OT: Revis wants 20M per year...

[Kontradiction]

You got that wrong. The correct way to describe Wikipedia is:

The single largest wealth of information known to the world that anyone can edit and put information no matter how wrong it is.

I could go on Wikipedia right now and go to the Megan Fox page and edit it to say that she is engaged to me.

Wikipedia is by far the most reliable and most accessed source of information on the internet. If you want to disagree with that, it's your right but you look like you're reaching big time. If you care to look around, there are other websites out there that reiterate what the Wikipedia link says.

The information on Revis could be right, but there is a lot of bad information on Wikipedia. They do have moderators for each secti9on that tries to go in and edit bad information from the site, but something like that may not be found if it is wrong.

If you actually watched that game, you would know it's right. Revis deflected a few passes, generally locked Jackson down when on him, and intercepted one of them. If you're going to try to say that Revis was actually on Jackson the whole game, then I take it you didn't actually watch the game or were inebriated when you did.

Personally, I think playoffs should be counted in the overall body of work. I discount if the playoff performances are different than performance in the regular season, but not if it is continuation what the player did in the regular season. That is why I am not as impressed with Shonn Greene as you are.

I don't have a problem with counting the playoffs at all. In this case, I didn't do it because it wouldn't have been fair to Nmandi (being that he didn't get to play in he postseason).

 

[Kontradiction]

Geez you guys have Jets on the brain huh? When you guys were winning Superbowls there were never 20 page threads for one Jets player.

Shonne Greene averaged 5 yards per carry in the regular season. He just didn't get as many reps as Thomas Jones. What are you not impressed about?

I think the Jets are going to fall flat on their faces this year. Your team doesn't scare me in the least. However, I just get tired of people trying to discount what Revis did this past year as unimpressive or average. The reason this board does it is precisely because he is a Jet. Could you imagine the size of the threads on here if he were a Patriot? General agreement by some would have him as the greatest CB to ever play the game.

By the way, this thread is only five pages if you see 40 posts per page.

 

[Rob0729]

Wikipedia is by far the most reliable and most accessed source of information on the internet. If you want to disagree with that, it's your right but you look like you're reaching big time. If you care to look around, there are other websites out there that reiterate what the Wikipedia link says.

Wikipeidia's inaccuracies are well documented. Just search on Google for "Wikipedia Inaccuracies" and you will see plenty of articles on this. It is not nearly as accurate as you claim. The site is written and edited by the users. That means a lot of inaccurate information gets on its pages.

Can you trust Wikipedia? | Media | The Guardian
Wikipedia: Your source for inaccuracies - Technotica- msnbc.com
Wikipedia: Useful Information or Unreliable Source? - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

If you actually watched that game, you would know it's right. Revis deflected a few passes, generally locked Jackson down when on him, and intercepted one of them. If you're going to try to say that Revis was actually on Jackson the whole game, then I take it you didn't actually watch the game or were inebriated when you did.

I did watch the game. Didn't watch Jackson and Revis specifically.

Actually, I haven't said either way other than initially I listed him and then after you said he wan't on him the entire game, I said it would just mean it was one less elite WR he went against. All I said on the subject that you cannot use Wikipedia as a source because anyone can edit and write on most of the pages which means the information isn't always accurate.

I don't have a problem with counting the playoffs at all. In this case, I didn't do it because it wouldn't have been fair to Nmandi (being that he didn't get to play in he postseason).

Judging a player's entire body of work is fair as long as you qualify it.

 

[Kontradiction]

Wikipeidia's inaccuracies are well documented. Just search on Google for "Wikipedia Inaccuracies" and you will see plenty of articles on this. It is not nearly as accurate as you claim. The site is written and edited by the users. That means a lot of inaccurate information gets on its pages.

Name me a website where you can gain access to any piece of information on any subject that you choose (not just politics or sports) that's more accessed, acclaimed, and (most of all) reliable than Wikipedia. And I take it you got those links off of Google. Do you think Google is more reliable than Wikipedia?

 

[averywhitehall]

Re: OT: Revis wants 20M per year....

A couple of questions. If Revis was truly playing "one on one" on "Revis Island", then why couldn't the safeties help contain Garcon/Collie better? Same thing for the 2nd Patriots game, why did Welker get ~200 yards? Are the Jets incapable of scheming to help cover these secondary WRs while Revis is on his own island?

I don't have the game to re-watch but it seems very fishy to me that Manning would not even look at Wayne if he saw 1-on-1 coverage against any DB in the NFL. Even though Revis did an awesome job on Moss, Brady still is throwing to Moss when he catches Revis 1-on-1 with him (provided he has the time to obviously).

Because the Jets blitzkreg the hell out of QB's to make up for the lack of natural pass rush from the front 4. When they do that the safeties cover (usually) an area than a person. Manning was finding the single coverage in the AFCCG and in the 31-14 win over the Jets the Jets didn't blitz too much and Brady had all day.

There were often times when Welker beat two people on the Jets.

Brady to a Revis covered Moss in a regular season game is not the same as Manning to a Revis covered Wayne in the AFCCG. Manning is not going to force the issue in that big of a game.

 

[eom]

Geez you guys have Jets on the brain huh? When you guys were winning Superbowls there were never 20 page threads for one Jets player.

correction: one jets player and wikipedia

 

[emoney_33]

You got that wrong. The correct way to describe Wikipedia is:

The single largest wealth of information known to the world that anyone can edit and put information no matter how wrong it is. Wikipedia is a breathing document and relies on the users to provide information. The users could have wrong information or just make crap up.

I could go on Wikipedia right now and go to the Megan Fox page and edit it to say that she is engaged to me.

The information on Revis could be right, but there is a lot of bad information on Wikipedia. They do have moderators for each secti9on that tries to go in and edit bad information from the site, but something like that may not be found if it is wrong.

This argument is one made when wikipedia was first introduced and has been thoroughly debunked.

I challenge you to edit a wikipedia page with bogus information and have it withstand 10 minutes.

 

[averywhitehall]

I think the Jets are going to fall flat on their faces this year. Your team doesn't scare me in the least. However, I just get tired of people trying to discount what Revis did this past year as unimpressive or average. The reason this board does it is precisely because he is a Jet. Could you imagine the size of the threads on here if he were a Patriot? General agreement by some would have him as the greatest CB to ever play the game.

By the way, this thread is only five pages if you see 40 posts per page.

Can you be specific about falling 'flat on their faces'?

I think the Jets have the potential to do very well but it all depends on Sanchez's improvement. I feel real confident about Mark Sanchez. For a guy who only started 2 years at QB (1 at USC and 1 at the NFL) I think he has a bright future and a lot of upside.

That is all.

 

[emoney_33]

I think the Jets are going to fall flat on their faces this year. Your team doesn't scare me in the least. However, I just get tired of people trying to discount what Revis did this past year as unimpressive or average. The reason this board does it is precisely because he is a Jet. Could you imagine the size of the threads on here if he were a Patriot? General agreement by some would have him as the greatest CB to ever play the game.

By the way, this thread is only five pages if you see 40 posts per page.

Except not a single person is discounting Revis as unimpressive nor average. The arguments I see being made against Revis are that A) he did not face one of the toughest WR schedules ever and B) Asomugha is better.

Neither A nor B are an argument against his greatness, although they are fun discussion.

 

[emoney_33]

Do you think Google is more reliable than Wikipedia?

That's an odd question, they are 2 different things, google is a search engine. The average result based on a google search is fairly accurate when searching for facts, and wikipedia is usually one of the top 3 links returned.

 

[emoney_33]

Wikipeidia's inaccuracies are well documented. Just search on Google for "Wikipedia Inaccuracies" and you will see plenty of articles on this. It is not nearly as accurate as you claim. The site is written and edited by the users. That means a lot of inaccurate information gets on its pages.

Can you trust Wikipedia? | Media | The Guardian
Wikipedia: Your source for inaccuracies - Technotica- msnbc.com
Wikipedia: Useful Information or Unreliable Source? - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

You found 3 articles by media members who have a direct conflict of interest with the very nature of wikipedia and use 2 or 3 examples of PRANKS (that didn't last long because none do) to prove that the millions of pages of information there are inaccurate? Really?

This sounds like Faux news.

 

[eom]

Can you be specific about falling 'flat on their faces'?

let's go over the schedule:

v bal - L
v ne - L
@ mia - L
@ buf - W
v min - L
@ den - L
v gb - L
@ det - W
v cle - W
v hou - W
v cin - W
@ ne - L
v mia - W
@ pit - L
@ chi - W
v buf - W

that's 8-8, out of the playoffs and probably third in the division.

 

[emoney_33]

Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lockdown24]

let's go over the schedule:

v bal - L
v ne - L
@ mia - L
@ buf - W
v min - L
@ den - L
v gb - L
@ det - W
v cle - W
v hou - W
v cin - W
@ ne - L
v mia - W
@ pit - L
@ chi - W
v buf - W

that's 8-8, out of the playoffs and probably third in the division.

can you let me know what this friday's mega millions winning numbers are? thanks...

 

[eom]

can you let me know what this friday's mega millions winning numbers are? thanks...

yeah, like I'm gonna split it with you -- nice try.

 

[Joker]

can you let me know what this friday's mega millions winning numbers are? thanks...

nope...but I can let you know THIS piece of important Jet info

Famous New York Jets Draft Blunders: Will Vernon Gholston Be Next? | Bleacher Report

Will Vernon Goatston, the Lonely Walks Down By The Pond Guy be the next HUGE ,embarrassing blot for the NY Fredos?

 

[Rob0729]

This argument is one made when wikipedia was first introduced and has been thoroughly debunked.

I challenge you to edit a wikipedia page with bogus information and have it withstand 10 minutes.

Why shoulsd I when I posted an article where they had experts on specific subjects review the pages relating to them (they even had an author review a page about himself) and they found inaccuracies and false information.

Last count Wikipedia had 2.5 billion pages and are a non-profit organization. Even for profit organizations with far more resources for fact checking who post far less information get things wrong. The fact that users can edit makes the margins of error even greater. They don't have fact checkers to verify every fact posted on the site.

 

[Rob0729]

Name me a website where you can gain access to any piece of information on any subject that you choose (not just politics or sports) that's more accessed, acclaimed, and (most of all) reliable than Wikipedia. And I take it you got those links off of Google. Do you think Google is more reliable than Wikipedia?

Well considering Wikipedia is an unique entity all to itself it is a loaded question. I'll answer it when you name me another NFL QB who is married to a Victoria Secrets model who is better than Brady.

As for Google,Google does not provide any of their own content. Google is a search engine. That is like asking if you think a Chevy Nova is a more accurate passer than Tom Brady. Google and Wikipedia are nothing alike in any way shape or form.

 

[Rob0729]

You found 3 articles by media members who have a direct conflict of interest with the very nature of wikipedia and use 2 or 3 examples of PRANKS (that didn't last long because none do) to prove that the millions of pages of information there are inaccurate? Really?

This sounds like Faux news.

First, I just found the first few articles I could find. I can post more.

MSNBC and the Guardian are news organizations. If they are biased and cannot report on Wikipedia's in accuracies than who can?

Also, you obvious didn't really look at articles. Because one of the article had a number of experts on different subjects review pages relating to that subject (even an author or two looking at their own pages) and many of them found anything from very minor to more significant inacuracies.

Here is what the London Times says on their review process (at least four years ago):

Wikipedia was set up five years ago as a non-profit enterprise, designed to provide almost real-time biographies and a people’s version of history. It has only three full-time employees to vet people’s entries, relying on the near-1,000 enthusiasts to correct vandalism quickly.

Comedy of errors hits the world of Wikipedia - Times Online

So it isn't like the people who review the pages are neccessarily experts on the subjects they are producing, historians, or even getting paid. For what it is, it is incredibly accurate, but that doesn't mean there aren't tons of inaccuracies on it.

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council has blamed Wikipedia's innacuracies in part for the falling student grades in Scottland.

Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia 'littered with inaccuracies' - Scotsman.com News

John Seigenthaler, NBC News reporter and an assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, wrote an article in USA Today attacking Wikipedia that information on him on the site was inaccurate including alledging he was involved in both the assassinations of JFK and Robert Kennedy. Those allegations stayed on Wikipedia for 132 days before it was removed.

USATODAY.com - A false Wikipedia 'biography'

 

[Tunescribe]

can you let me know what this friday's mega millions winning numbers are? thanks...

Don't be silly, we all know that's impossible. By contrast, you should consider that highly plausible prediction of the Green Beans' 2010 won-loss record as a public service aimed at saving you weeks upon weeks of anxiety, heartache and indigestion.