Jump to content

Get ready to wake up against the pats....


Maddog45

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Maddog45 said:

You play petty in live action and see what he does

We've played Petty in live action and seen what he does.  He plays below average, and then gets hurt.

For someone so aggressively vociferous about going 0-16 to get the #1 pick, your keen interest in playing Petty and going 6-10 (instead of 4-11 with McCown) is flat out odd.

Quote

how tf will you be able to tell if he's any good if he doesn't play

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PettBr01.htm

Might want to take a look.  

Quote

if he's good give him the job and draft weapons to help him

Has outright said we can only get a franchise QB with the top pick or two, yet believes in the dream of the 4th round pick.  Like I said, odd.

Quote

if he sucks get a qb in draft moron

Explain to me the difference between these two options:

Play McCown, go 4-12, draft a QB at pick ~#6

Play Petty, go 6-10, draft a QB at pick ~#15

Quote

and it's easy to tank in this league,

Like I said, too much Madden.

Quote

Mcclown starting will have the jets watching playoffs and later draft pick.

And starting Petty will have the Jets watching the playoffs and an even later pick.  

Quote

I'm not going back and forth with morons anymore . It's about the team winning consistently for the next 10-15 years 

Every time you think something, you're going back and forth with a moron.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 minutes ago, Warfish said:

We've played Petty in live action and seen what he does.  He plays below average, and then gets hurt.

For someone so aggressively vociferous about going 0-16 to get the #1 pick, your keen interest in playing Petty and going 6-10 (instead of 4-11 with McCown) is flat out odd.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PettBr01.htm

Might want to take a look.  

Has outright said we can only get a franchise QB with the top pick or two, yet believes in the dream of the 4th round pick.  Like I said, odd.

Explain to me the difference between these two options:

Play McCown, go 4-12, draft a QB at pick ~#6

Play Petty, go 6-10, draft a QB at pick ~#15

Like I said, too much Madden.

And starting Petty will have the Jets watching the playoffs and an even later pick.  

Every time you think something, you're going back and forth with a moron.

 

Like I said before how does playing petty give you an automatic 6-10 record swami? Hey moron he could actually lose every game , in a miracle win every game , you don't know . LIKE I SAID PLAY HIM TO FIND OUT, and yes he played like 3 games , play him more. Peyton went 3-13 his first damn year , play the damn guy .This moron would run Peyton out of town if he were in a position of power , thank god he isn't 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I keep bring up petty because it makes this season worth while, no playoffs might as well evaluate players , ******* idiots with a iq of a rock don't have the mental capacity to understand , funny it's a bunch of old folks who I would think are rational , but I keep forgetting I'm in a jets forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maddog45 said:

Like I said before how does playing petty give you an automatic 6-10 record swami?

Petty is slightly better (IMO) than McCown.  McCown is likely to go 4-5 wins.  Petty should be able to eek out one additional win.  Seems reasonable.

How does drafting at pick #3 instead of #6 (or #10) guarantee "the team winning consistently for the next 10-15 years", which is a claim you've made today?

5 minutes ago, Maddog45 said:

Hey moron he could actually lose every game , in a miracle win every game , you don't know .

And you don't know which QB in the forthcoming draft will be Peyton Manning, and which will be Ryan Leaf.

Which should perhaps be considered before you sperge on in post after post about tanking.

5 minutes ago, Maddog45 said:

LIKE I SAID PLAY HIM TO FIND OUT

All Caps, the true sign of genius.

5 minutes ago, Maddog45 said:

and yes he played like 3 games , play him more.

I'd be perfectly happy to see that, but I'm not the one demanding the team tank.

Why play the better QB if you want us to tank?  You've yet to answer that with anything approaching logic or consistent argument.

5 minutes ago, Maddog45 said:

Peyton went 3-13 his first damn year , play the damn guy .

So Petty is now to be compared to Peyton, brilliant observation.

If we're making random observations, here is one, Browning Nagle went 3-10 in his first year as a starter, clearly we should have played him more too. 

Because Peyton went 3-13!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Petty is slightly better (IMO) than McCown.  McCown is likely to go 4-5 wins.  Petty should be able to eek out one additional win.  Seems reasonable.

How does drafting at pick #3 instead of #6 (or #10) guarantee "the team winning consistently for the next 10-15 years", which is a claim you've made today?

And you don't know which QB in the forthcoming draft will be Peyton Manning, and which will be Ryan Leaf.

Which should perhaps be considered before you sperge on in post after post about tanking.

All Caps, the true sign of genius.

I'd be perfectly happy to see that, but I'm not the one demanding the team tank.

Why play the better QB if you want us to tank?  You've yet to answer that with anything approaching logic or consistent argument.

So Petty is now to be compared to Peyton, brilliant observation.

If we're making random observations, here is one, Browning Nagle went 3-10 in his first year as a starter, clearly we should have played him more too. 

Because Peyton went 3-13!

You're saying your opinion like its actual facts if petty was better then mcclown he would be the starter already game one , and you don't write people off after 3 games, and I wrote in all caps because Its like speaking to a retard , and playing petty can lead to a tank he could lose every game , also there are many variables in winning a game , our defense could get smoked every week and we lose .You're pulling this 6 wins by petty out of your ass gtfo with that sh*t. Even if petty were better than mcclown it doesn't always equate to wins moron.If we get the chance to draft darnold and Rosen and we get leaf , than that's fate and the same ol jets luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you're pro or against tanking, starting Mccown does little to nothing for the Jets long term gain. Woohoo 6 wins max. Meanwhile, playing a Petty or Hack type has large potential benefits.

People who wonder how the jets could "tank" are ridiculous, you gut your team of vets and start your young qb with "potential." Yes even  Hack has that and yes, I know, he stinks.

There are smart people on this forum who are having a very hard time with this idea. It's strange. Additionally, those smart posters are picking on people who aren't as eloquent as they are. Nice.

Anyway, when you play the young qb you win if they're good and you win if they're bad. I don't see how this is so hard to understand. If they're 2-14 ok you get that draft pick. But maybe you get a record of 5-11 or 6-10 or 7-9 -- not so bad for a young qb.

You at least give the young guy a shot. Going forward you can make the determination whether they are worth more time or you decide you need to draft/sign someone else, whether it's at 1st overall or 15th.

As the young qb plays the rest of the tea can grow. They don't need the starter to be a Vet of 14 years for them to grow as players and grow as a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BrickTamland said:

Whether you're pro or against tanking, starting Mccown does little to nothing for the Jets long term gain. Woohoo 6 wins max. Meanwhile, playing a Petty or Hack type has large potential benefits.

People who wonder how the jets could "tank" are ridiculous, you gut your team of vets and start your young qb with "potential." Yes even  Hack has that and yes, I know, he stinks.

There are smart people on this forum who are having a very hard time with this idea. It's strange. Additionally, those smart posters are picking on people who aren't as eloquent as they are. Nice.

Anyway, when you play the young qb you win if they're good and you win if they're bad. I don't see how this is so hard to understand. If they're 2-14 ok you get that draft pick. But maybe you get a record of 5-11 or 6-10 or 7-9 -- not so bad for a young qb.

You at least give the young guy a shot. Going forward you can make the determination whether they are worth more time or you decide you need to draft/sign someone else, whether it's at 1st overall or 15th.

As the young qb plays the rest of the tea can grow. They don't need the starter to be a Vet of 14 years for them to grow as players and grow as a team.

Finally guy here who isn't a retard other than me and @Gastineau Lives

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maddog45 said:

You're saying your opinion like its actual facts

Have you read any of your posts today before you hit "Submit reply".

if not, you may want to review your own statements and tone, my friend.

Quote

if petty was better then mcclown he would be the starter already game one

And if my mother had wheels she'd be a wagon.

For a guy who, in the very same post, claims a better QB could lose more than a worse QB, you seem to have difficulty that a better QB could be sat for a worse QB.  Interesting.

Quote

and you don't write people off after 3 games

I haven't written Petty off, and I'd like to play him AND I think he's better than McCown.

All of this is consistent with my intellectual position.

You want to lose all our games, but you also want Petty to play because he could be (as you see it) a Franchise QB we got in the 4th round.

That is not an intellectually consistent position.

Quote

and I wrote in all caps because Its like speaking to a retard

Something I am sure you have experience with purely by thinking.

Quote

, and playing petty can lead to a tank he could lose every game

So he's a possible franchise QB we simply must play and potentially draft future weapons for, but he's going to lose out and ensure we get the #1/#1 pick if we play him.

Got it.

Quote

also there are many variables in winning a game

Didn't you say, and I quote, "a team onyl goes as far as it's QB"?

Quote

You're pulling this 6 wins by petty out of your ass gtfo with that sh*t.

Yo dawg, why you be trippin' dude, why you gots to lay shade like that?

Quote

 Even if petty were better than mcclown it doesn't always equate to wins moron.

Nathan-Fillion-reaction-gif.gif

Quote

If we get the chance to draft darnold and Rosen and we get leaf , than that's fate and the same ol jets luck.

We're not going to get the #1 or #2 picks.  So if Darnold and Rosen are #1 and #2, we have no chance whatsoever of getting them.

Come to terms with that my friend, and you're day will be far less stressful, and you won't feel the need to yell at and bully weak old men on the internet about a draft a year from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maddog45 said:

Some people don't have the mental capacity to understand .... it's okay guys just keep it to yourself , but trying to argue my point just makes you look bad , save it.

giphy.gif

I agree....some people do not, in fact, have the mental capacity to understand.

That much is obvious today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Have you read any of your posts today before you hit "Submit reply".

if not, you may want to review your own statements and tone, my friend.

And if my mother had wheels she'd be a wagon.

I haven't written Petty off, and I'd like to play him AND I think he's better than McCown.

All of this is consistent with my intellectual position.

You want to lose all our games, but you also want Petty to play because he could be (as you see it) a Franchise QB we got in the 4th round.

That is not an intellectually consistent position.

Something I am sure you have experience with purely by thinking.

So he's a possible franchise QB we simply must play and potentially draft future weapons for, but he's going to lose out and ensure we get the #1/#1 pick if we play him.

Got it.

Didn't you say, and I quote, "a team onyl goes as far as it's QB"?

Yo dawg, why you be trippin' dude, why you gots to lay shade like that?

Nathan-Fillion-reaction-gif.gif

We're not going to get the #1 or #2 picks.  So if Darnold and Rosen are #1 and #2, we have no chance whatsoever of getting them.

Come to terms with that my friend, and you're day will be far less stressful, and you won't feel the need to yell at and bully weak old men on the internet about a draft a year from now.

I'm tired of going over the same stuff gramps , you got it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrickTamland said:

Whether you're pro or against tanking, starting Mccown does little to nothing for the Jets long term gain. Woohoo 6 wins max. Meanwhile, playing a Petty or Hack type has large potential benefits.

People who wonder how the jets could "tank" are ridiculous, you gut your team of vets and start your young qb with "potential." Yes even  Hack has that and yes, I know, he stinks.

There are smart people on this forum who are having a very hard time with this idea. It's strange. Additionally, those smart posters are picking on people who aren't as eloquent as they are. Nice.

Anyway, when you play the young qb you win if they're good and you win if they're bad. I don't see how this is so hard to understand. If they're 2-14 ok you get that draft pick. But maybe you get a record of 5-11 or 6-10 or 7-9 -- not so bad for a young qb.

You at least give the young guy a shot. Going forward you can make the determination whether they are worth more time or you decide you need to draft/sign someone else, whether it's at 1st overall or 15th.

As the young qb plays the rest of the tea can grow. They don't need the starter to be a Vet of 14 years for them to grow as players and grow as a team.

A solid post, with a few minor exceptions unworthy of note.

One item that IS of note:  remember before the season started, McCown was what, 2-22 in his last 24 starts?

It's easy in hindsight to proclaim the "better tank" was to play Hack.  But it's rather clear that playing McCown, a guy with 2 wins in 24 starts, was as close to obvious-tanking as could be done.

Hack, while a steaming pile so far, has potential.  He could, unlikely though it may be, actually develop and learn, and steal a few wins vs. bad teams and late in the year.

The highest-odds tank choice was the choice they made, McCown.  He simply is playing better, with a more talented team that expected, putting us where we are. 

Out of the race for #1 or #2 overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

A solid post, with a few minor exceptions unworthy of note.

One item that IS of note:  remember before the season started, McCown was what, 2-22 in his last 24 starts?

It's easy in hindsight to proclaim the "better tank" was to play Hack.  But it's rather clear that playing McCown, a guy with 2 wins in 24 starts, was as close to obvious-tanking as could be done.

Hack, while a steaming pile so far, has potential.  He could, unlikely though it may be, actually develop and learn, and steal a few wins vs. bad teams and late in the year.

The highest-odds tank choice was the choice they made, McCown.  He simply is playing better, with a more talented team that expected, putting us where we are. 

Out of the race for #1 or #2 overall.

Funny thing I could dissect the bullsh*t you just said in this post lmao . Best chance in a tank job is playing mcclown? Comical . We have a guy holding a clipboard not even in pads every game who throws a damn screen pass to a wr like a damn 12-6 curve ball into the grass , or knocking the head off reporters on the sideline . If they wanted to really tank he would be in . I'm all for playing the young guys if they play well great , if not we get a high pick , there is no arguing unless you're a troll or a pats fan.Its the most logical thing to do gramps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Warfish said:

A solid post, with a few minor exceptions unworthy of note.

One item that IS of note:  remember before the season started, McCown was what, 2-22 in his last 24 starts?

It's easy in hindsight to proclaim the "better tank" was to play Hack.  But it's rather clear that playing McCown, a guy with 2 wins in 24 starts, was as close to obvious-tanking as could be done.

Hack, while a steaming pile so far, has potential.  He could, unlikely though it may be, actually develop and learn, and steal a few wins vs. bad teams and late in the year.

The highest-odds tank choice was the choice they made, McCown.  He simply is playing better, with a more talented team that expected, putting us where we are. 

Out of the race for #1 or #2 overall.

Also you said that it's unrealistic for a pro team to setup a tank , now you say the coaches picked the best guy for us to tank with in mcclown .... pick a side moron . They picked the best player to try to win games . You just showed how much you have in your head gramps, maybe it's time to hang up the Internet . Your head isn't there, oh and eat your prunes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "rooting for us to win" vs. tanking argument boils down to the following: do we prefer momentary "run" , that is, do we prefer to watch meaningful games like the one this week, even though we know this may be very short lived, but hey, let's live for the moment,  let us dream...    or do we resign ourselves to the fact that this is one big exhibition season, and hope we lose in order to have potential run in the far future.     I think I am in the first group,  but I will probably regret it soon enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Maddog45 said:

Also you said that it's unrealistic for a pro team to setup a tank , now you say the coaches picked the best guy for us to tank with in mcclown .... pick a side moron . They picked the best player to try to win games . You just showed how much you have in your head gramps, maybe it's time to hang up the Internet . Your head isn't there, oh and eat your prunes

Dude, enough with the name-calling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, it is not "easy to tank in this league." See exhibit A: Win against the Browns, and B: Win against the Jaguars.

Petty, again for the record, was drafted to be a backup quarterback. Mac has said so himself.

Maddog, you're talking in circles, my man. Hell, Gastineau Lives makes way more sense than do and is a lot less aggro.

It's just sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, the Claw said:

For the record, it is not "easy to tank in this league." See exhibit A: Win against the Browns, and B: Win against the Jaguars.

Petty, again for the record, was drafted to be a backup quarterback. Mac has said so himself.

Maddog, you're talking in circles, my man. Hell, Gastineau Lives makes way more sense than do and is a lot less aggro.

It's just sports.

I'm just trying to eliminate the thought of our qb being on our team this whole time, you know how much it'll suck to cut petty or hack and they become superstars else where like Alex smith? And we're still looking for qbs like the 49ers? And the guy you cut him for isn't even on the team , let alone any team and sucks now ?? I think rational , what I'm saying makes complete sense what so hard to comprehend ? Or is it that I'm hurting the feelings of grown men in the way I express my ideas ? Get off your period if what I say bothers anyone , I'm saying the truth and if sh*t were done how I see it the jets wouldn't be the jests any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, the Claw said:

For the record, it is not "easy to tank in this league." See exhibit A: Win against the Browns, and B: Win against the Jaguars.

Petty, again for the record, was drafted to be a backup quarterback. Mac has said so himself.

Maddog, you're talking in circles, my man. Hell, Gastineau Lives makes way more sense than do and is a lot less aggro.

It's just sports.

Also I do make sense , the guy can't respond anymore after I said what I said , the guy comes for me every post I had to grill him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, the Claw said:

For the record, it is not "easy to tank in this league." See exhibit A: Win against the Browns, and B: Win against the Jaguars.

Petty, again for the record, was drafted to be a backup quarterback. Mac has said so himself.

Maddog, you're talking in circles, my man. Hell, Gastineau Lives makes way more sense than do and is a lot less aggro.

It's just sports.

Also you don't draft qbs to be a damn backup when you don't even have solidified qb let alone a franchise qb , whoever says that and believes it is a moron macc included

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...