Are Jets' fans constantly drunk or just plain stupid?

[rkit55]

This post is just ridiculous. The ultimate sign of a homer is someone who needs to find ways to manipulate stats in their favor. Do you even realize what you are saying? Sanchez is a good if you only count the games he plays well. I get that you are trying to say that his stats are abnormally bad because of a few disastrous games, but that is not a reason discount them. Yes he definitely has had good games this year, but its not like all of his bad games occurred during one part of the season. That makes his play this year inconsistent at best.

I haven't been on this board that long but I've noticed you seem to have a pattern of only seeing the stats you want to see. In the Brady/Manning debate you only want to use playoff stats and declare regular season stats to be meaningless. If that were true then only 12 teams actually play football every year. In reality, you are just looking for a way to ignore the fact that, over multiple 16 game seasons, Manning's defenses showed to be consistently worse than Brady's. But you'd prefer to use the limited sample size of playoff appearances that still show Manning to have a worse D (albeit much closer). The most accurate portrayal of the caliber of their defenses would be to count all games played, but that approach wouldn't back your opinion so I guess there must be something wrong with it.

You even use the same statistical manipulation practice in the Cameron Wake thread. You decide that that the 3 sacks in the Bills game don't count for some reason, but the Jet's games hold increased significance because you happened to see them.

You aren't using all of the stats that are available. Instead you are choosing to only use the ones you see fit. In the end this makes all of the stats you give completely meaningless.

Well said friend

 

[CrazyJetsFan]

sanchez is a bust and henne is da ****, why argue?

 

[dolpns13]

This post is just ridiculous. The ultimate sign of a homer is someone who needs to find ways to manipulate stats in their favor. Do you even realize what you are saying? Sanchez is a good if you only count the games he plays well. I get that you are trying to say that his stats are abnormally bad because of a few disastrous games, but that is not a reason discount them. Yes he definitely has had good games this year, but its not like all of his bad games occurred during one part of the season. That makes his play this year inconsistent at best.

I haven't been on this board that long but I've noticed you seem to have a pattern of only seeing the stats you want to see. In the Brady/Manning debate you only want to use playoff stats and declare regular season stats to be meaningless. If that were true then only 12 teams actually play football every year. In reality, you are just looking for a way to ignore the fact that, over multiple 16 game seasons, Manning's defenses showed to be consistently worse than Brady's. But you'd prefer to use the limited sample size of playoff appearances that still show Manning to have a worse D (albeit much closer). The most accurate portrayal of the caliber of their defenses would be to count all games played, but that approach wouldn't back your opinion so I guess there must be something wrong with it.

You even use the same statistical manipulation practice in the Cameron Wake thread. You decide that that the 3 sacks in the Bills game don't count for some reason, but the Jet's games hold increased significance because you happened to see them.

You aren't using all of the stats that are available. Instead you are choosing to only use the ones you see fit. In the end this makes all of the stats you give completely meaningless.

Post of the year.. Damn good rebuttle..

 

[KlausC]

This post is just ridiculous. The ultimate sign of a homer is someone who needs to find ways to manipulate stats in their favor. Do you even realize what you are saying? Sanchez is a good if you only count the games he plays well. I get that you are trying to say that his stats are abnormally bad because of a few disastrous games, but that is not a reason discount them. Yes he definitely has had good games this year, but its not like all of his bad games occurred during one part of the season. That makes his play this year inconsistent at best.

I haven't been on this board that long but I've noticed you seem to have a pattern of only seeing the stats you want to see. In the Brady/Manning debate you only want to use playoff stats and declare regular season stats to be meaningless. If that were true then only 12 teams actually play football every year. In reality, you are just looking for a way to ignore the fact that, over multiple 16 game seasons, Manning's defenses showed to be consistently worse than Brady's. But you'd prefer to use the limited sample size of playoff appearances that still show Manning to have a worse D (albeit much closer). The most accurate portrayal of the caliber of their defenses would be to count all games played, but that approach wouldn't back your opinion so I guess there must be something wrong with it.

You even use the same statistical manipulation practice in the Cameron Wake thread. You decide that that the 3 sacks in the Bills game don't count for some reason, but the Jet's games hold increased significance because you happened to see them.

You aren't using all of the stats that are available. Instead you are choosing to only use the ones you see fit. In the end this makes all of the stats you give completely meaningless.

I think the point of showing that Sanchez had those 3 terrible games is to show that he hasn't been awful all year. Looking at his stats and QB rating at face value as many people do would make you think he was pretty bad most of the season. In reality, he has done well (not great) most of the games. You can't take the terrible starts away. They happened and Sanchez looked like horse **** in those games.

If you put a little context around those numbers you may be more open to thinking that possibly he's just a very inexperienced having consistency issues.

Henne has outperformed Sanchez so far, but Sanchez hasn't been horrible.

 

[Vaark]

I think the point of showing that Sanchez had those 3 terrible games is to show that he hasn't been awful all year. Looking at his stats and QB rating at face value as many people do would make you think he was pretty bad most of the season. In reality, he has done well (not great) most of the games. You can't take the terrible starts away. They happened and Sanchez looked like horse **** in those games.

If you put a little context around those numbers you may be more open to thinking that possibly he's just a very inexperienced having consistency issues.

Henne has outperformed Sanchez so far, but Sanchez hasn't been horrible.

But that's no different than saying if you strip out Henne's 3 mediocre game starts, he's be 7-0 and the Fins would not have lost 6 games. Everything counts. Remember, Favre in 07 is more remembered for his bonehead interceptions against the Giants in the playoffs, than for a season of turning around 2 terrible prior years. (and we're sure happy he is since there's no way NE's backs wouldn't have feasted on him in the SB.)

Our problem with junkie is that he's no different from a lot of us in selectively parsing his statistics.. but unlike him, most of us readily acknowledge that we're homers.

Incidentally, congrats WWW on being made a mod over at TGG.:up:. ...despite that, you should still make it a point to post on here more than you have lately. IMO, you have a good shot at "enemy poster of the year" this time around.

 

[KlausC]

But that's no different than saying if you strip out Henne's 3 mediocre game starts, he's be 7-0 and the Fins would not have lost 6 games. Everything counts. Remember, Favre in 07 is more remembered for his bonehead interceptions against the Giants in the playoffs, than for a season of turning around 2 terrible prior years. (and we're sure happy he is since there's no way NE's backs wouldn't have feasted on him in the SB.)

Our problem with junkie is that he's no different from a lot of us in selectively parsing his statistics.. but unlike him, most of us readily acknowledge that we're homers.

Incidentally, congrats WWW on being made a mod over at TGG.:up:. ...despite that, you should still make it a point to post on here more than you have lately. IMO, you have a good shot at "enemy poster of the year" this time around.

Thanks man.

I don't think anyone is trying to take away the terrible games. I think it's a matter of pointing out the large discrepancy in his performance from those 3 to the other 9. To me, that seems more like a consistency issue than an issue of just plain not being good. He has played good more often than not. Even in the games he has played well, he has been very streaky.

As for not posting here much lately, I honestly wasn't in much of a mood to post here during/after the Jets losing streak and I had been much more busy. It's just been recently I've been able to f around a little.

 

[nyjunc]

This post is just ridiculous. The ultimate sign of a homer is someone who needs to find ways to manipulate stats in their favor. Do you even realize what you are saying? Sanchez is a good if you only count the games he plays well. I get that you are trying to say that his stats are abnormally bad because of a few disastrous games, but that is not a reason discount them. Yes he definitely has had good games this year, but its not like all of his bad games occurred during one part of the season. That makes his play this year inconsistent at best.

I haven't been on this board that long but I've noticed you seem to have a pattern of only seeing the stats you want to see. In the Brady/Manning debate you only want to use playoff stats and declare regular season stats to be meaningless. If that were true then only 12 teams actually play football every year. In reality, you are just looking for a way to ignore the fact that, over multiple 16 game seasons, Manning's defenses showed to be consistently worse than Brady's. But you'd prefer to use the limited sample size of playoff appearances that still show Manning to have a worse D (albeit much closer). The most accurate portrayal of the caliber of their defenses would be to count all games played, but that approach wouldn't back your opinion so I guess there must be something wrong with it.

You even use the same statistical manipulation practice in the Cameron Wake thread. You decide that that the 3 sacks in the Bills game don't count for some reason, but the Jet's games hold increased significance because you happened to see them.

You aren't using all of the stats that are available. Instead you are choosing to only use the ones you see fit. In the end this makes all of the stats you give completely meaningless.

It's 3 games that completely skew his #s, he's been good in 75% of his games but uninformed fans like you guys see the overall and say he isn't doing well when he has played well. he's had 3 awful games to skew the #s but he's been good most of the year.


In the Manning/Brady I acknowledge Manning is the better reg season QB but when the games get big Brady steps forward and Peyton steps back. That's a fact. What good is winning all those reg season games if you can't do it in January? Check The stats on Manning's Ds in postseason and check what Peyton has led those high powered O's to in playoff losses. Let me know what you find. Why should I care what the Colts D did in October against the Texans? Why should that count more than a big game in January?


I didn't say the Bills sacks don't count, I said he got the bulk of his sacks in one blowout game. You guys are trying to manipulate #s w/o showing the entire body of work.

If player A has 10 sacks in 10 games(one per game) he's done a better job than a player who has 4 sacks in one game, 3 in a 2nd then 3 spread through the final 7 games.

 

[nyjunc]

I think the point of showing that Sanchez had those 3 terrible games is to show that he hasn't been awful all year. Looking at his stats and QB rating at face value as many people do would make you think he was pretty bad most of the season. In reality, he has done well (not great) most of the games. You can't take the terrible starts away. They happened and Sanchez looked like horse **** in those games.

If you put a little context around those numbers you may be more open to thinking that possibly he's just a very inexperienced having consistency issues.

Henne has outperformed Sanchez so far, but Sanchez hasn't been horrible.

Post of the year

 

[nyjunc]

But that's no different than saying if you strip out Henne's 3 mediocre game starts, he's be 7-0 and the Fins would not have lost 6 games. Everything counts. Remember, Favre in 07 is more remembered for his bonehead interceptions against the Giants in the playoffs, than for a season of turning around 2 terrible prior years. (and we're sure happy he is since there's no way NE's backs wouldn't have feasted on him in the SB.)

Our problem with junkie is that he's no different from a lot of us in selectively parsing his statistics.. but unlike him, most of us readily acknowledge that we're homers.

Incidentally, congrats WWW on being made a mod over at TGG.:up:. ...despite that, you should still make it a point to post on here more than you have lately. IMO, you have a good shot at "enemy poster of the year" this time around.

Henne hasn't had 3 awful games that skew his #s. he's been more consistent which is why he's been better this year. The whole point is misinformed fans like you see the QB rating and think sanchez has been bad and that's simply not the case.

 

[greasyObnoxious]

I didn't say the Bills sacks don't count, I said he got the bulk of his sacks in one blowout game. You guys are trying to manipulate #s w/o showing the entire body of work.

that's kinda funny. if you looked at his entire body of work, you wouldn't be harping on that 3-sack performance over and over. that wasn't even his best game.

 

[Vaark]

Henne hasn't had 3 awful games that skew his #s. he's been more consistent which is why he's been better this year. The whole point is misinformed fans like you see the QB rating and think sanchez has been bad and that's simply not the case.

..or misinformed fans like you when it comes to Cam Wake

 

[nyjunc]

that's kinda funny. if you looked at his entire body of work, you wouldn't be harping on that 3-sack performance over and over. that wasn't even his best game.

Again, I haven't seen the guy play yet really. In the 6 games or so I watched he barely played or did nothing to show up on screen. I have said over and over I take your word for it that he is getting better and doing a good job pressuring the QB. What more do you want from me?

 

[nyjunc]

..or misinformed fans like you when it comes to Cam Wake

The difference is I don't claim to be informed about Wake. I didn't sau he was good or bad b/c I haven't seen him. I simply pointed something out about his sack #s b/c people were pointing to that as if it is proof he has arrived. 3 came in a blowout, non competitive game and he got a 4th in garbage time last week. That doesn't mean he's not doing a good job rushing the passer I'm just digging deeper into the #s.

 

[greasyObnoxious]

Again, I haven't seen the guy play yet really. In the 6 games or so I watched he barely played or did nothing to show up on screen. I have said over and over I take your word for it that he is getting better and doing a good job pressuring the QB. What more do you want from me?

well, maybe you should keep your opinion a bit closer to your vest if you haven't had the chance to form an educated opinion yet?

 

[Rev Kev]

Again, I haven't seen the guy play yet really. In the 6 games or so I watched he barely played or did nothing to show up on screen. I have said over and over I take your word for it that he is getting better and doing a good job pressuring the QB. What more do you want from me?

Gosh you had to ask...?