Jump to content

Sam Darnold is a “special” QB


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 467
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That video made me release. 

And just wait until he gets the time to make all his Reads...  

You guys know this is a Jets site, right? It is okay to root for the Jets here lol.

Posted Images

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

E348F74C-47B2-49B5-B63B-865F19549AF4.jpeg.af8bdf42dceebdea2739c11207e54469.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Link to post
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.




×
×
  • Create New...