AFCE contract news: D'Bust signs D'extension

[TrueBeliever]

And I maintain this, you are the least objective poster I've ever seen on a football message board.

You must not go on any other football message boards then.

 

[Ring 6]

Everything.

And I maintain this, you are the least objective poster I've ever seen on a football message board. I'm sure Rexorcism agrees.

Since you don't want to give examples apparently, I will give a few.

Mark Sanchez. Was the second worst starting QB in the NFL last year statistially. I watched numerous poor decisions, saw subpar arm strength, saw a QB who was far too concerned with where the rush was than completing the play (more than once he threw while ducking from the hit that was to come) and I say I don't think you have a good QB. That is by definition objective. I looked at the facts and drew a conclusion based upon them. You say he was a rookie, so he will be better. I ask for all of the examples of bad rookie QBs who became good and no one has them. You are NOT being objective because you are basing your conclusion on what you hope happens without having facts to support it.

Thoams Jones/lt. I look at the facts and see that Jones had one of his best if not his very best seasons last year and lt had easily his worse. You say Jones declined at the end and is done. The facts say his last 3 games were similar to his last 3 almost every year, and lts last 3 were bad too. I OBJECTIVELY look at the facts and draw a conclusion. You avoid that conclusion because it is not favorable to the Jets.

Faneca. I look at the facts. Your OL improved tremendously with him. Your running game was most successful with him at the point of attack. I see him pickup blitzes, I see him help Ferguson, etc. You say he was a bad pass blocker. I look up the facts, and he allowed 6 sacks. I conclude OBJECTIVELY that the best run blocker on a running team who allowed 6 sacks in 16 games is an asset. That I would accept 6 sacks instead of 3 or 4 or whatever the average is in order to bolster my running game when my offense revolves around the run, and the extra sacks every 5 games is a worthy sacrfice. That is an OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. You say, he's gone he was a bad pass blocker, we have no replacement ready, it was a good move, solely because you do not want to objectively see the flaws on your team.

Should I go on? Or do you understand what objectivity is now?

Here's a hint: When I objectively identify a flaw in your team and relentlessly rip you about it that doesn't mean I am not objective, it means I am giving you a hard time.

 

[Calciumee]

Faneca. I look at the facts. Your OL improved tremendously with him. Your running game was most successful with him at the point of attack. I see him pickup blitzes, I see him help Ferguson, etc. You say he was a bad pass blocker. I look up the facts, and he allowed 6 sacks. I conclude OBJECTIVELY that the best run blocker on a running team who allowed 6 sacks in 16 games is an asset. That I would accept 6 sacks instead of 3 or 4 or whatever the average is in order to bolster my running game when my offense revolves around the run, and the extra sacks every 5 games is a worthy sacrfice. That is an OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. You say, he's gone he was a bad pass blocker, we have no replacement ready, it was a good move, solely because you do not want to objectively see the flaws on your team.

Faneca sucks right? The Jest fans will agree


(I will stop posting that at some point tonight)

 

[Rex Ryan's Gut]

Since you don't want to give examples apparently, I will give a few.

Mark Sanchez. Was the second worst starting QB in the NFL last year statistially. I watched numerous poor decisions, saw subpar arm strength, saw a QB who was far too concerned with where the rush was than completing the play (more than once he threw while ducking from the hit that was to come) and I say I don't think you have a good QB. That is by definition objective. I looked at the facts and drew a conclusion based upon them. You say he was a rookie, so he will be better. I ask for all of the examples of bad rookie QBs who became good and no one has them. You are NOT being objective because you are basing your conclusion on what you hope happens without having facts to support it.

Thoams Jones/lt. I look at the facts and see that Jones had one of his best if not his very best seasons last year and lt had easily his worse. You say Jones declined at the end and is done. The facts say his last 3 games were similar to his last 3 almost every year, and lts last 3 were bad too. I OBJECTIVELY look at the facts and draw a conclusion. You avoid that conclusion because it is not favorable to the Jets.

Faneca. I look at the facts. Your OL improved tremendously with him. Your running game was most successful with him at the point of attack. I see him pickup blitzes, I see him help Ferguson, etc. You say he was a bad pass blocker. I look up the facts, and he allowed 6 sacks. I conclude OBJECTIVELY that the best run blocker on a running team who allowed 6 sacks in 16 games is an asset. That I would accept 6 sacks instead of 3 or 4 or whatever the average is in order to bolster my running game when my offense revolves around the run, and the extra sacks every 5 games is a worthy sacrfice. That is an OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. You say, he's gone he was a bad pass blocker, we have no replacement ready, it was a good move, solely because you do not want to objectively see the flaws on your team.

Should I go on? Or do you understand what objectivity is now?

Here's a hint: When I objectively identify a flaw in your team and relentlessly rip you about it that doesn't mean I am not objective, it means I am giving you a hard time.

Thanks for repeating everything you've posted in the last month.

 

[condon84]

Terrible signing for the Jets. He's getting paid like an elite LT when he's not even top 5. Hell, I would take Vollmer (from what I saw of him last year) over D'Brick. Brick's a decent LT, but to sign him to a contract with $34 million guaranteed is insane. Especially without a new CBA hammered out by the NFLPA and the Owners.

Bad move by the Jets.

 

[Ring 6]

Faneca sucks right? The Jest fans will agree


(I will stop posting that at some point tonight)

And so does Rhodes. Rhodes didnt start twice in the middle of season (still played a lot, just didnt start) then started every remaining game (14 of 16 in total) and played every play but 2 in the entire playoffs. He played something like 20 fewer snaps all season than Revis.
Yet Jets fans will say with absolute certainty that he is gone because he was benched and lost his job. Its revisionist history.

 

[Calciumee]

Thanks for repeating everything you've posted in the last month.

Suppose it saves you going through all the threads, you can get them in one place

 

[Ring 6]

Thanks for repeating everything you've posted in the last month.

Your welcome now explain to me what is not objective.

 

[Ring 6]

Suppose it saves you going through all the threads, you can get them in one place

No, thats his way of saying everything I said was right, and he can't find any lack of objectivity.

 

[Rex Ryan's Gut]

No, thats his way of saying everything I said was right, and he can't find any lack of objectivity.

No, I've debated with you a lot in the past, and it is pointless to do it again.

 

[WelshPat]

Lets be honest, the Jets could sign the greatest player of all time and this board would still mostly say it was a bad signing, they overpaid etc

 

[Rex Ryan's Gut]

Lets be honest, the Jets could sign the greatest player of all time and this board would still mostly say it was a bad signing, they overpaid etc

Stop.

10char

 

[Calciumee]

Lets be honest, the Jets could sign the greatest player of all time and this board would still mostly say it was a bad signing, they overpaid etc

Shhhh... you'll make us look bad

But I don't think that we would complain about a player getting what they deserved, which is where the argument started.

DF is average and getting paid as if he was elite.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I've debated with you a lot in the past, and it is pointless to do it again.

Thats lame, and its a lie.
You said I was the least objective poster anywhere.
I asked for an example, you cowered.
I repeated the opinions you might be talking about.
You still had nothing.
You started the debate, so to say it is pointless to give any examjples to back up your statement is ridiculous, and clearly proof that you have none.

For the 3rd time, you said it, give an example........

 

[Rex Ryan's Gut]

Thats lame, and its a lie.
You said I was the least objective poster anywhere.
I asked for an example, you cowered.
I repeated the opinions you might be talking about.
You still had nothing.
You started the debate, so to say it is pointless to give any examjples to back up your statement is ridiculous, and clearly proof that you have none.

For the 3rd time, you said it, give an example........

"No, I won't accept that the Jets OL is good."

Not objective.

 

[Ring 6]

Lets be honest, the Jets could sign the greatest player of all time and this board would still mostly say it was a bad signing, they overpaid etc

I think that is 100% wrong.
This board acknowledges Revis consistently.
There was no criticism when they signed Faneca, but interestingly the Jet fans criticize him after he is cut.
I don't recall any criticism of Bart Scott as a player, although his on field meltdowns drew some ribbing.
If you are telling me that signing a guy whose team was about to release and who is suspended to start the season at WR, or a corner that played his way out of SD, or a RB who has declined to a 3.3 rushing average getting criticized is unjust, I don't know what to say.

 

[Deus Irae]

Lets be honest, the Jets could sign the greatest player of all time and this board would still mostly say it was a bad signing, they overpaid etc

Well, I said that the Favre signing was good. If he hadn't gotten hurt, that team would have been a post-season threat.

 

[Ring 6]

"No, I won't accept that the Jets OL is good."

Not objective.

Do you want to find the actual post, and the context, or just make one up?

As far as the objectivity of it, I can absolutely tell you that it is an objective opinion to not accept that a good RUN BLOCKING OL LAST YEAR that lost its best player will still be good with no legitmate replacement in place.

You are telling me that the objective stance would be to say I have to believe they are still good with the best player gone and an unknown replacement?????

Once again you are lacking the objectivity to look at the changes in the OL and objectively assess it. You think object is 'they were good last year, made changes so have to be good this year'?

 

[Rex Ryan's Gut]

Do you want to find the actual post, and the context, or just make one up?

As far as the objectivity of it, I can absolutely tell you that it is an objective opinion to not accept that a good RUN BLOCKING OL LAST YEAR that lost its best player will still be good with no legitmate replacement in place.

You are telling me that the objective stance would be to say I have to believe they are still good with the best player gone and an unknown replacement?????

Once again you are lacking the objectivity to look at the changes in the OL and objectively assess it. You think object is 'they were good last year, made changes so have to be good this year'?

You considering Faneca the Jets' best OL when he was the worst.

Not objective.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, I said that the Favre signing was good. If he hadn't gotten hurt, that team would have been a post-season threat.

Just as a follow up to this:

Most reports claim that he's been in decline for 2 years now, and the Jets definitely overpaid for a guard. However, it's possible that a change of scenery will reverse his decline and help him bounce back to his earlier level of play.


The Jets have made 4 major moves since the start of free agency (give or take):

Jenkins - overweight, injured, not a 3-4 NT in his NFL career
Faneca - in decline, malcontent, clearly overpaid
Pace - one year wonder, 4 year bust
Woody - center by nature, now possibly moving to tackle, overweight, underwhelming for years

And yet, despite all the warts on these players, Jets fans are thrilled and think they've significantly improved their team. What's more, they might be right, and we won't know until the games start. And that's the great thing about sports.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/79044-did-mangini-learn-anything-here-page2.html#post824565

I'd say that was a pretty good summary, both at the time and looking back today, and that the evaluations held pretty true.