Jump to content

Jets Waive Three - Including Rashard Robinson


CrazyCarl40
 Share

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

HOLY sh*t DUDE!  How much more ******* simple can I make this!

That is NOT what I, or I think ANY other person in this thread are doing at all!

Are you being this obtuse on purpose? 

 

Take a Xanax and go stare at your pictures of Macc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Those are very generous grades.

 

C for 3rd round and beyond? Come on. He hit on one 3rd (Jenkins) and one 4th (Herndon), while drafting massive busts like Mauldin, ArDarius Stewart and Chad Hansen. That’s an F right there.

Thanks for pointing that out...it was a typo.  I meant to put a D.  DEFINITELY not an F, considering you have a starting guard, our punter, a special teams ace, two RB's still on the team and contributing, a DB back depth still on team, and one CB who we are hoping can step up and start this year (although not likely).

The bust rate is expected.  I can't find the link or I would share it, but one in-depth draft analysis suggests that roughly 60-70 percent of draft picks bust.  The key is to do well in the first three rounds.  Mac has done above average in round 1, HORRENDOUS in round two, and decent in round three. 

As I have said many times in this thread, we don't make the playoffs this year, he is gone, as he should be.  Five years is long enough to build a playoff team.  Right or wrong, the hiccup in the first year with Fitzpatrick playing like Tom Brady for 15 games screwed up what was suppose to happen.  Doe not matter one iota.  He has had five years.  IF there is no playoffs this year, he should be gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing that out...it was a typo.  I meant to put a D.  DEFINITELY not an F, considering you have a starting guard, our punter, a special teams ace, two RB's still on the team and contributing, a DB back depth still on team, and one CB who we are hoping can step up and start this year (although not likely).
The bust rate is expected.  I can't find the link or I would share it, but one in-depth draft analysis suggests that roughly 60-70 percent of draft picks bust.  The key is to do well in the first three rounds.  Mac has done above average in round 1, HORRENDOUS in round two, and decent in round three. 
As I have said many times in this thread, we don't make the playoffs this year, he is gone, as he should be.  Five years is long enough to build a playoff team.  Right or wrong, the hiccup in the first year with Fitzpatrick playing like Tom Brady for 15 games screwed up what was suppose to happen.  Doe not matter one iota.  He has had five years.  IF there is no playoffs this year, he should be gone.


The bust rate is NOT expected. As evidenced by Macc having the highest % of picks that are out of the league since 2015.

It’s sad I keep having to point that out, but as long as people keep using the “draft is a crapshoot” excuse as a crutch for Macc, I’ll keep pointing out that Macc is playing craps worse than any GM in the league. Or really, poker is the better metaphor. Some GMs consistently make it to the head table for a reason, while Macc is the guy everyone else takes advantage of.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 


The bust rate is NOT expected. As evidenced by Macc having the highest % of picks that are out of the league since 2015.

It’s sad I keep having to point that out, but as long as people keep using the “draft is a crapshoot” excuse as a crutch for Macc, I’ll keep pointing out that Macc is playing craps worse than any GM in the league. Or really, poker is the better metaphor. Some GMs consistently make it to the head table for a reason, while Macc is the guy everyone else takes advantage of.

 

If you can’t spot the sucker in your first 4 years in the league, then you are the sucker. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, choon328 said:

Take a Xanax and go stare at your pictures of Macc

The same fans who defend Macc also debate that Namath and Martin were overrated and don’t deserve to be in the Hall.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same fans who defend Macc also debate that Namath and Martin were overrated and don’t deserve to be in the Hall.


I think Macc sucks and that Namath and Martin both deserve the Hall. I think Namath is underrated if anything, but that Martin was definitely overrated by most Jets fans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 


The bust rate is NOT expected. As evidenced by Macc having the highest % of picks that are out of the league since 2015.

It’s sad I keep having to point that out, but as long as people keep using the “draft is a crapshoot” excuse as a crutch for Macc, I’ll keep pointing out that Macc is playing craps worse than any GM in the league. Or really, poker is the better metaphor. Some GMs consistently make it to the head table for a reason, while Macc is the guy everyone else takes advantage of.

HOly sh*t dude, I don't want to be a dick, but you apparently won't read what is being typed here.  Either its on purpose, or you just can't understand it.  Done thanks.  Have a great time in the thread.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOly sh*t dude, I don't want to be a dick, but you apparently won't read what is being typed here.  Either its on purpose, or you just can't understand it.  Done thanks.  Have a great time in the thread.
 
 


I directly responded to a point you made. What’s not to be understood? You’re arguing that since Macc drafted Jordan Jenkins in the 3rd that one time that he’s done “ok” in the 3rd. That’s simply not true. And the 60-70 % bust rate argument doesn’t help him at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always great to see those who are so sure to adamantly tell us all that they're not defending Macc, before proceeding to let everyone know how many of his failures don't really count, and that others are only allowed to criticize the select few items of his endless list of buffoonery, that they have personally given permission to be criticized.

The cherry on top is attempts to cite statistics by those who don't understand the actual meaning of those numbers, which actually do nothing to support their arguments.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bleedin Green said:

The cherry on top is attempts to cite statistics by those who don't understand the actual meaning of those numbers, which actually do nothing to support their arguments.

I'm your huckleberry.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-team-can-beat-the-draft/

http://www.footballperspective.com/are-certain-teams-better-at-drafting-than-others/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Of course, if we were to concede draft success was nothing more than pure luck, that would immediately contradict the argument that wasting draft assets elsewhere is meaningless, as some were attempting to assert.  Rather, quite the opposite would be true, considering that would mean the only thing you could do, beyond keeping your fingers crossed, is increase your number of chances.

Then again, in both cases the coin flip comparisons are provided for storytelling purposes more than true statistical comparisons, considering they both essentially say as much while providing a series of caveats accounted for in their calculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

Of course, if we were to concede draft success was nothing more than pure luck, that would immediately contradict the argument that wasting draft assets elsewhere is meaningless, as some were attempting to assert.  Rather, quite the opposite would be true, considering that would mean the only thing you could do, beyond keeping your fingers crossed, is increase your number of chances.

Then again, in both cases the coin flip comparisons are provided for storytelling purposes more than true statistical comparisons, considering they both essentially say as much while providing a series of caveats accounted for in their calculations.

You can just write normal. Incoherence as rhetorical tactic is best left to experts. No, what you are trying to say does not logically follow. More picks is better means don't trade multiples for one. It's neutral as to trading one pick for one player, which is the same as exercising it in the draft. And the larger point is not that the amount of skill involved is small. It's that the differences in individual skill levels are small as far as explaining outcomes. There's no competitive advantage reflected in drafting Andrew Luck because everybody else does the same thing in that spot. That's a situation where competence is both universal and irrelevant with regard to an outcome that carries a lot of weight. The numbers indicate that things tend to remain effectively within the margin of error way beyond no-brainers. None of it means Warren Buffett shouldn't invest in the stock market. It means don't stop a player who's falling down the board because 'he was supposed to go higher' when you don't have any reason to believe that you know anything everyone else doesn't. You can certainly beat the market by having extra information, but that doesn't constitute being good at drafting any more than bringing in a cheat sheet equals good at taking tests because if anyone actually was generating any sustainable advantage that way it would have showed up in the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

You can just write normal. Incoherence as rhetorical tactic is best left to experts. No, what you are trying to say does not logically follow. More picks is better means don't trade multiples for one. It's neutral as to trading one pick for one player, which is the same as exercising it in the draft. And the larger point is not that the amount of skill involved is small. It's that the differences in individual skill levels are small as far as explaining outcomes. There's no competitive advantage reflected in drafting Andrew Luck because everybody else does the same thing in that spot. That's a situation where competence is both universal and irrelevant with regard to an outcome that carries a lot of weight. The numbers indicate that things tend to remain effectively within the margin of error way beyond no-brainers. None of it means Warren Buffett shouldn't invest in the stock market. It means don't stop a player who's falling down the board because 'he was supposed to go higher' when you don't have any reason to believe that you know anything everyone else doesn't. You can certainly beat the market by having extra information, but that doesn't constitute being good at drafting any more than bringing in a cheat sheet equals good at taking tests because if anyone actually was generating any sustainable advantage that way it would have showed up in the numbers.

I assure you, the irony of your subsequent post is not lost.

Discarding outliers and then proceeding to make an argument that there are no outliers isn't in any way the story you think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

I assure you, the irony of your subsequent post is not lost.

Discarding outliers and then proceeding to make an argument that there are no outliers isn't in any way the story you think it is.

And not knowing the difference between externalities and outliers makes you, what, smart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...