ZachEY Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 6 hours ago, TeddEY said: School of Hard Knocks/University of Life > Harvard Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philc1 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 Sam is going to have the best career out of any QB from the 2018 class and I’m including Lamar Jackson who I never disliked 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14 in Green Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Big_Slick said: Or that Dak, who hasn't won a single game this season against a winning team and choked on a nationally televised turkey day game, is a better QB than Sam? Please remember that Dak lost to the Jets even with the help of multiple phantom penalties. Normalize that. Using the logic you used to say Sam is better then Dak because the Jets beat the Cowboys, I guess you think Fitz, Allen, and Minshew are all better QBs then Darnold. Normalized enough for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philc1 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, 14 in Green said: Using the logic you used to say Sam is better then Dak because the Jets beat the Cowboys, I guess you think Fitz, Allen, and Minshew are all better QBs then Darnold. Normalized enough for you? Dak hasn’t been great 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ryu79 Posted November 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, 14 in Green said: Darnold hasn’t won a game against a team with a winning record either. He’s won 3 games, Dak has won twice that. BTW Using the logic you used to say Sam is better then Dak because the Jets beat the Cowboys, I guess you think Fitz, Allen, and Minshew are all better QBs then Darnold. Normalized enough for you? Sam just beat the Raiders who had a winning record and when he beat the Cowboys they did too. So that's two? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philc1 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 1 minute ago, ryu79 said: Sam just beat the Raiders who had a winning record and when he beat the Cowboys they did too. So that's two? Also should have beaten the bills — while he was sick 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14 in Green Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, ryu79 said: Sam just beat the Raiders who had a winning record and when he beat the Cowboys they did too. So that's two? Yes I blanked out on the Raiders, but edited that out a minute later when I remembered, lol. My bad, you caught it before I deleted it. Cowboys are 6-6 though, not a winning record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14 in Green Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, Philc1 said: Also should have beaten the bills — while he was sick ...and I should’ve had sex with Jenna Jameson the night she told me I had beautiful blue eyes (true story?), but I didn’t. Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philc1 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, 14 in Green said: ...and I should’ve had sex with Jenna Jameson the night she told me I had beautiful blue eyes (true story?), but I didn’t. Oh well... Something tells me the jets had a way better chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryu79 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, 14 in Green said: Yes I blanked out on the Raiders, but edited that out a minute later when I remembered, lol. My bad, you caught it before I deleted it. Cowboys are 6-6 though, not a winning record. Got it. I thought you meant record when we faced them. They are partially .500 because of us though! And I think most expect them to finish with a winning record at end of year - that's a team with a lot of talent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14 in Green Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 11 minutes ago, Philc1 said: Something tells me the jets had a way better chance Yeah, that’s true, lol, but I got to have a ten minute make out session with her in front of 2 of my friends that night, and I haven’t let them forget it for 20 years. 10 minutes ago, ryu79 said: Got it. I thought you meant record when we faced them. They are partially .500 because of us though! And I think most expect them to finish with a winning record at end of year - that's a team with a lot of talent. I get what you’re saying, but with their remaining schedule, I think 8-8 is more likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyes Of Adam Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 7 hours ago, Jet Nut said: He’s 6’ 5”, 240 lbs. And people do worry. If Cam can get hurt so can anyone. No one worries about Wilson. What’s his color? And you brought Jackson into this Thanks for bringing up the Wilson. Wilson is truly a top 5 QB in the league, and should hopefully end all the really annoying SJW nonsense going on in the thread. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Maxman Posted November 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 30, 2019 You guys know this is a Jets site, right? It is okay to root for the Jets here lol. 7 1 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Maxman Posted November 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 30, 2019 @Warfish I saw your confused reaction to my post. What part is confusing. It is okay to root for the Jets here. Just making sure everyone knew that. Because there has been more fighting and banned posters in the past week than we like to see. We don't need this to be a homer site, that was never our goal. But people have become so critical of certain things. Years ago PatsFanTx was banned for less than what some Jets fans write about the team. 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 2 hours ago, 14 in Green said: ...and I should’ve had sex with Jenna Jameson the night she told me I had beautiful blue eyes (true story?), but I didn’t. Oh well... That really wasn't an option. When you give a stripper a single, they typically compliment you. I wouldn't read too much into her compliment lol. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Maxman Posted November 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 30, 2019 2 hours ago, 14 in Green said: Yes I blanked out on the Raiders, but edited that out a minute later when I remembered, lol. My bad, you caught it before I deleted it. Cowboys are 6-6 though, not a winning record. The thing that is preventing the Cowboys from having a winning record is losing to the Jets. Just in case you needed help figuring that out. 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losmeister Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 3 hours ago, Maxman said: We don't need this to be a homer site, that was never our goal. But people have become so critical of certain things you basically said you cannot be too homer but you can be too critical... in which case you can be banned ffs, max 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 3 hours ago, Losmeister said: you basically said you cannot be too homer but you can be too critical... in which case you can be banned ffs, max Except that isn't what I said. At all. Good post though. Except it wasn't lol. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post greenwichjetfan Posted November 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted November 30, 2019 12 hours ago, 14 in Green said: No. Absolutely not. Finished product or not, nothing he has accomplished yet in the NFL so far proves he is special. Not a single thing, sorry. “Proves” is always garbage with such volatility in a small data sample. Yet it didn’t stop you from spending the entire offseason posting around these forums that Baker had already proven to be among the best QBs in the league based on his rookie year. As of today, he has proven that he isn’t. So which is it? Yet when a poster wants to give credit to Sam on a Jets forum, it elicits this kind of response from you. Transparent agenda is transparent. edit: Trying to take away a victory over the cowboys from Sam just to further your agenda is the tastiest icing. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 21 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said: edit: Trying to take away a victory over the cowboys from Sam just to further your agenda is the tastiest icing. @The Crusher Heads up about a recipe for tasty icing. I'm always looking out for ya, bud! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Slick Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 8 hours ago, Maxman said: @Warfish I saw your confused reaction to my post. What part is confusing. It is okay to root for the Jets here. Just making sure everyone knew that. Because there has been more fighting and banned posters in the past week than we like to see. We don't need this to be a homer site, that was never our goal. But people have become so critical of certain things. Years ago PatsFanTx was banned for less than what some Jets fans write about the team. Banning PatsFanTx was the best thing that happened to this board. I had to stop reading the board because Tex would turn every thread into a cheats* debate. Personally I don't mind pessimistic posts from Jets fans or fans that twist statistics to cast a negative light on other Jets fans optimism, but I can't understand people who spend a great deal of time trolling the board pretending to be Jets fans. I feel sorry for their pathetic existence. The board is better off without them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 11 hours ago, ryu79 said: Sam just beat the Raiders who had a winning record and when he beat the Cowboys they did too. So that's two? This raising a funny question for me: When people talk about "beating winning teams", do they really mean "they had a winning record when they played them" or do they mean "they finished the year with a winning record"? Because I've heard folks go both ways over the years. The first is clearly flawed, because a week 1 team can't be a winning team (0-0) and most early season games could be teams that are 1-0 and still finish 1-15, lol. The second is flawed because teams can be winning (like the Raiders) when we play them, but finish as losers potentially. I always find this "beat winning teams" an interesting concept, but a bit wonky as to what people mean by it specifically (as laid out above). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philc1 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, Warfish said: This raising a funny question for me: When people talk about "beating winning teams", do they really mean "they had a winning record when they played them" or do they mean "they finished the year with a winning record"? Because I've heard folks go both ways over the years. The first is clearly flawed, because a week 1 team can't be a winning team (0-0) and most early season games could be teams that are 1-0 and still finish 1-15, lol. The second is flawed because teams can be winning (like the Raiders) when we play them, but finish as losers potentially. I always find this "beat winning teams" an interesting concept, but a bit wonky as to what people mean by it specifically (as laid out above). So Sam playing well against the bills doesn’t count because it happened too early in the season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 1 minute ago, Philc1 said: So Sam playing well against the bills doesn’t count because it happened too early in the season? I'm not putting out an opinion, I'm asking a question. When you say "beat a winning team", what do you do you (or anyone else) mean? Does everyone else mean that too? I'm not taking a position, I'm asking a question, because application of the "beat a winning team" seems to vary depending on the writer. Let's use an example: Say the JEts beat Buffalo week 1. Buffalo was 0-0, not a "winning team" at that moment, but they go on to finish 10-6, clearly a winning team, right? Now, Sam beat the Raiders too, who at the time were what, 6-4? A winning team, clearly. But they go on to finish 7-9, not a winning team. When discussing "beating winning teams" in the offseason, how many winning teams did Sam beat above? One? Two? Like I said, I think people aren't consistent on this, and I wonder how the NFL (when they report on it) are using that phrase to mean. This has nothing to do with Sam, and everything to do with "what does this stat actually mean". So save the lame old Fitz pics, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 38 minutes ago, Big_Slick said: Banning PatsFanTx was the best thing that happened to this board. I had to stop reading the board because Tex would turn every thread into a cheats* debate. Personally I don't mind pessimistic posts from Jets fans or fans that twist statistics to cast a negative light on other Jets fans optimism, but I can't understand people who spend a great deal of time trolling the board pretending to be Jets fans. I feel sorry for their pathetic existence. The board is better off without them. This is a good point. My comment might have been too harsh, I in no way meant to question loyalty of any Jets fans even if they're negative. This organization hasn't done anything to earn people's trust. So I get it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 15 minutes ago, Warfish said: I'm not putting out an opinion, I'm asking a question. When you say "beat a winning team", what do you do you (or anyone else) mean? Does everyone else mean that too? I'm not taking a position, I'm asking a question, because application of the "beat a winning team" seems to vary depending on the writer. Let's use an example: Say the JEts beat Buffalo week 1. Buffalo was 0-0, not a "winning team" at that moment, but they go on to finish 10-6, clearly a winning team, right? Now, Sam beat the Raiders too, who at the time were what, 6-4? A winning team, clearly. But they go on to finish 7-9, not a winning team. When discussing "beating winning teams" in the offseason, how many winning teams did Sam beat above? One? Two? Like I said, I think people aren't consistent on this, and I wonder how the NFL (when they report on it) are using that phrase to mean. This has nothing to do with Sam, and everything to do with "what does this stat actually mean". So save the lame old Fitz pics, please. I can actually go either way with this question. The NFL is a bit streaky so winning teams when you play them is important. But that doesn't really factor in the schedule up to that point in time. You could be beating a winning team that hasn't won any tough games. So the final record is a better indication. Because over the course of 16 games at all kind of comes out in the wash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 13 hours ago, 14 in Green said: No. Absolutely not. Finished product or not, nothing he has accomplished yet in the NFL so far proves he is special. Not a single thing, sorry. Oh my... I have watched the jets for over 40 something years. The bar is set low for quarterback play here but there are so few special plays I have seen in that time. I have seen several plays by Donald that show me he is special. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullblast Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 11 hours ago, 14 in Green said: Yes I blanked out on the Raiders, but edited that out a minute later when I remembered, lol. My bad, you caught it before I deleted it. Cowboys are 6-6 though, not a winning record. May as well wait until the season is over before making any statements then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, Maxman said: I can actually go either way with this question. The NFL is a bit streaky so winning teams when you play them is important. But that doesn't really factor in the schedule up to that point in time. You could be beating a winning team that hasn't won any tough games. So the final record is a better indication. Because over the course of 16 games at all kind of comes out in the wash. Yeah, I was honestly having a laugh because, as a stat guy, I like to think I know stats and what they mean, but I've never known what the NFL means when they say it. Because it really can be seen to mean two distinctly different things, and you take credit away no matter which way to go, but it can't really mean both things at the same time, lol. I too tend to lean towards the end of the season record, but it's fair to note that that definition would "diminish" a great win by Sam and the team vs. the Raiders if they collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, Warfish said: Yeah, I was honestly having a laugh because, as a stat guy, I like to think I know stats and what they mean, but I've never known what the NFL means when they say it. Because it really can be seen to mean two distinctly different things, and you take credit away no matter which way to go, but it can't really mean both things at the same time, lol. I too tend to lean towards the end of the season record, but it's fair to note that that definition would "diminish" a great win by Sam and the team vs. the Raiders if they collapse. Stats can only tell part of the story. That is another avenue that make sports discussions fun. No stat is a perfect storyteller in terms of what a player really is. Some players accumulate stats in "garbage time". Some players excel when the game is on the line. Stats don't tell those stories. That is why there has to be an eye test also. And that is why it makes sport interesting because it becomes subjective. And that is why Maxman makes thousands of dollars on a site such as this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet_Engine1 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 54 minutes ago, Warfish said: This raising a funny question for me: When people talk about "beating winning teams", do they really mean "they had a winning record when they played them" or do they mean "they finished the year with a winning record"? Because I've heard folks go both ways over the years. The first is clearly flawed, because a week 1 team can't be a winning team (0-0) and most early season games could be teams that are 1-0 and still finish 1-15, lol. The second is flawed because teams can be winning (like the Raiders) when we play them, but finish as losers potentially. I always find this "beat winning teams" an interesting concept, but a bit wonky as to what people mean by it specifically (as laid out above). Your trying too hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UntouchableCrew Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Big_Slick said: Banning PatsFanTx was the best thing that happened to this board. I had to stop reading the board because Tex would turn every thread into a cheats* debate. Personally I don't mind pessimistic posts from Jets fans or fans that twist statistics to cast a negative light on other Jets fans optimism, but I can't understand people who spend a great deal of time trolling the board pretending to be Jets fans. I feel sorry for their pathetic existence. The board is better off without them. PatsFanTx was the worst because he wasn't even a creative/funny troll. He was just a clown who dedicated significant hours of his life to being a jerkoff. I think this board has a pretty good balance of sunshine pumpers and doom and gloomers mixed in with a fair number of entertaining characters. It's a good mix. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 24 minutes ago, Jet_Engine1 said: Your trying too hard. I have no idea what you're trying to say here mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14 in Green Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 2 hours ago, greenwichjetfan said: “Proves” is always garbage with such volatility in a small data sample. Yet it didn’t stop you from spending the entire offseason posting around these forums that Baker had already proven to be among the best QBs in the league based on his rookie year. As of today, he has proven that he isn’t. So which is it? Yet when a poster wants to give credit to Sam on a Jets forum, it elicits this kind of response from you. Transparent agenda is transparent. edit: Trying to take away a victory over the cowboys from Sam just to further your agenda is the tastiest icing. I don’t want to get into a big discussion about this because it’s pretty clear guys like myself, @Losmeister and @Warfish aren’t saying Sam is special enough for most of the people here and that never goes over well. You’re a good guy though, and I like you, so I want to give you the courtesy of a reply, so here is my final word in this thread. I try not to bring up Mayfield in any Darnold discussions any more, I like to limit that to threads about him. You’re right though, I did do it last season, especially when people were claiming Sam was the better QB. Baker came in with his team having lost 30 of 31 games, 0-2 and down 14-0 in their third game last year. He lead them to a 7-6-1 record and set the mark for most TD passes by a rookie QB. I don’t consider it trolling to say that was “special”. i’ve said Numerous times how happy and impressed I’ve been with Sam’s play recently. I honestly feel that some people are over the top in how they speak about what he’s done so far in his career. You might see it as me putting him down, but I see it as tempering their views. I completely understand people being happy with him progressing, I am also. I’m sorry though, there will always be some of us here to comment when people are going overboard, and saying Sam has already proved he is “special” is at the very least open to debate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet_Engine1 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 45 minutes ago, Warfish said: I have no idea what you're trying to say here mate. This raising a funny question for me: When people talk about "beating winning teams", do they really mean "they had a winning record when they played them" or do they mean "they finished the year with a winning record"? Because I've heard folks go both ways over the years. The first is clearly flawed, because a week 1 team can't be a winning team (0-0) and most early season games could be teams that are 1-0 and still finish 1-15, lol. The second is flawed because teams can be winning (like the Raiders) when we play them, but finish as losers potentially. I always find this "beat winning teams" an interesting concept, but a bit wonky as to what people mean by it specifically (as laid out above). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.