Computer ranks Jets 7th

I suppose the schedule can be seen as some reason for optimism. For example I notice that Arizona, that finished the year 6-2 after starting 2-6, so that 8-8 record was arguably misleading, seems to have been unable to resolve their Qb situation this off season. That's a nice break. And I had assumed Seattle would be settled with Flynn as their Qb - apparently not.

But I also notice predictions on the boards here by some that seem to assume the Jets will go at least 4-2 in their division. heh. They didn't do that last year, and Buffalo is arguably improved.

What you refuse to see when looking at negative opinions of the Jets is what Jet Blue cogently described above. The Jets were putrid down the stretch last year, when in the prior two years they got stronger later in the season. While Kerley showed promise, the experiment of Mason and Burress was a failure and has left no dividends this year. Schillens was not the answer, Hill is a rookie, and Kerley seems to be in Ryan's doghouse. Meanwhile the notion that LT's numbers from 10 would be replaced by McKnight know seems laughable. Powell may have even passed him on the depth chart. And while I am glad to see Hunter go, I also saw Howard give up some pretty bad plays against second stringers in Philly.

The more general problem with statistical analyses like the computer probably ran is that the numbers for the Jet D look good on a per play basis, but if the O is not scoring and giving the D good field position, the opponent will still tend to outscore the team as a whole.

If you read that again, you will see why I think this notion of the Jet D carrying the team is, well, they might carry the team, but only so far.

Add in a thin bench and the risk if injury, and the apparent reliance on the wildcat, and you really should begin to get some idea why you don't see prognosticators listing the Jets at 10-6 or better.

 

You're original point was how the Bills ranked higher, when I showed you that the simulation run in the thread was probably more "accurate' due to a higher number of simulations THEN your point turned into about inaccurate data.

Your presence in this thread is simply to stir up shit, had you just posted asking how can any of this information be accurate? I'd be there right with you because I don't see how a computer can accurately determine games like this with so many x factors and the accountability for humans who are so prone to emotional and physiological mistakes.

And sorry for being rude, I hope your feelings are still intact.

 

are you suggesting that there is an individual or a group working in cahoots that is behind the negative perception of the Jets and is dictating that all reporters must follow that lead, rather than the more likely and reasonable situation that the majority of reporters coincidentally feel the same way about the Jets based only on how the Jets have performed so far?

 

17 isn't enough, its 50:50 at best whether they win. All it takes is one Cro mistake (and you know he's bound to make a few that lead to 7 pts at key times in the game) and a 17-13 game becomes a 20-17 loss.

 

They obviously have a much tougher schedule than we do.

 

I am just going to assume the reference to "who" is behind it was, uh, a poor choice of words.

Heh.

 

Computers and humans both say the Rams suck.

 

My original point was that there are many BS simulations with many BS outcomes. To pretend one means more than any other when it comes to the real world in the NFL is foolhardy. You're latching onto the "number of simulations" being the difference maker, and I'm telling you it is ALL BS, including the ones I posted.

Trust me, you have zero relevance in the outcome of my day. I just thought I'd give you a heads up on how I perceived your comment. My comment was meant to help, not insult. No matter.

 

you know what they say about teams on paper, lets see how it works out

 

7th? What do you have to say for yourself Mr. Computer?

 

He obviously meant 7th from the bottom. Although that may be generous as well.

 

:rofl: well said.........

 

If that computer is a Jets fan, he is probably thinking along the lines of Joshua at the end of Wargames. Smh. Spoiler alert (from 30 years ago).

 

7th from last...

 

well the Colts are frauds so they belong at number 31, They had the easyest schedule in the league, If we had there schedule we would be 10-6 to

 

Computers are just a fad.

 

This isn't rocket science and you don't need a computer to figure it out. As has been discussed ad nauseum on many other threads, with even below average QB play(as opposed to the historically bad play of Sanchez), the Jets are easily 9-6 or 10-5 right now all other things being the same.

 

Just mad that there is no fembots.:smile:

 

1 N.Y. Giants* 140-116 .547 7
2 Denver* 139-117 .543 7
3 Cleveland 135-121 .527 7
4 St. Louis 134-122 .523 5
4 Baltimore* 134-122 .523 7
6 San Diego 133-123 .520 6
7 Philadelphia 132-124 .516 8
8 Minnesota 131-125 .512 7
8 Arizona 131-125 .512 6
10 Carolina 130-126 .508 5
11 Seattle 129-127 .504 5
11 Dallas 129-127 .504 7
11 New Orleans* 129-127 .504 5
14 Jacksonville 128-128 .500 8
14 Cincinnati* 128-128 .500 5
14 Pittsburgh* 128-128 .500 6
14 Indianapolis 128-128 .500 7
18 Oakland 127-129 .496 5
18 Miami 127-129 .496 6
20 N.Y. Jets 126-130 .492 6
20 Kansas City 126-130 .492 5
20 Chicago 126-130 .492 7
20 Detroit* 126-130 .492 6
24 Washington 125-131 .488 7
24 Atlanta* 125-131 .488 4
24 San Francisco* 125-131 .488 5
27 Tampa Bay 124-132 .484 5
28 Tennessee 123-133 .480 6
29 Houston* 121-135 .473 6
29 Buffalo 121-135 .473 5
31 Green Bay* 120-136 .469 7
32 New England* 116-140 .453 4
Not according to this.

 

I will buy stock in that company.

:grin: