No, a question was asked here and you have selected how you want to answer it even after being told more than once the original claim was that Wilson could move to the top half of the league. You then decide for yourself what metrics are important and run with it - fine again, but don't believe for one second that you are somehow the deciding voice in the matter. That's your opinion - go with it, nobody cares. You get so hung up on being a pain in the ass you lose track of what's going on and misquote. A quotation is properly written with all the words in it, you can't just cut words out of the middle and expect it to mean what it said. Is it ADHD? The statement was "We are talking about the Jets here after all." It was written that way because that's what we are supposed to be talking about in the Jets Forum and in a topic about whether or not the Jets are "vastly improved." (Emphasis added.) It has nothing to do with the history of the franchise although some may care to consider that as well. At least you finally made your position on what you think Wilson can do clear. It shouldn't have been that difficult, but he has to be more than an improved passer, he needs to be an all around improved quarterback. Talk all you want about what Goff is, what he did and how he looks - I don't care about him and he's not relevant to the question of the Jets being improved. It is still to be seen if the Jets have recently drafted any "great" players at all; that will be determined on the playing field as will how Wilson grades out over the next couple of years. Fifty years of history show many of the supposed Jets "greats" were great failures. If and when the change "might possibly" come, we'll all know it.
Yup, a question was asked Twice in fact I often include direct quotes from you, as above to avoid any… misquotes, or misremembering. I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on metrics… I keep saying, correctly, that Goff improved by 16 spots in every metric… would you like to choose your own metric? Go ahead… hint: Goff improved 16 spots in that metric too. You imply I want to talk about Goff… but Goff was an answer to a question you asked 2x. I’m sorry you don’t like the answer. Just accept the correct answer to the question you repeatedly asked and move on. *a “thank you, I didn’t know that” from you would be both nice and appropriate.
Kinda sounds like you’re implying it will be more difficult for Wilson… because he is a Jet after all My bad. Yes, we are on a fan Forum. You were not thinking about the history of the Jets and “after all” had 0 underlying meaning. Gotcha. No problem. Nope… no underlying frustration at all. Not 1 bit.
i'm not picking sides here. just have to say this argument is hilarious because you both do the same exact thing and are the same way, but neither realize it. you 2 are literally the spiderman meme
When a question is asked of another, it's fine that you want to throw in your two cents but you should really read the entire post and look at the context, rather than simply throwing in your unrelated two cents. It may keep you from running off on irrelevant tangents. There were two different questions asked of two different posters - neither was you; you don't know what was in their minds. I am not "hung up on metrics" which you would know if you read the context; of course, you'd also have to understand it. You took it upon yourself to decide what metrics should be used regardless of whatever the guy posting the claim had in mind. I never implied you wanted to talk about Goff; your drawing of such an erroneous inference is your problem. You are the one who brought him up, after all, I can see how you got carried away with supporting him.
Once again, I cannot be responsible for your false inferences; work on your reading comprehension. Knowing the context helps.
Jeesh. Even when I agree with you, you disagree. I apologize for continuously reading your links and pointing out they represent the opposite view of many of your beliefs. I apologize for posting multiple quotes of you contradicting yourself I’d promise to stop pointing out your consistent inconsistencies but as noted above, even when I agree with you, it causes a problem.
I wish someone would put up some posts of me contradicting myself. I wonder if I’d own up to my contradictions or if I’d deny them… I thought you had me on ignore after this exchange:
Nobody needs an apology from you, just enough reading comprehension to understand how you continue to fail yourself. Not knowing what "imply" means is only a small part of your problem. You may also want to understand that you don't need to constantly expose the fact that you can't read for content.
It's a worthless made up stat by ESPN that is mostly subjective. Do you even follow football? Whoever cites QBR other than ESPN?
Any quotes you’d like to reference? I had the courteously of copying multiple posts of you contradicting yourself. Is this it? Could this be the 1 time you’re finally right about something in this thread? Start with the weird “not knowing what imply means”, this should be fun.
I apologize for inferring from you question -what QBs have improved 16 spots? - that you wanted to know if any QBs had moved up 16 spots. It was foolish of me to jump to that conclusion.
You may believe it's a worthless stat (it's really a rating) and that's what the guy who made the claim was looking for. How would you identify what QBs are in the top half of the league? Certainly completion percentage is an important part of judging that but it can't be the whole thing. How do you feel about PFF ratings?
You don't know what a quote is; you don't know how to read a quote, write a quote or punctuate a quote. And you don't even take responsibility when it's pointed out that you misquote people. Look up the difference between imply and infer; you might learn something.
