Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 92 of 92

Thread: This was the Jets

  1. #81
    Legendary Zoner
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    21,476
    Thanks
    7,701
    Thanked 9,841 Times in 6,258 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    0

    Re: This was the Jets

    Quote Originally Posted by SpikedLemonade View Post
    OK.

    Did someone stuff your turkey by taking a big crap in it?
    Deep frying the turkey, so it's not stuffed......well maybe in Canada.

    Speaking of crap, you have been a little quiet lately.

  2. #82
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,166
    Thanks
    787
    Thanked 527 Times in 417 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    0

    Re: This was the Jets

    Quote Originally Posted by YardRat View Post
    I agree.
    So then you agree with the premise in post #75 then?
    http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/sho...s-haters/page3

    Post #46

    Quote Originally Posted by Yasgur's Farm View Post
    (Moderator) My name's Max Yasgur, and I approve of this post.
    Originally Posted by pmoon6
    The idea that you "won't settle" presumes that you have some kind of control. Delusional thinking at best for a supposed fan of a spectators' sport. Your way to deal with it is to constantly ***** and denigrate any move, any result concerning the team even if it's positive because you don't want your whittle feewings hurt again. It's a protection mechanism.

    You shroud your childish approach in a vale of pompous, intellectual garbage in an attempt to look smart and "real". You over-analyze even minute points and manipulate statistics to fit your negative view of the team. Again, to feel good about yourself and to protect from getting hurt.

    Of course, the criticisms are obviously from someone who has no understanding of the team concept or what it takes to excel at athletics.

    The true "realist" understands that they have no control of what happens on the field or behind the closed doors at One Bills' Drive, so they do the prudent thing for a spectator. They enjoy the games on Sunday with family and friends, cheer for their team and realize that it's just entertainment.
    ------

    "I was an integral part in the drafting process of EJ Manuel," Whaley said Thursday on NFL Network's Total Access. "I was the person that handled the draft process and setting up the board."

    "We are committed. I want you to believe me when I say that," Whaley said of building around the second-year quarterback, per The Buffalo News. "I always tell you guys that I'll never say never because I don't want to paint myself in a corner, but when I do say something, I do it and I mean it and I try to fulfill it."

    "We believe the addition of Sammy is going to be instant impact, not only to our quarterback, but to what our offensive coordinator can come up with game-plan wise and how defenses attack us," Whaley said.

    Whaley on EJ Manuel: "We think we got a gem in this guy." (2:30)

    "And as Mark says, if in three years maybe he's not [our quarterback of the future], then I'll be sitting there saying 'hey guys', .... anybody got a job for me?" - Doug Whaley


  3. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,166
    Thanks
    787
    Thanked 527 Times in 417 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    0

    Re: This was the Jets

    Originally Posted by Fletch


    Happy Thanksgiving pmoon.




    Quote Originally Posted by pmoon6 View Post
    HaHa, same to you, man.
    Thanks!

  4. #84
    Well, lookie here... YardRat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    A hole in your wall.
    Posts
    85,589
    Thanks
    30,423
    Thanked 30,468 Times in 17,375 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    243

    Re: This was the Jets

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    So then you agree with the premise in post #75 then?
    Yes, actually I do. Just to cite a few specifics...

    Indy gets rolled by the above average teams, just like most others. They've lost to another average team (Pitt), and could've lost a couple more except for a break or play, here and there.

    Carolina could be 7-4, if they made a play against other average teams, instead of not.
    YardRat Wall of Fame
    #56 DARRYL TALLEY
    #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS

  5. #85
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,166
    Thanks
    787
    Thanked 527 Times in 417 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    0

    Re: This was the Jets

    Quote Originally Posted by YardRat View Post
    Yes, actually I do. Just to cite a few specifics...

    Indy gets rolled by the above average teams, just like most others. They've lost to another average team (Pitt), and could've lost a couple more except for a break or play, here and there.

    Carolina could be 7-4, if they made a play against other average teams, instead of not.
    Well, that's the difference in our perspectives then.

  6. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,166
    Thanks
    787
    Thanked 527 Times in 417 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    0

    Re: This was the Jets

    Quote Originally Posted by YardRat View Post
    Yes, actually I do. Just to cite a few specifics...

    Indy gets rolled by the above average teams, just like most others. They've lost to another average team (Pitt), and could've lost a couple more except for a break or play, here and there.

    Carolina could be 7-4, if they made a play against other average teams, instead of not.
    I've been thinking about this since yesterday.

    You mention Indy, Pitt, and Carolina, three teams that have sniffed or experienced playoffs in recent seasons and two which are headed there this year. Panthers were in the playoffs last season for example.

    But in order for you to believe that, you'd have to think that there's really not much difference between Seattle or Indy and Minnesota or Washington. Or even between a team like Pittsburgh which has been .500 or better for years compared to a team like St. Louis that hasn't had a winning record in years. You're saying that there's very little difference between those two teams. I have trouble getting past that.

    You can pick any of the 12 teams that aren't in the "best 5" and use them too instead of Indy and Seattle if you think that those 2 are in the top-5. I think that it's pretty clear that the Jax, Oakland, and Jets belong in the bottom-4 leaving room for only one more team, probably Tampa or Tennessee.

  7. #87
    Peterman Sucks! Mr. Pink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    the fifth ring of hell
    Posts
    35,303
    Thanks
    2,755
    Thanked 10,254 Times in 6,469 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    97

    Re: This was the Jets

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    I don't know, that's a pretty bold statement.

    Let's take the top 5 teams, say NE, Denver, GB, Philly and what, let's throw Arizona and Dallas in there too. It's all somewhat arbitrary anyway.

    Then let's skim off the bottom 4. Jets, Oakland, Jets, and Tennessee? Again, somewhat arbitrary.

    What you're saying is that there's no much difference between teams like Tampa, Carolina, Washington and Indy, KC, SD, Seattle, SF.

    Do you really believe that?
    Obviously there's teams who aren't dominant but are close to it. The difference between say us and Indy is minuscule in comparison to the difference between us and Denver or us and NYJ. That's not to say that Indy isn't a better team than the Bills but the difference is so minute it pretty much puts all the middle of the pack teams together.

    Denver can go out and have a bad game and still be competitive with any team, all of the middle of the pack teams and below go out and have a bad game and they get trounced.

    There is parity in the NFL, somewhat, the teams from like 6 to 28 on a yearly basis change and any team in that group can leapfrog one year to the next from 10-6 to 5-11. The teams on the top are good year in and year out and the teams on the bottom are terrible year in and year out.

    Even without a schedule or an offseason of moves, you can pencil in Buffalo next year to be around .500, New England to win 11+ games and Oakland to win 2-3.

    Every year though you hear teams like New England are in decline, teams like Tampa are on the rise and every year none of that crap is even close to true.

  8. Post thanked by:

    BuffaloRedleg (11-28-2014),YardRat (11-28-2014)

  9. #88
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    22,028
    Thanks
    10,000
    Thanked 3,698 Times in 2,473 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    62

    Re: This was the Jets

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pink View Post
    Obviously there's teams who aren't dominant but are close to it. The difference between say us and Indy is minuscule in comparison to the difference between us and Denver or us and NYJ. That's not to say that Indy isn't a better team than the Bills but the difference is so minute it pretty much puts all the middle of the pack teams together.

    Denver can go out and have a bad game and still be competitive with any team, all of the middle of the pack teams and below go out and have a bad game and they get trounced.

    There is parity in the NFL, somewhat, the teams from like 6 to 28 on a yearly basis change and any team in that group can leapfrog one year to the next from 10-6 to 5-11. The teams on the top are good year in and year out and the teams on the bottom are terrible year in and year out.

    Even without a schedule or an offseason of moves, you can pencil in Buffalo next year to be around .500, New England to win 11+ games and Oakland to win 2-3.

    Every year though you hear teams like New England are in decline, teams like Tampa are on the rise and every year none of that crap is even close to true.
    Well, the NFC South is a division where teams go from the cellar to the penthouse on a regular basis.

    The Bucs have been down a few years because of terrible Coaching.

    This year the Bucs have had some injuries & lost some close games, but I expect much better things from the Bucs next year.

  10. #89
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,166
    Thanks
    787
    Thanked 527 Times in 417 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    0

    Re: This was the Jets

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pink View Post
    Even without a schedule or an offseason of moves, you can pencil in Buffalo next year to be around .500, New England to win 11+ games and Oakland to win 2-3.

    Every year though you hear teams like New England are in decline, teams like Tampa are on the rise and every year none of that crap is even close to true.
    OK, but here's the ongoing problem that I have with that type of analysis. If things were really that close then why over the last, let's just say 10 years or so including this season, haven't we been able to crack that barrier to post even a .500 season while typically only rarely beating teams of the caliber that Indy is this season? Same for teams like St. Louis?

    Here's my explanation. Those teams, Indy and Pitt for example, are managed much better, and while they may have an off year they'll bounce back because they are. Whereas teams like us, St. Louis, Jax, Oakland are not run well and are on the other end of things, we typically have bad years, 6-10 or worse, occasionally rise to an average/mediocre season, but then ultimately fall back into being bad.

    Teams like Indy and Pitt are now will hover between the top tier of that 6-28 range while we'll hover near the bottom of it, but that doesn't mean that the teams are close.

    If things were as close as all that then teams in the bottom end of that 6-28 would make or come close to making the playoffs somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of the time. Looking at this season, and we can adjust this for the sake of discussion if you don't agree, but let's say that the top-5 are NE, GB, Denver, Philly, and Baltimore. (going on point differential here and elevating Denver over Indy)

    On the other end, the 29-32 end we have Oakland, Jets, Jags, and Tennessee.

    That means that all the other teams really aren't that much different than any of the others. So the ones that in recent years have bounced in and out of the top-5, like Seattle, the reigning SB champs, aren't much different than teams like St. Louis that can't even make the playoffs.

    I'll make it even more pronounced, that teams like Seattle, San Fran, Cincinnati, Indy, and Pittsburgh, all teams that typically put up winning seasons in recent years aren't much better than teams like us, Washington, the Rams, the Fins, and Carolina that among them have only put up 2 winnings seasons in recent history. Again, I'm having trouble with that. If they were really that close as you guys argue, then by pure chance of nothing else it would seem that those bottom teams including us would be posting winning seasons, not even necessarily making the playoffs, at least a third of the time, and that those top teams wouldn't be posting winning seasons at least a third of the time, maybe even more than a third in both cases. But that clearly isn't the case.

    I think that those bottom teams in that group are closer to the 29-32 than to the top end of that 6-28, which would explain the playoff droughts and lack of winning seasons that those teams have. I mean even of those worst 4 teams this season, the Jets had two .500 seasons and one winning season in that past 5 despite the fact that they've never been close to teams like Seattle, SF, Cincy, Indy, or Pitt. The Raiders had 2 .500 seasons in the last five seasons, we haven't been able to do what the Jets and Raiders have done. Even the Jags posted a .500 and 7-9 season 5 and 6 seasons ago when we haven't been able to those same seasons. We likely will this year, but that hardly counters my take on this, if anything it suggests that maybe this is one of those seasons where perform better than we are and happen to end up with a better yet still not winning or anything but mediocre record.

    Anyway, while you would suggest the opposite, I think that we're a good distance from teams like SF, Seattle, Indy, Pitt, and Cincinnati, despite some of their issues which are at an entirely different level than our issues, and a whole lot closer to teams like Oakland, Jax, and the Jets. The caliber of our wins this season really doesn't suggest any different. Four of our six wins have been against the 2-9 Jets, 4-7 Vikes, and 5-7 Bears. None of those teams are any good, none of them have anything even close to positive point differentials, and we beat two of them barely, on in OT and the other on a last-second play at home. The only other wins are against two teams that would fall within my average zone and one is a divisional team that just kicked our ass in similar fashion at a much more critical time of year, the other played us with more injuries in key positions than for any of their other games, including their other three losses.

    This far from impressive. Impressive would be beating Cleveland this weekend, beating any one of NE, Denver, or GB, and playing another somewhat close in a loss. For us that would be impressive.

    Unless there are GM or coaching changes I see annually about 10 teams that hover in and out as the league's best with exceptions, those are the teams that shuffle in and out of the playoffs every season, about ten teams that hover in and out as the league's worst with statistically insignificant exceptions and that rarely make the playoffs, and then the remaining 12 teams in the middle that I would consider to be average.

    Look at this chart of which teams made the playoffs over the last six years. I separated out how I see the separations between best (10), average (11), and worst. (11)

    2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Total
    Baltimore Ravens 1 1 1 1 1 5
    Green Bay Packers 1 1 1 1 1 5
    Indianapolis Colts 1 1 1 1 1 5
    New England Patriots 1 1 1 1 1 5
    Atlanta Falcons 1 1 1 1 4
    Cincinnati Bengals 1 1 1 1 4
    New Orleans Saints 1 1 1 1 4
    Philadelphia Eagles 1 1 1 1 4
    Denver Broncos 1 1 1 3
    Minnesota Vikings 1 1 1 3
    Pittsburgh Steelers 1 1 1 3
    San Diego Chargers 1 1 1 3
    San Francisco 49ers 1 1 1 3
    Seattle Seahawks 1 1 1 3
    Arizona Cardinals 1 1 2
    Carolina Panthers 1 1 2
    Houston Texans 1 1 2
    Kansas City Chiefs 1 1 2
    New York Giants 1 1 2
    New York Jets 1 1 2
    Chicago Bears 1 1
    Dallas Cowboys 1 1
    Detroit Lions 1 1
    Miami Dolphins 1 1
    Tennessee Titans 1 1
    Washington Redskins 1 1
    Buffalo Bills 0
    Cleveland Browns 0
    Jacksonville Jaguars 0
    Oakland Raiders 0
    St. Louis Rams 0
    Tampa Bay Buccaneers 0


    The top 10 teams have 42 playoff appearances among them, 4.2/team, that middle tier has 25, 2.3/team, and that lower tier have 5, not even .1/team.

    What you're saying is that there's not much difference between that lower tier and the teams in the last 6 of that top tier and the top 4 of that middle tier in terms of the way that they're run and managed since that's at the core of what we're discussing here. Teams like Cleveland have a major change, which might be why they're out of that category this year, or it could just be one of those years for them that they do better and will come back down next season. If anything this should emphasize why we need that kind of change here.

    I just can't buy that on the differences between 6-10 and 25-28 being minor though. There wouldn't be that disparity in playoff appearances between the teams with 3 and 4 playoff appearances and those of whicheever 7 of that bottom 11 bracket you think are the best. Pure chance would see to that if what you suggest is true.
    Last edited by Fletch; 11-28-2014 at 08:44 AM.

  11. Post thanked by:

    Mr. Pink (11-28-2014)

  12. #90
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,166
    Thanks
    787
    Thanked 527 Times in 417 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    0

    Re: This was the Jets

    It would be interesting to do a total W-L table for that same 6-season stretch. I'm done for today though.

  13. #91
    Peterman Sucks! Mr. Pink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    the fifth ring of hell
    Posts
    35,303
    Thanks
    2,755
    Thanked 10,254 Times in 6,469 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    97

    Re: This was the Jets

    I think the difference between us and teams like Indy, Pitts, Cincy are they have good consistent QB play.

    All of the teams middle of the pack are flawed somewhere and that flaw rears its head on a game by game basis or season by season basis at some point.

    So really the NFL is the minimally flawed teams, the flawed teams and the overly flawed teams.

    Minimal flaw teams can make mistakes and still win any game, flawed teams cannot afford to make a few mistakes per game and overly flawed teams cannot afford to make any.

  14. Post thanked by:

    BuffaloRedleg (11-28-2014)

  15. #92
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,166
    Thanks
    787
    Thanked 527 Times in 417 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    0

    Re: This was the Jets

    Well, even more to my point I'd argue. Of our 6 wins, three have been against teams ranked poorly in that flawed department. Chicago ranks 29th in giveaways and the Jets rank in a 4-way tie for 20th with only four fewer giveaways. Minnesota ranks tied with us, Detroit just behind that, and Miami just behind them all around average in that way. Houston and Miami, also exactly average, beat us, while NE and SD above average beat us.

    Left to play are Oakland who's down near the Jets and Chicago in that department, and four teams not flawed in that way and ranked 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 8th.

    I'd still insist that if we don't beat at least two of them, then all we are is a team that's capable of taking advantage of only those flawed teams and otherwise incapable of beating teams that are among the top of that 6-28 that we've been discussing and therefore simply not all that close to them in how good we are.

    At the end of the season if all we've done is end up having beaten the worst teams on our schedule, with a schedule that just happened to have 2/3 to 3/4 of its games not against teams that are above average, then as they say, you are what you are, and we'd be a team incapable of competing with above average teams.

    We'll see starting on Sunday. But if we can't beat the Browns then nothing else makes sense and it'll be highly unlikely that we'll beat the Packers and even more unlikely that we'll beat either Denver or NE on the road.

    QB play definitely factors in, but then we need to ask ourselves why our QB play has sucked since Whaley's been in charge and the point-man for personnel since 2010 and why we want someone that clearly doesn't understand how to get good QB play or what good QB play is to be in charge anymore. QB play is far more important than any other position, so while Whaley may have made some good moves, he obviously stinks at solving our QB issues, which is going to keep us down for as long as that is the case. So let's get rid of him.
    Last edited by Fletch; 11-28-2014 at 10:15 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •