Daily Links: Never tell me the odds

  • The odds of Pryor or Amaro winning rookie of the year [Star Ledger]
  • Geno was better in the 1st and 4th quarter, Vick in the 2nd and 3rd [PFF]
  • Great article breaking down Geno’s 2013 campaign [B/R]
  • The importance of Jeremy Kerley [Fan IQ]
  • Enemkpali: There’s nothing extra I can bring to this defensive line [Jets Official Site]
  • Why Kenrick Ellis might not make the team [iSportsWeb]



172 comments
jdb4
jdb4

ISportsweb is an example why some people should not be allowed to speak in the internet.


Cut ELLIS!!!?  WTF is that guy on a speedball.  There is no way the team dumps solid D-line depth.  There is no way that if they move him, he gets cut.  At the MINIMUM he is worth a 3rd rounder to half a dozen teams.

a57se
a57se

Geno was ranked according to the PFF article as follows:

28th in the 1st Q

36th in the 2nd Q

42nd in the 3rd Q (Dead Last)

25th in the 4th Q

38th in the first half

42nd in the 2nd half

Not exactly confidence building rankings.


MoSacks MoSnacks
MoSacks MoSnacks

I would just like to point out that at I stated how important kerley was to our offense DURING THE season. I give myself 3 butt pats

Pete 57
Pete 57

NFL network is saying a Jet will be revealed in their top 100, between 50 and 41. Wilkerson?

a57se
a57se

@jdb4 

The article was moronic and I said so in the comments but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to write what he wrote......


Brendan
Brendan

@a57se Care to comment on the good BR article about Geno, that concluded he definitely improved in the final 1/4 of the season? 

Bent
Bent moderator

@a57se He played poorly most of the year, of course his stats/rankings are going to look bad.

harold
harold

@a57se

You realize these are total stats. Geno stats were greatly damaged by the Kerley absence.  However, I look at those 11 and 1/2 games with Kerley and Geno was very good by rookie standards.  Don't know what else to tell you.  I am very excited based on those performances. 

jdb4
jdb4

@a57se @jdb4 Not if it isn't supported by fact.

"The Jets may need to carry more corner depth" (in his argument an 8th corner) rather than the 4th best d-lineman on the team.

That's a flimsy argument at best.  At worst it makes him look like he has only been watching football for a week. 

It's asinine 57 and I'm surprised even you would defend him.  I don't support censorship, but I also don't support ignorance and stupidity.

Bent
Bent moderator

@Brendan @a57se It is a very good article.  I hope nobody skips over that one because it's B/R.

a57se
a57se

@Bent @a57se 

He only played poorly when he didn't have Kerley according to Harold.

11 and 1/2 good play to 4 and 1/2 bad play gets you rabnked at the bottom of the league, I guess!

a57se
a57se

@jdb4 @a57se 

I left a comment calling the guy out....I am not defending what he said, only his right to being an ignorant fool.

Brendan
Brendan

@Bent Admittedly, I did the first time I saw the link, but when someone said it was actually worthwhile I circled back. It was a surprisingly in-depth look at Geno's season. 

Brendan
Brendan

@a57se C'mon man, that isn't what Harold said. 


He said he takes those two sets of games as separate entities, and that we should weigh Geno's play on those 11.5 games more than we do the 4.5 games without Kerley. He didn't say Geno never played poorly with Kerley. 


"Very good by rookie standards" should explain that clearly enough. 

Bent
Bent moderator

@a57se @tsjc68 @Pete 57 It could be, but I doubt it.  To be in the top 50, you're basically top five at your position.  I couldn't see either of those two players getting more votes than some of the other receivers and backs that have already been placed outside the top 50 (Welker, Jackson, Jeffery / Murray, Bush, Lacy).

jdb4
jdb4

@a57se @jdb4 

I wasn't saying you agreed with him.  I'm just surprised you are defending his right to be an "ignorant fool."

Bent
Bent moderator

@Brendan @Bent Definitely.  Kudos to the author, particularly for collecting his own data.


The one comment I have is that quick throw to Holmes in the Miami game which he uses to illustrate (quite correctly) how being in the shotgun can mask inadequate footwork was a throw he was messing up almost every time earlier in the year by making it a beat too late so the DB could jump on the route.  In fact, in that example it was still arguably a half-beat too late...maybe as a result of the poor footwork highlighted.


The rest of it speaks for itself.  How is he so bad on checkdowns?

a57se
a57se

@Bent @a57se 

I agree, just providing alternatives who are at least plausible on some level.

Brendan
Brendan

@a57se This is akin to an admission of guilt, you realize that right? It's what children do when they have nothing of substance to come back with. 

Bent
Bent moderator

@a57se @Bent Maybe one of those will be 50-41 and Wilkerson will be even higher than that!


(doubt it)

jdb4
jdb4

@a57se @jdb4 

Nor do I, but I also recognize the destructiveness of ignorant opinions that are allowed to spread.

Brendan
Brendan

@a57se Yes, which is why I defended the PFF post that everyone else said was unfair to the team. 


Good narrative you got going there. 

a57se
a57se

@Brendan @a57se 

Your comment had nothing of substance to begin with....I responded in kind.

a57se
a57se

@Bent @a57se 

Isn't this the voted on by the players list?

If so, it could be nick FOlk for all we know or Vick.

a57se
a57se

@jdb4 @a57se 

I don't see how anything that guy wrote could be viewed as destructive.

Brendan
Brendan

@a57se Yes it did, it pinpointed you misrepresenting another person's comment to bash them. Also known as the strawman special, your favorite. 

Bent
Bent moderator

@a57se @Bent Correct.


I was actually thinking about Vick because he's clearly held in high regard by some of the younger guys, but I don't think that would get him into the top 50 somehow!

Brendan
Brendan

@a57se Since I mentioned the article and discussed it with Bent, my apologies for thinking this was partially directed at me (which it was, stop playing this silly game of yours). 


And that goes for Bent, as well. So unless you were talking about imaginary people, your snide comment carries no weight. 

a57se
a57se

@Brendan @a57se 

Geno stunk last year, all the stats for the season back me up. You and Harold and a bunch of others have gotten so deluded by your cherry picking of games and situations that you have convinced yourselves that he was actually good.

What a friggin' joke!

a57se
a57se

@Bent @a57se 

The players have been known to come up with a few head scratchers......

Brendan
Brendan

@a57se So he stunk every game? Every play? Start to finish? Never improved, never played well, never did good things for his team? 


Our cherry picking of games? How about you? You act like his November stretch was the norm. You minimize it down to completion %. You discredit (or outright dismiss) the idea that he got better in the final four games. You laugh at any argument that shows support, you dismiss any objective article that states something you didn't come up with on your own. 


You want to talk about a joke, start there. 


If you bothered to read the article, you'd possibly have something more intelligent to argue than a blanket that statement that "all the stats for the season" don't back up. At all. 

a57se
a57se

@Brendan @a57se 

No surprise, you did the same with Sanchez for four years (and I was dumb enough to be on the same train then).

You find any positive you can out of crap performances and use that to bolster the idea that Geno will be good.

I took those rose colored glasses off finally and won't put them back on. 

Geno has to prove it on the field over the course of a season and until he does, I refuse to believe he is the answer simply because he has done NOTHING in this league except rank at the bottom.

Brendan
Brendan

@a57se If you want to go with hindsight, feel free to remind everyone you actually stayed on that Sanchez train long after I did, about a year after, in fact (I stopped the honeymoon in 2011, you were still slamming your fist about 26 TD's). 


You find any positive you can out of crap performances and use that to bolster the idea that Geno will be good.


This isn't true, you just choose to ignore the balance in my comments to bash me as a blindly faithful dolt. I see plenty wrong with the Jets, I choose not to spend every second I'm on here flooding the threads with my whiney complaints, though. 


I took those rose colored glasses off finally and won't put them back on. 


"Rose colored" prediction of 9 wins last year. What a homer I am. 


Geno has to prove it on the field over the course of a season and until he does, I refuse to believe he is the answer simply because he has done NOTHING in this league except rank at the bottom. 


And here you prove your unrelenting bias against Geno. He played very well the last month, he had one of the highest QB ratings, and he went 3-1 with minimal turnovers. Anyone worth a salt acknowledges he took steps forward, and their narrative is "can he continue to take those necessary steps? Or was the end of last year more flukey than real and Geno will never become the consistent player he has potential to be?" It's not "Geno is the answer!" 


You continuously take reasonable stances people have that are optimistic and trash them as being irrational. Being a Jets fan and being hopeful Jets players succeed and finding reasons why that is possible isn't "rose colored" anything, that's what being a fan is all about, at least to most people. To you, it's about finding every reason something won't work, which is fine, but don't put words in people's mouths to get your nasty point across. Be the negative guy that you are, that's fine, but be fair to everyone else here, please. 

a57se
a57se

@Brendan @a57se 

I am not interested in a handful of games where Geno looks better, Sanchez looked better most of the 2011 season but it was an illusion.

QB rating is more a reflection of the whole offensive performance rather than the QB. Plus his QB rating wasn't all that good anyway, it is was just better then the craptacular performances he had put up before then.

I stayed on the Sanchez bandwagon until the pick six he threw in in detroit last preseason when I finally realized the guy was an idiot. I freely admit I was wrong but you also lie about your stance, you turned on Sanchez after the 2012 season not in 2011.

You used to argue ( and so did I) with Pete B. about Sanchez the same way.

Brendan
Brendan

@a57se Leaving for a 4 hour presentation for work, so I'll hit this quick. 


2011 Sanchez was not a rookie, he should look better. 


QB rating is not indicative of "overall offensive performance." That's a new one, truly. In any regard, it still counts for showing Geno was one of the most efficient players at his position at the end of the season. 


It was one of the highest in the league in the final month of the year, dude. Tell me that it "wasn't that good" and that just means there were 25 or so guys with worse ones. His ranking speaks for itself. 


So, I dropped Sanchez in 2011, you did it in 2013, somehow we're equal? Okay than. I didn't "turn" on him, I just grew tired of his mistakes, and that happened after 2011. I thought 2012 was his "last chance" so I defended his right for that (I also didn't like the other options the team could go with), that's a far cry from being on Team Sanchez. 


And I highly, highly doubt you have my debates with Pete B. memorized, please don't act like you do. 

a57se
a57se

@Brendan @a57se 

 QB rating is not indicative of "overall offensive performance." 

Apparently you didn't bother to read the PFF piece:

 

While QB Rating is obviously supposed to be a QB statistic, it’s actually a better gauge of what the entire offense did in a given situation. This is the type of information that is actually extremely valuable to our NFL team customers as their game planning efforts must go towards stopping an entire passing offense, not just the quarterback.

 If the quarterback throws an easy dump off pass to the RB who then weaves through the defense for the touchdown, it’s certainly not a great indicator of quarterbacking skill as it is the running back and defense accounting for the majority of the work on the play. Of course the QB Rating will look quite shiny in that situation.

On the other hand, PFF Grade is a good indicator of how well the quarterback actually performed in a given situation. Whether they throw an accurate pass that was dropped, or perhaps an inaccurate one that should have been intercepted and the defense dropped, the PFF grade will account for those situations with a positive and a negative grade respectively while QB Rating will simply reflect the 0-for-1 passing.