I guess I'm unclear on how you are comparing the teams. The Super Bowl is in 11+ months, so you are projecting that the Jets are more likely to get there than the Pats. You seem to project some things positively...Sanchez takes a big leap forward, Sheppard/Jones/Washington/Rhodes will be retained or adequately replaced, etc. And some things negatively...Welker is "down for the count" (out until week 7? out until 2011? career over?), none of the Pats youngsters will progress enough to be starters or get starter minutes, etc.
1.) I've never stated that Sanchez will take a big leap forward.
2.) I never stated anything about Sheppard/Jones/Washington/Rhodes being replaced
3.) Welker blew out his ACL.
4.) If a player was not of starter caliber in 2009 for reasons other than health, why would you assume he'll be of starter caliber in 2010?
You keep using the term "right now". You obviously don't literally mean "right now" since Sanchez just had surgery. So I take it to mean that based on what you know for certain "right now", the Jets will be able to field a better team in September. UFA signings, draft picks, player progression, aging players, etc. are all uncertain so don't count them (though you do count on a Sanchez progression next year or your argument falls flat). It is fine if you want to set your own rules for your analysis, but not everyone evaluates teams the same as you.
It would be supremely stupid to evaluate the team as of 5 months from now when I don't know what that team will look like 5 months from now. As for Sanchez and his surgery, he had a procedure done to improve a situation that was already good enough for him to play with, and he's expected back by training camp. That's more than just a little different than the Welker situation.
By the time week #1 rolls around, the Jets will have a couple of rookies playing meaningful roles (probably WR and CB). The Pats will also have rookies on the field, probably at DE and OLB. The Jets probably won't sign any meaningful UFAs (as you mention, they aren't losing any) and the Pats will probably have a couple, likely at TE and OLB. None of these things are certain "right now" but the Pats and Jets will participate in the draft, trying to draft good players at positions of need. The Pats will sign UFAs because they always do. You are choosing to ignore these areas (where the Pats have clear advantages) "right now".
No, you're making claims about things that have not happened. I'm choosing not to do the same thing, because I'm not claiming to be prescient (The closest I've come to that is considering assuming that Sanchez will be back and healthy, and that was done because he's already had his surgery and has his recovery timetable already made public). As for the UFA, Watson is considered the #1 UFA TE, so getting a replacement for him via free agency will be considered a step down. The same is true of the Stephen Neal situation. I'd expect that some here would argue the same to be true with Bodden, as well. You might wish to peruse the list of UFAs before pimping it. While it's true that there are players like Dansby and Peppers out there, there aren't very many of them because of the rules regarding the uncapped year.
You also choose to ignore a potential future cap (where the Pats would also have a clear advantage) even though the loss of the salary floor/revenue sharing would dramatically change the makeup of the league...which is the ultimate unknown. Again, that works for you but not for a lot of other people.
Indeed, I'm also choosing to ignore a potential strike by aliens, since neither is currently the situation and, therefore, neither is relevant to the thread at hand, save as unfounded speculation.
My point is that you are shaping the debate based on your perspective. If your perspective is slanted to favoring the Jets, then you are going to have a more positive view of the Jets. Just don't be surprised when others don't share your perspective and "delude" themselves into drawing a different conclusion.
Your point is wrong, and it has been from the beginning, probably because you went knee-jerk rather than thoroughly reading what I'd posted (the nonsense about the rookies when my post was specifically about the starters would seem to reinforce this speculation). I'm "shaping the debate" based upon the question resulting from the ESPN piece. As of now, the Jets are in much better Super Bowl shape than the Patriots. As I've stated more than once, I expect that will change over the course of the offseason. However, potential gains (Dansby/Peppers/etc...) are not as beneficial as current talent until, and unless, those gains are realized, and the losses (Watson/Neal/etc..) are already realized, since the players are free agents.
