PFF really has a bug up it's A$$ over Darron Lee & Jets as a whole

[jamesr]

3 hours ago, JiF said:

They also think we stink:

Football Outsiders: The Jets Stink

By Smackdad on May 11, 2016, 4:16p 113 

 

Apparently the guys over at Football Outsiders are not Jets fans. Poor benighted souls.

 TWEET  SHARE (78) PIN 

Projections are stupid, unless they project the Jets winning the next 50 consecutive Super Bowls. Then they're remarkably insightful and prescient, although a tad conservative on the Jets' upside. OK, with that disclaimer out of the way, Football Outsiders has published their preliminary AFC projections. The results are not pretty for Jets fans. Football Outsiders projects that the Jets will finish the 2016 NFL season with a 6-10 record, third in the AFC East behind New England and Buffalo. Since I know that kind of record begs the question, no, Football Outsiders does not project a Super Bowl title for the 2016 Jets. Fools.

Here is what Football Outsiders has to say about the Jets 2016 prospects:

 

The Jets had the highest DVOA of any team to miss last year's playoffs, but there's a lot of reason to be pessimistic about 2016. We're expecting some relapse after the Jets improved so much on both sides of the ball last season, and that's exacerbated by personnel departures. On defense, the Jets have to replace four starters, particularly Demario Davis and (unless they want to return to a three-man line) Damon Harrison. Matt Forte is a great addition to the offense, but he won't mean much if the Jets don't have a reasonable quarterback. Re-signing Ryan Fitzpatrick would give the Jets an additional win in our mean projections. Plus, the Jets have a tough schedule, partly because we expect so much from the Chiefs compared to the rest of the AFC West and partly because they don't get to play the Patriots without Brady like Buffalo and Miami do.

Here are the projections for the entire AFC. Surprisingly these projections have the defending Super Bowl champions Denver Broncos finishing with a losing record in 2016 and out of the playoffs. That is only slightly less shocking than projecting that the Jets will not win the Super Bowl.

1. Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4)

2. Kansas City Chiefs (12-4)

3. New England Patriots (10-6)

4. Houston Texans (8-8)

5. Cincinnati Bengals* (10-6)

6. Baltimore Ravens* (10-6)

7. Buffalo Bills (9-7)

8. San Diego Chargers (8-8)

9. Jacksonville Jaguars (7-9)

10. Denver Broncos (7-9)

11. Indianapolis Colts (7-9)

12. Tennessee Titans (7-9)

13. Oakland Raiders (6-10)

14. New York Jets (6-10)

15. Miami Dolphins (5-11)

16. Cleveland Browns (4-12)

*Wild-card teams

 

OK, commence the ritual flogging of Football Outsiders, projections in general, and the obvious as the nose on your face massive anti-Jets bias of all media, analysts, and sentient beings who are not Jets fans.

But how oh how can we possibly replace the mighty Demario Davis???  

[Mainejet]

18 minutes ago, jamesr said:

All teams start next season 0-0. There are no "winning records" in Week 1. Just look at how many of our 2015 opponents had strong 2014 seasons - we played 4 games last year against 2014 DIVISION WINNERS, and our record in those games was 3-1.

As for not adding a single starter on offense for 2016 ... Clady and Forte will be starters. That's two by my count.

However, they were not draft picks and like I posted before, everyone knew that this seasons success or failure hinged on the draft. They needed to hit a home run to quote one poster here on this site. A home run I do not see. In fact, what I see is Tanny's 2010 draft all over again. This draft did NOT make the Jets a better team in 2016 and I would almost guarantee a losing record, like 6-10, 5-11, or 4-12 for 2016.

[jamesr]

Just now, Mainejet said:

However, they were not draft picks and like I posted before, everyone knew that this seasons success or failure hinged on the draft. They needed to hit a home run to quote one poster here on this site. A home run I do not see. In fact, what I see is Tanny's 2010 draft all over again. This draft did NOT make the Jets a better team in 2016 and I would almost guarantee a losing record, like 6-10, 5-11, or 4-12 for 2016.

So what draft picks, in your opinion, would have made us a 10-6 team??? Or what would have been a 'home run'? And I'm meaning actual picks we could have made at the spots we picked, not fictional trades that never happened.

[Mainejet]

Just now, jamesr said:

So what draft picks, in your opinion, would have made us a 10-6 team??? Or what would have been a 'home run'? And I'm meaning actual picks we could have made at the spots we picked, not fictional trades that never happened.

Well, now that the draft has already gone by it's all FICTION as you say. But if you're asking me what I would have done? I would have traded Mo even for a 2nd rounder as that seemed to be the going rate for an established veteran DE. I would have traded down and out of the 1st round altogether as there were no prospects other than Paxton Lynch worthy of the 20th overall draft choice, certainly not Darron Lee. Then I would have started cleaning up with increased picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. I would have taken Jason Spriggs in the 2nd round. I would hae certainly drafted a TE from this draft a huge area of deficiency for this offense. in the 4th round a guy like Tyler Higbee or Jerrell Adams? (can't quite remember his name) would have been wise selections.

[jamesr]

5 minutes ago, Mainejet said:

Well, now that the draft has already gone by it's all FICTION as you say. But if you're asking me what I would have done? I would have traded Mo even for a 2nd rounder as that seemed to be the going rate for an established veteran DE. I would have traded down and out of the 1st round altogether as there were no prospects other than Paxton Lynch worthy of the 20th overall draft choice, certainly not Darron Lee. Then I would have started cleaning up with increased picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. I would have taken Jason Spriggs in the 2nd round. I would hae certainly drafted a TE from this draft a huge area of deficiency for this offense. in the 4th round a guy like Tyler Higbee or Jerrell Adams? (can't quite remember his name) would have been wise selections.

So two rookies playing at OT and TE would have made us a much better team than we are now - even with losing Mo in a trade? And it's always easy to say "trade down", but you need someone to trade down with who's not looking to rip you off.

I honestly think I could do better ... Rd 1 - Treadwell / Doctson to be our 3rd option at WR, really giving opponents a "pick your poison" situation. Rd 2 - beef up the interior OL with Cody Whitehair. Rd 3 - Nick Vannett to get the TE. That's three rookies who could all contribute straight away, AND we still keep Mo. And none of this involved trades.

I get that you hated the Lee pick, but you don't seem to offer much by way of actual alternatives.

[Mainejet]

8 minutes ago, jamesr said:

So two rookies playing at OT and TE would have made us a much better team than we are now - even with losing Mo in a trade? And it's always easy to say "trade down", but you need someone to trade down with who's not looking to rip you off.

I honestly think I could do better ... Rd 1 - Treadwell / Doctson to be our 3rd option at WR, really giving opponents a "pick your poison" situation. Rd 2 - beef up the interior OL with Cody Whitehair. Rd 3 - Nick Vannett to get the TE. That's three rookies who could all contribute straight away, AND we still keep Mo. And none of this involved trades.

I get that you hated the Lee pick, but you don't seem to offer much by way of actual alternatives.

Well, you only think that I don't offer much in the way of alternatives because it isn't what you would have done. And I must admit, I forgot about Treadwell being there at number 20. That also would have been a much better way to utilize the 1st rounder rather than picking a Safety masquerading as a linebacker. But trading down would have been revered by any of the homers on this site no matter what the terms. You seem to forget half of these retards on this site can't even remember when they sold out. They lack a single objective bone in their bodies.

[jamesr]

2 minutes ago, Mainejet said:

Well, you only think that I don't offer much in the way of alternatives because it isn't what you would have done. And I must admit, I forgot about Treadwell being there at number 20. That also would have been a much better way to utilize the 1st rounder rather than picking a Safety masquerading as a linebacker. But trading down would have been revered by any of the homers on this site no matter what the terms. You seem to forget half of these retards on this site can't even remember when they sold out. They lack a single objective bone in their bodies.

Well, all we can do is see how it all pans out ... none of us know much more than anyone else. You could be 100% right, 100% wrong, or anywhere in between. So could I. Heck, last year I predicted 7-9, and thought that would DROP after Geno got punched out. Which is why I never bet on sports.  

[win4ever]

I was watching some NFL videos of the top 100, and Telvin Smith came out at 89 or something.  This guy was smaller than Lee and he made a huge impact for the Jags, so there is another example of a speedy small LB making big impacts.  

[Jetster]

On May 11, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Sperm Edwards said:

My post was tongue-in-cheek, as in PFF has it out for Jets players, except when they show a relatively-unknown 3-4 DE as the 14th-best player in the NFL. Then it's ok. Nothing more than that. It wasn't a serious take on their methodology, or any math they do or do not use in general.

Nobody quotes PFF here unless it fits "our players are better narrative" 

[jamesr]

7 minutes ago, win4ever said:

I was watching some NFL videos of the top 100, and Telvin Smith came out at 89 or something.  This guy was smaller than Lee and he made a huge impact for the Jags, so there is another example of a speedy small LB making big impacts.  

Yes, but nothing like that can happen for the Jets. Some sort of unwritten law. 

[win4ever]

11 minutes ago, jamesr said:

Yes, but nothing like that can happen for the Jets. Some sort of unwritten law. 

Lol, we're due for a couple of breaks.  

I'm just excited to see speed on defense again, got tired on guys that looked like they were running backwards on escalators out there.  

[Mainejet]

Exactly. I have my prediction and you have yours. But as I mentioned already I would guarantee his season will NOT go well. I'm talking about 6 games as an absolute ceiling and why Jets fans think that's OK I will never know. Going backward like that should be grounds for being fired. Because we can certainly agree that at the end of the day the GM's is NOT to try and maintain a 10-6 that missed the playoffs, the job is to patch holes created by player retirement/FA while simultaneously IMPROVING this roster. The job is to win the SB, not maintain a 10-6 team.

[Jet Fan RI]

4 hours ago, Mainejet said:

Exactly. I have my prediction and you have yours. But as I mentioned already I would guarantee his season will NOT go well. I'm talking about 6 games as an absolute ceiling and why Jets fans think that's OK I will never know. Going backward like that should be grounds for being fired. Because we can certainly agree that at the end of the day the GM's is NOT to try and maintain a 10-6 that missed the playoffs, the job is to patch holes created by player retirement/FA while simultaneously IMPROVING this roster. The job is to win the SB, not maintain a 10-6 team.

Actually, considering the weakness of last year's schedule and the strength of this year's schedule, if the Jets maintain a 10-6 record a strong case could be made that the roster must have been strengthened. A lot.

[Mainejet]

1 hour ago, Jet Fan RI said:

Actually, considering the weakness of last year's schedule and the strength of this year's schedule, if the Jets maintain a 10-6 record a strong case could be made that the roster must have been strengthened. A lot.

TRUE. But please wake me up when that happens. I am certain it will not happen. I'm actually being very optimistic predicting 6 wins. 4 sounds a lot more likely.

[afosomf]

6 hours ago, Mainejet said:

TRUE. But please wake me up when that happens. I am certain it will not happen. I'm actually being very optimistic predicting 6 wins. 4 sounds a lot more likely.

we will just 2 wins to get watson,  brownies and 69ers will be tough to jump over otherwise