Jump to content

This weekend's losing teams....


ZachEY

Recommended Posts

This is the best point about Belicheck,.as much as I don't like the guy he was smart enough to see where the game was going and adjust,.a lot of people rip the pats defense for years now and wonder why belicheck can't put out a great D anymore,.like he's lost a step or something,.I don't think he's lost squat unfortunately...he's just taking advantage of the rules.

This is exactly right.

In todays NFL, almost any defense can be scored upon with the right game plan.

The rules are just too favorable for the offense.

The one thing that is very difficult to negate is a fierce pass rush, which ironically we have nothing even close to that.

As much as I hate Belicheck, you have to give him credit for being known as one of the great defensive minds of all time, but making the move to an offensive football team given the rules.

And, he pretty much did it as soon as the league setup the rules because of what his defense was doing to the Colts.

I know he has not won a SB with this model yet, but he was a few miracles going against him away from winning 2 more with this strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The defense played badly on basically 2 or 3 drives. Some of that was fueled by the ineptitude of the offense leaving the field as quickly as they took it. But for the game, it didn't get "smoked" by the Steelers. The games this past weekend, where the losing team gave up 30-45 points, those defenses got smoked. Our defense gave up 17 and scored 2. A net of a whopping 15 points for the offense to overcome.

The offense had to be able to put up a net of 16 points. You can't score 17, give up 7 the other way, and then blame the defense.

Against the Colts it was different. It was a painful 2nd half to watch while Garcon and Gonzalez had their way with not-Revis while Sheppard was uselessly on the sideline. Meanwhile the offense didn't put up so much as a single FG in the 2nd half.

Actually it was close to the Pittsburgh game in reverse. Did Indy sit back and watch us put up 17 points in the first half, give up another 7 while their offense was on the field, and then go home losers while blaming the defense? No. Instead of giving us a fumble return TD they put up a quick 7 to close out the first half and then scored another 17 points in the 2nd half and put up points while their defense got its act together.

But at that nearly identical point in both games they were 17-3 (us losing to Pittsburgh) and 17-6 (us being Indy). What happened after that is the difference between a team with a QB who can score almost at will - even one famous for choking - and a team without one who needs all the stars to align properly.

The Steelers shut down their offense in the second half.

They knew the defense had complete control of the game, and knew that the only chance the Jets had to win was if they made mistakes on offense.

When the Steelers had to move the ball on offense, they did.

Our D had a chance to stop the Steelers and give the offense the ball back with a chance in that game, they failed as usual in big spots.

I don't really want to argue with you here, because I am agreeing with all of your points for the most part, which is without a high powered offense, capable of scoring points, it is almost impossible to win a SB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being able to play defense at an elite level still makes a difference in this league. Of course, doing so at the expense of the offense also makes a difference.

Agreed.

That said, the classic "defensive battle" style of game where the D does in fact win, is becoming the anomaly. Far more pinball scoring games now. Either way, neither side of the ball is irrelevant. Very hard for a team to win it all being strong on one side only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how you are all patting yourselves on the back. Rex is an idiot the Jets can't win. You all think the Redskins, Seahawks and Broncos are so well run by comparison? The Falcons and Texans? A few years ago we were hearing about the Cardinals. Look at them now. It's a cyclical league and EVERYBODY knows the Jets need to improve on O to win, but let's pretend that Rex is living in the dark ages. Let's also put a lot of stock in what he says to the press, because he's always been so forthcoming about things that aren't going well and always throws his players under the bus. Give me a ****ing break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Steelers shut down their offense in the second half.

They knew the defense had complete control of the game, and knew that the only chance the Jets had to win was if they made mistakes on offense.

When the Steelers had to move the ball on offense, they did.

Our D had a chance to stop the Steelers and give the offense the ball back with a chance in that game, they failed as usual in big spots.

I don't really want to argue with you here, because I am agreeing with all of your points for the most part, which is without a high powered offense, capable of scoring points, it is almost impossible to win a SB.

No. What happened is we beat the piss out of Roethlisberger in the 2nd half. What the stat sheet doesn't show is that except for 1 play (where the defense ate him alive by stripping the ball from him and then tackled him with it in the endzone) we held the ball for the entire 4th quarter until there was 3 minutes left in the game. That's why he had next to no passing yards, not because they didn't attempt to pass on us.

Look up the play-by-play recap and you'll remember.

To open the 2nd half, their first possession Pittsburgh went 3 and out while attempting passes on 2 of their 3 plays. Westerman got that roughing the punter penalty and Pittsburgh got a new set of downs at mid-field. Second possession they ran on 1st and 2nd then passed on 3rd to get a new 1st down. Then they dropped him back for a pass on 1st down. Sacked and fumbled (recovered his own fumble). Next play on second down was another pass where they were very much attacking deep. Pool picked it off. F*cking domination.

Then we go 3 and out on offense.

Then for 1 possession with under 7 min left in the 3rd Q Pittsburgh got conservative on the first 2 series with success. Run-run-pass-first down. Run-run-pass attempt (def. holding penalty)-first down. Then as soon as they tried passing on first down we sacked him again. They tried running on 2nd down and we tackled Moore in the backfield. Then they tried another pass and we sacked Ben yet again. It was f*cking beautiful.

Then our offense ate up half the 4th quarter on a drive where they marched down to 1st and goal on their 2 only to muster 1 yard on 4 plays to turn over on downs at the 1. Then the defense beat up on Ben some more on his 1 pass attempt on 1 play for the safety.

They didn't get few passing yards in the second half because they were riding a lead. They got few passing yards because we beat the everloving piss out of Roethlisberger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. What happened is we beat the piss out of Roethlisberger in the 2nd half. What the stat sheet doesn't show is that except for 1 play (where the defense ate him alive by stripping the ball from him and then tackled him with it in the endzone) we held the ball for the entire 4th quarter until there was 3 minutes left in the game. That's why he had next to no passing yards, not because they didn't attempt to pass on us.

Look up the play-by-play recap and you'll remember.

To open the 2nd half, their first possession Pittsburgh went 3 and out while attempting passes on 2 of their 3 plays. Westerman got that roughing the punter penalty and Pittsburgh got a new set of downs at mid-field. Second possession they ran on 1st and 2nd then passed on 3rd to get a new 1st down. Then they dropped him back for a pass on 1st down. Sacked and fumbled (recovered his own fumble). Next play on second down was another pass where they were very much attacking deep. Pool picked it off. F*cking domination.

Then we go 3 and out on offense.

Then for 1 possession with under 7 min left in the 3rd Q Pittsburgh got conservative on the first 2 series with success. Run-run-pass-first down. Run-run-pass attempt (def. holding penalty)-first down. Then as soon as they tried passing on first down we sacked him again. They tried running on 2nd down and we tackled Moore in the backfield. Then they tried another pass and we sacked Ben yet again. It was f*cking beautiful.

Then our offense ate up half the 4th quarter on a drive where they marched down to 1st and goal on their 2 only to muster 1 yard on 4 plays to turn over on downs at the 1. Then the defense beat up on Ben some more on his 1 pass attempt on 1 play for the safety.

They didn't get few passing yards in the second half because they were riding a lead. They got few passing yards because we beat the everloving piss out of Roethlisberger.

I watched that game, I have a difference in opinion than you do.

Regardless, I don't feel like having this argument when I agree with your original point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched that game, I have a difference in opinion than you do.

Regardless, I don't feel like having this argument when I agree with your original point.

We all watched it. We suffocated them in the 2nd half (until that last possession) and held the ball almost the whole time. We didn't get 2-second sacks against him. He had nowhere to throw and it wasn't because they weren't trying. That's my recollection.

Would have been even more lopsided if not for the roughing the punter (which admittedly I'd blocked from memory) and a quick 3 & out in the 3rd.

Sanchez f*cking sucked. Sometimes you need improv skills when your main guy is covered or the D gets into the backfield. When there were 8 minutes left we needed a TD, not a safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all watched it. We suffocated them in the 2nd half (until that last possession) and held the ball almost the whole time. We didn't get 2-second sacks against him. He had nowhere to throw and it wasn't because they weren't trying. That's my recollection.

Would have been even more lopsided if not for the roughing the punter (which admittedly I'd blocked from memory) and a quick 3 & out in the 3rd.

Dominating can come in many forms.

The final score does not always demonstrate the reality of the game.

They had 166 rushing yards to our 70.

They had almost 10 minutes more TOP than we did.

We were down 24-3 at the half, and our offense was not able to do anything against them up until that point.

Until the last drive of the game, they did not need to do much on offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dominating can come in many forms.

The final score does not always demonstrate the reality of the game.

They had 166 rushing yards to our 70.

They had almost 10 minutes more TOP than we did.

We were down 24-3 at the half, and our offense was not able to do anything against them up until that point.

Until the last drive of the game, they did not need to do much on offense.

Then you misunderstood me. I was talking specifically about the 2nd half, after they already had 24 points. Actually 17 points, since that last 7 came from Sanchez not Roethlisberger.

In the first half, or for a lot of it anyway, it looked like they forgot how to tackle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I don't disagree with you, however in our unique circumstance having 2 CBs that can lock-down WRs and absolutely no offense of our own to score points is, well, pointless.

I think that's a really hack way of looking at it. "we don't have that one thing so we're better off with nothing" is what it sounds like. Revis and Cromartie are on two different pay scales and Cromartie is tradeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you misunderstood me. I was talking specifically about the 2nd half, after they already had 24 points. Actually 17 points, since that last 7 came from Sanchez not Roethlisberger.

In the first half, or for a lot of it anyway, it looked like they forgot how to tackle.

I dont think I misunderstood you at all.

The game is a different game at 24-3, and you cannot treat the results the same was as you would had the game been a 10-7 game at the time, or even a 28-24 game at the time.

They were up by 21 points against a team doing absolutely nothing offensively, they were playing a very safe, very conservative offense as they probably should have been under that circumstance.

As soon as they needed a drive, they did it and ended the game.

And I agree, they did forget how to tackle in the first half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think I misunderstood you at all.

The game is a different game at 24-3, and you cannot treat the results the same was as you would had the game been a 10-7 game at the time, or even a 28-24 game at the time.

They were up by 21 points against a team doing absolutely nothing offensively, they were playing a very safe, very conservative offense as they probably should have been under that circumstance.

As soon as they needed a drive, they did it and ended the game.

And I agree, they did forget how to tackle in the first half.

They only got conservative at the start of one drive. It's not like they were whipping the ball all over the place at will in the first half and then went into a conservative shell in the 2nd half. They passed and ran in the first half and we didn't stop it. They passed and ran in the 2nd half and got next to nowhere until that last drive.

And "as soon as they needed a drive" suggests they weren't trying (or weren't trying too hard) earlier and only buckled down on 1 drive. We stopped them on earlier drives - even after they got a free one while punting - and didn't on the last one. I'll give our D credit for the earlier 2nd half drives instead of insinuating that Pittsburgh was going through the motions just running the ball for no gain over & over when that isn't what happened. Even on the last drive on 3rd down there was plenty of pressure on Ben, and Sanders(?) just got away from Revis just enough with Ben getting flushed out to that side. Another half second and we probably drop Ben to the ground again. That's my recollection anyway.

They couldn't attack deep, particularly in the 2nd half, because we wouldn't let Roethlisberger get comfortable in the pocket long enough for a play to develop. When they tried we either hit him, stripped the ball away from him, or picked it off. Know how many times they completed a pass on 1st down? Zero. They were all incompletions or running plays.

The first half tackling was a nauseating mess with Mendenhall running right through arm tackles. Also he got a free first down when they gave him and extra full yard on a spot that Rex didn't challenge. Can't remember exactly when in the first half that was, but it was on our side of the field.

Meh. That game's a painful memory so I'm sure I've blocked some of it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. That game's a painful memory so I'm sure I've blocked some of it out.

Same here.

I really thought going into that game we had a real chance of winning it.

I did not feel that way going against the Colts in 09, but I thought we could win it.

That game sucked almost as bad as 98, having a 10 point lead with the FALCONS sitting there waiting to get the crap kicked out of them for the SB!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a really hack way of looking at it. "we don't have that one thing so we're better off with nothing" is what it sounds like. Revis and Cromartie are on two different pay scales and Cromartie is tradeable.

And you just made the case that having Revis and Cromartie is a positive, then followed it by saying one of them is tradeable.

I think we should trade one of them to address other areas of need on this football team. Possible we may agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you just made the case that having Revis and Cromartie is a positive, then followed it by saying one of them is tradeable.

None of which is false, so I said it. What is wrong with saying it?

Even then I was talking about paying Revis, Cromartie had little to do with what I saying because he's a fairly easy trade if they want to do it.

I think we should trade one of them to address other areas of need on this football team. Possible we may agree.

We do agree. Problem is that you have put yourself into a position where even what the Jets do have is a problem and needs to be stated as such. It's part of this offseasons fan participation program called Participate for Propaganda or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here.

I really thought going into that game we had a real chance of winning it.

I did not feel that way going against the Colts in 09, but I thought we could win it.

That game sucked almost as bad as 98, having a 10 point lead with the FALCONS sitting there waiting to get the crap kicked out of them for the SB!

The Colts game didn't hurt as much because we were so lucky just to make the playoffs that it was like playing with house money. The loss was a disappointment, but coming off the heels of a disaster end to the 2008 season and firing our HC and Favre retiring and everything, I was just happy to be there. Wasn't bitter about the loss until I thought about it in hindsight some time later. It's more painful now that they gave that team to rookie Sanchez. At the time I was like, "Well, they gave it a good run and we got lucky for a while and our luck just ran out."

Beating Cincy and SD and losing to Indy in the championship game wasn't nearly the letdown that it was to beat Indy and New England and lose to Pittsburgh. Especially after Indy's #4 offense only scored 1 TD and NE's #1 offense only got 2 TDs on us (not counting the garbage time one to Branch when the game was already over).

The Indy loss was upsetting. The Pittsburgh loss was depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of which is false, so I said it. What is wrong with saying it?

Even then I was talking about paying Revis, Cromartie had little to do with what I saying because he's a fairly easy trade if they want to do it.

We do agree. Problem is that you have put yourself into a position where even what the Jets do have is a problem and needs to be stated as such. It's part of this offseasons fan participation program called Participate for Propaganda or something.

Your campaign of gratuitous over-reactions to the widespread grievances might be the most ironic part of the past couple weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your campaign of gratuitous over-reactions to the widespread grievances might be the most ironic part of the past couple weeks.

Yep, I'm basically the only over reactor here. Everyone else is just chillin out, using science, and being correct that the Jets are in dire straits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I'm basically the only over reactor here. Everyone else is just chillin out, using science, and being correct that the Jets are in dire straits.

That's not what I said, drama queen.

What I said is that your over-reactions to the over-reactions are ironic. You are doing the same thing as everyone else, just from the contrarian point of view. I find it amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I said, drama queen.

What I said is that your over-reactions to the over-reactions are ironic. You are doing the same thing as everyone else, just from the contrarian point of view. I find it amusing.

Yeah dude, I don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If over the top nonsense is wha works then Im fine going with it and in fact it's fun to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the amusing part... you think it works. LOL

It gets you all wound up and giddy enough to be LOLing like a schoolgirl, so yah.

Anyway, back to your science lecture on how having two top players at a key position in the modern NFL is a bad thing because it's not QB, the only position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gets you all wound up and giddy enough to be LOLing like a schoolgirl, so yah.

Anyway, back to your science lecture on how having two top players at a key position in the modern NFL is a bad thing because it's not QB, the only position.

Nah, not really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's part of this offseasons fan participation program called Participate for Propaganda or something.

Let's not discuss the Jets problems on a Jets message board after a 6-10 season in which the GM got fired. lol.

That's not what I said, drama queen.

To his credit, Gato used to be funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not discuss the Jets problems on a Jets message board after a 6-10 season in which the GM got fired. lol.

To his credit, Gato used to be funny.

Hahaha... yeah, possibly before I got here? I dunno. He's funny sometimes. Mostly he makes himself laugh the hardest. There's no value in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...