Why the focus on the Jets ?

[patman]

Originally Posted by JonEJet

I want to have this conversation with you 5 years after Brady


If you think you'll build sh1t without a solid QB, you surely have forgotten the Tommy Hodson ERA

Tommy Hodson was great compared to Mike Taliaferroa and Mark Wilson, Remember Hugh Millen?

IMO the pats have had a solid history of qbs, not world beaters but solid players
Plunkett, Grogan, Eason, Bledsoe and Brady all were better than average going back 40 years.

[DJF71]

Nobody really cares about the Jets. They want to see them fail and I'm starting to lean that way also!!

[GuidoYaztremski]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Let's be fair here. The Red Sox won some championships almost 100 years ago. Two in the last 10 is not a dominant performance. The team of the last TWO decades is the Yankees.
And even the Mets have won since the Jets.
The Sox "drought" was most pronounced. 86 years? Bit much, no?

I'm being totally fair. I never said the Sox were dominant, or anywhere close to the Yankees. I responded to you saying the Jets were 'Not as bad as the Red Sox...yet." 86 year drought or no, the Jets history is far worse.

[GuidoYaztremski]

Originally Posted by patman

Tommy Hodson was great compared to Mike Taliaferroa and Mark Wilson, Remember Hugh Millen?

IMO the pats have had a solid history of qbs, not world beaters but solid players
Plunkett, Grogan, Eason, Bledsoe and Brady all were better than average going back 40 years.

The worst was Joe Kapp. Although we only had to endure one part of a season. Good times......

[chirorob]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

No team in the hiistory of the NFL has stayed consistently on top. NONE.
Some have had their day in the sun and glory years - Cleveland and Detroit were once totally dominant. As were the Packers, Bears and Raiders and others. The Jets, regrettably - never. Not as bad though as the RedSox or NY Rangers - yet.

Teams stay at top, or near the top as long as their QB stays in or near his prime. Name one "dynasty" that outlived it's QB's effectiveness. You can have the 49ers, who had back to back HOF quarterbacks.

You can have a team rise up for a 2-3 year period based on defense, but with the salary cap, they will lose defensive players unless they draft really well. But to be a true contender, you have to have that trigger man.

[chirorob]

Originally Posted by patman

Tommy Hodson was great compared to Mike Taliaferroa and Mark Wilson, Remember Hugh Millen?

IMO the pats have had a solid history of qbs, not world beaters but solid players
Plunkett, Grogan, Eason, Bledsoe and Brady all were better than average going back 40 years.

Plunkett on the Pats was not better than average. And now you are saying Tony Eason was better than average? Didn't he actually crap on himself during a Super Bowl? Not figuratively, I mean actual crap shooting down his leg.

I don't like Jets fans who make crap up, but I can't put up with a Pats fan making stuff up. Don't give me this "The Pats have a long legacy of great QBs". You had the human statue Bledsoe, who was a later day Ken O'Brien, and a lot of crap in a helmet.

[GuidoYaztremski]

Originally Posted by chirorob

Plunkett on the Pats was not better than average. And now you are saying Tony Eason was better than average? Didn't he actually crap on himself during a Super Bowl? Not figuratively, I mean actual crap shooting down his leg.

I don't like Jets fans who make crap up, but I can't put up with a Pats fan making stuff up. Don't give me this "The Pats have a long legacy of great QBs". You had the human statue Bledsoe, who was a later day Ken O'Brien, and a lot of crap in a helmet.

lol...why do Jets fan's always exaggerate what Pats fans say only to knock it down? You blast him for claiming, quote: "The Pats have a long legacy of great QBs" when he actually wrote, "pats have had a solid history of qbs, not world beaters but solid players" How does "solid but not world beaters" equal "great" in your eyes?

[patman]

Originally Posted by chirorob

Plunkett on the Pats was not better than average. And now you are saying Tony Eason was better than average? Didn't he actually crap on himself during a Super Bowl? Not figuratively, I mean actual crap shooting down his leg.

I don't like Jets fans who make crap up, but I can't put up with a Pats fan making stuff up. Don't give me this "The Pats have a long legacy of great QBs". You had the human statue Bledsoe, who was a later day Ken O'Brien, and a lot of crap in a helmet.

Great qb? I said better than average. Did they have years when they played less than average yes, but taken on the whole they had better than the average career of an NFL starting qb.
It is wrong that you put that in quotes. There are ways to frame an argument without attributing false quotes to me.
And Plunkett was better than average. The team stunk. Remember SF traded 2 #1 picks for him. And there has not been a jet qb in the last 25 years that put up career numbers close to Bledsoe.

[patman]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

lol...why do Jets fan's always exaggerate what Pats fans say only to knock it down? You blast him for claiming, quote: "The Pats have a long legacy of great QBs" when he actually wrote, "pats have had a solid history of qbs, not world beaters but solid players" How does "solid but not world beaters" equal "great" in your eyes?

Unbelievable, he actually goes out and in his post does exactly what he wrongly accuses me of.