Jump to content

Interesting Mo Wilk fact...with him being a JAG and all


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't doubt many people get garbage time sacks. That is and was beside the point. When someone laments how are we going to replace Mo's 12 sacks my argument was we don't have to replace his 12 sacks. Not to mention they don't exist in a vacuum; someone else playing his position (going against other teams' RTs) isn't going to be held sack-less. Not unless we give his job to Vernon Gholston or you or me.

Ah ok I understand now. You're not saying Mo is worse than another player with 12 sacks. You're saying we don't need to replace his 12 sacks we need to replace his 8 good ones (or whatever). Problem is some sacks will always be "non-impactful" so I think saying we need to replace his 12 sacks (with the insinuation that only a portion of those are impactful) is pretty good shorthand, wouldn't you agree?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Who exactly called him a JAG?

This thread makes me want to take 3 more sacks away from Wilkerson.

3 minutes ago, AFJF said:

I don't like hurting people's feelings.  It was completely unintentional.  Sadly, can't do much more than apologize.

This line isn't working for you. You were the one still upset enough, a month later, to start the thread in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

This line isn't working for you. You were the one still upset enough, a month later, to start the thread in the first place.

What should he do? Crawl over broken glass and self-flagellate? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jgb said:

Ah ok I understand now. You're not saying Mo is worse than another player with 12 sacks. You're saying we don't need to replace his 12 sacks we need to replace his 8 good ones (or whatever). Problem is some sacks will always be "non-impactful" so I think saying we need to replace his 12 sacks (with the insinuation that only a portion of those are impactful) is pretty good shorthand, wouldn't you agree?

No. We will not miss sacks that come when the game is out of hand.

You can say you will miss the type of player capable of putting up 12 sacks, but that is not the same thing. I will miss him, too, should that come to pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

This line isn't working for you. You were the one still upset enough, a month later, to start the thread in the first place.

You got me...I haven't slept since the first time you tried to minimize the on-field performance of one of the Jets best players.

Have a great night.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No. We will not miss sacks that come when the game is out of hand.

You can say you will miss the type of player capable of putting up 12 sacks, but that is not the same thing. I will miss him, too, should that come to pass.

It's just shorthand. You're a smart guy but it's just a turn of phrase. Like when you lose a WR (we have to find a way to replace his 1,100 yards) or a RB (we have to find a way to replace his 9 TDs). No need to do a game-by-game analysis to determine how many yrds/TDs in garbage time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jgb said:

I hate it when people try to dish out homework assignments. Don't fall for it AFJF. Either people agree or disagree but don't go footnoting your posts because someone takes 2 seconds to try to give you an hours worth of busy work.

 

Coming from you, totally understandable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

How about let it go instead of making things up a month later?

And so I did...take a look up at my previous post.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

How about let it go instead of making things up a month later?

Ok AFJF, invent a timemachine and go back in time and don't make this post. Apparently only way to satisfy Sperm on this one. #reasonableposition

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jgb said:

It's just shorthand. You're a smart guy but it's just a turn of phrase. Like when you lose a WR (we have to find a way to replace his 1,100 yards) or a RB (we have to find a way to replace his 9 TDs). No need to do a game-by-game analysis to determine how many yrds/TDs in garbage time.

I don't think it is. Not when 5-8 sacks is pretty common. Even for guys who are noticeably lesser players than Mo.

What makes Mo valuable is not the sack total in his career year. It's his all-around play. But even still, even if relentlessly pressuring the QB was what made him so good (and it isn't), the sack numbers don't mean he's a better pass rusher than someone with fewer sacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't think it is. Not when 5-8 sacks is pretty common. Even for guys who are noticeably lesser players than Mo.

What makes Mo valuable is not the sack total in his career year. It's his all-around play. But even still, even if relentlessly pressuring the QB was what made him so good (and it isn't), the sack numbers don't mean he's a better pass rusher than someone with fewer sacks.

5-8 sacks is common but what is mean percentage of sacks that is impactful for a 5-8 sack year? But without a regression analysis showing me that Mo was above, below, or equal to average percentage of sacks with a multi-TD lead, I will continue to say we need to replace 12.

Also, a turn of phrase is a colloquialism, which everyone agrees on its meeting. You are not going to get much traction with this one. But good luck on your language crusade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SenorGato said:

This thread makes me want to take 3 more sacks away from Wilkerson.

How 'bout that stat though?  Seriously?  Most sacks for a 300 lb lineman since Sapp.  Goes to show just how good he is for a big man.  Gonna' miss him.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AFJF said:

How 'bout that stat though?  Seriously?  Most sacks for a 300 lb lineman since Sapp.  Goes to show just how good he is for a big man.  Gonna' miss him.

He is good. Really good.

He is not mediocre or a JAG. Nobody thinks that.

I just don't think he's worth $16M/year, plus a high draft pick, to the Jets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

He is good. Really good.

He is not mediocre or a JAG. Nobody thinks that.

I just don't think he's worth $16M/year, plus a high draft pick, to the Jets.

Agreed...that's why he's gotta go.  D-line is already stacked and this team needs picks and cap relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a lot of jets fans seem to always feel compelled to knock the teams best players down a peg, like any praise makes them uncomfortable

its weird

if the jets ever get a legit QB and then have to sign him to a 2nd contract, that will be a fun day, lol

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maxman said:

Bad thread title man.

Mo is very good. Mo isn't JJ. But definitely not a Jag, I really don't lose sleep over it if some people evaluate him incorrectly.

I think this is clearly the consensus of fans here who have voiced the opinion that Mo should not get Watts $$$$.  Drama thread over nothing.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larz said:

a lot of jets fans seem to always feel compelled to knock the teams best players down a peg, like any praise makes them uncomfortable

its weird

if the jets ever get a legit QB and then have to sign him to a 2nd contract, that will be a fun day, lol

Can you back this up?

 

lol just kidding

No amount of praise I've heaped upon Mo, no matter how many times I've called him a terrific player or how much I'd miss him if/when he's traded, has been enough. Apparently that was me (or others) showing how uncomfortable we are in heaping praise upon him because we didn't (and don't) think he is worth $16M/year and a high draft pick to the Jets.

For some mysterious reason, stud players in a dangerous sport don't seem to want to sign 2nd contracts at the same pay as their rookie deals. It's as though they aren't primarily concerned with us signing as many good players as we can all over the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

1. A bunch of his sacks DID come when we already had big leads. It was brought up in response to the incessant repetition of how we'd miss his 12 sacks. My reply, back then, was to show how a handful of those illustrious 12 sacks would not be missed, because we were already up by a few TDs when they happened.

2. Inferring that the above means he is a JAG (or mediocre, or just so-so, or whatever you come up with) is on you. I

3. Sensitive? Lol. You're the one who started the thread.

Not only Mo but any D-lineman can pin his ears back and go for a sack with a big lead because the O isn't running much playing catch up football.. Mo is one of the best at his position in the league the problem is if reports are true he wants Watt plus money and 2 GM's with 50 million didn't cave in to his demands.. And like you mentioned I don't see teams beating Mac's door down begging to give Mo what he wants and giving the Jets a 1st rd pick to boot.. I would love that but I don't see it happening..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AFJF said:

@Maxman, any chance we can change the thread title?  My apologies, thought I was busting chops...had no idea how offensive it was.

No need to change it. JGB nailed it with his next post lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Savage69 said:

Not only Mo but any D-lineman can pin his ears back and go for a sack with a big lead because the O isn't running much playing catch up football.. Mo is one of the best at his position in the league the problem is if reports are true he wants Watt plus money and 2 GM's with 50 million didn't cave in to his demands.. And like you mentioned I don't see teams beating Mac's door down begging to give Mo what he wants and giving the Jets a 1st rd pick to boot.. I would love that but I don't see it happening..

If the reports/rumors are true (and of course they may not be) he wants more than Watt money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If the reports/rumors are true (and of course they may not be) he wants more than Watt money. 

A poster on another board whose a lawyer has a friend in the Jets organisation and said even before Mac was GM Mo and his agent had a figure they wanted and have never budged off it and that was a bigger deal then Watts.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Savage69 said:

A poster on another board whose a lawyer has a friend in the Jets organisation and said even before Mac was GM Mo and his agent had a figure they wanted and have never budged off it and that was a bigger deal then Watts.. 

Seems legit. The guy who cuts my bagels told me his second cousin was dating a Jets exec and that he was told the same thing as the poster on another forum (who happens to be a lawyer), that has a friend in the organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the minority on this but I don't care. I think the Jets should be offering Wilk a 5-7 year contract for big money. We drafted him, developed him and he just keeps getting better every year. He's one of the 50 best players in the entire league. That's someone that you keep. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...