny.

What? All I hear is HEEEEEEE-HAWWWWW!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Where did they get worse? 

 

Yeah, I know it's amazing... because when you have a team with minimal talent, a ton of money to spend and 12 draft picks, it's tough to actually get worse.

 

Corner, for one thing. Potentially on the offensive line as well.

 

Where did they get better for sure? Receiver. Where else? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CTM apparently doesn't know that arguable means divergent opinions, not his opinion passed off as "odds" or fact. LOL still haven't gotten any smarter have you you big dumb dumb face?

 

 

You said "you can argue that we have a QB now". I understand you are a primitive species, but humans take that to mean you could make a reasonable case for it. I am asking you to present your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know it's amazing... because when you have a team with minimal talent, a ton of money to spend and 12 draft picks, it's tough to actually get worse.

 

Corner, for one thing. Potentially on the offensive line as well.

 

Where did they get better for sure? Receiver. Where else? 

 

It's hard to say they got worse at CB. Cromartie graded out as -like- the 162nd best CB in the NFL last year. 

 

OL? The guard opposite Colon should be better, and the Giacomini is probably a wash. Better depth with Dozier. 

 

They improved at QB, RB, WR, TE, and S. 

 

I know you have this new shtick you now need to adhere to, but pretending the team might actually be worse "on paper" than last year is a pretty ridiculous comment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to say they got worse at CB. Cromartie graded out as -like- the 162nd best CB in the NFL last year. 

 

OL? The guard opposite Colon should be better, and the Giacomini is probably a wash. Better depth with Dozier. 

 

They improved at QB, RB, WR, TE, and S. 

 

I know you have this new shtick you now need to adhere to, but pretending the team might actually be worse "on paper" than last year is a pretty ridiculous comment. 

 

I'm not saying there are no improvements at all. That would have been impossible. But I (as a person with no NFL front office experience) could have done it better than he did.

 

Most of the positions you listed, he improved the depth, not the starting lineup. Even Idzik's biggest fanboys have hinted at this... e.g., when Integrity28 said that Jace Amaro should not be expected to contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know it's amazing... because when you have a team with minimal talent, a ton of money to spend and 12 draft picks, it's tough to actually get worse.

 

Corner, for one thing. Potentially on the offensive line as well.

 

Where did they get better for sure? Receiver. Where else?

  

It's hard to say they got worse at CB. Cromartie graded out as -like- the 162nd best CB in the NFL last year. 

 

OL? The guard opposite Colon should be better, and the Giacomini is probably a wash. Better depth with Dozier. 

 

They improved at QB, RB, WR, TE, and S. 

 

I know you have this new shtick you now need to adhere to, but pretending the team might actually be worse "on paper" than last year is a pretty ridiculous comment.

All of this. Now, if the argument is that this Jets team could lose more games than last years team...totally different argument.

But coming from the guy that says Powell is like the worst RB ever, how is signing CJ (even at his "advanced" age) not an upgrade?

Thanks slats for mentioned Cro's grade last year. People seem to have magically forgotten how he'd get blasted in the game thread every week for a bad penalty or blown coverage. To expand on the other positions you mentioned...

Garrards lack of ability to get on field was a hot topic last year...how is Vick not an upgrade?

Amaro's drop issues or not, how can you bring in his talent level and get WORSE?

Our first rounder was a safety. The position didn't get worse on paper, stop it.

DL certainly didn't get worse. LB play didn't get worse.

Same guys at kicker/punter and may have added a couple of ST guys that'll make coverage units better.

Lol...just lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying there are no improvements at all. That would have been impossible. But I (as a person with no NFL front office experience) could have done it better than he did.

 

Most of the positions you listed, he improved the depth, not the starting lineup. Even Idzik's biggest fanboys have hinted at this... e.g., when Integrity28 said that Jace Amaro should not be expected to contribute.

Actually, what you were saying is that the team was worse on paper...which is completely and utterly not true.

<3 you though. I did lol at the pain prediction last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said "you can argue that we have a QB now". I understand you are a primitive species, but humans take that to mean you could make a reasonable case for it. I am asking you to present your case.

 

Vick is an accomplished veteran, capable of playing average football = better than Sanchez. 

 

Geno as a rookie was the equivalent of Sanchez, and by all accounts looks better this year = better than Sanchez. Also if Vick > Sanchez, and Geno > Vick, then Geno > Sanchez.

 

That's case enough for me to say "you can argue that we have a QB now", a statement I made knowing full well we don't have 100% consensus on it as a fanbase. I never misrepresented myself. The original point being, we have 2 guys who can play QB right now - and we have NOBODY to adequately play #2 CB or #2 WR making those 2 positions the only true "glaring" holes. Sure we have weaker spots than others, but we aren't in dire straights to the degree that I would agree with JIF that we need a whole other season/offseason to "fix" things.

 

All that being said, you managed to side-step the whole "odds are" line of bullsh*t. I gave you my rationale, now back up those odds ... lol, you know you can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vick is an accomplished veteran, capable of playing average football = better than Sanchez. 

 

Geno as a rookie was the equivalent of Sanchez, and by all accounts looks better this year = better than Sanchez. Also if Vick > Sanchez, and Geno > Vick, then Geno > Sanchez.

 

That's case enough for me to say "you can argue that we have a QB now", a statement I made knowing full well we don't have 100% consensus on it as a fanbase. I never misrepresented myself. The original point being, we have 2 guys who can play QB right now - and we have NOBODY to adequately play #2 CB or #2 WR making those 2 positions the only true "glaring" holes. Sure we have weaker spots than others, but we aren't in dire straights to the degree that I would agree with JIF that we need a whole other season/offseason to "fix" things.

 

All that being said, you managed to side-step the whole "odds are" line of bullsh*t. I gave you my rationale, now back up those odds ... lol, you know you can't.

 

 

Nice side step. Even if Geno is better then Sanchez, which I am not sure he is, I do not understand how that equates to making a case that we now have a QB. Having a QB doesn't mean having the 31st best QB situation in the league rather then 32nd. It means having top 15, maybe top 10. Then you "have a QB". At best, you can make a case that he has more promise then Sanchez did at similar points in their career, and that is far from a slam dunk, but it's at least a point you can make a reasonably believable argument for. Saying you can make an argument that we "have a QB" as if we are set at this position, is absurd. The QB is one of the biggest question marks on the team.

 

In terms of supporting my "odds are" statement, it's all there in the stats. Geno was one of, if not the worst, starting QB last year. He was recently rated LAST among  starters by NFL people, and he's looked like crap this preseason until he got to play against the Bengals 2's

 

Vick is another year older, can't stay healthy even if he puts it together,  and put up terrible #'s in the same offense that Foles was dominant on. 

 

Our QB situation is a steaming pile of crusher dung until proven otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed half of the argument

 

So Geno will be the exact same the rest of his career? Vick doesn't count I guess?

Dumb.

 

Vick's old and washed up, he sucks. And I wouldn't bet against Geno playing around the same level he currently is playing at for his entire career. Seems a lot more likely then him magically turning into an average qb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vick's old and washed up, he sucks. And I wouldn't bet against Geno playing around the same level he currently is playing at for his entire career. Seems a lot more likely then him magically turning into an average qb.

Luckily for us your bets may not be fact. We'll see how it plays out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vick's old and washed up, he sucks. And I wouldn't bet against Geno playing around the same level he currently is playing at for his entire career. Seems a lot more likely then him magically turning into an average qb.

Far more likely Geno improves.  He actually has people to throw to this year, and Chris Johnson adds a speedy dimension to the offense which was sorely missed in 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vick is an accomplished veteran, capable of playing average football = better than Sanchez. 

 

Geno as a rookie was the equivalent of Sanchez, and by all accounts looks better this year = better than Sanchez. Also if Vick > Sanchez, and Geno > Vick, then Geno > Sanchez.

 

That's case enough for me to say "you can argue that we have a QB now", a statement I made knowing full well we don't have 100% consensus on it as a fanbase. I never misrepresented myself. The original point being, we have 2 guys who can play QB right now - and we have NOBODY to adequately play #2 CB or #2 WR making those 2 positions the only true "glaring" holes. Sure we have weaker spots than others, but we aren't in dire straights to the degree that I would agree with JIF that we need a whole other season/offseason to "fix" things.

 

All that being said, you managed to side-step the whole "odds are" line of bullsh*t. I gave you my rationale, now back up those odds ... lol, you know you can't.

 

I appreciate the optimism, but >Sanchez =/= having a QB now. 

 

Decker's an established pro who really hasn't established himself as a #1, and Milliner really has yet to establish himself, period. Implying the Jets are set at at the #1 WR and CB spots is probably going to far, too. Ideally, the team would bring in players better than both of them at their respective positions. I was hoping for a potential #1 WR in the draft, instead, as you say, the team has a black hole at the one of the outside spots. Perhaps Milliner comes into his own this year after a strong finish last year, but the blemish on his record is all the injury concerns, and that continues to be a problem. A high ankle sprain is no joke, and if not treated right, this could be a tough year for him and the Jets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IO_ds4k2_normal.jpeg

SethWalderNYDNSeth Walder

Rex on Kyle Wilson: "this will be his finest year." #nyj

I like Rex as much as I like any coach who doesn't make the postseason three years in a row, but he has to stop with this Kyle Wilson nonsense.

That said, Wilson really doesn't have a high bar to clear to have his "finest" season yet, so it's technically possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice side step. Even if Geno is better then Sanchez, which I am not sure he is, I do not understand how that equates to making a case that we now have a QB. Having a QB doesn't mean having the 31st best QB situation in the league rather then 32nd. It means having top 15, maybe top 10. Then you "have a QB". At best, you can make a case that he has more promise then Sanchez did at similar points in their career, and that is far from a slam dunk, but it's at least a point you can make a reasonably believable argument for. Saying you can make an argument that we "have a QB" as if we are set at this position, is absurd. The QB is one of the biggest question marks on the team.

 

In terms of supporting my "odds are" statement, it's all there in the stats. Geno was one of, if not the worst, starting QB last year. He was recently rated LAST among  starters by NFL people, and he's looked like crap this preseason until he got to play against the Bengals 2's

 

Vick is another year older, can't stay healthy even if he puts it together,  and put up terrible #'s in the same offense that Foles was dominant on. 

 

Our QB situation is a steaming pile of crusher dung until proven otherwise.

 

You asked for my "case" (it's not mafia, you moron) and I gave you instead the rationale that informed my word choice. I believe out QB situation is better than it was with Sanchez, this is my opinion. I believe it's arguable whether or not QB should be considered a "glaring hole", again this is my opinion. Is it a perfect QB situation? No, I never said it was.

 

What I said was it was arguable as to how "glaring" the QB spot is. Obviously I wasn't misrepresenting the situation, because like a predictable twat, you are arguing about it.

 

You still haven't backed up the "odds". Tell me more about how I am side-stepping though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the optimism, but >Sanchez =/= having a QB now. 

 

Decker's an established pro who really hasn't established himself as a #1, and Milliner really has yet to establish himself, period. Implying the Jets are set at at the #1 WR and CB spots is probably going to far, too. Ideally, the team would bring in players better than both of them at their respective positions. I was hoping for a potential #1 WR in the draft, instead, as you say, the team has a black hole at the one of the outside spots. Perhaps Milliner comes into his own this year after a strong finish last year, but the blemish on his record is all the injury concerns, and that continues to be a problem. A high ankle sprain is no joke, and if not treated right, this could be a tough year for him and the Jets. 

 

Fair enough.

 

We are looking at 3 player then. The QB we'll need next year if Geno and Vick don't pan out into something. Someone to pair with Decker. Someone to pair with Milliner. The whole #1 or #2 WR/CB thing is pointless to get into. 

 

Last year, coming into the season, we had "glaring holes" at QB, every WR spot (even Kerley was being dogged in camp last year), RB, TE, OG, RT, NT, DE, OLB, MLB and S. 

 

So, to go back to my original point to JIF - I don't buy into this "we need a whole other year of building before we can compete" sentiment. We are in far better shape this season than last, and we don't have nearly the amount of "glaring holes" to fill. Glaring hole = we have nobody who can play now, and nobody that we're invested in to play this position. sh*t out of luck, basically.

 

We have weak spots, or inexperienced spots this year, but I think we've got a LOT of promising young talent plugged into those holes that were filled with bottom-tier JAGs and guys that were done last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying there are no improvements at all. That would have been impossible. But I (as a person with no NFL front office experience) could have done it better than he did.

 

No.  You would have signed Revis to the equivalent of an NBA max deal and missed out on Eric Decker.  And God help us if you were in charge of the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to say they got worse at CB. Cromartie graded out as -like- the 162nd best CB in the NFL last year. 

 

OL? The guard opposite Colon should be better, and the Giacomini is probably a wash. Better depth with Dozier. 

 

They improved at QB, RB, WR, TE, and S. 

 

I know you have this new shtick you now need to adhere to, but pretending the team might actually be worse "on paper" than last year is a pretty ridiculous comment. 

 

slats isn't sold on Idzik yet still found reasons to be optimistic about the improvements to the roster.  This above all things should silence stoicsentry but I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked for my "case" (it's not mafia, you moron) and I gave you instead the rationale that informed my word choice. I believe out QB situation is better than it was with Sanchez, this is my opinion. I believe it's arguable whether or not QB should be considered a "glaring hole", again this is my opinion. Is it a perfect QB situation? No, I never said it was.

 

What I said was it was arguable as to how "glaring" the QB spot is. Obviously I wasn't misrepresenting the situation, because like a predictable twat, you are arguing about it.

 

You still haven't backed up the "odds". Tell me more about how I am side-stepping though.

 

 

You have dumb brains..

 

you said, "you can make an argument that we now have a QB" (implying it's plausible we are set at the position)

 

I said,  "i'd like to hear that argument"

 

you said, "I think he's better then Sanchez"

 

multiple people have told you that being better then Sanchez does not equal "having a qb"

 

you lose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have dumb brains..

 

you said, "you can make an argument that we now have a QB" (implying it's plausible we are set at the position)

 

I said,  "i'd like to hear that argument"

 

you said, "I think he's better then Sanchez"

 

multiple people have told you that being better then Sanchez does not equal "having a qb"

 

you lose

 

Those are opinions. Just like my initial statement was an opinion. You see, when someone says "here is my opinion, it's arguable" they are conceding that not all will agree with said opinion. All you've actually accomplish here is proving my point, that it is arguable. Thank you.

 

That doesn't mean I'm going to let you off the hook for that "odds are" bullsh*t you referenced to prop up your straw man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are opinions. Just like my initial statement was an opinion. You see, when someone says "here is my opinion, it's arguable" they are conceding that not all will agree with said opinion. All you've actually accomplish here is proving my point, that it is arguable. Thank you.

 

That doesn't mean I'm going to let you off the hook for that "odds are" bullsh*t you referenced to prop up your straw man. 

 

 

Holy crap you are dumb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have dumb brains..

 

you said, "you can make an argument that we now have a QB" (implying it's plausible we are set at the position)

 

I said,  "i'd like to hear that argument"

 

you said, "I think he's better then Sanchez"

 

multiple people have told you that being better then Sanchez does not equal "having a qb"

 

you lose

 

If any phrase was copyright worthy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy crap you are dumb

 

You calling me dumb has about the same effect on me as when women tell you no.

 

You said the "odds are" that we'll be in the market for a new QB next year. You know as well as I do that there are no odds to back up that claim. You are just being salty now because the dumb ape called you out on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...