AFCE contract news: D'Bust signs D'extension

[Deus Irae]

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

Not objective.

You considering Faneca the Jets worst OL is not objective, either.

 

[Rex Ryan's Gut]

You considering Faneca the Jets worst OL is not objective, either.

Why not? I think he was the weakest. It's getting really ******* stupid rehashing this over and over.

 

[Ring 6]

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

Not objective.

Do you know the meaning of objective?

I look at the 2009 Jets, and see a running team. I see (and I read analysis of film study) that says his stregnth was the he was the blocker at the point of attack that gave your running game the most success. I read that his weakness is that he allowed 6 sacks.
I consider what your team was, how they played, and conclude that the guy who most responsble for the success in the running game was the best player for your team on that OL. I can't be more objective.

You say, he's gone, he allowed 6 sacks, he must have been the worst. NOT objective.

 

[Calciumee]

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

Not objective.

Yeah he sucks!

 

[Ring 6]

Why not? I think he was the weakest. It's getting really ******* stupid rehashing this over and over.

How can you think that you stating your opinon is objective and me stating mine is not?
Again, do you know what objective means?
Objective does not mean complementary of the NY Jets.

 

[Ring 6]

Why not? I think he was the weakest. It's getting really ******* stupid rehashing this over and over.

So you dispute that your running game was most successful running right with the RB following the pulling G, Faneca?

 

[Deus Irae]

Why not? I think he was the weakest. It's getting really ******* stupid rehashing this over and over.

Then buy a dictionary. Make sure it has the word "objective" in it. Then you and Andy can both sit down together and learn what the word means. For crying out loud, this is the internet, and definitions are mere clicks away. Here, let me help:

Objective | Define Objective at Dictionary.com

The relevant definitions:

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).

of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.

Now, examples:

Objective...

"Faneca allowed the most sacks of any guard last season. If you go strictly by that criteria, there wasn't a worse OG in the league."

Subjective...

"Faneca was the worst member of the OL for the Jets last year, and the worst OG in the league against the pass."

Learn the difference.

 

[Rob0729]

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

Not objective.

Faneca was the worst? Really?!? I would say Mangold was better. Probably the overrated Ferguson. But Woody and what's his name? Get real.

Faneca is on the decline and he might not be the player he once was, but he was at worst the Jets third best o-lineman.

Gotta love Jets fans. When the Jets cut players they turn into scrubs. Thomas Jones goes from grossly underrated to being a product of the Jets line that because great only after they added Faneca and Damien Woody. But apparently Faneca isn't that good anyway. So Thomas Jones is a mediocre RB who was one of the leading RBs in the league because of a line that doesn't have a good LG who was the reason the o-line is as good as it is? I bet if the Jets traded Revis tomorrow, he would quickly become the product of the front seven on defense.

 

[Rex Ryan's Gut]

Andy, what do you think the Jets' record will be this year?

 

[Calciumee]

Faneca was the worst? Really?!? I would say Mangold was better. Probably the overrated Ferguson. But Woody and what's his name? Get real.

Faneca is on the decline and he might not be the player he once was, but he was at worst the Jets third best o-lineman.

Gotta love Jets fans. When the Jets cut players they turn into scrubs. Thomas Jones goes from grossly underrated to being a product of the Jets line that because great only after they added Faneca and Damien Woody. But apparently Faneca isn't that good anyway. So Thomas Jones is a mediocre RB who was one of the leading RBs in the league because of a line that doesn't have a good LG who was the reason the o-line is as good as it is? I bet if the Jets traded Revis tomorrow, he would quickly become the product of the front seven on defense.

But you aren't being objective!

But seriously, I agree with exactly what you say, and will assume that the Jest fans will disagree, so we can read and agree, while they read and get all annoyed about it.

 

[Ring 6]

Then buy a dictionary. Make sure it has the word "objective" in it. Then you and Andy can both sit down together and learn what the word means. For crying out loud, this is the internet, and definitions are mere clicks away. Here, let me help:

Objective | Define Objective at Dictionary.com

The relevant definitions:













Now, examples:

Objective...

"Faneca allowed the most sacks of any guard last season. If you go strictly by that criteria, there wasn't a worse OG in the league."

Subjective...

"Faneca was the worst member of the OL for the Jets last year, and the worst OG in the league against the pass."

Learn the difference.

Great, hopefully you will use it properly from here on.

 

[Calciumee]

Andy, what do you think the Jets' record will be this year?

But isn't guessing the record not objective? So it won't count right?

 

[Deus Irae]

Great, hopefully you will use it properly from here on.

I always have, Andy. That's one of the many differences between us.

 

[Ring 6]

I always have, Andy. That's one of the many differences between us.

I agree, your aptitude for being incorrect is a big difference between us.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree, your aptitude for being incorrect is a big difference between us.

Ahhh.... the irony:

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.

Given how wrong you were right there, while trying to claim objectivity, you calling anyone out about being incorrect is amusing, to say the least.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, what do you think the Jets' record will be this year?

8-8
I think they are about the same as last year.
Theoretically Holmes helps the passing game, but the running game doesnt figure to be as good so that will create a lot fewer ideal play action situations.
Defensively, I don't see much difference and although the likelihood is a team isnt as good in the second year of a new system I'll give credit for staying the same.

You won;t have a team not try in a game this year, so 8-8 seems about right.
And you?

 

[Ring 6]

Ahhh.... the irony:



Given how wrong you were right there, while trying to claim objectivity, you calling anyone out about being incorrect is amusing, to say the least.

Read the very definitions you posted.
That was an unbiased opinion based upon facts. That = objective.

 

[Calciumee]

Read the very definitions you posted.
That was an unbiased opinion based upon facts. That = objective.

Not to be in the argument, but this isn't objective:

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.

The fact you say 'I would', means it is your personal opinion.

 

[Deus Irae]

Read the very definitions you posted.
That was an unbiased opinion based upon facts. That = objective.

Not to be in the argument, but this isn't objective:



The fact you say 'I would', means it is your personal opinion.

Indeed....

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.

Again, Andy.... learn the definition.

 

[patsinthesnow]

THIS ISN'T HIGHSCHOOL LITERATURE CLASS, IT'S A PATRIOTS FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, had to let that off.