Rex showing that he is incapable of learning.

[Jacked4JetsFB]

My point is that what that fat **** that I hate says is true. No, not Francessa, Parcells. You are what your record says you are. The Jets fluke into wins, but if they were losing close games you guys would be saying that is a sign of poor coaching. Rex allegedly makes all these gaffes, but the team managed to win close games. Talent wise they are a lower tier team.

I don't care about you, but we 100% know that Shane and Dierking would be having a fit if the Jets had lost those close games even if they had the same record. "He is ruining our playoff chances!" "How will we get home field?" "You only get some many opportunities to make a playoff run, you can't afford to waste them!"

The Jets lost. I don't need to be reminded or told (by people that advised me this was a "rebuilding year" no less) that they lost. They are doing what everybody wanted. Staying in the playoff hunt and finding out about Geno. Does that warrant Rex sticking around? Who knows, but the season isn't over yet. They might continue to trend down or they might still make a run. I'm glad you guys know all the answers because numbers told me they would suck this year anyway.

Classic Rex apologist

[bitonti]

because of that front. We have the #1 rush d but we are like 28th in the pass sooooo what is your point?  

 

they are actually 23rd against the pass. part of that is cro going over the hill

[Integrity28]

I keep re-reading the thread title and getting a chuckle at "showing", as if this is a newly developing thing... 

[Integrity28]

My point is that what that fat **** that I hate says is true.  No, not Francessa, Parcells.  You are what your record says you are.  The Jets fluke into wins, but if they were losing close games you guys would be saying that is a sign of poor coaching.  Rex allegedly makes all these gaffes, but the team managed to win close games.  Talent wise they are a lower tier team.  

 

I don't care about you, but we 100% know that Shane and Dierking would be having a fit if the Jets had lost those close games even if they had the same record.  "He is ruining our playoff chances!"  "How will we get home field?"  "You only get some many opportunities to make a playoff run, you can't afford to waste them!"

 

The Jets lost.  I don't need to be reminded or told (by people that advised me this was a "rebuilding year" no less) that they lost.  They are doing what everybody wanted.  Staying in the playoff hunt and finding out about Geno.  Does that warrant Rex sticking around?  Who knows, but the season isn't over yet.  They might continue to trend down or they might still make a run.  I'm glad you guys know all the answers because numbers told me they would suck this year anyway. 

 

By end of season our record will show who we really are, right now our record is playing a joke on a lot of people. 

[dbatesman]

My point is that what that fat **** that I hate says is true.  No, not Francessa, Parcells.  You are what your record says you are.

Obviously this is true in a literal sense, but current record isn't really a good indicator of future performance. Point differential, on the other hand, tends to be strongly predictive [please note: this is the only Grantland article that I will ever share for any purpose other than mockery], and the only team with a worse point differential than us is Jacksonville.

 

Just to repeat, so this sinks in: the only team in the NFL with a worse point differential than us is Jacksonville.

 

The Jets fluke into wins, but if they were losing close games you guys would be saying that is a sign of poor coaching.

More likely, I'd be saying something like "we're really due for some regression in these close games, dudes!" and then I'd make a Simpsons reference.

 

Rex allegedly makes all these gaffes, but the team managed to win close games.  Talent wise they are a lower tier team.

This is entirely the point--that performance in close games, over a large enough sample size, tends to normalize around .500. We're 5-1 in games decided by 7 points or less. That level of performance would be difficult to sustain for a good team, let alone a lower-tier one with a coach who makes gaffes.  

 

I don't care about you

Totally unnecessary.

 

The Jets lost.  I don't need to be reminded or told (by people that advised me this was a "rebuilding year" no less) that they lost.  They are doing what everybody wanted.  Staying in the playoff hunt and finding out about Geno.  Does that warrant Rex sticking around?  Who knows, but the season isn't over yet.  They might continue to trend down or they might still make a run.  I'm glad you guys know all the answers because numbers told me they would suck this year anyway.

I don't have any answers. Just because teams with a strong performance in one-score games tend to regress to the mean doesn't mean we will (the Colts were 9-1 in close games last season and are 5-1 in close games this season). For all I know, the Jets will win out, steal the division, and win the Super Bowl. All I'm saying is that through 11 games, our level of performance is statistically closer to that of a 3-8 team than it is to a 5-6 team, which suggests that yes, we're going to continue trending down.

[Jacked4JetsFB]

Obviously this is true in a literal sense, but current record isn't really a good indicator of future performance. Point differential, on the other hand, tends to be strongly predictive. [Please note: this is the only Grantland article that I will ever share for any purpose other than mockery.]

 

More likely, I'd be saying something like "we're really due for some regression in these close games, dudes!" and then I'd make a Simpsons reference.

 

This is entirely the point--that performance in close games, over a large enough sample size, tends to normalize around .500. We're 5-1 in games decided by 7 points or less. That level of performance would be difficult to sustain for a good team, let alone a lower-tier one with a coach who makes gaffes.  

 

Totally unnecessary.

 

I don't have any answers. Just because teams with a strong performance in one-score games tend to regress to the mean doesn't mean we will (the Colts were 9-1 in close games last season and are 5-1 in close games this season). For all I know, the Jets will win out, steal the division, and win the Super Bowl. All I'm saying is that through 11 games, our level of performance is statistically closer to that of a 3-8 team than it is to a 5-6 team, which suggests that yes, we're going to continue trending down.

 

IF not for 2 fluke gift of God penalties, our real record would be 3-8 as well. There is no talking reason into these Rex apologists, they are in love.

[bitonti]

IF not for 2 fluke gift of God penalties, our real record would be 3-8 as well. There is no talking reason into these Rex apologists, they are in love.

 

if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

[HessStation]

Here's an issue based on some type of reality with Rex. This offseason, "I've finally figured it out, I want my offense like my defense. I want to attack."

Loluzza.

[Scott Dierking]

if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

And they would be proud of their nephew that writes for fantasy football publications.

[dbatesman]

if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

 

Sweet merciful crap.

[T0mShane]

Obviously this is true in a literal sense, but current record isn't really a good indicator of future performance. Point differential, on the other hand, tends to be strongly predictive [please note: this is the only Grantland article that I will ever share for any purpose other than mockery], and the only team with a worse point differential than us is Jacksonville.

Just to repeat, so this sinks in: the only team in the NFL with a worse point differential than us is Jacksonville.

More likely, I'd be saying something like "we're really due for some regression in these close games, dudes!" and then I'd make a Simpsons reference.

This is entirely the point--that performance in close games, over a large enough sample size, tends to normalize around .500. We're 5-1 in games decided by 7 points or less. That level of performance would be difficult to sustain for a good team, let alone a lower-tier one with a coach who makes gaffes.

Totally unnecessary.

I don't have any answers. Just because teams with a strong performance in one-score games tend to regress to the mean doesn't mean we will (the Colts were 9-1 in close games last season and are 5-1 in close games this season). For all I know, the Jets will win out, steal the division, and win the Super Bowl. All I'm saying is that through 11 games, our level of performance is statistically closer to that of a 3-8 team than it is to a 5-6 team, which suggests that yes, we're going to continue trending down.

Don't let the big lug mislead you. He cares about you. I can tell.

[Jacked4JetsFB]

if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

 

 

Problem is lucking into wins is not a long term strategy. I do think not having balls, or having them is a long term strategy, much more likely to stick.

[Integrity28]

Here's an issue based on some type of reality with Rex. This offseason, "I've finally figured it out, I want my offense like my defense. I want to attack."

Loluzza.

 

 

It's great isn't it? Rex is the epitome of a used car salesman, he'll say anything it takes to sell you misperception... but the reality is it's a lemon.

 

I remember last pre-season, "this is the most talented roster we've ever had".

 

Same sh*t.

 

******* guy.

[#27TheDominator]

By end of season our record will show who we really are, right now our record is playing a joke on a lot of people. 

 

Actually what our record is, is about as expected and much better than expected considering QB play which was always the question.  You can blame Rex for the QB play, but it is kind of hard to do that while simultaneously admitting that Idzik may be ordering him to start Geno, that they should see what they have in Geno so that they can know what direction to take during the offseason and that Mornhinweg is apparently the reason they had any success on O.  MM is the polar opposite of what Sparano tried to do here, so I don't see that as "not learning" but hey that's just me. 

 

Obviously this is true in a literal sense, but current record isn't really a good indicator of future performance. Point differential, on the other hand, tends to be strongly predictive [please note: this is the only Grantland article that I will ever share for any purpose other than mockery], and the only team with a worse point differential than us is Jacksonville.

 

Just to repeat, so this sinks in: the only team in the NFL with a worse point differential than us is Jacksonville.

 

More likely, I'd be saying something like "we're really due for some regression in these close games, dudes!" and then I'd make a Simpsons reference.

 

This is entirely the point--that performance in close games, over a large enough sample size, tends to normalize around .500. We're 5-1 in games decided by 7 points or less. That level of performance would be difficult to sustain for a good team, let alone a lower-tier one with a coach who makes gaffes.  

 

Totally unnecessary.

 

I don't have any answers. Just because teams with a strong performance in one-score games tend to regress to the mean doesn't mean we will (the Colts were 9-1 in close games last season and are 5-1 in close games this season). For all I know, the Jets will win out, steal the division, and win the Super Bowl. All I'm saying is that through 11 games, our level of performance is statistically closer to that of a 3-8 team than it is to a 5-6 team, which suggests that yes, we're going to continue trending down.

 

I like this post a great deal.  OTOH, I do not think that anybody, not even you, would have suggested we were going to see some statistical regression in close game if we were 1-5.  I would expect the Simpsons reference though.  

[Integrity28]

Obviously this is true in a literal sense, but current record isn't really a good indicator of future performance. Point differential, on the other hand, tends to be strongly predictive [please note: this is the only Grantland article that I will ever share for any purpose other than mockery], and the only team with a worse point differential than us is Jacksonville.

 

Just to repeat, so this sinks in: the only team in the NFL with a worse point differential than us is Jacksonville.

 

More likely, I'd be saying something like "we're really due for some regression in these close games, dudes!" and then I'd make a Simpsons reference.

 

This is entirely the point--that performance in close games, over a large enough sample size, tends to normalize around .500. We're 5-1 in games decided by 7 points or less. That level of performance would be difficult to sustain for a good team, let alone a lower-tier one with a coach who makes gaffes.  

 

Totally unnecessary.

 

I don't have any answers. Just because teams with a strong performance in one-score games tend to regress to the mean doesn't mean we will (the Colts were 9-1 in close games last season and are 5-1 in close games this season). For all I know, the Jets will win out, steal the division, and win the Super Bowl. All I'm saying is that through 11 games, our level of performance is statistically closer to that of a 3-8 team than it is to a 5-6 team, which suggests that yes, we're going to continue trending down.

 

 

In summary, we suck as bad as the Jaguars, but the Jets being the Jets fell into enough wins to fall out of the Terry Bridgewater / Jadaveon Clowney sweepstakes... which is pretty much what I expected of this team all along.

 

Horrid team, that'll do just enough to screw up the next draft.

[#27TheDominator]

Here's an issue based on some type of reality with Rex. This offseason, "I've finally figured it out, I want my offense like my defense. I want to attack."

Loluzza.

 

 

It's great isn't it? Rex is the epitome of a used car salesman, he'll say anything it takes to sell you misperception... but the reality is it's a lemon.

 

I remember last pre-season, "this is the most talented roster we've ever had".

 

Same sh*t.

 

******* guy.

 

If you guys believe what coaches say you are pretty dumb.  Rex in particular always blows smoke his guy's ass.  I remember him saying nice things about Kerry Rhodes when he was here. What did you want him to say?  6-10 would be a great campaign?  Our offense will suck balls again, but we hope to make strides for the future?  Give me a break.  

[Jacked4JetsFB]

Actually what our record is, is about as expected and much better than expected considering QB play which was always the question.  You can blame Rex for the QB play, but it is kind of hard to do that while simultaneously admitting that Idzik may be ordering him to start Geno, that they should see what they have in Geno so that they can know what direction to take during the offseason and that Mornhinweg is apparently the reason they had any success on O.  MM is the polar opposite of what Sparano tried to do here, so I don't see that as "not learning" but hey that's just me. 

 

 

I like this post a great deal.  OTOH, I do not think that anybody, not even you, would have suggested we were going to see some statistical regression in close game if we were 1-5.  I would expect the Simpsons reference though.  

 

How about the regression towards the mean of games won that were lost in the final seconds of a game due to fluke penalties? We are 2-0 in those games.

[stoicsentry]

Like pointing out the recent record. Unfortunately, that seems to be a static target

 

Oh, so before this season began you thought the team was talented enough that they would do better than 5-6 in their first 11?

[Jacked4JetsFB]

Oh, so before this season began you thought the team was talented enough that they would do better than 5-6 in their first 11?

 

I did. I thought this was a 9 to 10 win team, I am very disappointed in how this team has performed outside of a few games.

[stoicsentry]

IF not for 2 fluke gift of God penalties, our real record would be 3-8 as well. There is no talking reason into these Rex apologists, they are in love.

 

Yeah, if 2 of our wins were losses we'd be 3-8.

 

What do you want? Penalties are part of the game. Rex's team was NOT the team that blew those 2 games. That was the Patriots and Bucs. If it were the other way around, you wouldn't be talking about 2 games that we "should have" won.

[#27TheDominator]

Oh, so before this season began you thought the team was talented enough that they would do better than 5-6 in their first 11?

 

 

11-0 or the coach sucks. 

[dbatesman]

I do not think that anybody, not even you, would have suggested we were going to see some statistical regression in close game if we were 1-5.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__XpkxXIxJ0

[Integrity28]

If you guys believe what coaches say you are pretty dumb.  Rex in particular always blows smoke his guy's ass.  I remember him saying nice things about Kerry Rhodes when he was here. What did you want him to say?  6-10 would be a great campaign?  Our offense will suck balls again, but we hope to make strides for the future?  Give me a break.  

 

You are dumb, and not pretty at all. So GFY

[stoicsentry]

I did. I thought this was a 9 to 10 win team, I am very disappointed in how this team has performed outside of a few games.

Congratulations for being close to accurate, you and maybe 3 others on the planet. I think I called 6-10 or something like that, and that was a more optimistic assessment than many.

[#27TheDominator]

You are dumb, and not pretty at all. So GFY

 

 

Yeah, but my body is bangin'

[dbatesman]

Oh, so before this season began you thought the team was talented enough that they would do better than 5-6 in their first 11?

 

This means less than nothing. A team outperforming the expectations of a bunch of mooks on a message board isn't a reason to extend a head coach.

[#27TheDominator]

This means less than nothing. A team outperforming the expectations of a bunch of mooks on a message board isn't a reason to extend a head coach.

 

Has anyone besides JiF suggested they extend him at this point?

[dbatesman]

Has anyone besides JiF suggested they extend him at this point?

 

He has one year left on his contract. Come January, they either fire him or extend him. There is no third option.

[#27TheDominator]

He has one year left on his contract. Come January, they either fire him or extend him. There is no third option.

 

 

They have a few games to play before then and plenty of time to implode.   Or regress if you prefer.

[dbatesman]

They have a few games to play before then and plenty of time to implode.   Or regress if you prefer.

 

I do prefer!

[artemusclyde]

Has anyone besides JiF suggested they extend him at this point?

 

I say they should extend him on a one year prove it deal.

[#27TheDominator]

He has one year left on his contract. Come January, they either fire him or extend him. There is no third option.

 

 

I say they should extend him on a one year prove it deal.

 

The nonexistent third option? 

[artemusclyde]

The nonexistent third option? 

 

Who say's he wouldn't sign? He wouldn't get a head coaching job anywhere else in the NFL.

[HessStation]

If you guys believe what coaches say you are pretty dumb. Rex in particular always blows smoke his guy's ass. I remember him saying nice things about Kerry Rhodes when he was here. What did you want him to say? 6-10 would be a great campaign? Our offense will suck balls again, but we hope to make strides for the future? Give me a break.

I'll break your arm if you like.

[dbatesman]

The nonexistent third option?

A one-year extension is still an extension, Chumley.