Trevor Talk

[UntouchableCrew]

2 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

Since then, they’ve lost Saquon and Sterling.

They actually improved on offense in the 2nd half without them against the Bears.

[Jet Nut]

2 hours ago, JetBlue said:

I know and have heard that for years, it doesn't matter whether teams take on purpose or not (they do and you know it), this team is so lousy and our schedule so tough, even if they played their hearts out, I could still see us with the worst record in the league.   

No they dont take on purpose, thats what fans believe. Playing your heart out isnt the same as losing on purpose.  

Dolphins were tanking for Tua, never happened.  Jags are tanking, doesnt look that way from here.

If we have the worst record, then we're in good shape with TL or trading out for a boatload of picks

[Jet Nut]

15 minutes ago, JetBlue said:

Give this man a cigar!  You get what the whole "tanking" concept really is. Some folks seem to be to dense to understand the point.  

Because what both of you arent getting is you can sit players who are deserving to play, who signed here to play so that you can play this little game.  You cant do it to players in the middle, the Perrimans of the team who are in the middle of their careers and dont want to piss away a season of playoff or better eligibility to lose for the 1st pick.

 

[freestater]

C'mon. Does anybody really think the jets can actually tank properly? This is the jets we're talking about. There will be four can't-miss prospects and we will pick 5th. 

The only thing I can possibly root for is: to not go on any kind of a run to make CJ dig in his heels and give Gase another year. 

[JetBlue]

1 hour ago, More Cowbell said:

I think the worst thing that can happen to Lawrence is to be drafted by the Jets. 

I can guarantee you if the Jets end up with Lawrence, Gace is gone but that still does not address  the elephant in the room. The team has no offensive talent. And don't  tell me JD is going to go out and sign (insert expensive stud WR here). He is rebuilding this team through the draft. I think when he sees there is a solid group  of young players, he will go out and sign a vet or two but that isn't  happening next season. Lawrence will be as bad as Sam and there is no guarantee  we don't  go out and sign Bienemy who I think is a disaster waiting  to happen. Reed creates and runs that O, Eric holds a clip board. Do you even see Bienemy talking to Mahomes, because the only one I have seen doing that is Reed.

Stick with Darnold and get him some players and get some CB's and pass rushers. That is what we need, not to watch Lawrence suck for 2 or 3 seasons. 

Did you forget we have two number one picks next season?  I think we also have an extra 3rd rounder.  Next draft should also be deep in receivers especially top end receivers in the first few rounds.  No way after season like this that JD doesn't address WR in the draft, plus another OL or two.   Rather than make the same mistake Mac did, we are in position with both an abundance of draft picks and cap space to BUILD around a Lawrence right out of the gate.  He will not have to spend two or three years getting killed with no weapons to speak of.     I trust JD to build around HIS choice for qb much more than I ever did with Mac, who was a ******* idiot.   

Darnold is auditioning this season for his future with this team.  If he steps it up, great, if not, in today's NFL you don't marry yourself to a QB just because he was taken high (look at the Cardinals, they picked Rosen, realized he was a mistake and took Murray THE VERY NEXT YEAR.  How is that working out so far?).    If we have a chance to pick the consensus next great quarterback, then you take him and trade Darnold for picks if you can; and you don't look back.  

[JetBlue]

7 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Because what both of you arent getting is you can sit players who are deserving to play, who signed here to play so that you can play this little game.  You cant do it to players in the middle, the Perrimans of the team who are in the middle of their careers and dont want to piss away a season of playoff or better eligibility to lose for the 1st pick.

 

Hey I get it but life sucks sometimes.  They  are getting paid so deal with it.  They can always go play for someone else next year.  

[TuscanyTile2]

If Sam is still playing, you can be sure we won't be "tanking for Trevor".  Actually, maybe he'll want out of NY and so maybe we will be tanking for Trevor.

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, JetBlue said:

Hey I get it but life sucks sometimes.  They  are getting paid so deal with it.  They can always go play for someone else next year.  

Yep.  Douglas signed a lot of these guys to 1-year deals for a reason.  They're all auditioning for somebody, whether its the Jets or another team.  This team will look completely unrecognizable next season with all of the turnover we're about to see, and that of course will be a good thing.

[CTM]

I'm sure this one will work out as well as Suck for Sam

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, CTM said:

I'm sure this one will work out as well as Suck for Sam

I mean, it did work in a sense.  We did, in fact, end up with Sam.  He just didn't work out as a QB.  

[TuscanyTile2]

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I mean, it did work in a sense.  We did, in fact, end up with Sam.  He just didn't work out as a QB.  

So the book is closed on him?  He was the youngest starter in NFL history as a rookie and he hasn't even played 2 seasons worth of games yet.  And while he played poorly in week 1, he played reasonably well in week 2.

[Jetsfan80]

49 minutes ago, choon328 said:

2000 yds passing

13 tds

4 int

2 TDs rushing

61% Comp

So 4,000 yds, 26 tds and 8 int wouldn't be top 10?

26 tds would've been good enough for 8th most in the NFL last year. At worst it was top 12

 

  I answered this with a later post:

 

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Over the last 8 games last season, Darnold's numbers looked like this:

• 243 yards per game
• 13 TDs
• 1.5 % INT % (INTs per attempt)
• 7.3 Yards per Attempt

Extrapolated to a full season, this would have been his league rankings:

• 243 yards per game:  18th
• 26 TDs:  t-8th (with 5 other QBs)
• 1.5 % INT %:  t-10th
• 7.3 Yards per Attempt:  t-15th

At his best, Darnold is about average.

 

3,888 yards over a full season is not what it used to be.  He would have been BELOW AVERAGE for NFL QB standards.  The YPA was average as well.  His TD/INT ratio was good.  But given his YPA it's fair to say he wasn't asked to throw much, and even when he did, he dinked and dunked a lot.  

Even at his best, when manipulating the numbers to look as good as possible and when playing against weak defenses, he was about an average QB.

[TuscanyTile2]

 

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

So what were you looking for, exactly, when you asked me for an example of something you stated doesn't exist?  

My argument is if teams aren't tanking, they SHOULD.  Peyton Manning, Cam Newton, and Kyler Murray were 3 examples of that where a bad team picked 1st and immediately turned their franchise around.  I'd also throw Andrew Luck into the equation too, even if his career was short-lived.

Tell me what you're looking for if that still isn't enough of an argument for you.  

I feel like I'm talking to a wall here.....

Forget it, if you think NFL teams Tank, fine.  They tank.

[Warfish]

59 minutes ago, JetBlue said:

Indy Colts for Peyton Manning comes to mind... 

Tell me, what did the Colts Front Office and Players do that was "tanking" exactly.

They were certainly a bad team, but being bad isn't tanking.  We've been bad for a decade without tanking.

Tanking is a fan fever dream.  NFL Players do not tank so their team can get 2 slots better draft selection.  And NFL GM's do not cut all their good players to ensure there is no one left to play well.   Those are the only two ways a team could tank, to literally cut everyone, like the film Major League, or to get the players to buy in to playing worse and to lose games on purpose.

It.  Doesn't.  Happen.

Poorly built teams losing happens, and those teams get good draft picks, and those picks sometimes help them get better fast.  

This isn't the NBA.  NFL teams imply cannot realistically "tank" the way you people think.

[Jetsfan80]

5 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I feel like I'm talking to a wall here.....

Forget it, if you think NFL teams Tank, fine.  They tank.

The only wall is you, as per usual in a lot of discussions.  If teams don't tank, they SHOULD, and I provided an argument for why they should, which is exactly what you asked for.  

You tried to move the goalposts and then had nothing to say when asked for clarification on what you wanted.

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Tell me, what did the Colts Front Office and Players do that was "tanking" exactly.

They were certainly a bad team, but being bad isn't tanking.  We've been bad for a decade without tanking.

Tanking is a fan fever dream.  NFL Players do not tank so their team can get 2 slots better draft selection.  And NFL GM's do not cut all their good players to ensure there is no one left to play well.   Those are the only two ways a team could tank, to literally cut everyone, like the film Major League, or to get the players to buy in to playing worse and to lose games on purpose.

It.  Doesn't.  Happen.

Poorly built teams losing happens, and those teams get good draft picks, and those picks sometimes help them get better fast.  

This isn't the NBA.  NFL teams imply cannot realistically "tank" the way you people think.

 

Then they should.  There's no lottery in the NFL, and no position is more important to a team's success in all of pro sports than a QB.  You either have one, or you don't.

Whether they failed purposely or not, it worked out great for the Colts (Peyton), Panthers (Newton) and Cardinals (Kyler Murray) when they picked 1st and took a QB.  It even worked out for the Colts a second time when they landed Andrew Luck.  He made that team highly competitive for years.

It's also hard to argue the 2011 Colts didn't tank once Peyton Manning went down.  They could have signed a veteran QB to try to be competitive.  Instead they rolled with Curtis Painter.

Stop moving the goalposts to suit your ridiculous take on the matter.  Losing a lot of games and picking 1st, however teams get there, can and does work out well.  Certainly a lot better than it does for us, when we win games in December and end up with the Leonard Williams' of the world.

[EM31]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Tell me, what did the Colts Front Office and Players do that was "tanking" exactly.

They were certainly a bad team, but being bad isn't tanking.  We've been bad for a decade without tanking.

Tanking is a fan fever dream.  NFL Players do not tank so their team can get 2 slots better draft selection.  And NFL GM's do not cut all their good players to ensure there is no one left to play well.   Those are the only two ways a team could tank, to literally cut everyone, like the film Major League, or to get the players to buy in to playing worse and to lose games on purpose.

It.  Doesn't.  Happen.

Poorly built teams losing happens, and those teams get good draft picks, and those picks sometimes help them get better fast.  

This isn't the NBA.  NFL teams imply cannot realistically "tank" the way you people think.

Sorry but the Colts definitely tanked the 2nd time around.  The owner even had some pretty damning emails BEFORE the fact.  It might even have worked again if they were not too stupid to provide Andrew Luck with protection once they had him in the fold.

So yes it does indeed happen but with less frequency than it is talked about.

[Warfish]

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Then they should.  There's no lottery in the NFL, and no position is more important to a team's success in all of pro sports than a QB.  You either have one, or you don't.

We agree on the later point (have one or not).

We will never agree on the first point, because you don't seem to understand that no matter how badly fans, or even a GM, might WANT to tank, in the real world you simply cannot build a team that will definitely get you the #1 pick. 

And no GM, even for the worst team in the league, is going to go to the great effort of totally denuding his roster of all talent, just to grab a QB and put him on a team WITH NO GOD DAMN TALENT LEFT.

Quote

Whether they failed purposely or not, it worked out great for the Colts (Peyton), Panthers (Newton) and Cardinals (Kyler Murray) when they picked 1st and took a QB.  It even worked out for the Colts a second time when they landed Andrew Luck.  He made that team highly competitive for years.

Fine.  Root for losses, like many Jets Fans have been doing now for most of a decade. 

See where it gets us.

Jets Fans are literally like drowning men, desperately grabbing a paper mache life preserver with the word "TANKING" on it.....

 

[CTM]

22 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I mean, it did work in a sense.  We did, in fact, end up with Sam.  He just didn't work out as a QB.  

That was my point, if I wanted to make a point about not getting your guy I'd bring up the suck for luck campaign

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Fine.  Root for losses, like many Jets Fans have been doing now for most of a decade. 

See where it gets us.

Meaningless wins in December didn't get us anywhere, either.  So let's try something different.  Whether it's something the Jets actually do or not, it has become abundantly clear over the decades that it is the RIGHT call in a lost season.

And obviously what we root for doesn't matter when it comes to what the Jets will actually do.  The hope is we have a competent GM this time around who knows how to tank properly, for once. 

[Rhg1084]

13 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I feel like I'm talking to a wall here.....

Forget it, if you think NFL teams Tank, fine.  They tank.

The thing is tho this Jets team doesn’t need to “tank”. They’re not winning more than 1 or 2 games. They will very likely have the 1st pick with out intentionally trying to lose 

[CTM]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Fine.  Root for losses, like many Jets Fans have been doing now for most of a decade. 

See where it gets us.

You mean if all this time the fans had been rooting for wins we'd have won more ?

I never understand why people get annoyed about what other fans root for, like it matters

[Warfish]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

Meaningless wins in December didn't get us anywhere, either.  So let's try something different.

Best of luck convincing the players to go along with you, to help a team they themselves would not likely be a part of get a QB they themselves will not benefit from, and will in fact cost them in future salary for poor play.

P.S. I don't think themultiple  spammed negreps was warranted, was there a problem with just agreeing to disagree?

 

[Warfish]

1 minute ago, Rhg1084 said:

The thing is tho this Jets team doesn’t need to “tank”. They’re not winning more than 1 or 2 games. They will very likely have the 1st pick with out intentionally trying to lose 

I highly doubt that.

But we'll see.

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

Best of luck convincing the players to go along with you, to help a team they themselves would not likely be a part of get a QB they themselves will not benefit from, and will in fact cost them in future salary for poor play.

P.S. I don't think themultiple  spammed negreps was warranted, was there a problem with just agreeing to disagree?

 

 

I've said numerous times in this thread that players don't tank, front offices do.  They do so by firing HC's midseason and playing the young guys.  It's happened before in the NFL.

You're not paying attention whatsoever.

[Rhg1084]

Just now, Warfish said:

I highly doubt that.

But we'll see.

Lol have you watched the first 2 games? Or looked at our schedule. If they don’t beat Denver next week they can go 0-16 legitimately 

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

P.S. I don't think themultiple  spammed negreps was warranted, was there a problem with just agreeing to disagree?

You weren't arguing in good faith and still aren't.  You think you're talking to a wall because you are:  You aren't reading what other people are actually saying.  You're doing the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly.

[Warfish]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

You weren't arguing in good faith and still aren't.  You think you're talking to a wall because you are:  You aren't reading what other people are actually saying.  You're doing the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly.

Ok, then no need to continue then.  

 

[Savage69]

1 hour ago, JetBlue said:

Indy Colts for Peyton Manning comes to mind... 

In 1997 the Colts QB was Jim Harbaugh RB Marshall Faulk and W/R Mavin Harrison and they went 3-13. The next year with Peyton at QB they went 3-13, now if that was the case with Jet fans they would be calling Peyton a bum and you all know it..?

[Warfish]

3 minutes ago, Rhg1084 said:

Lol have you watched the first 2 games? Or looked at our schedule. If they don’t beat Denver next week they can go 0-16 legitimately 

Unfortunately I have.  

Like I said, we'll see. 

[Warfish]

1 minute ago, Savage69 said:

In 1997 the Colts QB was Jim Harbaugh RB Marshall Faulk and W/R Mavin Harrison and they went 3-13. The next year with Peyton at QB they went 3-13, now if that was the case with Jet fans they would be calling Peyton a bum and you all know it..?

Would a GM that was tanking his team on purpose keep (and let play) future HOF'ers like Faulk and Harrison, and a decent old long-time Vet like Harbaugh? 

 

[Philc1]

Trevor Lawrence is not coming out early to play for Adam Gase and the Johnsons.

 

[Philc1]

5 minutes ago, Savage69 said:

In 1997 the Colts QB was Jim Harbaugh RB Marshall Faulk and W/R Mavin Harrison and they went 3-13. The next year with Peyton at QB they went 3-13, now if that was the case with Jet fans they would be calling Peyton a bum and you all know it..?

A rookie Peyton Manning would have been barbecued by this fanbase and the NY media

[Beerfish]

15 minutes ago, Warfish said:

We agree on the later point (have one or not).

We will never agree on the first point, because you don't seem to understand that no matter how badly fans, or even a GM, might WANT to tank, in the real world you simply cannot build a team that will definitely get you the #1 pick. 

And no GM, even for the worst team in the league, is going to go to the great effort of totally denuding his roster of all talent, just to grab a QB and put him on a team WITH NO GOD DAMN TALENT LEFT.

Fine.  Root for losses, like many Jets Fans have been doing now for most of a decade. 

See where it gets us.

Jets Fans are literally like drowning men, desperately grabbing a paper mache life preserver with the word "TANKING" on it.....

 

See the bolded part is the issue, if the jets actually did lose when people were hoping they would instead of flubbing out a game or two at the end of the year when thy have been out of it for 8 weeks they would be much better off.

Very few teams try and tank on purpose, hoping for loses when in the long run it is better for you?  Nothing wrong with that as a fan.