Thank You Rex

[Sperm Edwards]

9 minutes ago, gEYno said:

I could even get excited about these meaningless wins if they came with the team playing well.  Winning doesn't bring on more winning, good play brings on more winning.  The 49ers win did not help the Jets franchise.  If Petty comes out and plays well for the better portion of the games, and the Jets look strong and win, I don't think too many people would complain much.  What is terrible, and what we do consistently, is winning a sloppy game, 13-10ish against another bad team when the only measurable outcome is loss of draft position.

Agree completely. If Petty was wrecking Miami all game long it also helps their upcoming offseason/draft, so the slight loss in position pales in comparison to the knowledge of where the team's (ideally, good) future lies at QB. 

[SOJ]

16 hours ago, phill1c said:

Maybe he called the wrong protections.

That said, I prefer this offense to one that never tests a defense deep. At least for a quarter or so...:-)

probably but it the centers job to help also so you have a perfect storm ...to unproven players making line adjustments.  See anything wrong with that?  I do it almost cost Petty the rest of this year.

[Sperm Edwards]

13 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

we could have moved up for Ryan if we wanted him that bad and imagine him here losing playoff games.  we'd run him out of town.

 

2009 and 2010 probably don't happen if we lose that Chiefs game and take Ryan.

Wilson w/ the talent we had in 2012-2014 wouldn't have been the Russell Wilson we see today.

 

I want a team and franchise that fights, one that hates to lose not one that will give up.  we can get players we want anywhere.  

 

 

They did want him that badly. Tannenbaum just wasn't willing to cough up the following year's #1 just to move up from 6 to 2. 

Wilson has played behind a substandard OL his whole career. Other resources wasted on re-upping Sanchez, trading for Tebow, drafting Hill, etc. would not have been the same if they weren't stupidly trying to lock up Sanchez a month earlier. 

Also that's the very point: they'd have ended up with him - and could have kept their 2009 #1 and #2 picks - just by not winning a single meaningless game.

2009 and 2010 did not result in SB wins (or even appearances). Since you brought it up, coming up short while making the final 4 also meant we couldn't sign decent UFAs under the CBA. None of it led to where we want to be, which is SB champs.

Mark Sanchez is now a 3rd string QB. Matt Ryan is in his prime and still awesome. You can't just plop him into a far-easier situation on the Jets (game manager) and presume the same results as in Atlanta and worse results than we had with a far inferior QB.

[nyjunc]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

They did want him that badly. Tannenbaum just wasn't willing to cough up the following year's #1 just to move up from 6 to 2. 

Wilson has played behind a substandard OL his whole career. Other resources wasted on re-upping Sanchez, trading for Tebow, drafting Hill, etc. would not have been the same if they weren't stupidly trying to lock up Sanchez a month earlier. 

Also that's the very point: they'd have ended up with him - and could have kept their 2009 #1 and #2 picks - just by not winning a single meaningless game.

2009 and 2010 did not result in SB wins (or even appearances). Since you brought it up, coming up short while making the final 4 also meant we couldn't sign decent UFAs under the CBA. None of it led to where we want to be, which is SB champs.

Mark Sanchez is now a 3rd string QB. Matt Ryan is in his prime and still awesome. You can't just plop him into a far-easier situation on the Jets (game manager) and presume the same results as in Atlanta and worse results than we had with a far inferior QB.

so then they didn't want him that badly.  if they did they give up picks needed.

 

the sanchez contract was a good one, the problem was not surrounding him w/ talent to throw  and hand off to.

 

it was bad luck we made the title games in those years before the new CBA.

 

Matt ryan still has one playoff win(3 less than Mark) despite playing w/ some of the best talent in the league.

 

some guys can play under pressure and some can't.  so far Ryan has struggled and Mark thrived.  would I want Matt Rayn? sure but we could have had him, losing to KC wasn't why we don't have him.

[#27TheDominator]

4 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

so then they didn't want him that badly.  if they did they give up picks needed.

 

the sanchez contract was a good one, the problem was not surrounding him w/ talent to throw  and hand off to.

 

His contract in 2009 was fine.  That ridiculous extension in 2012 when he still had 2 years left on his deal was stupid.  Especially since it was given as a consolation because they went after Manning and failed.  There is no reason to pay a guy who is still under contract.   

[nyjunc]

5 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

His contract in 2009 was fine.  That ridiculous extension in 2012 when he still had 2 years left on his deal was stupid.  Especially since it was given as a consolation because they went after Manning and failed.  There is no reason to pay a guy who is still under contract.   

it was an extension w/ an easy out.  the problem wasn't the contract it was supplying him w/ talent that would lead to his top weapons being Stephen Hill, Chaz Schilens and Clyde gates.

[#27TheDominator]

1 minute ago, nyjunc said:

it was an extension w/ an easy out.  the problem wasn't the contract it was supplying him w/ talent that would lead to his top weapons being Stephen Hill, Chaz Schilens and Clyde gates.

What easy out?  He had like something like an unguaranteed $18M left and the extension added $3M and guaranteed all $21M.  It was stupid, especially coming off his sh*t year when they were trying to replace him.  

[drdetroit]

3 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

it was an extension w/ an easy out.  the problem wasn't the contract it was supplying him w/ talent that would lead to his top weapons being Stephen Hill, Chaz Schilens and Clyde gates.

God those guys were brutal

 

Btw I said before the season the Broncos were making a mistake cutting Sanchez he was their best qb.  

 

Guess I was right again

 

 

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, drdetroit said:

God those guys were brutal

 

Btw I said before the season the Broncos were making a mistake cutting Sanchez he was their best qb.  

 

Guess I was right again

 

 

they sure could use him now.

[drdetroit]

1 minute ago, nyjunc said:

they sure could use him now.

Why cut Sanchez?  To prove a point?  So stupid

 

He definitely has his flaws but he is better than Siemian and that stiff everyone wanted us to draft Lynch

 

[nyjunc]

25 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

Why cut Sanchez?  To prove a point?  So stupid

 

He definitely has his flaws but he is better than Siemian and that stiff everyone wanted us to draft Lynch

 

he was insurance, if they felt their young guys were ready Mark was gone and Siemien looked ready much of this season but he has faded down the stretch.  Their D was not as talented as a year ago so they needed more out of the QB this year than last year, early on they got it but late they haven't.  Elway gambled and lost finally.

[drdetroit]

4 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

he was insurance, if they felt their young guys were ready Mark was gone and Siemien looked ready much of this season but he has faded down the stretch.  Their D was not as talented as a year ago so they needed more out of the QB this year than last year, early on they got it but late they haven't.  Elway gambled and lost finally.

And to make matters worse they wasted a first on Paxton Lynch

 

They're definitely going to go hard after Romo

[nyjunc]

5 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

And to make matters worse they wasted a first on Paxton Lynch

 

They're definitely going to go hard after Romo

Lynch is a rookie, he needs more time.  he may or may not turn out to be something.  we'll see.

 

going after Romo is very dangerous for the cost based on his injury history.

[#27TheDominator]

19 hours ago, nyjunc said:

Lynch is a rookie, he needs more time.  he may or may not turn out to be something.  we'll see.

 

going after Romo is very dangerous for the cost based on his injury history.

Don't you need to know the cost before you say that?   

[nyjunc]

16 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Don't you need to know the cost before you say that?   

sure but it doesn't sound like he will come cheap.

[isired]

Yet this is the first time I've heard anything from you about it. So...sounds like so much "i got this right" when you really haven't said anything before now.
Yeah, "anyone" could see a 13-year drought ending...Ok.
This is more about THE RAIDERS than it is about David Carr, IMO. And, again, the Jets and the Raiders are not the same and if David Carr is here, he's not leading the Jets to the playoffs. "anyone" can see that.

Well I'm a Jets fan, and I've made about 6 posts in the last 2 years here, so no, I didn't post about the Raiders. But my point is, you didn't have to be a football genius to see the Raiders coming on. After last season, he would have been anyone's pick as your young QB to start a team with. And nobody was mistaking Geno for Derek Carr year 1 and 2.

And now I guess we'll get to see exactly how much Carr does or doesn't mean to the Raiders.

I do agree, Derek Carr (or Dak Prescott or Jameis Winston) is not going to be the same QB in our offense. But I would think the worst of GMs would spend more time, money and energy building up an OL to protect a young franchise QB, so our team might look a little different too, or at least might start to.