Jets to go hard after McCown

[Big Blocker]

I completely agree with this. I really wonder if those calling for Vick have watched him the past few years. 

 

I am against the Jets getting Vick due to his fragility.   But in fairness to his supporters comparing his firstfew seasons to Smith's rookie year ignores that he was not a pocket passer then.  He was in fact arguably often out of control. 

 

But it did seem to me that when he hooked up with Andy Reid and Marty that while he still ran the ball he better developed his pocket passing skills, and became a MUCH more effective Qb as a result.  He couldn't keep up his Atlanta style, anyway, and even dialing that back as he did, he still risked injury too much.

 

Comparing Vick's earlier career to Smith is too much apples and oranges.

[joewillie78]

It's rather interesting to see how strongly Geno's biggest detractors are in support of Mike Vick, considering how much that seems to contradict many of their arguments.  Just a few things to keep in mind:

 

1.  Vick has started 16 games one time in his entire 11-year career.  That was 8 years ago.  The most games he's started in a season since then was 13 in 2011, and that number has gone down every season since then.  There is no reason to believe there is any chance of him remaining healthy for a full season (or even the majority of it).

 

2.  For all of those obsessed with evaluating a QB's entire career based on their rookie year, Mike Vick was picked #1 overall and yet was still the backup until the very end of the season.

 

3.  Furthermore, for those same people and their great interest in rookies' QB ratings, Vick's rookie year QB rating was a lovely 62.7, even lower than Geno's apparently unforgivable 66.5.

 

4.  Geno threw for 3,046 yards this past season.  It took Vick 11 years (9 seasons) before he was able to surpass that number, which was the only time that he did.

 

5.  Geno completed 55.8% of his passes this year, a number that it took Vick 4 years to surpass and only beat in 4 of his 11 seasons.

 

This isn't even meant as a defense of Geno, because none of those are even slightly impressive stats in his favor, and if the Jets can upgrade from him than more power to them.  But the reality is that Vick is terrible as a passer and only had one good partial season 4 years ago in that regard.  The start to Vick's career, despite being much more highly touted and drafted, was even worse than that of Geno's.  I'm not sure what would have anyone convinced Vick is such a great option, considering that all of the arguments those same people are making against Geno are/were even worse for Vick.  Add in the health and the age, I just don't know why he should be considered a better short-term, never mind long-term, answer at QB.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would be thrilled if the Jets find themselves another viable option at QB.  Vick just isn't it.

Since I read all this a couple times looking for Mike Vick's rushing stats during all those years you quoted, and I did not see them. Could you please post what was an integral part of Mike Vicks game all those years. I believe he had a couple of years close to a 1000 yards, is that correct?

[Jetfanincanada]

I am against the Jets getting Vick due to his fragility.   But in fairness to his supporters comparing his firstfew seasons to Smith's rookie year ignores that he was not a pocket passer then.  He was in fact arguably often out of control. 

 

But it did seem to me that when he hooked up with Andy Reid and Marty that while he still ran the ball he better developed his pocket passing skills, and became a MUCH more effective Qb as a result.  He couldn't keep up his Atlanta style, anyway, and even dialing that back as he did, he still risked injury too much.

 

Comparing Vick's earlier career to Smith is too much apples and oranges.

 

Vick had one good year with Reid, since then he has been hurt and/or really bad. 

[ZachEY]

I used the word "great" out of exaggeration.   But not too much of one.  Maybe one does not have to be great to be inked in as the starting Qb without any competition, as we well know from the Sanchez days.  But to me a second year player who some seem to think is deserving of that treatment, along with the many predictions of great improvement, fall closer to the perception of what should be "great" than otherwise.

 

And I had a point to begin with.

 

Still, no one has even called him a "good" QB.  Those who think Geno should start believe that he's a better option because of possible improvement and future potential then running out a 34 year old who may be marginally better for one year.  It's not like we're choosing between Smith and a good option.  We're choosing between Smith and a possibly slightly better option.  Why not see if the guy who came from the spread offense, never took a snap under center, and played multiple games without a single starting caliber pass catcher on the roster last year can improve in his second year.

 

And, Chad was horrible for most of his career.  His injuries masked that if anything.

[ZachEY]

Since I read all this a couple times looking for Mike Vick's rushing stats during all those years you quoted, and I did not see them. Could you please post what was an integral part of Mike Vicks game all those years. I believe he had a couple of years close to a 1000 yards, is that correct?

 

Nice, we're getting Vick in his prime!?!?!??!

[joewillie78]

Nice, we're getting Vick in his prime!?!?!??!

Mike Vick may have lost a step, but believe me, he can still out run D-linemen and Lb's easily.

[Bleedin Green]

Since I read all this a couple times looking for Mike Vick's rushing stats during all those years you quoted, and I did not see them. Could you please post what was an integral part of Mike Vicks game all those years. I believe he had a couple of years close to a 1000 yards, is that correct?

 

You know, you guys really make this too easy sometimes.  To be clear, my basis for evaluating Vick was to focus on the same numbers that his biggest supporters / Geno's biggest detractors have constantly harped on when discussing Geno, which has never included crediting Geno for any of his rushing stats.  So in the future, whenever you talk about Geno's QB rating, I suppose I can expect to see you cite the 50% increase in his TDs that occurs when you include those he rushed for?  After all, it's something that is conveniently left out whenever discussing Geno and particularly his performance in the last quarter of the season.

 

Also worth noting that Geno ran for more TDs this year than Vick has in his last 3 years combined.  Vick actually only ran for more TDs than Geno's rookie year twice in his NFL career.  I'm also still curious to hear how the #1 overall pick having a worse rookie year than a second rounder equates to the former now being a great option but the latter apparently being completely incapable of any worthwhile improvement whatsoever (even despite any evidence to the contrary).  Don't get me wrong, I'd love nothing more than to get a far better QB than either of them, but I'm still not sure how that line of thinking holds up.

[joewillie78]

You know, you guys really make this too easy sometimes.  To be clear, my basis for evaluating Vick was to focus on the same numbers that his biggest supporters / Geno's biggest detractors have constantly harped on when discussing Geno, which has never included crediting Geno for any of his rushing stats.  So in the future, whenever you talk about Geno's QB rating, I suppose I can expect to see you cite the 50% increase in his TDs that occurs when you include those he rushed for?  After all, it's something that is conveniently left out whenever discussing Geno and particularly his performance in the last quarter of the season.

 

Also worth noting that Geno ran for more TDs this year than Vick has in his last 3 years combined.  Vick actually only ran for more TDs than Geno's rookie year twice in his NFL career.  I'm also still curious to hear how the #1 overall pick having a worse rookie year than a second rounder equates to the former now being a great option but the latter apparently being completely incapable of any worthwhile improvement whatsoever (even despite any evidence to the contrary).  Don't get me wrong, I'd love nothing more than to get a far better QB than either of them, but I'm still not sure how that line of thinking holds up.

Ok, no problem, then just post the rushing stats for both Vick and Smith. Hey, if the stats show that Smith is really not at a disadvantage when compared to Vick's rushing stats, then so be it.

 

I don't always ask for these numbers as a way to denigrate Geno, but more of a way to prop up the guy that I support. If it is shown that Geno can be as mobile as Mike Vick, then this will obviously support your basis for argument. ESPN I believe has or had a show called "numbers never lie" right?

[slats]

Ok, no problem, then just post the rushing stats for both Vick and Smith. Hey, if the stats show that Smith is really not at a disadvantage when compared to Vick's rushing stats, then so be it.

 

I don't always ask for these numbers as a way to denigrate Geno, but more of a way to prop up the guy that I support. If it is shown that Geno can be as mobile as Mike Vick, then this will obviously support your basis for argument. ESPN I believe has or had a show called "numbers never lie" right?

Your computer doesn't come with google?

[joewillie78]

Your computer doesn't come with google?

Google is overrated.

[Bleedin Green]

Ok, no problem, then just post the rushing stats for both Vick and Smith. Hey, if the stats show that Smith is really not at a disadvantage when compared to Vick's rushing stats, then so be it.

 

I don't always ask for these numbers as a way to denigrate Geno, but more of a way to prop up the guy that I support. If it is shown that Geno can be as mobile as Mike Vick, then this will obviously support your basis for argument. ESPN I believe has or had a show called "numbers never lie" right?

 

The point is you seemed completely uninterested in those stats when they hurt your argument, but now it suddenly seems to carry such great weight.  Everyone who has been heavily critical of Geno has made a point of going out of their way to discount any of his rushing stats.  That's defensible if you are attempting to evaluate him solely as a passer, and therefore I did the exact same with Vick.  Frankly, I have no interest in going through the process of digging up rushing stats, because I really don't care about them, but was simply pointing out the hypocrisy, which is actually further supported by attempting to change the criteria for evaluation as it suits your needs.  My point is rather simple:  Vick is a crappy passer, always has been.  Not only that, he's now an old, injury prone one at that.  I want nothing to do with him and his success as a runner in the past does little to change that.

 

I'd also like to point out that you have still failed to provide any explanation defending that your support of Vick contradicts your prior assertions that Geno is incapable of improvement.  After all, rushing yards don't change any of your past arguments.

[joewillie78]

The point is you seemed completely uninterested in those stats when they hurt your argument, but now it suddenly seems to carry such great weight.  Everyone who has been heavily critical of Geno has made a point of going out of their way to discount any of his rushing stats.  That's defensible if you are attempting to evaluate him solely as a passer, and therefore I did the exact same with Vick.  Frankly, I have no interest in going through the process of digging up rushing stats, because I really don't care about them, but was simply pointing out the hypocrisy, which is actually further supported by attempting to change the criteria for evaluation as it suits your needs.  My point is rather simple:  Vick is a crappy passer, always has been.  Not only that, he's now an old, injury prone one at that.  I want nothing to do with him and his success as a runner in the past does little to change that.

 

I'd also like to point out that you have still failed to provide any explanation defending that your support of Vick contradicts your prior assertions that Geno is incapable of improvement.  After all, rushing yards don't change any of your past arguments.

Oh no, Geno is definitely capable of improvement. I am just very skeptical (as I was with the dude with the beret) that it will occur, and want to make sure that if that is the case that we have a viable option to counteract that. Now if that viable option wins the JOB outright as I believe Vick will, then all the better.

[ozzieny]

Your use of the term "Eugene" is fascinating, and I love it. You never slip up, you always use "Eugene" instead of Geno.

 

Carry on my friend.

Eugene means well-born as in healthy-born. Nothing to do with nobile-born as many think that's what it means.  . Hence, its relation to the science of eugenics = the physical/mental improvement of the human species through breeding or genetic manipulation.  No wonder Eugene always says, "I gotta get betta". Or maybe it because he sucks so bad.  He must have negative eugenics.

[joewillie78]

Eugene means well-born as in healthy-born. Nothing to do with nobile-born as many think that's what it means.  . Hence, its relation to the science of eugenics = the physical/mental improvement of the human species through breeding or genetic manipulation.  No wonder Eugene always says, "I gotta get betta". Or maybe it because he sucks so bad.  He must have negative eugenics.

Negative Eugenics? Fascinating.

[ozzieny]

Negative Eugenics? Fascinating.

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek eu, meaning "good/well", and -genēs, meaning "born") is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population.^[2][3] It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).^[

 

^{Negative Eugenics.....explains everything!}

[RutgersJetFan]

Eugene means well-born as in healthy-born. Nothing to do with nobile-born as many think that's what it means.  . Hence, its relation to the science of eugenics = the physical/mental improvement of the human species through breeding or genetic manipulation.  No wonder Eugene always says, "I gotta get betta". Or maybe it because he sucks so bad.  He must have negative eugenics.

 

[BroadwayJoe12]

 

I was struggling which to choose and just gave up. Not bad.

[joewillie78]

I was struggling which to choose and just gave up. Not bad.

You cant argue with Science.

[BroadwayJoe12]

You cant argue with Science.

 

Ozzie's weak grasp on the definition of eugenics, positive or negative, is painful. Let's not confuse that with science.

[joewillie78]

Ozzie's weak grasp on the definition of eugenics, positive or negative, is painful. Let's not confuse that with science.

Although you may be right, it is kind of interesting how he was able to apply it to our current starting QB. You have to give him some credit for that.

[BroadwayJoe12]

Although you may be right, it is kind of interesting how he was able to apply it to our current starting QB. You have to give him some credit for that.

 

I don't give credit to a child coloring outside the lines, I'm not about to start.

[Big Blocker]

Still, no one has even called him a "good" QB.  Those who think Geno should start believe that he's a better option because of possible improvement and future potential then running out a 34 year old who may be marginally better for one year.  It's not like we're choosing between Smith and a good option.  We're choosing between Smith and a possibly slightly better option.  Why not see if the guy who came from the spread offense, never took a snap under center, and played multiple games without a single starting caliber pass catcher on the roster last year can improve in his second year.

 

And, Chad was horrible for most of his career.  His injuries masked that if anything.

 

Very simply, I think just handing the team over to Smith for next season with no other Qb on the roster than Matt Simms, who for whatever reason they don't want to give him a chance to compete, is not a good plan.  Smith has not shown he SHOULD be the starter without competition.  He has not shown he is LIKELY to significantly improve.  He has several problems with his play that to me make it unlikely he will improve in enough areas to  ever be a quality NFL Qb.

 

In any event, it would be foolish to go into camp and pre-season without a better option at Qb.  If any FA Qb is only slightly better than Smith, perhaps you go with the upside potential.  But what if Smith has shown no improvement?  What if even Simms outplays him?  Why RIGHT NOW would you put all your eggs in that basket?

 

Reliance on Smith cannot be justified at this point.

[joewillie78]

I don't give credit to a child coloring outside the lines, I'm not about to start.

Too bad. Studies show that kids who color outside the lines are creating their own life parameters and are willing to think outside the box, as opposed to kids who cannot think on their own and therefore believe that they must always stay within the guidelines given to them, hence they color inside the lines.

[Matt39]

Too bad. Studies show that kids who color outside the lines are creating their own life parameters and are willing to think outside the box, as opposed to kids who cannot think on their own and therefore believe that they must always stay within the guidelines given to them, hence they color inside the lines.

 

We had  a slinky once, but I straightened it.

[BroadwayJoe12]

Too bad. Studies show that kids who color outside the lines are creating their own life parameters and are willing to think outside the box, as opposed to kids who cannot think on their own and therefore believe that they must always stay within the guidelines given to them, hence they color inside the lines.

Everyone knows that coloring outside the lines has a direct correlation to increased homicidal tendencies. 

 

[joewillie78]

We had  a slinky once, but I straightened it.

Slinkys are overrated.

[joewillie78]

Everyone knows that coloring outside the lines has a direct correlation to increased homicidal tendencies. 

 

Did you keep your coloring inside the lines?

[BroadwayJoe12]

Did you keep your coloring inside the lines?

 

Always, but I couldn't draw for sh*t. That's how you get the Dexter's of the world.

[joewillie78]

Always, but I couldn't draw for sh*t. That's how you get the Dexter's of the world.

Glad to hear that. Homocidal tendencies can really put a crimp in your lifestyle.

[ZachEY]

Very simply, I think just handing the team over to Smith for next season with no other Qb on the roster than Matt Simms, who for whatever reason they don't want to give him a chance to compete, is not a good plan.  Smith has not shown he SHOULD be the starter without competition.  He has not shown he is LIKELY to significantly improve.  He has several problems with his play that to me make it unlikely he will improve in enough areas to  ever be a quality NFL Qb.

 

In any event, it would be foolish to go into camp and pre-season without a better option at Qb.  If any FA Qb is only slightly better than Smith, perhaps you go with the upside potential.  But what if Smith has shown no improvement?  What if even Simms outplays him?  Why RIGHT NOW would you put all your eggs in that basket?

 

Reliance on Smith cannot be justified at this point.

 

And, not a word of this is even slightly relevant to the idea that 'Jet fans think geno is great because they've gotten used to mediocre QB play' which was the notion I responded to.

[joewillie78]

And, not a word of this is even slightly relevant to the idea that 'Jet fans think geno is great because they've gotten used to mediocre QB play' which was the notion I responded to.

When did we ever get "mediocre QB play"? The last 5 years have given us a rating 1/10th of a point above frigging Cleveland. The adjective that should be used in front of QB play, is AWFUL.

[fishing92070]

The point is you seemed completely uninterested in those stats when they hurt your argument, but now it suddenly seems to carry such great weight.  Everyone who has been heavily critical of Geno has made a point of going out of their way to discount any of his rushing stats.  That's defensible if you are attempting to evaluate him solely as a passer, and therefore I did the exact same with Vick.  Frankly, I have no interest in going through the process of digging up rushing stats, because I really don't care about them, but was simply pointing out the hypocrisy, which is actually further supported by attempting to change the criteria for evaluation as it suits your needs.  My point is rather simple:  Vick is a crappy passer, always has been.  Not only that, he's now an old, injury prone one at that.  I want nothing to do with him and his success as a runner in the past does little to change that.

 

I'd also like to point out that you have still failed to provide any explanation defending that your support of Vick contradicts your prior assertions that Geno is incapable of improvement.  After all, rushing yards don't change any of your past arguments.

OMG, stop licking Geno Smiths ass you FOOL!  His inability to read NFL defenses outweigh anything else he may do.  He will always be a turnover machine because of it.  You cant win if you turn over the BALL.  If you do not understand than that is your problem.

[ozzieny]

Everyone knows that coloring outside the lines has a direct correlation to increased homicidal tendencies. 

 

true that's why you should consider what you say about me.

[ozzieny]

Ozzie's weak grasp on the definition of eugenics, positive or negative, is painful. Let's not confuse that with science.

Wow talk about taking things too seriously. Lighten up man. You must be bald with an ulcer, right.  

[Bleedin Green]

OMG, stop licking Geno Smiths ass you FOOL!  His inability to read NFL defenses outweigh anything else he may do.  He will always be a turnover machine because of it.  You cant win if you turn over the BALL.  If you do not understand than that is your problem.

 

Um, the topic of conversation was Mike Vick.  The only reference to Geno was pointing out how comparably awful Vick has been to him throughout his entire NFL career.

 

Perhaps you should seek out some professionals to help you determine the source of your obsessive need to incessantly carry on about sexual activities involving the anus of this man you are also trying so desperately hard to convince everyone who will listen that you hate.