You're the one that's assuming anyone is getting "pumped" about those games. The general consensus was that he was solid down the stretch and it's something to build on for the future. I never said he was great against the Panthers. I said he was solid he made some nice plays through the air and with his feet. That one int was unfortunate. He had a solid game against a good defensive team like the Panthers, a Browns team that gave the Pats and Bears fits a few weeks prior. He had a solid game against a Dolphins team that was trying to make the playoffs.
I have never been a douche in my whole life. Smith was awful last year. Perhaps you did not watch any Jet games last season.
I've never said Geno wasn't bad. I've said his play was excusable enough to see what he can do this year, considering he was a raw rookie and we had a bad offense around him. You're just making random statements to get me to argue with you.
I don't think there was any such consensus other than by a certain segment of Jet fans. Yes, some observers around the league took note of relative improvement. But to say that relative improvement amounted to a "solid" performance for an NFL Qb is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? The other thing is Smith defenders always complain about the alleged lack of support he got when the Jets had a far above average running game. The running game was effective down the stretch in particular, especially thanks to Ivory. Another thing as I have identified previously is that while the turnovers went down, his ypa also went down. Imo there were two factors beyond quality of opponent that made Smith look better. The first is probably Marty and Smith worked out that he would avoid the longer pass. The second is he would take off more. Imo, neither are long term solutions in the quest to become at least an average NFL Qb. WHich I doubt Smith will ever become.
You hate the quality of opponent argument because it doesn't fit your agenda. Take Miami. They totally folded down the stretch. That shouldn't be taken into account in assessing how much a win over them really means? I don't follow htat at all.
You are being a douche. You replied to a post in which Geno having a bad rookie year was obviously included, but you felt the need to say I didn't include it. I replied that I in fact did include it, and that you are being a douche. Then you just repeated that Geno had a bad rookie year (let me repeat, something I have not disagreed with anywhere) and proceeded to say maybe I didn't watch any Jet games. I don't even know what you're trying to argue with me about. Geno had a shitty rookie year. Geno had a shitty rookie year. Geno had a shitty rookie year. Geno had a shitty rookie year. Geno had a shitty rookie year. How many times do I have to say it before you understand I'm aware Geno had a shitty rookie year?
Vick was good enough to beat out Foles in camp and Geno couldn't beat out Sanchez. I certainly hope Geno comes out firing on all cylinders during camp but if he's not given all the weapons we have on offense and defense now with Rex likely coaching for his job it's not the worst thing in the world if Vick starts and we give Geno , Simms/Boyd another year to learn. Whoever gives us the best chance to win out of camp should be our qb...
How was I a douche to offer the opinion that major reason why Vick is here is because Smith was awful last year? Especially since it's not only my opinion, it is correct. If Smith had been very good last year, the Jets would not have gotten Vick. I never said you did not mention Smith's bad year. You pulled that out of your cakehole in order in your own confused mind to give a reason to call me a douche. I merely cited the main reason the Jets signed Vick, because you left it off your list of reasons.
To be clear as a general matter, I don't care all that much, hardly at all but I would concede a smidgeon, about being called names here. But it is against the forum rules, and not only do I generally believe in following rules, I don't want someone else calling me names, me respond in kind, and run afoul of the mods. It's just not fair, and hence I do try despite provocation to avoid namecalling. I don't always succeed. After all this is an internet message board for an NFL team. It's not a group therapy for people who attempted suicide. Some overly sensitive types complain about terms like homers and haters, too. I don't consdier those terms to be excessively personal. Ftr you can be a nice person and be either a homer or a hater. It only is a ueful handle for identifying a proclivity to be either excessively optimistic or pessimistic. In fact if the recipient of such an identifier feels it is inaccurate, they can respond accordingly, or laugh it off. No big deal. Nothing to go to your psychologist about or refill your Prozac over.
If the Dolphins won that game they make the playoffs. So yes they were a legit team. This was the same team that beat us a few weeks prior and the same team that Geno played his worst game against. But I guess Geno's shit performance counts against them but his solid performance doesn't count. That's the epitome of agenda posting.
In fact it was on my list, it was #4. If Geno proves to be as bad as his rookie year. It's an obvious implication: Geno had a shitty rookie year. So remind me why "Perhaps I did not watch any Jet games last year."
The consensus was that he improved over the course of the last 4 games of the season. And he had 4 solid/decent games to end the year. No one is making out those last 4 games as if they're the 4 greatest games in the history of organized football. So if those performances weren't solid then please tell me how were they viewed around NFL circles?
Again, Miami had gone scoreless against Buffalo the week before. If they had won THAT game they would have made the playoffs. They lost it. So? They were folding down the stretch. It happens. Plus the players thought they were playing for Rex's job. Obviously their performance agaisnt a weak Buffalo team showed they were not a playoff team, should not be considered a playoff team. Miami had that whole controversy involing Martin and Incognito, too. But in general i don't understand the argument that you should not take the quality of the opponent into account.
#4 was about using Vick if Smith does not improve. Why you think that is the same as saying Vick was signed not because of some possible eventaulity but instead because of the past is not clear to me. In any event they are not the same. I think Vick was signed not to replace Smith in the regular season, to be completely clear about it. He is instead an option, imo the best one, to start from opening day. No, you were looking for a reason to call me names. You shuold really apologize, but of course you won't.
I answered that already. Some improvement from awful is not solid. It is some improvement. What do you think of Smith's ypa going down, btw?
