In hindsight, how awesome was that Jets/Colts trade for Darnold?

[Peace Frog]

Hindsight foresight sidesight blindsight nearsight farsight microsight macrosight schlemiosight all of the sights ever...it...was...awesome. 

[slimjasi]

39 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

We’ve come to the point where you are saying back to me things I’ve acknowledged, and considered, in my initial opinion. Like I said, I’m not trying to change minds here. I stated an opinion and a handful of people with rose colored glasses have offered rebuttals that just don’t stand up. No biggie. Don’t agree? No problem, but stop countering the fact that the Colts have a better roster that is primed for inserting the QB next year with hyperbole about Sam being a franchise QB before he truly proves it. In a year, I hope you are right. Right now, the pragmatist in me says the Colts feels like the safer bet than accepting that after 50 years the Jets found a QB.

You keep using the word “fact” as if you think it it’s mere inclusion makes your point stronger. It doesn’t.

Also, technically, the statement that the colts have a better roster than the Jets do outside of the QB position actually isn’t a “fact,” although it is certainly an opinion that I agree with.

As for the actual argument, that’s fine.

[jgb]

Macc was bad but he does get credit for putting us in the necessary position to “luck” into Darnold. Colts should’ve waited until draft night to trade, imho.

[slimjasi]

1 minute ago, jgb said:

Macc was bad but he does get credit for putting us in the necessary position to “luck” into Darnold. Colts should’ve waited until draft night to trade, imho.

100% and I wrote this at the time. 

The best thing Macc did was get it done well before draft day. Doing so kept the cost down and this is something that he told the media he was thinking at the time. 

 

[jgb]

4 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

100% and I wrote this at the time. 

The best thing Macc did was get it done well before draft day. Doing so kept the cost down and this is something that he told the media he was thinking at the time. 

 

Yep. If Colts have a regret, that’s it. Not about the Luck retirement.

[Integrity28]

17 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

You keep using the word “fact” as if you think it it’s mere inclusion makes your point stronger. It doesn’t.

Also, technically, the statement that the colts have a better roster than the Jets do outside of the QB position actually isn’t a “fact,” although it is certainly an opinion that I agree with.

As for the actual argument, that’s fine.

Compare positions for starters. Without hyperbole about what jets might do. Stats and accolades are facts.

[Pac]

So when the Jets wind up with a better record than the Colts this year, the Colts can hang their hat on the fact that a couple dopey fans have surmised the they have a brighter future than the Jets?

Ballard must be relieved.

[pdxgreen]

We got... pardon the expression Lucky.  Har. Har. Har. 

The right trade where the outcome looks better for the Jets due to an unforeseen circumstance.

[slimjasi]

1 hour ago, Integrity28 said:

Compare positions for starters. Without hyperbole about what jets might do. Stats and accolades are facts.

Cool, but you didn’t write that the “stats and accolades” of the players on the colts roster are better, you are wrote that the colts roster is better. 

[slats]

1 hour ago, Pac said:

So when the Jets wind up with a better record than the Colts this year, the Colts can hang their hat on the fact that a couple dopey fans have surmised the they have a brighter future than the Jets?

Ballard must be relieved.

If it’s any consolation, when the Jets don’t do as well as the Colts this year, we’re all gonna hang out hats on the fact that you sumise that the Jets have the brighter future. 

Thanks in advance! 

[jgb]

On 8/25/2019 at 9:49 AM, Villain The Foe said:

Trust, we all know this. Even I was concerned about the trade given that Macc gave up all of that capital to make a trade that didnt guarantee him the player that he coveted. 

Folks made it some sort of foregone conclusion that the Giants were most definitely going Barkley. Even though they did, the fact that they could have just as easily picked Darnold confirmed that it was indeed dumb luck on the part of Macc. 

Im really just concentrating on the part where the Colts got screwed a year later. 

Ironically, this situation shows what we both spoke about briefly about Bridgewater. You need 2 QB's in this league. You just never know what will happen. Brissett isnt a top 16 QB in the league, but he's better than whatever the Redskins are going to field and I would take him over Joe Flacco as well. 

They're not totally burnt, but man...it's rare that situations like this break in the Jets favor. 

Luck: Darnold being there at 3. 

Dumb Luck: not trading up and Darnold falling to 6.

Macc got lucky, not dumb lucky.

[Pac]

45 minutes ago, slats said:

If it’s any consolation, when the Jets don’t do as well as the Colts this year, we’re all gonna hang out hats on the fact that you sumise that the Jets have the brighter future. 

Thanks in advance! 

Jokes aside I'd be surprised if the Colts wind up with a better record.  They'd have to have a top notch defense and weapons to overcome the loss of luck. Marlon Mack looked good for a portion of last year because teams had to worry about the QB.  Stack the box and double Hilton seems like a recipie for success when playing them this year.

[BROOKLYN JET]

25 minutes ago, Pac said:

Jokes aside I'd be surprised if the Colts wind up with a better record.  They'd have to have a top notch defense and weapons to overcome the loss of luck. Marlon Mack looked good for a portion of last year because teams had to worry about the QB.  Stack the box and double Hilton seems like a recipie for success when playing them this year.

Do you think they will hire Macc to find them their next QB phenom?

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, slimjasi said:

Cool, but you didn’t write that the “stats and accolades” of the players on the colts roster are better, you are wrote that the colts roster is better. 

You’re really splitting hair here.

[slimjasi]

12 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

You’re really splitting hair here.

Indeed

[Pac]

46 minutes ago, BROOKLYN JET said:

Do you think they will hire Macc to find them their next QB phenom?

[BROOKLYN JET]

20 minutes ago, Pac said:

So yes, with extra coffee.

[Villain The Foe]

9 hours ago, jgb said:

Luck: Darnold being there at 3. 

Dumb Luck: not trading up and Darnold falling to 6.

Macc got lucky, not dumb lucky.

I disagree because neither guaranteed his guy, however, if you actually make a trade and that trade still didn't guarantee your guy then if things went south then you traded up for nothing and lost picks in the process. 

If Darnold fell to 6, then we'd have him along with our other draft picks. 

 

[jgb]

2 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

I disagree because neither guaranteed his guy, however, if you actually make a trade and that trade still didn't guarantee your guy then if things went south then you traded up for nothing and lost picks in the process. 

If Darnold fell to 6, then we'd have him along with our other draft picks. 

 

That’s a nihilistic view. If only guarantees are not “dumb luck,” it means all of life is just one big coincidence.

[Jet Nut]

On 8/25/2019 at 12:48 PM, Integrity28 said:

Bell, Osemele and Crowder are is the only players on that list to have seen 2nd contracts and produce more than 3 consecutive seasons of excellent/average play. I think you're grossly over-estimating how quickly "flashes in the rookie season" can turn out to be legit. Remember Dee Milliner's defensive player of the month "flashes"? How about how Geno closed out that one season with gaudy stats? When I say legit, what I'm implying is that there are not many players on this team that have proven over a series of seasons that they are contributors, stars and legit roster pieces. By the end of this year, the story may be different - but I tend to think in the present. As such, we're a very, very thin roster full of inexperience and "I hope he works out" players.

But the Colt rookies are legit.

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

But the Colt rookies are legit.

Yes, that’s what I said.?

[Jet Nut]

On 8/25/2019 at 9:13 PM, Integrity28 said:

How many QBs three for over 4,000 yards last year? 3,500? 20+ TDs.

It used to be hard to find QBs that hit these benchmarks. Now it’s table stakes. The new rules have made it far easier to find a QB.

Look at it like this. If the Cowboys cut Dak, how many teams are realistically bringing him in? Probably about 5 teams.

All this says is the rule changes have raised the bar of what numbers constitutes a good or great season.  Using numbers that were relevant before the rule changes doesn't make your point.  The league needs QBs today just as they always have.

[Jet Nut]

38 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Yes, that’s what I said.?

I was saying that sarcastically.  it makes no sense

On one hand you dismiss the Jets younger players, on the other credit the Colt players from last year's draft.

Odd

 

[Villain The Foe]

3 hours ago, jgb said:

That’s a nihilistic view. If only guarantees are not “dumb luck,” it means all of life is just one big coincidence.

Meh. Im not the one comparing draft trades to life.

Im one of the few that believes the big bang and evolution to be utterly ridiculous, so I can have my opinion on Macc's dumb luck while at the same time knowing that there is a designer or creator to life.

 

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

I was saying that sarcastically.  it makes no sense

On one hand you dismiss the Jets younger players, on the other credit the Colt players from last year's draft.

Odd

 

Context matters. 

Mac picks vs. Ballard picks. Track records. Skepticism. Also, I’m not talking exclusively about rookies here, so good job isolating a slice of the overall point.

[Integrity28]

1 hour ago, Jet Nut said:

All this says is the rule changes have raised the bar of what numbers constitutes a good or great season.  Using numbers that were relevant before the rule changes doesn't make your point.  The league needs QBs today just as they always have.

No kidding. The rule changes has given the league QBs at a much higher level as such. Nobody wanted a league with 5 good QBs, so they changed the rules to give us a league with 25. Thereby making it much easier to find a QB. To my point, not being able to even find a serviceable QB for the last decade is more of a Jets problem than a league-wide problem.

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, Integrity28 said:

Context matters. 

Mac picks vs. Ballard picks. Track records. Skepticism. Also, I’m not talking exclusively about rookies here, so good job isolating a slice of the overall point.

You can explain it any way you want.  It's as wrong as it gets.  Young players who play well or show promise for both teams are what they are.  Not one is a Colt the other a Jet so he's better.  

And sorry, having a Darnold vs a retired Luck changes the entire roster comparison.  Because your claim that QBs are now easy to find and you just have to draft one is also wrong.

 

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, Integrity28 said:

No kidding. The rule changes has given the league QBs at a much higher level as such. Nobody wanted a league with 5 good QBs, so they changed the rules to give us a league with 25. Thereby making it much easier to find a QB. To my point, not being able to even find a serviceable QB for the last decade is more of a Jets problem than a league-wide problem.

No the rule change have skewed the numbers.  Have raised what you have to reach to be elite.  Hadn't created more talented players.  

No one wanted to create 25 QBs or better QBs.  They wanted more points, more offense because offense sells.  Don't care what the numbers are, lots of teams don't have good QBs and are always looking for one.

 

[Integrity28]

5 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

No the rule change have skewed the numbers.  Have raised what you have to reach to be elite.  Hadn't created more talented players.  

No one wanted to create 25 QBs or better QBs.  They wanted more points, more offense because offense sells.  Don't care what the numbers are, lots of teams don't have good QBs and are always looking for one.

 

You aren’t really saying anything here. All teams want to get better. Whoa.

The point is, it used to be 5 elite, then a lot of trash QBs.

Now it’s 5 elite, and 20 guys you can win with. So, is it better to have a completely built roster and drop in a QB you can win with?

Or, a crappy roster with a QB who has not shown if he’s even a top 20 QB, let alone elite.

Especially when next year, the team with the better roster can go get a QB with as much if not more potential?

This isn’t a slight against Sam. I want him to be the best there ever was. However, a lot of guys here just cannot separate what we know from what we want. Thus, their arguments all come from a place of hyperbole. I’m just being pragmatic. If my job is GM, I’m more concerned about building a winner with the Jets in3 years, than the Colts. Mostly because Mac and Idzik wasted 6 years of drafting.

[jgb]

1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

Meh. Im not the one comparing draft trades to life.

Im one of the few that believes the big bang and evolution to be utterly ridiculous, so I can have my opinion on Macc's dumb luck while at the same time knowing that there is a designer or creator to life.

 

I don’t understand your philosophy on anything, nor do I want to ? 

[CTM]

2 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

Meh. Im not the one comparing draft trades to life.

Im one of the few that believes the big bang and evolution to be utterly ridiculous, so I can have my opinion on Macc's dumb luck while at the same time knowing that there is a designer or creator to life.

 

Evolution is utterly ridiculous? Strong condemnation of something there is observable evidence for all around us

I'm not surprised you hold this view but I'm a little perplexed as to why you got so miffed when I thought you might be a flat earther.  Seems like there'd be a lot of overlap between the two groups. 

 

 

[Villain The Foe]

1 hour ago, jgb said:

I don’t understand your philosophy on anything, nor do I want to ? 

Its ok. That's not a "coincidence". 

?

[Villain The Foe]

59 minutes ago, CTM said:

Evolution is utterly ridiculous? Strong condemnation of something there is observable evidence for all around us

I'm not surprised you hold this view but I'm a little perplexed as to why you got so miffed when I thought you might be a flat earther.  Seems like there'd be a lot of overlap between the two groups. 

 

 

There is no observable evidence for evolution or the big bang. There is observable evidence of the biblical account.

I also have no problem with flat earthers. I've heard alot of the things they believe and even I see their points. 

My problem was your attempt to ridicule me based on a completely unrelated topic instead of answering simple questions. 

I think the theory of evolution is ridiculous, but I dont ridicule people for their position, that's the difference between us.

[CTM]

4 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

There is no observable evidence for evolution or the big bang. There is observable evidence of the biblical account.

I also have no problem with flat earthers. I've heard alot of the things they believe and even I see their points. 

My problem was your attempt to ridicule me based on a completely unrelated topic instead of answering simple questions. 

I think the theory of evolution is ridiculous, but I dont ridicule people for their position, that's the difference between us.

You walk around asserting that everyone that doesn't see what you see is either brainwashed, closed minded or stupid.  Why is that not ridicule?

 

[Philc1]

8 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

There is no observable evidence for evolution or the big bang. There is observable evidence of the biblical account.

I also have no problem with flat earthers. I've heard alot of the things they believe and even I see their points. 

My problem was your attempt to ridicule me based on a completely unrelated topic instead of answering simple questions. 

I think the theory of evolution is ridiculous, but I dont ridicule people for their position, that's the difference between us.