ZachEY

Better late than never?

Got it. Thanks. Maybe I'll pop back in around August.

This is a long thread. Can anyone summarize?

Haha - different animal entirely.

Lol…You may actually be a worse mod than Klecko was on JI.

The irony is I always saw being down on one player as less of a hater than blaming the entire team for that one player's performance.

Honestly, it's because personal attacks are now mod-sanctioned as long as it's coming from a pro-Jets point of view.

I mean, sure, if you want to be overly pedantic, you're probably right about your phrasing. But, for the rest of us who aren't writing novellas in every post, thinking it was anything other than terrible if the Jets would have kept Sam Darnold, regardless of Zach Wilson, was bad and proven quickly and hilariously wrong. My take, which you're welcome to call whatever you like, is that Zach Wilson isn't good. The data backs that up - calls it a slam dunk, in fact. My other take is that the game plan shifted once Wilson returned is also backed up by some data - even if some contextual factors play a role. By the way, my take is in support of the coaches. It's good that they changed the gameplan once Wilson returned - smart.

Ask Fidelio to point to one post of someone wanting Zach to fail. See what happens!

I don’t doubt that that’s the message he’s getting… I doubt whoever the messenger is is getting the truth, in this type of instance. Do you think that the only 3 guys who matter, Douglas, Saleh, and Lafluer, would leak anything outside of their inner circle that’s negative about Wilson right now?

I think, in general, the guy who said Sam Darnold was good, and lashed out at anyone who questioned him, should humble himself a wee bit when talking Jets QBs, before claiming others don’t know what they’re watching.

I mean, in fairness, while I don't question that this poster has some insider knowledge, the last guy he told us they were really happy with was traded away quickly thereafter, then that team decided that despite paying him 18M this year he was so bad they were still going to replace him and with Baker Mayfield, and now, after an injury, I think it's probably universally accepted that he's done in the league. I'm just saying, feel what you want about Wilson, but this may not be the ringing endorsement you're hoping it to be.

I don't know what analytics community you're subscribing to, but Football Outsiders was not a fan of him before, and it got worse after. Specifically, prior to Green Bay, he had a DYAR of 19 and a DVOA of -6.2. On Flacco vs. Wilson game plans, are you trying to insinuate that the 20 more times Flacco threw in the first half over just 3 games (more than Wilson threw in one full game and less by one pass in another) was wholly because the team was behind? Because, against the Ravens, they were down 10 at one point, and ended the half down 7. Against the Browns, they were down 7 on two different occasions, never down more than that, and tied at the half. The Bengals game is the only game where you could make the argument they abandoned the run early. I'd also suspect that types of passes called was more conservative under Wilson vs. Flacco, but I don't have any data on that.

We left with the pandemic, but top schools were a must from a values perspective. The camp thing is absurd, but we've priced it around and this is what it costs. I imagine at least 40% of that cost is just the insurance. Ours is longer than 6 weeks for that money though.

(Mr. Un)Limited with a Hamstring Injury

The irony, for me, is that if this resolves in the way it would need to, I'll be upside-down on a rather sizeable mortgage, so....

I'm glad you're happy where you're at. That's great. My guess is you also have a better than average household income, so maybe this thread isn't about you either. Apparently, that's like 87K now. I think the math does usurp either of our perspectives on the matter though.

Like batman, I'm not in this thread talking about me. I'm well-off. He's well-off-er... My personal complaints are that I make a whole lot of money and have limitations that the numbers on paper - you would think, I wouldn't or shouldn't have. But, I'm not talking about home renovations, flying first class, luxury vehicles and country club memberships here. As a geriatric millennial, I see that the deck is stacked against us in general. I'm not the average, or close to it. But, for the average, it is much harder to live a decent life than it was 40 years ago. My point is that's because of the environment, and resultingly, the math - and, if kids are staying home more, it's not because they're lazier than prior generations - it's because not living at home is increasingly unattainable, and staying home is a much better financial move.

I went for the 30K property tax bill to avoid private school tuition and we get after school care from the grandparents, fortunately. I think we may have talked about camp once before? Over 10K now for day camp.

The article doesn't even consider superfluous spending. Just housing, education, transportation, and healthcare.

Check out the article I posted earlier. It's not in small areas of the country. The average salary doesn't pay for the average lifestyle now.

I think it's clear they were throwing the ball more with Flacco. Was that because they were behind? Maybe. But, those numbers were high even for being behind.

I thought it's because childcare costs more than most people make. We joke that the 3rd kid is the most extravagant luxury flex a person can have.

I mean, that's not exactly what I was referring to as hopeless, but it's pretty sh*tty to have to leave your home if you don't want to, because you can't even afford an extremely modest home in the area, with an education and a decent job.

it was a joke