Tyrod Taylor to miss multiple weeks ... reported by LaConforna

[Jet Nut]

it is really hard to discuss factually when folks simply cannot read.  Nowhere did I ever say he was counted on to carry a team on his back but when you have nothing to actually counter my arguments just make things up to deflect. 

no, as I said, top ten QBs carry their team.  That's why they're top ten.  You can't have it both ways, then again you're wrong.  He was never a top ten QB and never will be. 

[T0mShane]

Watkins sounds like a real A-hole, Jeanie. All receivers are A-holes, but maybe Watkins can keep his trap shut until he proves something in the league. He's not half the player that Julio or Beckham is. He needs to let his young QB do his job.

[jeaniec]

Watkins sounds like a real A-hole, Jeanie. All receivers are A-holes, but maybe Watkins can keep his trap shut until he proves something in the league. He's not half the player that Julio or Beckham is. He needs to let his young QB do his job.

He's really a nice kid.  The article really surprised me because he's usually very positive and a real team player.  Like I mentioned earlier,  he's probably a little anxious after being off the field a couple of weeks.  I hope we've heard the end of it.  Don't need another whiner like LeSean McCoy

[Jet9]

Just popping to say Tyrod Taylor now equals at least 12 pages. I'll check back at @ 18

[jeaniec]

Just popping to say Tyrod Taylor now equals at least 12 pages. I'll check back at @ 18

LOL 

[jgb]

Thu, Oct 15

Sammy Watkins has bluntly demanded more targets.

Advice: "When I have one-on-one coverage, go to me," Watkins said. "I don’t care what’s going on over there. I don’t care if he’s open. When I get one on one, just target me." Watkins estimates he's open "90 percent" of the time, and feels he needs at least 10 targets per game. Via his agent, he has spoken to the Bills' brain trust. Watkins has a point, but he needs to get back on the field before he can start getting more looks. Watkins (calf) is expected to return from his two-game absence this weekend.

More: Buffalo News

(Rotoworld.com)

 

That's the problem with praising someone to the moon, they're going to expect to be treated like Neil Armstrong, even when they haven't played in weeks! Shouldn't be long now before the locker room collapses in on itself in a heap of nacho cheese, cotton candy, and funnel cakes.

[artemusclyde]

Watkins sounds like a real A-hole, Jeanie. All receivers are A-holes, but maybe Watkins can keep his trap shut until he proves something in the league. He's not half the player that Julio or Beckham is. He needs to let his young QB do his job.

Lol who woulda thought that it'd be Sammy who was the locker room cancer and not Percy.

[nyjunc]

I'm not going to argue with you. Sanchez is and was a bad QB, save a few games (which one could say about any number of bad QBs over the years). He sucked in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. I know you feel differently. You think his failure was everyone/anyone else's fault but his own. Like 99% of those who watch the NFL, I disagree with you on this. Call it just that: a disagreement. If you want to last-word me on it you may do so. I don't care about arguing with you on the perceived cherry-picked merits of the Eagles' backup QB.

Stanton wanted out because the team handed Tebow the #2 job that was promised to Stanton barely a week earlier (without so much as a let-the-better-man-win; it was awarded to Tebow in freaking March). Stanton (or more correctly, his agent) was very complimentary of the team for granting him the opportunity to play elsewhere instead of being stuck behind an anointed starter and his anointed backup. It had nothing to do with saving a roster spot; that's not just baseless: it's preposterous. The roster spot was still taken up by someone else (i.e. McElroy instead of Stanton), and I think we just let Stanton keep his $500,000 signing bonus for being with the team for 1 week in March. They released Stanton to recoup a late pick and also so his long face wouldn't be (frankly, justifiably) complaining to anyone who would listen to him all season long. Just like they did with Cotchery 7 months prior.

Manning was also not coming here because of his brother playing for the Giants and the media circus that would ensue here (even more than it does already). Though I don't think there was any one reason (his brother, the Manning+Manning comparisons every week in the world's media capital, maybe he didn't want to be tied to Ryan, whatever else). There were several reasons. One of the other teams in the final running was Miami. The only receivers they had were Brian Hartline and Devone Bess, both coming off 600-yard seasons. Holmes+Keller+Kerley (+someone else he could have insisted on adding with his clout, like Garcon) was hardly considered worse talent in early March of 2012.

he had one bad season and in that bad season he was led by Tony Sparano, his main weapons were Chaz Schilens, Stephen Hill and Clyde Gates and we threw in tim tebow for fun.

you don't win 4 road playoff games and make back to back title games w/ a bad QB. 

Manning wasn't coming here b/c of the talent, if we had the 2010 Jets roster and enough cap space to pay him manning would have come here but we had the awful 2012 roster and no cap room.

Miami wasn't a serious consideration.  the only serious contenders I believe were Denver and SF(I think there was one more team possibly AZ but I am not sure).

[nyjunc]

I think the idea is that if it gets repeated enough then eventually people will accept it. Anyone watching could see that he was carried, on teams that ranked top 5 (if not #1 outright) in so many other areas. Few top 5 draft picks get to walk into a situation like that. I suppose the situation/outlook in Seattle was a rookie QB's delight in 2012. Just like also...ah, forget it. He sucks and hasn't been a Jet for years. Screw him.

you are better than this, don't fall prey to a poster posting lies. 

at no point did I say he carried us but he was vital and he was a top 10ish QB in 2010.

you are smart enough to know that rankings and reality don't always go hand in hand.  we had some huge rushing games to skew #s in 2009, our run game was good not great despite that #1 ranking.  The D was really good but the D also had a bad habit of blowing late leads and also blew a double digit lead in the title game,

 

In 2010 our pass game carried the O, the run game was up and down, how many games did we need the pass O to pull out a game late?

 

the situation Mark walked into was a team that couldn't make the playoffs a year earlier w/ a HOF QB and no Tom Brady around to worry about in NE.  he didn't walk into the 1984 49ers.  he was in a decent situation and had a good rookie year then a very good 2nd year before they started stripping away all the talent and he regressed in 2011 and was bad in 2012.

if we still had him we'd be legit SB contenders right now.

[Charlie Brown]

you are better than this, don't fall prey to a poster posting lies. 

at no point did I say he carried us but he was vital and he was a top 10ish QB in 2010.

you are smart enough to know that rankings and reality don't always go hand in hand.  we had some huge rushing games to skew #s in 2009, our run game was good not great despite that #1 ranking.  The D was really good but the D also had a bad habit of blowing late leads and also blew a double digit lead in the title game,

 

In 2010 our pass game carried the O, the run game was up and down, how many games did we need the pass O to pull out a game late?

 

the situation Mark walked into was a team that couldn't make the playoffs a year earlier w/ a HOF QB and no Tom Brady around to worry about in NE.  he didn't walk into the 1984 49ers.  he was in a decent situation and had a good rookie year then a very good 2nd year before they started stripping away all the talent and he regressed in 2011 and was bad in 2012.

if we still had him we'd be legit SB contenders right now.

Honest question here.

I have very similar views to yours in many ways on Sanchez but I put them through the filter of he was a rookie QB with only one year of college experience, whose own college HC said that he wasn't ready yet.

So if you put those caveats around Sanchez I think that he did well.  In fact no one in the history of the NFL with as little as experience as Sanchez EVER performed as well as he did.  Was Sanchez phenomenal, Brady, Montana, Marino etc.  IMO?

No he was not, but he was an inexperienced QB with an inexperienced HC and with that in mind Sanchez was ok.

But my question to you is, you have often stated that Tanny did a good job as GM, but how could Tanny have done a "good" job when he placed a ready for "success team" in the Jets, as so many claim, in the hands of a rookie QB with only one year of college experience under his belt when his college coach told that GM that he wasn't ready for the NFL yet, when no one in the history of the NFL had ever one a championship following such steps?

[nyjunc]

Honest question here.

I have very similar views to yours in many ways on Sanchez but I put them through the filter of he was a rookie QB with only one year of college experience, whose own college HC said that he wasn't ready yet.

So if you put those caveats around Sanchez I think that he did well.  In fact no one in the history of the NFL with as little as experience as Sanchez EVER performed as well as he did.  Was Sanchez phenomenal, Brady, Montana, Marino etc.  IMO?

No he was not, but he was an inexperienced QB with an inexperienced HC and with that in mind Sanchez was ok.

But my question to you is, you have often stated that Tanny did a good job as GM, but how could Tanny have done a "good" job when he placed a ready for "success team" in the Jets, as so many claim, in the hands of a rookie QB with only one year of college experience under his belt when his college coach told that GM that he wasn't ready for the NFL yet, when no one in the history of the NFL had ever one a championship following such steps?

I think when you build teams that make multiple title games for the first time in team history then you have done a good job.  that doesn't mean he was perfect, he made many mistakes but he did a good job overall.  he went for it in the late 00s/early 10s and when we fell a little short we had some cap issues that saw him allow talent around the QB to deteriorate.  that was his downfall, once Holmes and keller got hurt we had nothing in 2012 and no QB(outside of maybe Brady or Rodgers) would have succeeded w/ that crew.

as far as putting that team in the hands of a raw rookie.  what choices did he have? he acquired Favre but he never really wanted to be here and he moved up to get a guy many thought was the best QB in that draft and really has turned out to be the best QB from that draft.  He wasn't Brady, Montana, etc... but no one should have expected that.  He was/is a QB good enough to win big with and we nearly made 2 SBs w/ both title game losses not b/c of QB play.

[Savage69]

Honest question here.

I have very similar views to yours in many ways on Sanchez but I put them through the filter of he was a rookie QB with only one year of college experience, whose own college HC said that he wasn't ready yet.

So if you put those caveats around Sanchez I think that he did well.  In fact no one in the history of the NFL with as little as experience as Sanchez EVER performed as well as he did.  Was Sanchez phenomenal, Brady, Montana, Marino etc.  IMO?

No he was not, but he was an inexperienced QB with an inexperienced HC and with that in mind Sanchez was ok.

But my question to you is, you have often stated that Tanny did a good job as GM, but how could Tanny have done a "good" job when he placed a ready for "success team" in the Jets, as so many claim, in the hands of a rookie QB with only one year of college experience under his belt when his college coach told that GM that he wasn't ready for the NFL yet, when no one in the history of the NFL had ever one a championship following such steps?

CB did you know in their history the Jets have had only 1 QB that has thrown for 4,000+ yds?? And Namath did it in a 14 game season.. Vinny did make 4,000+ once but that was as a Raven in 1996..

[Charlie Brown]

I think when you build teams that make multiple title games for the first time in team history then you have done a good job.  that doesn't mean he was perfect, he made many mistakes but he did a good job overall.  he went for it in the late 00s/early 10s and when we fell a little short we had some cap issues that saw him allow talent around the QB to deteriorate.  that was his downfall, once Holmes and keller got hurt we had nothing in 2012 and no QB(outside of maybe Brady or Rodgers) would have succeeded w/ that crew.

as far as putting that team in the hands of a raw rookie.  what choices did he have? he acquired Favre but he never really wanted to be here and he moved up to get a guy many thought was the best QB in that draft and really has turned out to be the best QB from that draft.  He wasn't Brady, Montana, etc... but no one should have expected that.  He was/is a QB good enough to win big with and we nearly made 2 SBs w/ both title game losses not b/c of QB play.

Ok I think that your response is fair. 

I can't hammer Tanny for things I think that he did were wrong without giving him credit for the team's achievements under his tenure....

Fair enough...

But  Tanny still sucks.....  

What can I say old habits are hard to die off...

[Charlie Brown]

CB did you know in their history the Jets have had only 1 QB that has thrown for 4,000+ yds?? And Namath did it in a 14 game season.. Vinny did make 4,000+ once but that was as a Raven in 1996..

What can I say Old school Namath would be quite the player today under the WR favorable rules in today's NFL!!!!

[nyjunc]

CB did you know in their history the Jets have had only 1 QB that has thrown for 4,000+ yds?? And Namath did it in a 14 game season.. Vinny did make 4,000+ once but that was as a Raven in 1996..

yep and he had near 30 INts and cost us a div title w/ that 4,000 yd season.

[Savage69]

yep and he had near 30 INts and cost us a div title w/ that 4,000 yd season.

And the young fan is trying to use today's lenient offense rules to what was allowed in the 60's..LOL You can't compare what the D was allowed to do then to now..

[nyjunc]

And the young fan is trying to use today's lenient offense rules to what was allowed in the 60's..LOL You can't compare what the D was allowed to do then to now..

at what point did I compare what Joe did then to what QBs are doing today?

 

they lost the division by ONE game to Houston.  They tied Houston in a game where Joe threw SIX INTs including 2 returned for TDs.  in what era is that ok?  the last 3 meaningful games of the season they lost all 3 and he threw NINE INTs those 3 games but in the season finale when they were already eliminated b/c Houston won the day before Joe was spectacular throwing 4 TDs and 0 INTs in a win!

[Sperm Edwards]

you are better than this, don't fall prey to a poster posting lies. 

at no point did I say he carried us but he was vital and he was a top 10ish QB in 2010.

you are smart enough to know that rankings and reality don't always go hand in hand.  we had some huge rushing games to skew #s in 2009, our run game was good not great despite that #1 ranking.  The D was really good but the D also had a bad habit of blowing late leads and also blew a double digit lead in the title game,

 

In 2010 our pass game carried the O, the run game was up and down, how many games did we need the pass O to pull out a game late?

 

the situation Mark walked into was a team that couldn't make the playoffs a year earlier w/ a HOF QB and no Tom Brady around to worry about in NE.  he didn't walk into the 1984 49ers.  he was in a decent situation and had a good rookie year then a very good 2nd year before they started stripping away all the talent and he regressed in 2011 and was bad in 2012.

if we still had him we'd be legit SB contenders right now.

Lol a ton of this is just plain wrong, as in not even partially right, but I'm not going to re-litigate the already-won case against a bunch of ex-Jets we are well rid of. So as to specifics, I said you could have the last word before and I'm sticking to that. 

[nyjunc]

Lol a ton of this is just plain wrong, as in not even partially right, but I'm not going to re-litigate the already-won case against a bunch of ex-Jets we are well rid of. So as to specifics, I said you could have the last word before and I'm sticking to that. 

No, please show me where I am wrong.  I love to learn.