Eli? It's Sanchez The Scapegoat You Should Be Outraged About You Stupid Fools

[SAR I]

On 12/20/2017 at 9:51 PM, legler82 said:

Jets fans, particularly Sanchez haters, are funny that way.  They are quick to point out he was carried to 2 AFCCGs by a strong defense and running game.  However, they are on mum on the fact that in those 2 losses he showed up and those that carried him didn't.  You can't blame the QB for when we lose if you are not willing to give him the credit for when we win.  

Perfectly stated.

2009:  As a 22 year old rookie who should still be in college, finishes the year on a 7-2 run.  Wins 2 road playoff games.  Is the best Jet on the field in the AFC Championship Game.

2010:  11-5 record is second best in team history.  Continues run, wins 16 of 20 games, best streak in team history.  Turns 5 fourth quarter defensive collapse losses into shocking last minute victories.  Wins 2 more road playoff games.  Responsible for the epic playoff upset in New England, second best win in team history.  Is the best Jet on the field in the AFC Championship Game, second year in a row.

2011:  Sitting at 8-5 with three easy games to go before the Rex Ryan Defense lets Victor Cruz go 99 yards and lets the Eagles score 45 points.  Instead of another 11-5 season, Jets miss the playoffs, Rex Ryan and the D collapse late in the year just like they no-showed in the AFC Championship Games.

2012:  Tony Sparano named offensive coordinator.  Tim Tebow circus comes to town.  Chaz Schillens, Clyde Gates, Stephen Hill, Fat Shonn Greene, and a suspect OL bury Mark Sanchez.

2013:  Preseason murder.  Shoulder surgery.  Scapegoated.

History shows that we should have given Mark Sanchez a mulligan for 2012.  He earned it.  We as fans deserved to see what he might have grown into at age 26 with proper coaching and a decent set of WR's to bond with.  And what we've seen since is garbage.

SAR I

[SAR I]

On 12/20/2017 at 10:05 PM, Gastineau Lives said:

I don't think I want to live in a world where people are still debating this.

There is no debate, only fact.

Letting Mark Sanchez go in 2013 was a terrible decision.  Every QB that followed was worse, the team regressed, we are further from the playoffs now than we were back then.  Giving a young yet proven postseason QB a proper offensive coordinator, a GM with the patience to build a decent set of WR's, and time to mature would have been a much better decision. 

The QB piles of sh-t that have come through the halls of Florham Park the past 5 seasons are a testament to that.  Anyone who debates the opposite would be delusional. 

SAR I

[JetFaninMI]

18 hours ago, BRONX DUDE said:

BUTT FUMBLED 

hot dog sideline eating

underage screwing

# 6 

LOL. Another one. Do they grow like weeds?

[Jet Fan RI]

52 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

LOL. Another one. Do they grow like weeds?

The quote in your sig that you attribute to Disraeli is actually from Mark Twain. Am I missing the sarcasm?

[JetFaninMI]

25 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

The quote in your sig that you attribute to Disraeli is actually from Mark Twain. Am I missing the sarcasm?

[JetFaninMI]

33 minutes ago, Jet Fan RI said:

The quote in your sig that you attribute to Disraeli is actually from Mark Twain. Am I missing the sarcasm?

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain in "Chapters from My Autobiography — XX", North American Review No. DCXVIII (JULY 5, 1907) [1]. His attribution is unverified and the origin is uncertain: see Lies, damned lies, and statistics and Leonard H.

[Jet Fan RI]

13 hours ago, JetFaninMI said:

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain in "Chapters from My Autobiography — XX", North American Review No. DCXVIII (JULY 5, 1907) [1]. His attribution is unverified and the origin is uncertain: see Lies, damned lies, and statistics and Leonard H.

Didn't know that. Thanks!

[NoBowles]

On 12/22/2017 at 12:19 AM, SAR I said:

There is no debate, only fact.

Letting Mark Sanchez go in 2013 was a terrible decision.  Every QB that followed was worse, the team regressed, we are further from the playoffs now than we were back then.  Giving a young yet proven postseason QB a proper offensive coordinator, a GM with the patience to build a decent set of WR's, and time to mature would have been a much better decision. 

The QB piles of sh-t that have come through the halls of Florham Park the past 5 seasons are a testament to that.  Anyone who debates the opposite would be delusional. 

SAR I

By 2013 Sanchez was damaged good, physically in the shoulder, and mentally. The terrible decisions as they pertain to Sanchez happened well before 2013. By 2013, there was not much left to keep.

[SAR I]

1 hour ago, NoBowles said:

By 2013 Sanchez was damaged good, physically in the shoulder, and mentally. The terrible decisions as they pertain to Sanchez happened well before 2013. By 2013, there was not much left to keep.

Before he was sent out to get his shoulder ripped to shreds behind a 5th string offensive line in the 4th quarter of a meaningless preseason game, Mark Sanchez had beaten out Geno Smith for the starting job and would have piloted a team capable of 8-8 under a rookie, likely would have gotten us to 10-6 and the playoffs for the 3rd time in 4 seasons.

SAR I

[Il Mostro]

This thread is beginning to catch up to the greatest JN thread of ALL TIME in its own weird way.  

 

 

[Warfish]

6 hours ago, Jet Fan RI said:

Didn't know that. Thanks!

Don't feel bad.

Quote

The phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death.

Disraeli never said it.  Twain made the attribution up (or got it wrong, but Twain being Twain, made up is more likely).

[Kleckineau]

4 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Don't feel bad.

Disraeli never said it.  Twain made the attribution up (or got it wrong, but Twain being Twain, made up is more likely).

Opinion of course but I always thought of it as a Twainism. Fits his style, syntax etc. 

[SenorGato]

On 12/21/2017 at 9:26 PM, BRONX DUDE said:

BUTT FUMBLED 

hot dog sideline eating

underage screwing

# 6 

POTW

Booooooooooo Sanchez 

[JetFaninMI]

36 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Don't feel bad.

Disraeli never said it.  Twain made the attribution up (or got it wrong, but Twain being Twain, made up is more likely).

You don't know that. It just can't be verified. If you feel so prove it.

[JetFaninMI]

 

30 minutes ago, Kleckineau said:

Opinion of course but I always thought of it as a Twainism. Fits his style, syntax etc. 

It is Twainish but I was just going by what I've read on the subject.

[Kleckineau]

1 hour ago, JetFaninMI said:

 

It is Twainish but I was just going by what I've read on the subject.

Uh huh. I honestly never dug into it at all so I will accept any learned opinion.

Magic 8  ball said unclear ask later.

[Warfish]

2 hours ago, JetFaninMI said:

It just can't be verified. If you feel so prove it.

Asking me to prove a negative is exactly what I'd expect your response to be.

Hint:  the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one who doubts the claim. 

In point of fact, "unverifiable" means "there is no evidence of any kind it ever happened".  

[SpartanJet]

First, Sanchez was not very good.

Second, how we handled Sanchez should be in a textbook on how NOT to develop a young QB.  The Jets could not have handled the situation worse from letting his OL deteriorate, lack of weapons, and a fat moron embarrassment of a coach who probably thinks the offense was designed to give his defense a rest.

[Jet Fan RI]

7 hours ago, Warfish said:

Don't feel bad.

Disraeli never said it.  Twain made the attribution up (or got it wrong, but Twain being Twain, made up is more likely).

So now I don't know what is true. I found a reference to Disraeli in regard to the quote using Google. Do you have a reference that demonstrates what you are saying? I realize it is difficult to prove a negative, but you are asserting the truth of a negative. How do you know?

[JetFaninMI]

5 hours ago, Warfish said:

Asking me to prove a negative is exactly what I'd expect your response to be.

Hint:  the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one who doubts the claim. 

In point of fact, "unverifiable" means "there is no evidence of any kind it ever happened".  

LOL. Typical response of someone who has no ability to back-up their claim yet insists its true. In no post do I say its true , I'm just going by what I've read and Twain while quite eccentric has more credibility than some Dude on an internet message board. I'm not making the claim.The poster who said Disraeli didn't it say is. Ball in your court I believe.

[Warfish]

19 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

LOL. Typical response of someone who has no ability to back-up their claim yet insists its true.

So you really don't understand the idea of proving a negative, eh.  Shocking.

19 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

Ball in your court I believe.

"If thinking that makes you happy, then Merry Christmas mate."  - Joseph Stalin

[Gastineau Lives]

On 12/22/2017 at 12:15 AM, SAR I said:

  Is the best Jet on the field in the AFC Championship Game, second year in a row.

 

Yup, Best Jet On the Field was 7 for 17 for 63 yards plus lost a fumble return for a TD in the first half against the Steelers and had the Jets down 24-3.

You really can't make this stuff up.

[JetFaninMI]

12 hours ago, Warfish said:

So you really don't understand the idea of proving a negative, eh.  Shocking.

"If thinking that makes you happy, then Merry Christmas mate."  - Joseph Stalin

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain in "Chapters from My Autobiography — XX", North American Review No. DCXVIII (JULY 5, 1907) [1]. His attribution is unverified and the origin is uncertain: see Lies, damned lies, and statistics and Leonard H.

I'm not going to argue this with you since it is impossible to prove or disprove. Its why I posted the above in the first place.

“For Christmas this year, try giving less. Start with less attitude. There’s more than enough of that in the world as it is – and people will usually just give it back anyway!” – Anne Bristow

 

[JetFaninMI]

11 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain in "Chapters from My Autobiography — XX", North American Review No. DCXVIII (JULY 5, 1907) [1]. His attribution is unverified and the origin is uncertain: see Lies, damned lies, and statistics and Leonard H.

I'm not going to argue this with you since it is impossible to prove or disprove. Its why I posted the above in the first place.

 

“For Christmas this year, try giving less. Start with less attitude. There’s more than enough of that in the world as it is – and people will usually just give it back anyway!” – Anne Bristow

BTW you can prove a negative:

THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE
Steven D. Hales
Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces tips and pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously.
A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative. Dr. Nelson L. Price, a Georgia minister, writes on his website that ‘one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.’ Julian Noble, a physicist at the University of Virginia, agrees, writing in his ‘Electric Blanket of Doom’ talk that ‘we can’t prove a negative proposition.’ University of California at Berkeley Professor of Epidemiology Patricia Buffler asserts that ‘The reality is that we can never prove the negative, we can never prove the lack of effect, we can never prove that something is safe.’ A quick search on Google or Lexis-Nexis will give a mountain of similar examples.
But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.
Not only that, but any claim can be expressed as a negative, thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that any proposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P. So pick anything you think you can prove. Think you can prove your own existence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using the exact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation,
• 110
you can prove that you aren’t nonexistent. Congratulations,
you’ve just proven a negative. The beautiful part is that you
can do this trick with absolutely any proposition whatsoever.
Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false.
Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific
sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So
it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch
Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot
don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in
mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument
with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there
are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference
procedure of modus tollens:
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
Someone might object that that was a bit too fast  after all,
I didn’t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted
that they were true. Well, that’s right. However, it would be a
grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises
of any argument they might give. Here’s why. The only way to
prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course
one would then have to prove the premises of that argument
by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of
those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we
should take on credit and which need payment up front is a
matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But
one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite
number of premises get proved first, we’re not going to prove
much of anything at all, positive or negative.
Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively,
indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all
shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues
Hales Thinking tools
Think summer 2005 • 111
that we’ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible
evidence of Bigfoot’s existence, and therefore there is no
Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender
can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be
hiding in that next stand of trees. You can’t prove he’s not!
(until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too).
The problem here isn’t that inductive arguments won’t give
us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of
Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won’t give us certainty
about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans
are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty
good inductive argument until black swans were discovered
in Australia.
The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a
conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the
premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We’d better
not dismiss induction because we’re not getting certainty out
of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Not because of observation (you can’t observe the future!),
but because that’s what it has always done in the past. Why
do you think that if you turn on the kitchen tap that water will
come out instead of chocolate? Why do you think you’ll find
your house where you last left it? Why do you think lunch
will be nourishing instead of deadly? Again, because that’s
the way things have always been in the past. In other words,
we use inferences — induction — from past experiences inin
every aspect of our lives. As Bertrand Russell pointed out,
the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer
approaching, since that is what had always happened in the
past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner,
he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive
reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer
would be a surprise.
So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative?
I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement
that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2)
a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes,
even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep

believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always
turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too
much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove
that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument
against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and
since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the
argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against
aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of
extraterrestrial abduction.
If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they
produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then
we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital
in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most
sophisticated science. Without induction we know basicallynothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions.
So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and
use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You
can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove
anything at all.
Steven Hales is professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg
University, Pennsylvania

 

 

 

[Warfish]

42 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

BLARGALGARBLE!!!!

"It's way to Christmas Eve for so much Blargalgarble" - Mother Theresa, in her private letters to Barrack Obama (as said by Mark Twain)

[JetFaninMI]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

"It's way to Christmas Eve for so much Blargalgarble" - Mother Theresa, in her private letters to Barrack Obama (as said by Mark Twain)

LOL. Whatever man, Merry Christmas.