Jets might not see Eifert in opener

[Greenseed4]

What is AJ Green's record against Revis? Doesn't he go for 2 catches, 13 yards every time they meet?

[Mainejet]

I really don't see what difference it makes The Jets are going to lose anyway. The Bengals had the 11th overall defense in 2015 giving up the second least amount of points only to Denver at 17.4 points per game. The offense is ranked 15th overall scoring 26.2 points per game. These rankings in one of the hardest divisions in football.

The Jets on the other hand, have beaten only one team with a winning record per season the last two seasons running and they'll be facing the AFC North division winner with a 12-4 record. The Jets don't stand a chance, not with an offense that was neglected during the offseason.

[JoJoTownsell1]

6 hours ago, PatsFanTX said:

The Jets have 2 QB's who have never taken a NFL snap and Geno Smith.

That's the equivalent of not having any QB's on the roster.

Meanwhile the Pats have the same problem for the first 4 weeks of the season but clowns like you think they will still go 3-1 or 2-2. Jimmy Garoppololololololol

 

 

[Mike135]

This may mean the Bengals score under 21.  So Fitz could potentially win this one.

[PatsFanTX]

Meanwhile the Pats have the same problem for the first 4 weeks of the season but clowns like you think they will still go 3-1 or 2-2. Jimmy Garoppololololololol

 

 

Pats easily go 3-1 in the first 4 games. Brady comes back and goes 10-2 and the Pats finish at 13-3 and the #1 seed in the AFC.

[Jetfan13]

3 hours ago, UpstateJetsGuru said:

I think Dalton made the Pro Bowl two years ago with 19 TD's and 17 INT's. He also had 20 INT's the season before that..but he carries them to the playoffs every year!

How many rings? EXACTLY, 1st loser.

 

[cant wait]

5 hours ago, Jetster said:

What?

Are you kidding me? They might have a good defense but if you don't think Jones & Sanu weren't very good & will easily replaced your not that familiar with the Bengals. Those 2 made it much for difficult to defend Dalton & they both were scooped up quickly in free agency. The Jets were a top 10 defense in 2015 & will be even better in 2016. The Jets have a huge tough front that is very difficult to run on so your already seeing how Bowles can defend them if they come in short of weapons. I didn't even realize Burfict was suspended. 

I think the additions of boyd and lafell should make up for losing jones and sanu in FA. They still have hill and gio bernard in the backfield and kroft is a decent backup TE. the bengals are in an enviable spot right now because of the depth they have across the board, even mccarron showed something as a backup. I hope the jets follow their lead and continue to add pieces and build a balanced roster through the draft

[jamesr]

4 hours ago, Mainejet said:

I really don't see what difference it makes The Jets are going to lose anyway. The Bengals had the 11th overall defense in 2015 giving up the second least amount of points only to Denver at 17.4 points per game. The offense is ranked 15th overall scoring 26.2 points per game. These rankings in one of the hardest divisions in football.

The Jets on the other hand, have beaten only one team with a winning record per season the last two seasons running and they'll be facing the AFC North division winner with a 12-4 record. The Jets don't stand a chance, not with an offense that was neglected during the offseason.

What was the Bengals record last year against teams with winning records? 3-4. Beat KC, Pitt, Seattle; lost to Pitt, Houston, Denver, Arizona. Their other 7 wins were SD, Oakland, Browns, Ravens * 2, Rams and 49ers.

Jets record last year against teams with winning records? 2-2. Beat NE, Wash; lost to NE, Houston. 

We failed last year not because of our record against winning teams, but against losing / 0.500 teams ... Oakland, Philly, Buffalo * 2

(Yes, I'm using winning record as being at season's end, too much work to go back and look at the situation at the point we played them. But that would cut both ways; if we lose the Wash game from our "winning teams" record, Cincy loses KC at least). 

[drdetroit]

11 hours ago, PatsFanTX said:

The Jets have 2 QB's who have never taken a NFL snap and Geno Smith.

That's the equivalent of not having any QB's on the roster.

Think we should sign your heros Matt Cassel and Ryan Mallett.  I hear they are available 

[cant wait]

14 minutes ago, jamesr said:

What was the Bengals record last year against teams with winning records? 3-4. Beat KC, Pitt, Seattle; lost to Pitt, Houston, Denver, Arizona. Their other 7 wins were SD, Oakland, Browns, Ravens * 2, Rams and 49ers.

Jets record last year against teams with winning records? 2-2. Beat NE, Wash; lost to NE, Houston. 

We failed last year not because of our record against winning teams, but against losing / 0.500 teams ... Oakland, Philly, Buffalo * 2

(Yes, I'm using winning record as being at season's end, too much work to go back and look at the situation at the point we played them. But that would cut both ways; if we lose the Wash game from our "winning teams" record, Cincy loses KC at least). 

That last loss to Denver was 17-20 in OT with mccarron at QB. The bengals were a legit SB contender last season and if they had the jets easy schedule could definitely have gone 16-0

[PatsFanTX]

Think we should sign your heros Matt Cassel and Ryan Mallett.  I hear they are available 

Both would improve the Jets current QB situation.

[Sperm Edwards]

5 hours ago, jamesr said:

What was the Bengals record last year against teams with winning records? 3-4. Beat KC, Pitt, Seattle; lost to Pitt, Houston, Denver, Arizona. Their other 7 wins were SD, Oakland, Browns, Ravens * 2, Rams and 49ers.

Jets record last year against teams with winning records? 2-2. Beat NE, Wash; lost to NE, Houston. 

We failed last year not because of our record against winning teams, but against losing / 0.500 teams ... Oakland, Philly, Buffalo * 2

(Yes, I'm using winning record as being at season's end, too much work to go back and look at the situation at the point we played them. But that would cut both ways; if we lose the Wash game from our "winning teams" record, Cincy loses KC at least). 

We did not beat Washington's regular team. They were missing their best CB (and the other played but was injured enough to be a gametime decision) and I think their LT and C also missed the game, as well as their top 2 receiving targets, and more. The Redskins team we faced was nothing like what they were like when those starters were on the field.

[Sperm Edwards]

13 hours ago, BowlesMovement said:

But its funny how nobody will say a word about how "lucky" Dalton is to have him as a QB, and Jets fans will say how good he is. Jets fans are the worst, absolutely horrible fan base.

Dalton absolutely is lucky to have AJ Green. the guy alternates between circus catches and running himself open so many times every season. I thought that was obvious and everyone knew it, though. Look at A.J.McCarron's first 4 NFL games, closing out the regular season. Though those #s don't take into account sacks/fumbles, they're far from the worst passing #s I've ever seen in a late draft pick's first 4 career starts after working with the 2s/3s his career to date.

This past season was by far his best, but Dalton doesn't OMG me. AJ Green OMGs me.

[ljr]

16 hours ago, slats said:

The Jets had the easiest schedule in the NFL last year. They're still quite a few timely surgeries away from having the easiest schedule again this year. 

The general premise is correct ... But exaggerated

dont have the numbers in front of me ... But I believe last year was 7th easiest strength of schedule

and this year is tied for 17th easiest SOS ... Or something close to that 

[Raideraholic]

On May 25, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Jetster said:

This is the reason you can never pick wins & losses until you actually play the games in the NFL. Eifert had surgery & could be out over 3 months. Could even miss the opener as he'll have no camp. They lost Marvin Jones, Sanu, and Eifert might not play.

All of a sudden you stop the run, double AJ Green and your golden. You...never...know...how tough your schedule is until you play it.

There is a lot more to the Bengals than those players you mention. That Bengal offenseline is pretty darn good ( doesn't get the publicity it deserves). This Bengal team is easily a playoff team in 2016. ( they are that good on both sides of the football- only question do they have the Qb to win them a championship). 

The game of football is still won and lost in the trenches.    I think the Bengals win that battle on both sides of the ball.( tough for me to see the Jets defenders getting a lot of hits on Andy Dalton). 

 

[slats]

7 hours ago, ljr said:

The general premise is correct ... But exaggerated

dont have the numbers in front of me ... But I believe last year was 7th easiest strength of schedule

and this year is tied for 17th easiest SOS ... Or something close to that 

I have no idea what numbers you're looking at, but you're wrong. When the season was over, the Jets were tied with the Carolina Panthers with literally the easiest schedule in the NFL (with an opponent's winning percentage of .441). The difference, of course, is that Carolina parlayed their easy schedule into a #1 seed and a Super Bowl berth. 

We won't know the strength of this year's schedule until the season is over, but I think it's safe to say that it's very unlikely to be the easiest in the league a second year in a row. 

[ljr]

40 minutes ago, slats said:

I have no idea what numbers you're looking at, but you're wrong. When the season was over, the Jets were tied with the Carolina Panthers with literally the easiest schedule in the NFL (with an opponent's winning percentage of .441). The difference, of course, is that Carolina parlayed their easy schedule into a #1 seed and a Super Bowl berth. 

We won't know the strength of this year's schedule until the season is over, but I think it's safe to say that it's very unlikely to be the easiest in the league a second year in a row. 

Guess that depends on whether you look at what's projected before the season or go back afterwards then.

nfl.com, espn, cbssports all seem to project strength of schedule going into the season ... Which must be the disparity between our numbers.

they actually have us projected as 7th most difficult going int 2016, but this article does say we were in the top 5 easiest for last year.

 

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25485818/nfl-strength-of-schedule-49ers-falcons-at-no-1-packers-at-no-32

.

 

 

 

Anyway, here's the 2016 strength of schedule for each NFL team (Combined 2015 record of all 16 opponents, combined winning percentage)

T-1. San Francisco 49ers: 142-114, .555

T-1. Atlanta Falcons: 142-114, .555

3. Los Angeles Rams: 141-115, .551

4. New Orleans Saints: 140-116, .547

T-5. Seattle Seahawks: 139-117, .543

T-5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 139-117, .543

T-7. Arizona Cardinals: 136-120, .531

T-7. New York Jets: 136-120, .531

9. New England Patriots: 134-122, .523

10. Buffalo Bills: 133-123, .520

11. Miami Dolphins: 132-124, .516

12. Carolina Panthers: 131-125, .512

13. San Diego Chargers: 130-126, .508

14. Denver Broncos: 129-127, .504

15. Oakland Raiders: 128-128, .500

16. Kansas City Chiefs: 127-129, .496

17. Washington Redskins: 126-130, .492

18. Minnesota Vikings: 125-131, .488

T-19. Houston Texans: 124-132, .484

T-19. Baltimore Ravens: 124-132, .484

21. Cleveland Browns: 123-133, .480

22. Indianapolis Colts: 122-134, .477

T-23. Pittsburgh Steelers: 121-135, .473

T-23. Tennessee Titans: 121-135, .473

T-23. Jacksonville Jaguars: 121-135, .473

26. Philadelphia Eagles: 120-136, .469

T-27. Cincinnati Bengals: 119-137, .465

T-27. Detroit Lions: 119-137, .465

T-27. Dallas Cowboys: 119-137, .465

T-30. Chicago Bears: 118-138, .461

T-30. New York Giants: 118-138, .461

32. Green Bay Packers: 117-139, .457

If you're curious about the scheduling formula, here's how the NFL does it: Under the formula implemented in 2002, every team plays 16 games as follows --

• Home and away against its three division opponents (six games).
• The four teams from another division within its conference on a rotating three-year cycle (four games).
• The four teams from a division in the other conference on a rotating four-year cycle (four games).
• Two intraconference games based on the prior year's standings (two games). These games match a first-place team against the first-place teams in the two same-conference divisions that the team is not scheduled to play that season. The second-place, third-place, and fourth-place teams in a conference are matched in the same way each year.
• Beginning in 2010, a change was made to how teams are paired in the schedule rotation to ensure that teams playing the AFC West and NFC West divisions would not be required to make two West Coast trips (e.g., at San Francisco and at Seattle), while other teams in their division had none (e.g., at St. Louis and at Arizona).
•  

 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

31 minutes ago, slats said:

I have no idea what numbers you're looking at, but you're wrong. When the season was over, the Jets were tied with the Carolina Panthers with literally the easiest schedule in the NFL (with an opponent's winning percentage of .441). The difference, of course, is that Carolina parlayed their easy schedule into a #1 seed and a Super Bowl berth. 

We won't know the strength of this year's schedule until the season is over, but I think it's safe to say that it's very unlikely to be the easiest in the league a second year in a row. 

Beyond that, those SOS numbers apply an actual difference in schedule difficulty every week based on some cumulative W/L record that doesn't exist in reality. We didn't play 1/16 of a full-strength Patriots team every game last year. We played them once. Then we played a shell of their team once. When we played the Redskins we played them without, what was it, 5 key starters and at least one more that was a gametime decision (both starting CBs and both their only 2 legit receiving targets in that illustrious 6)? We played a Texans team with a street FA at QB who looked competent with Sheldon Richardson off the field.

Carolina shmarolina. We didn't beat any full-strength Seahawks teams, and the Panthers fans didn't have to make "those were team losses!" excuses for him because OMG the defense surrendered over 20 points to 7 teams in 16 games (all 7 of them resulting Panthers wins), including 29 points to GB, 35 to the Giants, and 38 to the Saints. We'd have been listening to repeated "it's not Fitzpatrick's fault" excuses for losses instead of celebrating wins like Carolina. Fitzpatrick on the 2015 Panthers, with their receiving corps no less, and instead of reaching the SB they likely miss the playoffs just like we did.

No matter how good a defense is (like Carolina's, and like us as well last year), the offense still needs to put up points in tough situations. Can't get on the D because they aren't annihilating offenses like only a generational defense would. You want to get to the SB you have to be able to win a game when they give up 25-35 points. Otherwise no matter how he might look like Aquaman on the kiddie side of the rope, he still drowns in the deep end. He was fine for last year and was well worth $3.5M. He's worth at most double that, and bringing him back might not be worthwhile even if he'd accept that price.

[slats]

1 hour ago, ljr said:

Guess that depends on whether you look at what's projected before the season or go back afterwards then.

nfl.com, espn, cbssports all seem to project strength of schedule going into the season ... Which must be the disparity between our numbers.

they actually have us projected as 7th most difficult going int 2016, but this article does say we were in the top 5 easiest for last year.

What was projected doesn't matter. It was projected to be easy, turned out to be the easiest. This years is projected to be significantly more difficult, and we'll see how it plays out. Like I said, though, it's highly unlikely that the team will wind up with the easiest schedule in the league two years in a row. 

[BowlesMovement]

10 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Dalton absolutely is lucky to have AJ Green. the guy alternates between circus catches and running himself open so many times every season. I thought that was obvious and everyone knew it, though. Look at A.J.McCarron's first 4 NFL games, closing out the regular season. Though those #s don't take into account sacks/fumbles, they're far from the worst passing #s I've ever seen in a late draft pick's first 4 career starts after working with the 2s/3s his career to date.

This past season was by far his best, but Dalton doesn't OMG me. AJ Green OMGs me.

I am in complete agreement with you. I think he is a decent QB, in the range of Fitzpatrick, maybe a bit better, but he is nothing special. I have heard many Jets fans however say they wish they had him, and in fact many of the same ones who passionately hate Fitzpatrick.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, BowlesMovement said:

I am in complete agreement with you. I think he is a decent QB, in the range of Fitzpatrick, maybe a bit better, but he is nothing special. I have heard many Jets fans however say they wish they had him, and in fact many of the same ones who passionately hate Fitzpatrick.

I don't hate Fitzpatrick, though I think he has more flaws than most people are willing to admit. I'm sympathetic as to why, knowing the history of his likely alternative, but I don't think Fitz is enough to get us past this schedule and see a long term of more bad than benefit. I also have this luxury as a non-GM, non-season ticket holder, and non-veteran player: all of whom are understandably in now-mode at all times.

Dalton's a bit better than Fitz, plus he has the upside of (relative) youth that Fitz had when Buffalo gave him that dopey contract. Also people never saw how he looks without an AJ Green to chuck it up to. He did just have his best season right when he should be entering his prime, but the only reason I'd open up a vault for Dalton is because there aren't enough decent QBs to go around and the other choice is to hope that we get one of the next ones to enter the league.

Wasn't Dalton yet another spread offense QB who wasn't "ruined" by playing as a rookie? Yet another example of how QBs - even merely decent ones like Dalton - are either NFL QBs or they aren't. Some are more raw than others, of course, but these automatic QB-bubblewrap rules are positively eye-roll worthy.

[BowlesMovement]

33 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't hate Fitzpatrick, though I think he has more flaws than most people are willing to admit. I'm sympathetic as to why, knowing the history of his likely alternative, but I don't think Fitz is enough to get us past this schedule and see a long term of more bad than benefit. I also have this luxury as a non-GM, non-season ticket holder, and non-veteran player: all of whom are understandably in now-mode at all times.

Dalton's a bit better than Fitz, plus he has the upside of (relative) youth that Fitz had when Buffalo gave him that dopey contract. Also people never saw how he looks without an AJ Green to chuck it up to. He did just have his best season right when he should be entering his prime, but the only reason I'd open up a vault for Dalton is because there aren't enough decent QBs to go around and the other choice is to hope that we get one of the next ones to enter the league.

Wasn't Dalton yet another spread offense QB who wasn't "ruined" by playing as a rookie? Yet another example of how QBs - even merely decent ones like Dalton - are either NFL QBs or they aren't. Some are more raw than others, of course, but these automatic QB-bubblewrap rules are positively eye-roll worthy.

I wasn't referring to you as far as hating Fitzpatrick, I think you have been pretty clear on where you stand with him.

I agree Dalton is a bit better than Fitz. I put them in the same category though, you can win with them if and only if you put a lot of talent around them. If you give them a big contract, you are going to have a hard time fielding a championship team, unless you draft superbly.

[Matt39]

Didnt we draft that stooge Coples over this guy

[Sperm Edwards]

12 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Didnt we draft that stooge Coples over this guy

No. Sheldon Richardson.

[cant wait]

On May 26, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't hate Fitzpatrick, though I think he has more flaws than most people are willing to admit. I'm sympathetic as to why, knowing the history of his likely alternative, but I don't think Fitz is enough to get us past this schedule and see a long term of more bad than benefit. I also have this luxury as a non-GM, non-season ticket holder, and non-veteran player: all of whom are understandably in now-mode at all times.

Dalton's a bit better than Fitz, plus he has the upside of (relative) youth that Fitz had when Buffalo gave him that dopey contract. Also people never saw how he looks without an AJ Green to chuck it up to. He did just have his best season right when he should be entering his prime, but the only reason I'd open up a vault for Dalton is because there aren't enough decent QBs to go around and the other choice is to hope that we get one of the next ones to enter the league.

Wasn't Dalton yet another spread offense QB who wasn't "ruined" by playing as a rookie? Yet another example of how QBs - even merely decent ones like Dalton - are either NFL QBs or they aren't. Some are more raw than others, of course, but these automatic QB-bubblewrap rules are positively eye-roll worthy.

Dalton is significantly better than fitz, and still improving. Just look at their passer ratings 2015/career... Dalton 106.2/88.4 and fitz 88.0/80.8

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, cant wait said:

Dalton is significantly better than fitz, and still improving. Just look at their passer ratings 2015/career... Dalton 106.2/88.4 and fitz 88.0/80.8

Being fair, though, Fitz's passer rating when he had his own AJ Green is about that as well. Even Geno's rating since coming back from his benching is also in that range but he has hardly been consistently good over that span himself.

If Dalton rips off a string of seasons like 2015, and particularly if he makes some post-season noise, then I'll think more highly of that hideous freaking ginger. 

[Colgateman]

On May 26, 2016 at 8:22 AM, BowlesMovement said:

I am in complete agreement with you. I think he is a decent QB, in the range of Fitzpatrick, maybe a bit better, but he is nothing special. I have heard many Jets fans however say they wish they had him, and in fact many of the same ones who passionately hate Fitzpatrick.

You're ******* joking.

dalton is multi time pro bowl franchise quarterback. 

Fitztragic is a sh*tty journeyman

 

some of you guys come up with the craziest sh*t.

[PatsFanTX]

Dalton is significantly better than fitz, and still improving. Just look at their passer ratings 2015/career... Dalton 106.2/88.4 and fitz 88.0/80.8

You are correct.

Dalton is much better than Fitz.

[BowlesMovement]

9 minutes ago, Colgateman said:

You're ******* joking.

dalton is multi time pro bowl franchise quarterback. 

Fitztragic is a sh*tty journeyman

 

some of you guys come up with the craziest sh*t.

I just think your very sexy, and like making you curse, it makes me a bit moist

[cant wait]

26 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Being fair, though, Fitz's passer rating when he had his own AJ Green is about that as well. Even Geno's rating since coming back from his benching is also in that range but he has hardly been consistently good over that span himself.

If Dalton rips off a string of seasons like 2015, and particularly if he makes some post-season noise, then I'll think more highly of that hideous freaking ginger. 

Fitz's highest was over those 12 games in Houston when he was at 95.3, throwing to hopkins/andre johnson/arian foster but point taken. the bengals did the smart thing and loaded that roster with talent for their young QB, they finally looked like something last season until dalton got hurt and even then mccarron wasn't awful in backup duty

[Colgateman]

1 hour ago, BowlesMovement said:

I just think your very sexy, and like making you curse, it makes me a bit moist

Woah my 2 year olds nephew reads this forum!

[no psls]

18 minutes ago, Colgateman said:

Woah my 2 year olds nephew reads this forum!

Here's one for your nephew ...

[PatsFanTX]

I just think your very sexy, and like making you curse, it makes me a bit moist

Damn, I knew you had a vagina.

[Colgateman]

8 minutes ago, no psls said:

Here's one for your nephew ...

Post some more pleighboi, for research 

[BowlesMovement]

40 minutes ago, Colgateman said:

Woah my 2 year olds nephew reads this forum!

Wait, you have a 2 year old who has a nephew?