Mike Williams Has Never Had Aaron Rodgers

[FidelioJet]

2 hours ago, batman10023 said:

math math math

he's not even going to be 41 until near the end of the season.

i see why people say you move goalposts

I've said this multiple times.  But I'll repeat it.  When the Jets are making their wildcard run Rodgers will be 41.  The key games down the stretch that will determine if we break the playoff drought.

It really shouldn't be that complicated at all.  No goal posts being moved - it is the reality.

[Barry McCockinner]

3 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

I've said this multiple times.  But I'll repeat it.  When the Jets are making their wildcard run Rodgers will be 41.  The key games down the stretch that will determine if we break the playoff drought.

It really shouldn't be that complicated at all.  No goal posts being moved - it is the reality.

The Jets won't be making a wild card run. They'll be competing with the Chiefs & Ravens for the 1 seed. But Rodgers will be 41, so that will really hurt.

[OtherwiseHappyinLife]

On 6/22/2024 at 4:12 PM, Barry McCockinner said:

You're going to quit the site again when Rodgers lights it up this year aren't you?

Some ‘fans’ would rather be right than anything else.

Weird world we live in.  

[bicketybam]

Just now, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

Some ‘fans’ would rather be right than anything else.

Weird world we live in.  

And if you aren't right, just switch sides and make believe your were on the right side all along! 😅

[Long Island Leprechaun]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Is that a problem? 

Also, I think "I fully expect a major, meaningful increase in QB production in 2024 vs. the Wilson, Darnold, Geno or Sanchez Eras, as long as Rodgers remains healthy" is a bit different than "who knows, we'll see...", but maybe that's just me.

Nah, it's all good. We actually agree on this one.

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

Nah, it's all good. We actually agree on this one.

Oh please like THAT will stop @Warfish from continuing to argue.   

[Sperm Edwards]

16 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Oh please like THAT will stop @Warfish from continuing to argue.   

I feel such a sense of accomplishment when finally finishing one of my ridiculously long posts. But the #1 problem with @Warfish, as far as I'm concerned, isn't that he just ignores it and responds to 2 sentences he's quoting. He puts thought into it. So I then have to endure my novella dissected into 8-10 separate pieces with him responding to each of those pieces individually. Responding to that, with all his quote reformatting taken into account, takes even more time than my original 5000 words that he's responded to.

So even if nothing I say was well thought out, and even if it wasn't generally perfect in every way, half the advantage of these long posts I make is that I wear people down. It's too much trouble for someone to respond to all of it, knowing I won't just shut up, so I win most arguments just by attrition alone. Then this troublemaker effectively gives me a new homework assignment, to which I can't help but respond with 3x the words he used. @derp does the same thing. He's as stubborn as I am; we can smell our own.

Anyway, after my last longwinded essay, Warfish mercifully just gave me an up-arrow with no text reply. You can't even imagine my relief.

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I feel such a sense of accomplishment when finally finishing one of my ridiculously long posts. But the #1 problem with @Warfish, as far as I'm concerned, isn't that he just ignores it and responds to 2 sentences he's quoting. He puts thought into it. So I then have to endure my novella dissected into 8-10 separate pieces with him responding to each of those pieces individually. Responding to that, with all his quote reformatting taken into account, takes even more time than my original 5000 words that he's responded to.

So even if nothing I say was well thought out, and even if it wasn't generally perfect in every way, half the advantage of these long posts I make is that I wear people down. It's too much trouble for someone to respond to all of it, knowing I won't just shut up, so I win most arguments just by attrition alone. Then this troublemaker effectively gives me a new homework assignment, to which I can't help but respond with 3x the words he used. @derp does the same thing. He's as stubborn as I am; we can smell our own.

Anyway, after my last longwinded essay, Warfish mercifully just gave me an up-arrow with no text reply. You can't even imagine my relief.

 

You and @Warfish are like:

 

 

[Warfish]

36 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

Nah, it's all good. We actually agree on this one.

It's been known to happen from time to time over the years, lol. 🤜🤛

[Warfish]

27 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I feel such a sense of accomplishment when finally finishing one of my ridiculously long posts. But the #1 problem with @Warfish, as far as I'm concerned, isn't that he just ignores it and responds to 2 sentences he's quoting. He puts thought into it. So I then have to endure my novella dissected into 8-10 separate pieces with him responding to each of those pieces individually. Responding to that, with all his quote reformatting taken into account, takes even more time than my original 5000 words that he's responded to.

So even if nothing I say was well thought out, and even if it wasn't generally perfect in every way, half the advantage of these long posts I make is that I wear people down. It's too much trouble for someone to respond to all of it, knowing I won't just shut up, so I win most arguments just by attrition alone. Then this troublemaker effectively gives me a new homework assignment, to which I can't help but respond with 3x the words he used. @derp does the same thing. He's as stubborn as I am; we can smell our own.

Anyway, after my last longwinded essay, Warfish mercifully just gave me an up-arrow with no text reply. You can't even imagine my relief.

It's funny, I was just talking about this with someone this weekend, how I write here on JN, and why.  And how it relates to how I talk when in-person with people (pretty similar to how I post, with similar annoyance for those talking to me when I speak over them to address each point or topic they raise).

As you say, at least for me, writing a novella with no breakup to someone else's novella just gets mushy with too many things being lost in all that unbroken wall-of-text novella writing.  By breaking posts into points to respond to individually, I feel I give better, more thought out, more organized, specific and respectful replies.  It's also just how my brain works, point, counterpoint, call, response, fact, supporting fact, etc.

But apparently it drives everyone here completely nuts.  Which isn't ideal, honestly.  I could go on, but no one wants that...

[FidelioJet]

1 hour ago, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

Some ‘fans’ would rather be right than anything else.

Weird world we live in.  

I really hope you're not talking about me.

I would love to see this team win.  I happen to think Rodgers is shot and will be nothing more than mediocre this year.  But that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to be wrong.

Funnily enough it was a post a page ago that told me I was taking a cheap way out by saying I hope I'm wrong.    

None of that changes the FACT that he'll be 41 when the season is on the line.

[Warfish]

5 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

I happen to think Rodgers is shot and will be nothing more than mediocre this year.

So lets say he has something akin to his worst season in his career, but stays healthy and plays in all 17:

That would be something like 62%, 3,800 yards, 26 TD's, 11 INT's or close.

With this D, and our running game, do you think this level of production moves the needle from 7 wins to something more vs. the QB production of recent seasons?

As a reminder, last year our QB production was 59%, 3,373 yards, 11 TD's, 15 INT's.

So for arguments sake lets say the D is equal to 2023, and the running game a bit better (Hall fully healthy, several new backs with potential, better Oline overall), does the change from last year's QB level to a hypothetical worst Rodgers year ever win more than 7 games?  How much more if so?

Or do you think he'll be materially worse than his worst ever year this year?  By how much?

 

[FidelioJet]

Just now, Warfish said:

So lets say he has something akin to his worst season in his career, but stays healthy and plays in all 17:

That would be something like 62%, 3,800 yards, 26 TD's, 11 INT's or close.

With this D, and our running game, do you think this level of production moves the needle from 7 wins to something more vs. the QB production of recent seasons?

As a reminder, last year our QB production was 59%, 3,373 yards, 11 TD's, 15 INT's.

So for arguments sake lets say the D is equal to 2023, and the running game a bit better (Hall fully healthy, several new backs with potential, better Oline overall), does the change from last year's QB level to a hypothetical worst Rodgers year ever win more than 7 games?  How much more if so?

 

I think this is a very fair and reasonable take.   The defense is good enough to get into the playoffs with mediocre QB play - but good QB play is what wins playoffs games in today's NFL.

My best guess is this is a Wildcard team with a first round loss.   

[derp]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I feel such a sense of accomplishment when finally finishing one of my ridiculously long posts. But the #1 problem with @Warfish, as far as I'm concerned, isn't that he just ignores it and responds to 2 sentences he's quoting. He puts thought into it. So I then have to endure my novella dissected into 8-10 separate pieces with him responding to each of those pieces individually. Responding to that, with all his quote reformatting taken into account, takes even more time than my original 5000 words that he's responded to.

So even if nothing I say was well thought out, and even if it wasn't generally perfect in every way, half the advantage of these long posts I make is that I wear people down. It's too much trouble for someone to respond to all of it, knowing I won't just shut up, so I win most arguments just by attrition alone. Then this troublemaker effectively gives me a new homework assignment, to which I can't help but respond with 3x the words he used. @derp does the same thing. He's as stubborn as I am; we can smell our own.

Anyway, after my last longwinded essay, Warfish mercifully just gave me an up-arrow with no text reply. You can't even imagine my relief.

I don’t know whether I should be honored or horrified that of all of the other posters on here, I was the add on. The answer is probably…yes.

[Long Island Leprechaun]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

So lets say he has something akin to his worst season in his career, but stays healthy and plays in all 17:

That would be something like 62%, 3,800 yards, 26 TD's, 11 INT's or close.

With this D, and our running game, do you think this level of production moves the needle from 7 wins to something more vs. the QB production of recent seasons?

As a reminder, last year our QB production was 59%, 3,373 yards, 11 TD's, 15 INT's.

So for arguments sake lets say the D is equal to 2023, and the running game a bit better (Hall fully healthy, several new backs with potential, better Oline overall), does the change from last year's QB level to a hypothetical worst Rodgers year ever win more than 7 games?  How much more if so?

Or do you think he'll be materially worse than his worst ever year this year?  By how much?

 

You outdid yourself there. That's the question in a nutshell, barring injury.

[Jetsfan80]

1 hour ago, derp said:

I don’t know whether I should be honored or horrified that of all of the other posters on here, I was the add on. The answer is probably…yes.

The mere fact you read through all that drivel confirms it!

[Sperm Edwards]

18 hours ago, derp said:

I don’t know whether I should be honored or horrified that of all of the other posters on here, I was the add on. The answer is probably…yes.

Go with the idea that there was a compliment in there. Somewhere.  

[BigRy56]

99% of the league has never had the ability to play with a top 10 all-time QB. Mike Williams is very lucky

[Rich Thornburgh]

Our WR2 still hasn’t recovered from a torn ACL and our WR3 can’t catch a cold and put up mediocre stats when he was Aaron’s first progression for an entire season