Jump to content

Sperm Edwards

Moderators
  • Content Count

    44,029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    99

Everything posted by Sperm Edwards

  1. Players taking payoffs is what did that, no? That's bribery not gambling. The comparable would be Rose benching his best player(s) because he was paid off to do so, not sometimes betting on his team to win. Plus he wasn't even lifetime-banned for gambling, but rather for lying about having done it. He wanted to hide a bad thing he did, but so did every cheater from stealing signs to juicing. Time served seems adequate. But baseball is boring af anyway. And Rose shmoze. I just like to argue with people -- more entertaining for me than watching 9 innings on TV.
  2. Corrective lenses vs. refractive surgery doesn't make one throw 30 picks. While there are times I'm sure it's a night & day type improvement, like when it's really cold and/or windy out (when contact lenses dry out & suck), it's not going to transform him into Mahomes. But if he has a lot of astigmatism and his lenses moved a lot when he blinks, I'll bet the improvement with surgery can be tangible. There's also the potential that the vision after surgery isn't as crisp or has other issues compared to contact lenses, especially at night games under the lights I'd think, even if it's far more convenient (and good enough for normal activities). Better question is who was Winston's eye doctor that sent him home (or into games) with correctable, uncorrected vision where he couldn't read the scoreboard? That isn't nothing, and Ariens' comment is asinine. Unless someone made glasses for him that simulates Winston's blurred vision and Ariens did a walkthrough wearing them, he doesn't know what Winston is & isn't seeing. Not really, and not while a bunch of guys are sprinting around from 10-30 yards away. Still, I'll believe this is the difference maker for Winston when I see it. (Yep I went there).
  3. They also have different upsides, and Darnold's is obviously higher; it's not that hopefully someday he has a couple McCown-like years well into his 30s. The clear point I was making was is that even he got much better over time -- particularly in the types of areas you outline as areas where Darnold needs improvement. Put his 35 yr old head on his 25 yr old body and he's probably a far better QB than he ever was. He had arguably his best season here - at what, 39? - when he repeatedly underthrew Anderson because he no longer had the gun to fire that bullet. But if you want a better example of someone who took a long time to get it, then use Rich Gannon. But I threw in a lot of better names than McCown - starting with Brees - and it's a bit weak to jump on McCown as though I was suggesting Darnold's ceiling rather than how even a lesser QB talent can still eventually put it together to a degree. Darnold's problems you outline are fixable with experience. They're not the types of assets players are necessarily born with or born without, which is why historically it's typically outliers who have their best seasons and reach their peak prior to age 23. For guys we've had like Sanchez, who teased early on, the problems were not fixable because of what's in (and what isn't in) his head. With Geno even worse: it's not like he couldn't throw a football straight (that was Hackenberg). Whether Darnold fixes these fixable issues (e.g. unnecessarily throwing off his back foot sometimes, throwing it away or just taking the sack, running progressions faster) and whether it takes his first few years or his first ten - is what remains to be seen. No one's interested in waiting over a decade for him to eventually have some late-Gannon years. There are other QBs.
  4. He's a different player and was a different prospect than Smith, so the only comparison is that neither was awesome out of the gate (though Darnold was clearly better). I think Smith was envisioned as an efficient passer who could also beat you a bit with his mobility. More NFL-ready (ironic as that is) than "whoa" upside. Darnold was more of a Favre-type (even if he doesn't quite have Favre's arm, he's got enough) in that he'd make mistakes but had the "it" factor (yes I also roll my eyes at people calling it that) like something that others with his same build/arm/speed just don't have. I haven't seen a ton of it yet, mind you, but I haven't seen none of it either. Here's the thing: the flaws you mention are all very fixable, and it comes with experience as the game slows down for him. It also helps to have some consistency in the coaching on his side of the ball. As this happens - granted, hopefully - he starts to recognize things more easily as he sees them over & over -- there are only so many different things a defense can do. Things that he's thinking about become more automatic. FFS even McCown had a few later years where he was an efficient QB but for him it took into his 30s; meanwhile when he was younger he was a useless sack of crap even throwing to Fitz & Boldin. We'll see.
  5. I'm still hopeful (though that may be that I want to be). I'm not deeply moved by his need for competition; that's something for QBs who have intelligence or maturity issues (read: Sanchez). I don't think Darnold's struggles thus far are a result of him slacking off, not studying enough film, not working on his mechanics enough, etc. If they want to bring back a McCown type, let it be as a QBC for however much money he wants, but not as a salary that counts against the cap. It's his 3rd year, and they're not going to be fickle and pull him after 2 rough starts in a row (nor should they). Nor are they going to draft a QB anywhere before round 5. So at least get the rest of the team (particularly at OL/WR) in order - as much as they're able to this offseason - and if he still struggles just as much as he did as a rookie, then they have to look to bring in someone else with him next year. And hey, he still may not be anything great for 3 years and then takes off in year 4. Likely or unlikely to happen, waking up & "getting it" after 3 seasons is not totally unheard of among QBs who started ~2000 or later e.g. Brees is the best example; Rodgers (though the different reasons are obvious); Alex Smith wasn't really reliable until his 7th season; Sheli; Cousins; Hasselbeck; Warner; Bradford; hell, even Fitzpatrick. He started a bit earlier, but also look at Favre, and unlike Darnold he was a total meathead. Then there are others who never totally put it together despite some early teases in spurts (Sanchez, Harrington, Leftwich, Freeman, and more) and get largely forgotten about other than buttfumbling on Thanksgiving. He doesn't look like a hopeles stiff to me. I guess I'm in the middle on this one. Some guys just jump right in and are so good no matter the situation and no matter how bad the QB play was before the youngster got onto the field (and how much their fans blamed far more than just the QB). Watson was like that. Wilson, too. Or Mahomes once he was named the starter in year 2. Plus some others (Rapist, RGIII, Prescott, and Newton off the top of my head). But not being insta-wow just like them doesn't make Darnold a bust. Some just need a little more time to cook, especially if the situation is (shall we say) less than ideal. I'll form a lot more of an opinion in year 3, pretty much like everyone else.
  6. Was there a bunch of evidence that he bet against the team he was managing? I can't remember, but if there wasn't, then meh. That'd be a bigger smoking gun than gambling at all (and initially lying about it when confronted, as though that isn't what every rule-breaker does). He's an old fart now, and he took the hits record away from Cobb who was apparently one of the game's great scumbags. Sharpening spikes (which should have landed him in jail) = nothing. Juicing = barely raises an eyebrow. Drunks = nothing. Womanizers & outright wife beaters = nothing. Suspended for a while or did a little time = "he's paid his debt to [society / the league / whatever]" lol. All the merciless bigots for however many decades = well, you gotta understand those were different times back then. BUT betting on your team to win and getting caught denying it = lifetime ban and the only player ever to receive this punishment (including those who served or are deservedly serving hard time ffs). Again it's not a big deal to me, but meh to those morals. OK, now you can last-word me lol.
  7. I think your guy Watson would have succeeded. The Jets' line wasn't demonstrably worse - certainly not at pass blocking - than the ones he played with his first 2 seasons. Watson took over 4 sacks/game his 2nd season. Without nearly buying as much time for himself as Watson was able to do, Darnold had the 3rd-highest time to throw in the NFL in 2019. Sure there were many plays where he had no chance at all. He's not alone. But it gets exaggerated as though that was the norm on half his dropbacks or something (and in a couple games there was disproportionately worse protection than in the bulk of other ones). The 2019 line he was given was trash - no argument from me - but there are, have been, and will be other horrible trash lines as well. His 7% sack percentage sure isn't good, but when combined with his higher TTT average, it really isn't one for the record books. What is getting measured is the players' performances (and calling too many of teh bad playz) behind this line more than the line itself. But that presumes they'd have all been top players in 2019 on other teams, which is a harder sell.
  8. All those juicing players didn't lie? I couldn't give a crap about Rose, but @Warfish has got a point. It's not like the hall is populated by nothing but choir boys. Far from it. To single that out as a worse crime than getting caught overtly and repeatedly cheating, whether stealing signs or blatantly cheating by juicing like Clemens, Bonds, Bagwell, and how many others. Or before that, how many like Schmidt admitted to popping greenies (as well as the estimates that upwards of 80-90% of MLBers like him were using amphetamines)? The league obviously knew, and over the years it's hard to imagine none of them lied about it if ever confronted. Again I don't give it more than 5 min thought once every 10-20 years, but the guy's 75 years old. With all the players caught cheating and getting slaps on the wrist, who even cares anymore? Because Rose was asked directly and the thousands of cheaters weren't (but who would have certainly denied wrongdoing if they were)? That's kind of a ticky-tack rationalization. You can last word me, which is fine. I don't have a dog in this race, since I have barely watched MLB since the 70s-90s.
  9. I've done it with these two. Most of the time it's for players with common last names, or in this case when 2 players on the same team have the same last name. The alternative is to type out first and last name every time. Sounds a bit robotic after the first time. Also... probably dozens/hundreds more if @Maxman wasn't withholding site search results like they're cash money.
  10. Also too dumb to remember all his kids no matter what tempo he's listing them off. He had a lot of kids, even back then, but it's not like there were 40 of them. At least he's (allegedly) one of the not-dumb ones and saved his money. Granted a bunch is going to child support, but he's made plenty enough (almost $50MM before taxes, not including any endorsements/appearances) to go around for that -- even if he did have 40 kids.
  11. +1 @Jetsfan80 You may be thinking of the decreasing roster size -- also your penis size.
  12. Seriously? This is the point of the critique. And I did read it, but it seems you did not. Even in this benefit-of-hindsight, drippy, fluff piece, Maccagnan himself effectively attests he did not pass up on any 2017 QBs specifically because he was dead-set on drafting Darnold a year later. He passed up on any QBs because he thought it could wait; feeling that changing the culture in 2017 (but not the OL) was more important first: The conclusion by the 2017 Senior Bowl: We’re fine waiting. It isn’t so much that the prospects aren’t great. It’s more that the Jets are focused on rebuilding their locker-room culture from the ground up, and, picking sixth overall, they like the strength of the 2017 class at other positions. So the team will sign Josh McCown and give the Christian Hackenberg experiment (the Penn State QB had been taken in the second round in ’16) another year. This says nothing about, “Maccagnan was never going to take a QB in 2017 because fell in love with Sam Darnold.” You are reading what you want to read into that. Sure he liked Darnold as a prospect; BFD, so did everyone. Meanwhile he also liked Josh Rosen as a prospect, which is why he stopped making calls after trading up to #3. He wasn’t willing to “trade the farm” for Darnold any more than he was for Goff, even after tanking the prior season for this apparent golden opportunity. He ended up with Darnold by blind (and even as the article suggests, unexpected) luck even sitting at #3. Funnier still about this fairy tale is he never even inquired about moving up to #1 or even to #2 for the guy you claim he wasted a whole season to get a chance at drafting; never even picked up the phone to do so, even as he made an offer to Kirk Cousins prior to moving up even to #3. Even after the 2017 season was over, he was still ok with drafting no QBs in 2018 if Cousins would take $30MM/year from us for 3 years, as well as settling on whichever leftover QB prospect Cleveland or NYG didn’t draft. Never mind it’s about the dumbest thing ever for him to plan out, “I’m going to tank the season for one player who may not even enter the draft (to return for a national title or because he got injured week 1) or about whom I may not feel the same way after he’s exposed to another college season. BUT in advance of this planned tank season, I’m going to give my lame duck HC (who’s certainly not in on any tank) two new veteran WRs, a coach-like veteran QB, plus a culture changing defender, to sabotage my own goal in advance.” If Macc had given Bowles just Hackenberg, Petty, and some UDFA at QB instead of McCown - and didn’t make last-minute moves for Kerley and Kearse (or Davis after the draft, for that matter) - then perhaps you could truly claim he was all-in on Darnold specifically, starting in 2017. He couldn’t have asked for better tanking luck with Enunwa’s injury and his drafted WRs busting hard, yet he made moves to undo that. Because those weren’t long term block veterans he picked up so much as they were intended to be improvements for the current season. The reason is because he wasn’t tanking for Darnold (who was fully expected to go #1 overall). It only makes it worse that the two QBs he passed on became instantly better than any of the 3 QBs he waited for a year later. The point still stands, as obvious as when I first wrote it (or as anyone else has said before or since): if the Jets had taken a star QB at #6 in 2017 instead of a safety, they’d have saved 4 high draft picks. That is not altered by your personal (and based on the very article you cite, which I directly quote from above, your incorrect) interpretation on Macc passing on two QBs in 2017 specifically because he was all-in on Darnold.
  13. Can't they * it like MLB did with Maris? Or like all the Patriots' seasons should be since y2k?
  14. Holy crap I don't remember this. This guy's hilarious and awesome. "What would you say to him?" "I already said it the first time" rofl
  15. At which point he then signed on with Pittsburgh to be their WR5
  16. 99% of Jets fans in #1 believe themselves to be part of #3, and ever has it been that way.
  17. Wow it's late this year. It'd been in the Mar 9-13 range for a while now (used to be even earlier than that). Didn't even realize it was a week later this year.
  18. Yep. Why do you think they IR'd him when they had the first excuse to do it? He could have returned to the field eventually, but then they'd have run the risk of him sustaining an injury he could legitimately milk through March 20th, thus guaranteeing that $11MM. The only thing guaranteed now is that he'll get cut by March 19th (unless they can find someone brain-dead enough to take on his contract, even if it's only for a conditional pick). Not likely, but I suppose it's technically possible a team would give up a very late pick IF they're able to agree on a renegotiated deal with him, and are willing to give up that pick for a little time of exclusive negotiating. But it seems unlikely; T.Johnson would likely do better for himself by fielding offers from multiple suitors not just one.
  19. I gave you as long a reply as you gave me. If the Jets took Watson or Mahomes they'd have the picks used for Darnold. The best argument you could make is what, that it cost the 3 original picks (2018 1st, 2018 orig 2nd, 2019 2nd) and that we'd have kept Richardson? He was fielding offers for Richardson in October of 2016 FFS. There's no evidence, nor is it likely, that he traded Richardson purely for ammunition to move up for Darnold. He moved Richardson because he wasn't going to extend him. Therefore getting Seattle's 2nd rounder was worth more than 1 more year of Sheldon plus maybe a 3rd round comp pick in 2019. Plus it cleared $8MM in cap space for Richardson's option year. It was a no-brainer for a team who'd just extended Mo and the year before just drafted Leo. Therefore: pick Watson or Mahomes and the Jets would have had 4 more high draft picks, which is obvious.
  20. Am I late to finding this out, or is this nonsense, that Douglas turned down a 1st rounder plus a pair of 2nd rounders for Adams in their stalled Oct negotiations? Please tell me this is bull***t and didn't actually happen. The way I read the linked CBS article Jared Wright has it wrong. It wasn't that Dallas upped its offer to 1st & two 2nds; it's that the Jets lowered their initial asking price of [1st + 1st + 2nd] down to [1st + 2nd + 2nd]. Also they (allegedly) offered their 2020 1st plus a year-unknown day 3 pick, not a 2020 1st and a 2020 3rd rounder. I could be reading it wrong, though; it's late & well past my bedtime. If Dallas somehow comes back with a 1st + 3rd offer this year - which I don't expect to happen, now that they get him for 1 less playoff/superbowl run under his rookie contract - holy hell what a gift. It's not really any lower value than the erroneously-listed offer Douglas allegedly turned down, since Dallas ended up unexpectedly finishing at 8-8. With Adams being perceived as their final puzzle piece in a weak division, Douglas surely expected that 1st round pick to be lower than 17th . I hate fully basing trade value via that outdated chart (that predates free agency ffs); but the truth is teams do use it at least as a starting point, though the drafts' strengths can change that a lot, particularly way up top. If (with Adams) Dallas won their division, and maybe won 1 playoff game - which had to be Douglas's concern if he did turn down the above offer - that'd be ~picks #27 (680), #59 (310) and their 2021 2nd (trade equiv of 2020 late 3rd, so ~140) = 1130. This year their 1st+3rd are #17 (950) and #82 (180) = 1130. It would be about the same as taking their 1st + two 2nds at the trade deadline, at least using that old JJ chart. And if they didn't win a playoff game, then I guess he's not that much of a game-changer, even on a roster already plenty stacked. Yeah I know he's a fan favorite and a top player at his position, but the state of this roster is why you don't burn a #6 overall pick on a safety (plus then keep going back to the well at the same position again & again; in our case: DT). To make that work we'd have to have been masters at picking studs at ultra-high dollar non-QB positions (LT, WR, EDGE, CB) later in the draft. We did draft those positions, but they were Chuma Edoga, Ardarius Stewart, Chad Hansen, Dylan Donohue, Jachai Polite, Jeremy Clark, Derrick Jones, Parry Nickerson, Bless Austin, and (by trading picks for) Rashard Robinson and Nate Hairston. Yecch.

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...