Jump to content

Cimini expects Jets to target Glennon


AFJF

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You have the cart before the horse there, Time didn't begin in late August. They saw how bad he was and then kept 4 QBs. Also I'm sure part of the reason was to hopefully get more for Geno should another team's QB go down, after the "hard" initial part of the Jets' schedule was over, but it never materialized and like a day after that decision Petty got injured in PS4, & Fitz shat the bed, and no one was offering Maccagnan's demands (as usual) anyway.

Those comments were made after the season (to the extent you even have that right, which is questionable at best), and it conflicts with that same man's decision to give Hackenberg the chance to leapfrog Petty as the #2 in October. It didn't happen because he wasn't good enough yet to make that jump. 

If you can provide, for the nth time, a quote from Bowles or Maccagnan from right after the draft, that said they are going to redshirt Hackenberg, then provide it. Your ridiculous claim was they "all" said that "all year" which is another lie. You're using his poor play after drafting him as a reason to incorrectly assume a self-imposed "rule" upon drafting him, and before they practiced with him.

And I have to lol at your newest false claim again, now. Mo did get Watt money. Watt's extension was for $16.67m/yr with $31m in full "no matter what" guarantees. Mo's deal is for $17m/yr with $37m in full "no matter what" guarantees.

Are you ever right about anything at all? Rofl. 

Am I right about anything at all?

lol, start right here.  Go to the countless threads others have said exactly what I've been saying while you argue based on what you think, not how the season played out.  Not fact like you want people to believe.  They added a 4th QB because Hack sucked?  No they were negotiating with Fitz and named him thenstarter long before, let's ignore that little fact.  You actually are peddling a story that they kept Geno to trade if there was an injury somewhere?  You want to talk about ridiculous?  It's as ridiculous as it gets and pure conjecture by you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 584
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

 

I think Southy is more concerned about "copying and pasting" the same quote in multiple Mike Glennon threads. 


Cool way to show "his exit" on the matter. 

I asked him on one of the threads how many different threads can he  paste the same exact thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hackenberg was never playing this season. It was made clear by Maccagnan and Bowles after the day 2 of the draft press conference that they were going to sit and develop him.  Barring a Russell Wilson-esque rookie camp, he was never going to play this year. That was the plan and, like it or not, the team stuck with it.  

After Petty's strong preseason, it was of more importance to get him in regular season action anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You have the cart before the horse there, Time didn't begin in late August. They saw how bad he was and then kept 4 QBs. Also I'm sure part of the reason was to hopefully get more for Geno should another team's QB go down, after the "hard" initial part of the Jets' schedule was over, but it never materialized and like a day after that decision Petty got injured in PS4, & Fitz shat the bed, and no one was offering Maccagnan's demands (as usual) anyway.

Those comments were made after the season (to the extent you even have that right, which is questionable at best), and it conflicts with that same man's decision to give Hackenberg the chance to leapfrog Petty as the #2 in October. It didn't happen because he wasn't good enough yet to make that jump. 

If you can provide, for the nth time, a quote from Bowles or Maccagnan from right after the draft, that said they are going to redshirt Hackenberg, then provide it. Your ridiculous claim was they "all" said that "all year" which is another lie. You're using his poor play after drafting him as a reason to incorrectly assume a self-imposed "rule" upon drafting him, and before they practiced with him.

And I have to lol at your newest false claim again, now. Mo did get Watt money. Watt's extension was for $16.67m/yr with $31m in full "no matter what" guarantees. Mo's deal is for $17m/yr with $37m in full "no matter what" guarantees.

Are you ever right about anything at all? Rofl. 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/95937684/?client=safari

The Jets stuck him firmly in the No. 4 spot, behind Fitzpatrick, Geno Smith and Bryce Petty — with plans to not have him play a single snap in a regular-season game as he uses his rookie season as a "redshirt" type of experience.

"Yes, I think that was pretty much the understanding," Hackenberg said of what he was told by the Jets. "So far, some of those things have worked out where now I'm the next guy in line heading into this week. I think that's been communicated and I've been working as hard as I can to take full advantage of that."

The reason Hackenberg is in the headlines now is because of the Jets' dysfunction at the quarterback spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

September 5th:

http://www.espn.com/blog/new-york-jets/post/_/id/62868/jets-rookie-qb-christian-hackenberg-gets-a-red-shirt-year-per-todd-bowles

"They all can play, obviously," Bowles said. "They all can play and we’re trying to keep the best football players. Each of them showed enough in the preseason. We'll give Hack a redshirt year and the other three can play."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/christian-hackenberg-finds-the-positives-in-his-rookie-season-as-a-redshirt-year-with-jets-1.12465466

The Jets’ plan all along was to give him time to develop — all season, in fact. If he were given a choice, Hackenberg would prefer to be on the field. But he also understands the positives of a redshirt season.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

September 6th:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pennlive.com/articles/19230387/christian_hackenberg_to_have_r.amp?client=safari

The New York Jets, who selected Hackenberg in the second round of this spring's NFL draft, will carry four quarterbacks this season, which means that Hackenberg will sit out this season and watch from the sidelines in a "redshirt year,"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Am I right about anything at all?

lol, start right here.  Go to the countless threads others have said exactly what I've been saying while you argue based on what you think, not how the season played out.  Not fact like you want people to believe.  They added a 4th QB because Hack sucked?  No they were negotiating with Fitz and named him thenstarter long before, let's ignore that little fact.  You actually are peddling a story that they kept Geno to trade if there was an injury somewhere?  You want to talk about ridiculous?  It's as ridiculous as it gets and pure conjecture by you.  

More deflecting, like your nonsense about Mo (of which you were also 100% wrong, in comical fashion).

Your stance was the team said "all year" long, that this was a predetermined redshirt year for Hackenberg. It is a false statement.

The team never said this. Not wih their words when they drafted him; not in minicamp; and not with their words and actions before he halfway point of he season, when they gave him the opportunity to suit up (if he could have only beat out the great Bryce Petty).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

More deflecting, like your nonsense about Mo (of which you were also 100% wrong, in comical fashion).

Your stance was the team said "all year" long, that this was a predetermined redshirt year for Hackenberg. It is a false statement.

The team never said this. Not wih their words when they drafted him; not in minicamp; and not with their words and actions before he halfway point of he season, when they gave him the opportunity to suit up (if he could have only beat out the great Bryce Petty).

You've been proven wrong. I gave lots of repots all saying you are.  Others know what was said and agree but somehow you'll still insist that I'm wrong and no one said what Thes papers reported.  

Time to move on, your opinion is more important than fact apparently.  You are never wrong even when proven you are.  Quotes from Bowles in September?  Not enough proof, no one said it.  Your last paragraph is telling.    You just like to argue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

You've been proven wrong. I gave lots of repots all saying you are.  Others know what was said and agree but somehow you'll still insist that I'm wrong and no one said what Thes papers reported.  

Time to move on, your opinion is more important than fact apparently.  You are never wrong even when proven you are.  Quotes from Bowles in September?  Not enough proof, no one said it.  Your last paragraph is telling.    You just like to argue

ROFL

Wow literally none of this is true, other than my fondness for arguing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

ROFL

Wow literally none of this is true, other than my fondness for arguing.

What's so funny?  That you are as wrong as anyone has ever been?  Did you bother to read the articles, the quotes I put up?  Check the dates?  Say to yourself, damn I guess I am wrong, my bad.  Why can't anyone here just do that any move on instead of just typing away, ignoring the proof any carrying on for no apparent reason.  

Look, there's debate and there's pointless arguing.  Your argument isn't just wrong, it's pointless.  You obviously have no idea here. Bowles is wrong, you're right.  And you'll type away to try and convince I don't know who that the articles and the HC are both wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

What's so funny?  That you are as wrong as anyone has ever been?  Did you bother to read the articles, the quotes I put up?  Check the dates?  Say to yourself, damn I guess I am wrong, my bad.  Why can't anyone here just do that any move on instead of just typing away, ignoring the proof any carrying on for no apparent reason.  

Look, there's debate and there's pointless arguing.  Your argument isn't just wrong, it's pointless.  You obviously have no idea here. Bowles is wrong, you're right.  And you'll type away to try and convince I don't know who that the articles and the HC are both wrong.  

ROFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thadude said:

Your toying with Jet Nut now Sperm

I wasn't really. I tried with the team's own words and articles from multiple different outlets. He won't hear any of it. He has it in his mind that the team announced early and often that Hackenberg was to be given - and then was given - no opportunities to see the field. Whether the source is Maccagnan or Bowles, it matters not. He knows what they're thinking & doing better than they do themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I wasn't really. I tried with the team's own words and articles from multiple different outlets. He won't hear any of it. He has it in his mind that the team announced early and often that Hackenberg was to be given - and then was given - no opportunities to see the field. Whether the source is Maccagnan or Bowles, it matters not. He knows what they're thinking & doing better than they do themselves.

Christina Wackinburger is like a hot bag of garbage you see decomposing on a curb in a sidewalk in Newark, NJ on a warm

summer day in July

 

Mac knows it and he drafted the kid.  Ditto for Bryce Putridy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I wasn't really. I tried with the team's own words and articles from multiple different outlets. He won't hear any of it. He has it in his mind that the team announced early and often that Hackenberg was to be given - and then was given - no opportunities to see the field. Whether the source is Maccagnan or Bowles, it matters not. He knows what they're thinking & doing better than they do themselves.

BS.  You're giving us you opinion that Hack must suck because he was behind 3 scrubs.  While I gave you 4 or 5 articles agreeing with everything I've said.   Not what I think, from their mouths.  

Your argument is pointless and will happen on until people die of old age.  

You get a more than likely banned, reregistered poster who's only addition to the debate is Hack sucks and shouldn't have been drafted, as if that changes anything, I have people saying he was redshirted. And like a child you  answer ROFLOL.  

Its over, this is a total waste of time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I wasn't really. I tried with the team's own words and articles from multiple different outlets. He won't hear any of it. He has it in his mind that the team announced early and often that Hackenberg was to be given - and then was given - no opportunities to see the field. Whether the source is Maccagnan or Bowles, it matters not. He knows what they're thinking & doing better than they do themselves.

BS.  You're giving us you opinion that Hack must suck because he was behind 3 scrubs.  While I gave you 4 or 5 articles agreeing with everything I've said.   Not what I think, from their mouths.  

Your argument is pointless and will happen on until people die of old age.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

BS.  You're giving us you opinion that Hack must suck because he was behind 3 scrubs.  While I gave you 4 or 5 articles agreeing with everything I've said.   Not what I think, from their mouths.  

Your argument is pointless and will happen on until people die of old age.  

You get a more than likely banned, reregistered poster who's only addition to the debate is Hack sucks and shouldn't have been drafted, as if that changes anything, I have people saying he was redshirted. And like a child you  answer ROFLOL.  

Its over, this is a total waste of time.  

You have provided 0 articles with quotes from anybody saying he was redshirted. Zero.

I have provided several that used the GM and HC's own words - not to mention their actions in allowing him to compete & work with the 1st team offense - that show the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Matt Moore decided to be a back up instead of going some where he had a chance to start when he was a FA.  Some guys just know that they're not that good.  Glennon is probably no different but I'm sure some team is stupid enough to hand him a fat contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2017 at 1:23 PM, Jet Nut said:

That you are as wrong as anyone has ever been?

Yep, I know when I think of people who were wrong, there is Sperm Edwards, and then there is Hitler, and then there is Stalin.

But Sperm, definitely #1 All Time Wrong Guy.

You sure nailed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

Yep, I know when I think of people who were wrong, there is Sperm Edwards, and then there is Hitler, and then there is Stalin.

But Sperm, definitely #1 All Time Wrong Guy.

You sure nailed him.

Everyone is wrong at some point.  And here he was wrong, we didn't agree.  I backed up my point with articles and quotes.  No big deal, was time to move on.  But you felt a need to fire this up again?  Well after it was put to rest?  And figured Stalin and Hitler needed to be brought into it to help make your point?  What kind of dumb ass are you?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, C Mart said:

Alex Marvez‏ @alexmarvez 

Jason Licht: @TBBuccaneers offered Mike Glennon contract extension "quite a while ago." Expects Mike 2 test UFA market but door not closed

Buccaneers have discussed paying Mike Glennon $6 million per year

http://www.bucsnation.com/2016/3/21/11280056/buccaneers-have-discussed-paying-mike-glennon-6-million-per-year

This was from March of 2016, but it does show that they were trying to keep him as a highly paid backup.  But they could pay him that much since Winston is on his rookie contract until 2018.  Would be paying $13 - $14M for a starter and backup combined.  Though that money could definitely be used elsewhere to improve other parts of their team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Everyone is wrong at some point.  And here he was wrong, we didn't agree.  I backed up my point with articles and quotes.  No big deal, was time to move on.  But you felt a need to fire this up again?  Well after it was put to rest?  And figured Stalin and Hitler needed to be brought into it to help make your point?  What kind of dumb ass are you?  

 

You're winning the "who can say he was wrong" contest. So, there's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to NFL Network's Ian Rapoport, the Jets and Bears have "emerged" as suitors for free agent QB Mike Glennon.

It would be quite a disappointing consolation prize, especially for the Bears, who have been closely linked to Jimmy Garoppolo. With the Patriots apparently unwilling to trade Garoppolo, quarterback-needy teams will have to look elsewhere. Glennon, Colin Kaepernick, Jay Cutler, and Brian Hoyer figure to be the best of the bunch that will be available. Glennon has been connected to the Jets for a few weeks now. He's expected to net $13-15 million per year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

You're winning the "who can say he was wrong" contest. So, there's that.

Once again you miss the point.  I didn't bring this up a month after it was over.  But hey, feel free to jump in for WF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...