Or better yet watch Pavia's breakdown of Miami or anyone else's break down of Zach at Miami. https://jetsxfactor.com/2022/10/11/ny-jets-offense-identity-film/
It's sad, but it's very obvious that some people just can't or won't be happy. They've gotta have something to piss and moan about, so they look for things about which to get upset. Life is too short for that.
Here is a more positive review of Zach vs GB from GGNation. https://www.ganggreennation.com/202...d-zach-wilson-do-in-green-bay-packers-ny-jets
Certainly this was a more positive take on Zach's performance which I mostly agree with. And G. Wilson does need to really work to improve his break moves and his own field awareness. But where he excuses Zach almost entirely on the out route to GW that was behind him, I still think that was mostly on Zach. In the Nania tape you can see that Zach's front - "aiming" - foot is pointed where he wound up throwing, but that point was where Garret was not where he was going to be. It was just a bad throw by Zach. They happen. He needs to learn from it and do better. Also, the completion to C. Davis for 41 yards was a very good throw, and he threw it where there was the highest percentage of completion, but not the highest chance to take it to the EZ, although that possibility was a good one had he led Cory instead of playing it safe. Given the game situation at the time, making sure of the completion was the smarter play, but it can't be called an "elite" throw, which leading him and completing it for a TD would have been. But this tape analysis did do a good job of highlighting where Zach's throws were on target but either the defender made a good play (helped by uncalled PI) or the receiver didn't hang onto it. As for the throw into the EZ that was knocked down and almost picked off, I don't think that was a bad play. He threw it where his receiver had the best chance of getting it, and where it was almost impossible for the defender to intercept it. It was risky, and yes, forced, but that's what a lot of the Zach detractors are calling for: more big plays, more game changing plays. He tried it, it didn't work, but it didn't end in disaster either. IOW, it was a calculated risk that almost worked out. Great QBs do that all the time; game managers almost never do. Anyway, by watching these videos you can get a much better sense of his performance than simply looking at the stats.
"More importantly"? Hardly. Being "better than Flacco" will still have no importance at all the day anyone expects Flacco to be the Jets' franchise quarterback or argues that the team has been built around him for the next ten years. Continuing to try to benchmark Wilson against anyone else who has ever played the game is an exercise in futility; the only thing that matters is if Wilson can someday become better than an average NFL quarterback.
ZW has done pretty much what has been asked of him at this point. He's managed the offense well and not made many significant errors. When he's been asked to step up and make plays he's largely done it, in the 4th at Pitt and with important throws here and there in the other games. Has he got to develop further to be the guy? Sure he has, but for the moment taking what the D gives him (an improvement on most of his immediate predecessors for a start) and leaning on a strong run game. If the stats aren't there and his play not more dynamic at the end of the season I may start to have more concerns, but not 3 games into his season against strong Ds and with 3 wins under his belt.
Pretty fair assessment. Clearly Zach was below average, but there are explanations for a lot of the incomplete throws. WRs struggled to get open against #2 passing defense in NFL. A lot of these negative plays were where Zach could have made a slightly better plan with an absolutely perfect decisions making or an amazing pass, but it was far from the case where there were great options available and he just missed these. One play was where he threw to Moore to the left along the sideline for 1 on 1, and Moore slowed. GW multiple times didn't reach the sticks and had coverage, making himself an unattractive option and then dropped balls when thrown to. Overall it feels Zach had little to work with, and he also didn't elevate these guys with incredible throws in tight windows. Not a great game, but not terrible one though as may have seemed like initially without benefit of aerial view. I think Nania's rating of below average, but not terrible is pretty fair. Which is not necessarily a bad thing when facing #2 passing defense in NFL.
This alone should have us elated. The fact that we have a QB that is not costing us games is a huge step for this franchise. This team is good enough to win a lot of games when Zach Wilson plays clean.
So, what does this guy use to determine when an incompletion is a "drop"? Does this come from a cadre of mopes sitting in their grandmother's basement making subjective calls like the highly rated PFFT?
I have no clue, but know that at least 8-10 passes have already been dropped, and there easily could have been more.
I'll bet that the next guy in line might watch the same film as you and say it was only six and the guy after him could say it was twenty. Do you remember in baseball when a fielder got his glove on the ball at all and didn't make the play it was an error? You're always going to have easy balls dropped and circus catches made, it's part of the game and it seems like the Jets have had too many drops so far - but how useful is this without some consensus of what constitutes a drop for starters. Looks like the Rams "lost" about fourteen points on nine drops but the Niners "lost" almost thirty on only six. That doesn't give me much faith in his formula for determining actual consequences of those incompletions.
Sure, it is subjective, but there seems to be a consensus Jets top (bottom) 3 in drops in NFL right now. https://scores.nbcsports.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232 http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?range=NFL&type=Receiving&rank=232 That does not help the QB.
He only calls the stats he doesn't like subjective. All stats are just stats and should be taken in context. It does not mean they are right or wrong but a tool that helps evaluate, compare and provide evidence to eventually make some conclusions. Some people simply like to cherry pick only the stats they like and discredit the ones they don't. The issue is not the stats but their flawed process. They start with a conclusion then they try to fit the stats around them rather than the reverse. Essentially making the exact same identical post for the last 18 months just twisting, bending and distorting stats to get the same conclusion. I would not be surprised if they have a template already written out for anti-Zach, anti-JD, anti-Saleh, anti- Lawson, anti-MLF, anti-Jets and so on. Chrebet in his podcast last week calls them haters and trolls and said he has one rule: Never respond to them. I think Chrebet is way ahead of the game here.
No kidding? But the difference between 12 and 19 doesn't help too much in giving credence to such subjective calls, particularly when they are multiplied by untested formulas.
Is your first sentence a mistake or an intentional lie? How can it be so wrong when your second is so right? In fact, almost all of the rest of your post is correct but I won't give you a "like" with all that paranoia about anti, anti, anti, etc. Who the hell is "they" anyway? Is it like anyone who disagrees with you - the "haters" and "trolls" I suppose?
Let me ask you a question. Two weeks ago you claimed the Jets did not slow down Tyreek Hill and Jaylen Waddle. The stats were: Hill: 7 receptions on 7 targets for 47 yards Waddle: 3 receptions on 4 targets for 23 yards. You claimed that they caught every pass thrown at them (I believe Waddle's targets changed after you posted.) This same two had the following stats against Minnesota: Hill: 12 receptions on 15 targets for 177 yards Waddle: 6 receptions on 10 targets for 129 yards. Hill is averaging 117 yards per game and 14 yards per reception. Waddle is averaging 89 yards per game and 17.8 yards per reception. So the question is did the Vikings slow those two receivers down? They did stop 7 passes from being completed to them vs. the Jets only stopping one pass. What do you think?
Okay, I did not know that the stats for Waddle were changed but I'll take your word for it, it makes little difference in the grand scheme of things. I stand by my post where I asked if allowing 100% completions and at least five first downs (or was it eight?) should be a consideration or was the low yardage sufficient to be crowing, as a poster had, that essentially the two had been taken out of the game. There is a lot more involved in determining the effectiveness of a receiver than simply yardage. Now, to get to your current question (while noting I'm accepting your statistics it's not important enough to me to verify): Looks like Hill had an excellent game without even getting into whether or not he scored and how many first downs he supplied to his offense. For Waddle, your stats show a good game as well and probably also had some first downs and maybe a touchdown or two. By any metric the stats you provide do not appear to support a contention that Hill and Waddle were in any way slowed down. Of course they each may have lost four or five fumbles which were returned for TDs but I believe I would have heard or read about that if it happened - still, the more information we have about such things the better prepared we are to form good judgements. That is why looking at a single statistic and making sweeping declarations is a common misuse of statistics when a much bigger picture is available with which to make a more thorough review. Please also understand that whatever Hill and Waddle did against Minnesota is of little interest to me but I would like to ask what kind of satisfaction you are looking for in asking me about Miami v. the Vikings? My interest in that game ended when the five game moneyline parlay I had included them in was only 80% successful, thanks to the Jaguars going to hell for the second week in a row. While we're here, accommodating each other, I notice you did not reply to my thought that perhaps you had not viewed the entirety of the last three Jets games; please advise how much of those games you have seen so I can get a better perspective on your opinion forming and decision making process regarding the New York Jets. Thank you very much.
"That is why looking at a single statistic and making sweeping declarations is a common misuse of statistics when a much bigger picture is available with which to make a more thorough review." Isn't that exactly what you did when you posted that having them catch every single pass thrown to them mean we hardly owed them down. You posted nothing about first downs, penalty yardage, etc. I can go pull the original post up for you if you want. As far as watching the games, I watch them and then rewatch them. And I can tell you that your take of the Jets not slowing Hill and Waddle down from what they normally produce is one of, if not the stupidest things I've ever read from you and that's saying something.
