This Jets/Vikings game is a MUST WIN. Here's why.

[Villain The Foe]

1 minute ago, Vader said:

thread doesn’t blow. thread makes a good point but IMO doesn’t (and can’t) account for multiple other simultaneous statistical events that impact how one would interpret statistically the odds of making or not making the playoffs.

Thanks. 

 

Also, the thread doesnt account for multiple other simultaneous statistical events...etc., etc. What it does account for is teams with 3-4 over the past decades making the playoffs. 

Im not going to get overly semantic here, the numbers are the numbers. I didnt say the Jets had a 0% chance, I said historically teams with this record made the playoffs 17% of the time. It doesnt have to account for things that it doesnt have to account for. 

[Villain The Foe]

6 minutes ago, BROOKLYN JET said:

So it was not a must win, just a better chance based on past statistics win.

It was a must win, because those percentages are poor. It essentially says that you have an 83% chance of missing the playoffs with that loss. 

I would say winning that game and avoiding that fact was a "must" if your intention is to make the playoffs. 

[BROOKLYN JET]

Just now, Villain The Foe said:

It was a must win, because those percentages are poor. It essentially says that you have an 83% chance of missing the playoffs with that loss. 

I would say winning that game and avoiding that fact was a "must" if your intention is to make the playoffs. 

But they can still make the playoffs after losing a must win.

[Villain The Foe]

6 minutes ago, Vader said:

it is a projection once you use the stat to project that state onto the season as a whole. by saying it is a “must win” that turns it into a projection and opinion. regardless the single stat relies on too much stability for one thing.  if you win 2 of the next three for example, and lose the one to chicago, and wind up 5-5, the entire projection is unmoored. 

Folks need to really sit, not be quick to type, and understand how percentages work. 

 

The 17% chance isnt an opinion, that's the historical fact. Calling it a must win, is a fact given that playoff teams tend to want to stay above the curve, because if not they can end up with 17% chances for example. 

Talking about games that are OUTSIDE of that 3-4 17% statistic, doesnt change the fact that that team still only has a 17% chance from that 3-4 start to make the playoffs. 

 

Leave it alone. 

[Barry McCockinner]

11 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Thanks. 

 

Also, the thread doesnt account for multiple other simultaneous statistical events...etc., etc. What it does account for is teams with 3-4 over the past decades making the playoffs. 

Im not going to get overly semantic here, the numbers are the numbers. I didnt say the Jets had a 0% chance, I said historically teams with this record made the playoffs 17% of the time. It doesnt have to account for things that it doesnt have to account for. 

You're projecting without taking anything into account except for record after 7 games. It's a useless statistic. It doesn't consider strength of schedule, strength of remaining schedule, strength of division, injuries, how the first seven games played out, etc, etc. 

It's as useful as talking about some teams chance of winning on Monday night based on historical Monday night wins and loses.

 

[Villain The Foe]

5 minutes ago, BROOKLYN JET said:

But they can still make the playoffs after losing a must win.

Though you have no point, let me ask anyway. What's your point? 

I clearly stated the percentages before calling it a must win game. So obviously the must win was for the sole purpose of avoiding the percentage presented to begin with. 

[Vader]

3 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

It was a must win, because those percentages are poor. It essentially says that you have an 83% chance of missing the playoffs with that loss. 

I would say winning that game and avoiding that fact was a "must" if your intention is to make the playoffs. 

But it wasn’t a must win unless you need to rely on the stat you provided at the outset.

you don’t need to rely on it though. 

There are few facts (few also that will remain relevant) still this early in a season. 

The realistic truth here is that to make the playoffs the Jets must win the AFC games.

Realistically to get into the playoffs, after Mia, Cleve, JAX, we had to win against our AFC competition. The conference record will play a key in wildcard assignments. That means Denver, Indy, Miami and Buffalo.

that is the proper statistic to consider. Minnesota (and Chicago) are the games to lose if you have to lose two games. If you win one, and then win against Miami and buffalo, I think you are in a decent spot to challenge for the playoffs.

[Villain The Foe]

2 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

You're projecting without taking anything into account except for record after 7 games. It's a useless statistic. It doesn't consider strength of schedule, strength of remaining schedule, strength of division, injuries, how the first seven games played out, etc, etc. 

It's as useful as talking about some teams chance of winning on Monday night based on historical Monday night wins and loses.

 

It takes into account every schedule over the many decades of every team that has gone 3-4. That's what those percentages represent, hence the reason why it's called a historical statistic. 

If it was useless, it wouldnt be updated over the decades. The only thing useless is making this bigger than what it is. 

[Villain The Foe]

2 minutes ago, Vader said:

But it wasn’t a must win unless you need to rely on the stat you provided at the outset.

you don’t need to rely on it though. 

There are few facts (few also that will remain relevant) still this early in a season. 

The realistic truth here is that to make the playoffs the Jets must win the AFC games.

Realistically to get into the playoffs, after Mia, Cleve, JAX, we had to win against our AFC competition. The conference record will play a key in wildcard assignments. That means Denver, Indy, Miami and Buffalo.

that is the proper statistic to consider. Minnesota (and Chicago) are the games to lose if you have to lose two games. If you win one, and then win against Miami and buffalo, I think you are in a decent spot to challenge for the playoffs.

The historical fact, which includes teams and their division games, is that teams who started 3-4 made the playoffs 17% of the time. 

Those teams that are part of that 17% probably won their division games. 
See how that works? 

[BROOKLYN JET]

6 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Though you have no point, let me ask anyway. What's your point? 

I clearly stated the percentages before calling it a must win game. So obviously the must win was for the sole purpose of avoiding the percentage presented to begin with. 

My point is, it was not a must win, but I get your point anyway.

[Barry McCockinner]

5 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

It takes into account every schedule over the many decades of every team that has gone 3-4. That's what those percentages represent, hence the reason why it's called a historical statistic. 

If it was useless, it wouldnt be updated over the decades. The only thing useless is making this bigger than what it is. 

They keep track of all kinds of useless stats. 

[Vader]

5 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

The historical fact, which includes teams and their division games, is that teams who started 3-4 made the playoffs 17% of the time. 

Those teams that are part of that 17% probably won their division games. 
See how that works? 

The statistic is too general. While mildly predictive on an uber macro level it still lacks any real specificity. 

I understand you claim it is a must win to avoid the statistic you are using at the outset. What I’m saying is it isn’t that relevant in a specific way to hold value as a predictor.

edit: we are just talking, hope u aren’t taking my pushing back on the use of this stat in a personal way. The jets likely don’t make the playoffs. Even if they don’t (which means the stat is correct) I don’t think the stat / reasoning would have had anything to do with it 

[Villain The Foe]

2 minutes ago, BROOKLYN JET said:

My point is, it was not a must win, but I get your point anyway.

It wasnt to you, as it wasnt to many Jets fans. Many folks either have low expectations, either care solely about Sam Darnold, or wants to make sure we have a bad season so Bowles is fired. 

As a person who cares about the playoff race, this game given the historical statistic was a must win. 

You thinking it wasnt is cool. 

[BROOKLYN JET]

Just now, Villain The Foe said:

It wasnt to you, as it wasnt to many Jets fans. Many folks either have low expectations, either care solely about Sam Darnold, or wants to make sure we have a bad season so Bowles is fired. 

As a person who cares about the playoff race, this game given the historical statistic was a must win. 

You thinking it wasnt is cool. 

Yet, they can still make the playoffs.

[Villain The Foe]

12 minutes ago, Vader said:

The statistic is too general. While mildly predictive on an uber macro level it still lacks any real specificity. 

I understand you claim it is a must win to avoid the statistic you are using at the outset. What I’m saying is it isn’t that relevant in a specific way to hold value as a predictor.

It's pretty specific actually. It clearly dealt with teams historically that have started their season 3-4. 

I never once called this a prediction. This is probably the problem. More assumption than simply taking what im saying. 

Quote

edit: we are just talking, hope u aren’t taking my pushing back on the use of this stat in a personal way. The jets likely don’t make the playoffs. Even if they don’t (which means the stat is correct) I don’t think the stat / reasoning would have had anything to do with it 

Yea sure, we're just talking. Though I have to say I think you still misunderstand the info I provided given the bolded. The stat never said that they Jets cannot make the playoffs. It gave a percentage of teams who's gone to the playoffs with a record like this, which is 17%. 

If the Jets made the playoffs, the stat wouldnt be wrong. I stated that 17% of teams made the playoffs. 

Like I said, folks are putting way too much into something that isnt this serious. 

 

We can alway talk bro, but im going to dismiss myself now from this particular thread. The Jets lost. 

[Villain The Foe]

5 minutes ago, BROOKLYN JET said:

Yet, they can still make the playoffs.

Which is exactly what I said. 

Where do you think the 17% came from? 

 

Pay attention Brooklyn. 

[Vader]

1 minute ago, Villain The Foe said:

It's pretty specific actually. It clearly dealt with teams historically that have started their season 3-4. 

I never once called this a prediction. This is probably the problem. More assumption than simply taking what im saying. 

Yea sure, we're just talking. Though I have to say I think you still misunderstand the info I provided given the bolded. The stat never said that they Jets cannot make the playoffs. It gave a percentage of teams who's gone to the playoffs with a record like this, which is 17%. 

If the Jets made the playoffs, the stat wouldnt be wrong. I stated that 17% of teams made the playoffs. 

Like I said, folks are putting way too much into something that isnt this serious. 

 

We can alway bro, but im going to dismiss myself now from this particular thread. The Jet lost. 

Cool cool ??

[BROOKLYN JET]

5 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Which is exactly what I said. 

Where do you think the 17% came from? 

 

Pay attention Brooklyn. 

I know, it was a must win, except we still have a 17% chance based on history.

[Villain The Foe]

17 minutes ago, BROOKLYN JET said:

I know, it was a must win, except we still have a 17% chance based on history.

Your comprehension is slow, but its coming around. This is the closest you been to understanding the thread you've been writing in. 

But Brooklyn, i unfortunately dont want to continue to explain what should be easily understandable.

Have the last word bro, but now it's on to figure out how the Jets can be part of the 17%, because they lost a must win game.  

[BROOKLYN JET]

7 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Your comprehension is slow, but its coming around. This is the closest you been to understanding the thread you've been writing in. 

But Brooklyn, i unfortunately dont want to continue to explain what should be easily understandable.

Have the last word bro, but now it's on to figure out how the Jets can be part of the 17%, because they lost a must win game.  

I get it, they can still make the playoffs because they lost a must win game.

[Barry McCockinner]

Eagles and Jets both fell to 3-4 today. They both have 17% chance of making playoffs?

[Losmeister]

the season is over cos well, it was a must win and we didnt?

[Creepy Lurker]

“Must win” for a true playoff push/confidence builder but not a must win to accomplish the goal of further developing Sam and the rest of this team as we strive for 8-8. 

[Paradis]

6 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

My apologies. That's your personal viewpoint and you're entitled to that. 

Here's why that viewpoint to me is bull. 

Since you spoke about being "realistic", lets be real. 

The last time the Jets won a superbowl, you werent born

The last time the Jets were in a superbowl, you werent born

The last time the Jets put a team on the field that from starting week 1 folks "around the league" felt the Jets were a legit SB contender, you were a teenager. 

So in otherwords, either you've cared about playoff contention in the past during a year where they werent deemed to be in contention for a SB , or you've not cared much about the Jets and playoff contention since 1999, the only year that around the league folks felt like the Jets could contend for a championship. I HIGHLY DOUBT that 1999 was the only year you cared about the playoffs given that you felt like that was the year they could win a championship. Like I said, it smells like bullsh*t to me. I think associating Playoffs and winning the superbowl a load of crap given that you can make the playoffs and not win a superbowl. In otherwords, you dont need an "all or nothing" mentality when it comes to a team that has young players on this team, remember they're also in further "development". You can easily expect a regime who's been around since 2015 to "put up or shut up" in 2018 in terms of making the playoffs, without it meaning "SUPERBOWL". 

As for your blood pressure, relax. I challenged your position but never once disrespected you. Its not like I called you a pendejo or something.

My pressure's in check though, simply because I dont believe what you're preaching. 

Again, as for player development, if a coach cant develop players on the 53 and attempt to win games, which is the purpose of playing them, then they should probably oversee those players on the practice squad, where players go to develop....but dont play meaningful football games on Sunday. If you're on the 53, and especially if you're a starter, there is a level of development you go through, but there are also expectations. Lee and Anderson arent rookies bro. They've been in the league long enough to be considered veterans. 

Lets be realistic.

"You play to win the game. You dont play it just to play it."- Herm Edwards. 

 

you put about 89.5% too much into this post.

I said what i said, because i knew the Jets had games like today still in the kitchen to serve. 

We're not a playoff team. 

[varjet]

Vikings was a must win game because the Jets lost to the Dolphins and Browns, two teams that the Jets were closer to in ability than the Vikings.

Despite the Vikings’ record, they are one of the top teams in the league, with better players, roster and coaches than the Jets.  That is a fact.  Hue Jackson-Bowles’ level.  If they Jets thought they were a playoff team in 2018, they needed to beat one of both of the Dolphins and the Bills. 

Next year is a new year, but Mac and/or Heimerdinger need to build a roster with more talent to compete against the Vikings and Bears. 

[Villain The Foe]

10 hours ago, Paradis said:

you put about 89.5% too much into this post.

I said what i said, because i knew the Jets had games like today still in the kitchen to serve. 

We're not a playoff team. 

That 89.5% comment is impossible. If I did put that much into my post, I would have high blood pressure and would be calling you a pendejo. I've been staying on topic. If you want to see who's been doing too much just read what your fingers have typed. 

But anyway, since we lost a must win game, were more than likely missed our opportunity at the playoffs. Your ability to have 0 interest in the playoffs, given that you said what you said, doesnt change the actual fact that the team/organization  shoot for higher goals, more than what many Jets fans want this season, given that many fans are content with just having Sam Darnold and would like to throw away yet another year in order to change regime. I dont like the thought of tanking seasons to draft players, and I dont like the thought of tanking seasons to get rid of regimes. I like the the thought of playing up to your potential, which this team is not doing, which is what put them in a must win situation this early in the season in the first place. 

[Bruce Harper]

17 hours ago, Losmeister said:

sure...   and you try to win each one...   but there is no MUST WIN..   when you cannot reasonably expect that the playoffs are more thna 50% probable

That's a damn good thing considering that we crapped the bed.

[RoadFan]

And the "skeptable" butt fumble repping is back ladies and gentleman!!!

Even though my post was 100% accurate that anyone emotionally invested in the Vikings game was setting themselves up for a letdown.

I won't get to read his response because he is on ignore.  Too bad...

Butt fumble away skeptable... Butt fumble away...

I was admittedly slightly, slightly, annoyed at one point.  Now it's just plain funny...

[Losmeister]

19 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

Folks need to really sit, not be quick to type, and understand how percentages work. 

 

The 17% chance isnt an opinion, that's the historical fact. Calling it a must win, is a fact given that playoff teams tend to want to stay above the curve, because if not they can end up with 17% chances for example. 

Talking about games that are OUTSIDE of that 3-4 17% statistic, doesnt change the fact that that team still only has a 17% chance from that 3-4 start to make the playoffs. 

 

Leave it alone. 

i guess you bough Adams' dumbarse smack talk before the season about how good the roster was...  you woulda known beofre the season started that the chances of this team being in tghe post season were...  somewhere between 2 and 5%....    the deluded leading the gullible...

"I think we're there," Jets safety Jamal Adams said. "I think we're close. This team is a great team. We have a 53-man roster full of a lot of talent. There's no waiting for next year, or rebuilding. There's none of that. This team can be special."

[nyjunc]

5 minutes ago, Losmeister said:

i guess you bough Adams' dumbarse smack talk before the season about how good the roster was...  you woulda known beofre the season started that the chances of this team being in tghe post season were...  somewhere between 2 and 5%....    the deluded leading the gullible...

"I think we're there," Jets safety Jamal Adams said. "I think we're close. This team is a great team. We have a 53-man roster full of a lot of talent. There's no waiting for next year, or rebuilding. There's none of that. This team can be special."

This team has more talent than the Bills of last year and they made the playoffs.  w/ a good HC this team would be in playoff contention this year.  The AFC 2nd WC will go to a mediocre team again.  It could be us but not w/ Bowles running the show.

[Paradis]

8 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

That 89.5% comment is impossible. If I did put that much into my post, I would have high blood pressure and would be calling you a pendejo. I've been staying on topic. If you want to see who's been doing too much just read what your fingers have typed. 

But anyway, since we lost a must win game, were more than likely missed our opportunity at the playoffs. Your ability to have 0 interest in the playoffs, given that you said what you said, doesnt change the actual fact that the team/organization  shoot for higher goals, more than what many Jets fans want this season, given that many fans are content with just having Sam Darnold and would like to throw away yet another year in order to change regime. I dont like the thought of tanking seasons to draft players, and I dont like the thought of tanking seasons to get rid of regimes. I like the the thought of playing up to your potential, which this team is not doing, which is what put them in a must win situation this early in the season in the first place. 

Dude, it's like you're either mistaking me for someone else, or you're making some massive leaps of assumption about what my agenda/position/stance is on all things NYJ.  (....and boy, you really took that Bandejo remark to heart hey? I have some spanish friends that use it endearingly. Clearly i'll not use it again given you've brought it up 3x now)

Look, you seem young. An intelligent young man, yes, but your perspective is light/thin. I have 0 interest in playoffs? Why would i watch the sport if i don't have interest in playoffs?  Of course I am. I also have watched football most of my life, and I know how this story goes; a few big wins, and a few big losses. That's what kind of team the Jets are right now - and will be until we make some coaching/executive changes. Winning the superbowl is about how consistent your execution is. Not fluking your way into the playoffs and praying at the alter for the cards to fall your way. If it happens - GREAT. But that's not what I'm holding out for. 

your assessment of this team was erroneous - not my faith in our ability. 

 

 

 

[Losmeister]

its a must win game its a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win gameits a must win game

i say so a million times theerfore it is.

try it with "I am Jesus CHrist" you'll end up ina straight jacket.

[Villain The Foe]

38 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Dude, it's like you're either mistaking me for someone else, or you're making some massive leaps of assumption about what my agenda/position/stance is on all things NYJ.  (....and boy, you really took that Bandejo remark to heart hey? I have some spanish friends that use it endearingly. Clearly i'll not use it again given you've brought it up 3x now)

Look, you seem young. An intelligent young man, yes, but your perspective is light/thin. I have 0 interest in playoffs? Why would i watch the sport if i don't have interest in playoffs?  Of course I am. I also have watched football most of my life, and I know how this story goes; a few big wins, and a few big losses. That's what kind of team the Jets are right now - and will be until we make some coaching/executive changes. Winning the superbowl is about how consistent your execution is. Not fluking your way into the playoffs and praying at the alter for the cards to fall your way. If it happens - GREAT. But that's not what I'm holding out for. 

your assessment of this team was erroneous - not my faith in our ability. 

 

 

 

This was 89.5% too much info.

Lol

 

 

It was also tldr. 

 

Maybe tomorrow

 

[Sperm Edwards]

On 10/21/2018 at 6:10 PM, Villain The Foe said:

Where do you think the 17% came from? 

The Jets' success rate in the draft and free agency since 2015?

[Villain The Foe]

The Jets have not won a game since I created this thread almost 2 months ago.