Integrity28 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 That's the line I think I liked the most, because it's just true. Pizza Boy was so obsessed with BB and NE, he pretty much forgot about the other 14 games. And you have to give him credit for that, we did play the Patriots pretty well. Much better than 90% of the league I'd say. But what's the point if at the end of the season you're among the 3 worst teams in the league? What good does it do to have a win over the Patriots? It was part of Rex' huge ego, he had to beat the Pats/BB just to feel better about himself, to have something to brag about. He didn't see the big picture. And his presser yesterday just shows you how he has not changed whatsoever, he's still the same joke he was here with us, he'll never change. His jokes, those dumb unfunny zingers he throws out there like he's a comedian instead of answering questions the way a headcoach should, all that is going to bite him in the ass again by the time the season rolls around. Now he can talk, now he doesn't have to back anything up. Now he's the toughest guy in the world. We're gonna do this, we're gonna do that. We're the toughest this, we're the toughest that. To beat us you have to do this and that. Yeah, whatever. Then you get smacked in the face, you lose a game and suddenly you have your tail tucked between your legs again at the post game presser, talking about how you got your ass handed to you. Buffalo: Joke's on you. In more than just one way. We beat the Patriots something like 3 times in 12 matchups over 6 years. I'll give him credit for hyping how "well" we played the Pats like he's Don King, but not credit for actually playing well against them. Losing is losing. I don't care if it's a narrow loss or being blown out. They clobbered us by something like 9 points or more for most of the matchups, and I think we only played them close over the last year and a half, going by memory. The Patriots-Jets rivalry over the past decade has been in the newspapers, not on the field. Between Rex running his yappy mouth and Mangini blowing the whistle on the cheaters, that's the only dent we've put in their armor - the road playoff win in 2008 was the only "on the field" rivalry moment, tbh. They've owned us on the field otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealeb319 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The Jets "played the Patriots well"? In the last 4 years, the Jets are 1-7 against the Pats. Pathetic. If you want moral victories, go watch Pop Warner games on Sundays. the last two times the jets met the pats in the playoffs what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 The Jets "played the Patriots well"? In the last 4 years, the Jets are 1-7 against the Pats. Pathetic. If you want moral victories, go watch Pop Warner games on Sundays. You beat arguably one of the worst teams in the NFL last year by a total of 3 points in 2 games. Somebody send this guy a fruit basket. What an amazing accomplishment. Before that we beat you once in '13, the 2nd game NE won, again by only 3 points. Brady, as always, choking. Keep cherry picking stats. And I never said we dominated the Pats or we beat them more times than they beat us. You really need to learn how to read properly. I said we played them pretty well, especially compared to the rest of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 The Patriots-Jets rivalry over the past decade has been in the newspapers, not on the field. We're talking about the Jets under Rex Ryan, nobody is talking about the past decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolot Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Nope. Apparently, Rex was talking about how awesome EJ Manuel is today. Considering that Manuel had the best game of his career vs Rex's amazing defense, I could see how he'd draw that conclusion. Typical Rex.." He beat me he MUST be great"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 We're talking about the Jets under Rex Ryan, nobody is talking about the past decade. Rex Ryan is responsible for the better half of the last decade, and the reality is the Mangini era is when Jets fans started down this delusional path of thinking we were competitive with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 Rex Ryan is responsible for the better half of the last decade, and the reality is the Mangini era is when Jets fans started down this delusional path of thinking we were competitive with them. You're missing what this discussion is about. It's about Rex Ryan and how competitive the games were under Rex between the Jets and the Patriots. Don't go back a decade, don't go back to Herm Edwards or Mangini, don't study the history of the Jets/Pats rivalry. You're missing the point. Don't try to tell me you watched all those games between the 2 teams under Rex Ryan and you don't agree that those games were competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolot Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 You're missing what this discussion is about. It's about Rex Ryan and how competitive the games were under Rex between the Jets and the Patriots. Don't go back a decade, don't go back to Herm Edwards or Mangini, don't study the history of the Jets/Pats rivalry. You're missing the point. Don't try to tell me you watched all those games between the 2 teams under Rex Ryan and you don't agree that those games were competitive. The Pats owned us during Rex's tenure , this idea that they were terrified of Rex is one of the great scams ever pulled off, they beat us like a drum most years and had a few very bad blowouts in there as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 You're missing what this discussion is about. It's about Rex Ryan and how competitive the games were under Rex between the Jets and the Patriots. Don't go back a decade, don't go back to Herm Edwards or Mangini, don't study the history of the Jets/Pats rivalry. You're missing the point. Don't try to tell me you watched all those games between the 2 teams under Rex Ryan and you don't agree that those games were competitive. I'm not missing the point at all. I spoke specifically about the games under Rex, as I have many times before here, and pointed out that we lost most of them by more than 9 points - recollecting from memory. Now I'll give you the actual data. Red indicates games where we lost by 9 or more points, meaning they beat us by 2 scores, which is not "competitive". 2009 September 20 New York Jets 16–9 November 22 New England Patriots 31–14 2010 September 19 New York Jets 28–14 December 6 New England Patriots 45–3 January 16 New York Jets 28–21 2011 October 9 New England Patriots 30–21 November 13 New England Patriots 37–16 2012 October 21 New England Patriots 29–26 (OT) November 22 New England Patriots 49–19 2013 September 12 New England Patriots 13–10 October 20 New York Jets 30-27 (OT) 2014 October 17 New England Patriots 27–25 December 21 New England Patriots 17–16 The only year with Rex where we were truly "competitive" with them was 2010, we split the regular season each of us clobbering the other, and beat them in the playoffs. One could argue we were the better team that year in general. I didn't miss any point by extrapolating the statement that we haven't been competitive with them beyond Rex's tenure, because I'd already remarked specifically about Rex's time. By mentioning Mangini's time all I was doing was making the association that the "rivalry" was a product of the media - with Eric it was spygate and with Rex empty promises and moral victories. On the field, it wasn't as competitive as the hype machine wanted us to believe it was. So I disagree with the premise that we played them "well". They beat us in 9 out of 13 match-ups under Rex (12 reg, 1 playoff). 5 of them were losses by 9+ points, non-competitive. They beat us in our own stadium 3 out of 6 times. We beat them in theirs 1 time, in the playoff game. We played them "well" in the past year and a half, which I acknowledged earlier in the thread, if by well we stopped letting them pummel us regularly. This isn't a rivalry, this is the Patriots owning us - and our fans buying into moral victories and Rex's back-page hype. Lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 The Pats owned us during Rex's tenure , this idea that they were terrified of Rex is one of the great scams ever pulled off, they beat us like a drum most years and had a few very bad blowouts in there as well Terrified? What are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Maybe in play for Suh? This thought scares me. If that is what they mean by "getting stronger up front," I am genuinely concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The Pats owned us during Rex's tenure , this idea that they were terrified of Rex is one of the great scams ever pulled off, they beat us like a drum most years and had a few very bad blowouts in there as well The key is they beat us regularly. The fact is they beat us a lot. The reality is that after 2010, when Rex ushered in major roster changes and guys like Cotchery, that OL we had, LT, TRich, etc were replaced we beat the Patriots in 1 out of 8 games, by a FG in overtime. The notion that we didn't let them drub us every game being some sort of accomplishment is laughable, and why Rex had 9 lives here. The fans put "not blown out" and "it was close" in the same emotional category as winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 This thought scares me. If that is what they mean by "getting stronger up front," I am genuinely concerned. "Getting stronger up front" to me means "we want to win at the line of scrimmage" which is a cliché and shouldn't be read into too much. Probably just means that we have a HC/GM that value line play on both sides of the ball and maybe embrace that draft philosophy that top end first rounders should be used on low-bust potential line anchors who stay with the team for a decade. I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 I'm not missing the point at all. You did, when you started throwing around names like Mangini or started talking about certain decades. Anyway, back to my point. We beat the Pats 4 times under Rex. They beat us 9 times, half of the time when they DID beat us it was by 1-3 points. We went to overtime twice as well. Now tell me again those weren't competitive games. And once again back to my initial point, please show me at least 3 teams under ONE headcoach during that time, that have had the same type of success against the Patriots. And yes, I consider that a success, even though they beat us more times than we beat them. That's how highly I regard them. It's that hard to beat them. The only team/HC I think that has had the same or more success against BB is John Harbaugh I believe. Hence again making my point: We/Rex played the Pats/BB better than ~ 90% of the teams in the league. But I might be wrong, feel free to correct me with some numbers if you disagree. Because that was my point. That we/Rex played the Pats/BB better than 90% of the teams. My point was not that we dominated them, that we swept them or whatever you or anyone else read into it. I think very highly of the Pats, so even a loss, if it's a close game, to me is "playing them well". Which we did a bunch of times. We beat them a bunch of times as well. Yeah, they kicked our ass a couple of times, but so did we. You can't have these tight games 100% of the time, it's impossible. Doesn't matter how good both teams are. At some point one team just makes a couple mistakes and gets blown out. Just watch the Broncos/49ers game. But whatever, I'll stick with whatever I said and you stick with whatever you said, I don't feel like arguing about this all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section314 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Todd Bowles hasn't spoken with Geno yet. That's kind of surprising, no? There's lots of brick walls he can talk to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 "Getting stronger up front" to me means "we want to win at the line of scrimmage" which is a cliché and shouldn't be read into too much. Probably just means that we have a HC/GM that value line play on both sides of the ball and maybe embrace that draft philosophy that top end first rounders should be used on low-bust potential line anchors who stay with the team for a decade. I dunno. I certainly hope so. It is still a strange comment when the defensive front won at the line of scrimmage all season. I don't read too much into it, but I just want to express that I don't want to go after Suh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 You did, when you started throwing around names like Mangini or started talking about certain decades. Anyway, back to my point. We beat the Pats 4 times under Rex. They beat us 9 times, half of the time when they DID beat us it was by 1-3 points. We went to overtime twice as well. Now tell me again those weren't competitive games. And once again back to my initial point, please show me at least 3 teams under ONE headcoach during that time, that have had the same type of success against the Patriots. And yes, I consider that a success, even though they beat us more times than we beat them. That's how highly I regard them. It's that hard to beat them. The only team/HC I think that has had the same or more success against BB is John Harbaugh I believe. Hence again making my point: We/Rex played the Pats/BB better than ~ 90% of the teams in the league. But I might be wrong, feel free to correct me with some numbers if you disagree. Because that was my point. That we/Rex played the Pats/BB better than 90% of the teams. My point was not that we dominated them, that we swept them or whatever you or anyone else read into it. I think very highly of the Pats, so even a loss, if it's a close game, to me is "playing them well". Which we did a bunch of times. We beat them a bunch of times as well. Yeah, they kicked our ass a couple of times, but so did we. You can't have these tight games 100% of the time, it's impossible. Doesn't matter how good both teams are. At some point one team just makes a couple mistakes and gets blown out. Just watch the Broncos/49ers game. I guess what I was saying about the Mangini era being rivarly via media narrative, and comparing that to the Rex era which has been more of the same, is over your head. Don't tell me I'm not getting the point, when I'm making the point that the rivarly lives in the media, which counters your argument that it lives on the field . Bold = they beat us. I don't care by how much, it's not competitive if the outcome is always the same. That stretch over Rex's last 4 year's is where most of the "close" games took place, we won 1 of those games. I think you're missing the point. "Close" doesn't matter for sh*t - moral victories are what failing coaches and the media use to get fans to accept losing and sell a rivalry that isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I certainly hope so. It is still a strange comment when the defensive front won at the line of scrimmage all season. I don't read too much into it, but I just want to express that I don't want to go after Suh. Suh seems like the wrong place to spend money, I agree. We'll see if it nets out as having meaning... otherwise, I'm chalking it up as coach speak. The OL could use strength up front, maybe we're thinking OL at #6? Dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I guess what I was saying about the Mangini era being rivarly via media narrative, and comparing that to the Rex era which has been more of the same, is over your head. Don't tell me I'm not getting the point, when I'm making the point that the rivarly lives in the media, which counters your argument that it lives on the field . Bold = they beat us. I don't care by how much, it's not competitive if the outcome is always the same. That stretch over Rex's last 4 year's is where most of the "close" games took place, we won 1 of those games. I think you're missing the point. "Close" doesn't matter for sh*t - moral victories are what failing coaches and the media use to get fans to accept losing and sell a rivalry that isn't. Agreed that this is the media's doing. If you polled the casual Jets fan--the one who follows the team only from the lens of the beat reporters and Craig Carton--they'd guess that Rex was .500 against Belichick. The mythology of Rex Ryan in no way, shape or form matches up with the factual history of Rex Ryan. He is the NFLs Kim Kardashian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 switch QB's and the jets are undefeated against the Pats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Agreed that this is the media's doing. If you polled the casual Jets fan--the one who follows the team only from the lens of the beat reporters and Craig Carton--they'd guess that Rex was .500 against Belichick. The mythology of Rex Ryan in no way, shape or form matches up with the factual history of Rex Ryan. He is the NFLs Kim Kardashian. even has a sex tape too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiFtheOracle Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I remember when Idzik said all the right things.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 I guess what I was saying about the Mangini era being rivarly via media narrative, and comparing that to the Rex era which has been more of the same, is over your head. Don't tell me I'm not getting the point, when I'm making the point that the rivarly lives in the media, which counters your argument that it lives on the field . Bold = they beat us. I don't care by how much, it's not competitive if the outcome is always the same. That stretch over Rex's last 4 year's is where most of the "close" games took place, we won 1 of those games. I think you're missing the point. "Close" doesn't matter for sh*t - moral victories are what failing coaches and the media use to get fans to accept losing and sell a rivalry that isn't. You are missing the point if you start bringing up Mangini when I'm talking about the Jets under Rex Ryan. If you don't understand that I can't help you. Which brings me to my next point, what we were talking about the entire time, that the games were close, a bunch of them. Your counter to that is "close doesn't mean sh*t". Wow, way to make a point. Yes it does, that was the point of the entire discussion. That there were a lot of close games, even multiple OT games, that we beat them a bunch of times, that they beat us a bunch of times. That's what "competitive" means. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. That's all I said. That and the fact that we played them better than around 90% of the HC/Teams in the league. And then you go on and on about Eric Mangini, Herm Edwards, the last decade, Kotite, whatever. Things that have nothing to do with anything. But...we're going in circles here. I don't like Rex, I think he's a lousy headcoach. But I'm not dense enough to let that get into the way of me admitting that he did a good job when it comes to getting us ready to play the Pats. If you disagree it should be the easiest thing in the world to come up with at least 10-20 headcoaches/teams that have won more games and played the Pats better than we did over the past ~4-5 years. Go ahead, list all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I remember when Idzik said all the right things.... Whippersnapper. I remember Mangini being "a breath of fresh air" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 You are missing the point if you start bringing up Mangini when I'm talking about the Jets under Rex Ryan. If you don't understand that I can't help you. Which brings me to my next point, what we were talking about the entire time, that the games were close, a bunch of them. Your counter to that is "close doesn't mean sh*t". Wow, way to make a point. Yes it does, that was the point of the entire discussion. That there were a lot of close games, even multiple OT games, that we beat them a bunch of times, that they beat us a bunch of times. That's what "competitive" means. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. That's all I said. That and the fact that we played them better than around 90% of the HC/Teams in the league (still waiting for you to show me which 3-5 headcoaches played BB/NE better than Rex did, over let's say 7-15 games). And then you go on and on about Eric Mangini, Herm Edwards, the last decade, Kotite, whatever. Things that have nothing to do with anything. But...we're going in circles here. I don't like Rex, I think he's a lousy headcoach. But I'm not dense enough to let that get into the way of me admitting that he did a good job when it comes to getting us ready to play the Pats. If you disagree it should be the easiest thing in the world to come up with at least 10-20 headcoaches/teams that have won more games and played the Pats better than we did over the past ~4-5 years. Go ahead, list all of them. It is you that is failing to understand. You said Rex was "competitive" against New England. I said no he wasn't, I stated why Rex wasn't competitive ON THE FIELD. I then remarked that the notion of a competitive rivalry was a media fabrication, just like when Mangini was here, which I have explained. This point and distinction wasn't lost on anyone but you. You're arguing with me as though I'm trying to spin or run away from facts. I've don't nothing of the sort. It's not a rivalry between Rex's Jets and NE because we lost most of the games, we didn't "win a bunch" as you say, and we got downright dominated the past 4 years. It was billed as a rivalry because of Rex's press conference quotes and moral victory posturing in the media. Just like it wasn't a rivalry between Mangini's Jets and NE because of the games, it was because of him being Bill's disciple and spygate stories in the media. I've addressed the points about close games. Close games don't matter, wins matter. I've been very consistent in what I'm saying. Now you want me to name a list of 10-20 coaches and/or teams that have played the Pats better over the same time period? LOL, requests like that are an earmark for a lost argument. It's a flawed request and wouldn't prove anything either way... only the Bills and the Dolphins have played the Pats close the the amount of times we have in that span, I'm not sure if they've had 1 coach each in that span, I think the Dolphins won the division once in the span while we did not, but here... I'll show you how relevant this is anyway: Red indicates blowout wins for Pats of 9 or more points, as has been established in this discussion. Black is either "close" games or losses by the Pats. 2009 Jets 9 - Pats 16 Pats 31 - Jets 14 Pats 25 - Bills 24 Pats 17 - Bills 10 Pats 27 - Fins 17 Fins 22 - Pats 21 We were the only team in the division to beat them that year, but the Bills played them more "competitive" in both matchups. What did the Bills get for that? 2010 Jets 28 - Pats 14 Pats 45 - Pats 3 Pats 38 - Bills 30 Pats 34 - Bills 3 Pats 41 - Fins 14 Pats 38 - Fins 7 This concludes our best 2 years matching up with the Pats. Over that time, we beat them twice, and got drubbed twice. The Bills actually were competitive in 3 match ups with them. It didn't matter for sh*t for the Bills. Did it? That said, the Bills were more "competitive" than us in those games, but we won 2 of them, the Bills won zero. 2011 Pats 30 - Jets 21 Pats 37 - Jets 16 Bills 34 - Pats 31 Pats 49 - Bills 21 Pats 38 - Fins 24 Pats 27 - Fins 24 In 2011, we were the least competitive team with the Pats. The Jets and the Dolphins had 2 competitive match ups in 6 tries, each. The Bills had 4 competitive matchups in 6 tries. The Dolphins and Bills each had 1 win, while we had 2 over that span. One could make the argument that while the Bills only notched 1 win versus the Pats in 3 seasons, but they had 4 competitive matchups in 6 tries, so they were the most competitive team in the division with them, if we're operating under the notion that narrow losses means anything at all. I'm not wasting time doing this for the rest of the seasons. Wins are wins. When we've lost 9 out of 12 regular season matchups to the Patriots, it really doesn't equate to it being "competitive". Other teams have narrow losses against the Pats too, some have more narrow losses than we do. It doesn't matter. Wins matter. You're wrong about Rex making us "competitive" with them by some margin greater than other coaches did for their respective teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 lol, if Rex did the same in Buffalo you or Shame would've started a thread vilifying him for it Kind of a leap to envision Rex saying you have to win to get credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 That's the line I think I liked the most, because it's just true. Pizza Boy was so obsessed with BB and NE, he pretty much forgot about the other 14 games. Pizza boy is obsessed with Vince Oghobaase, not Belichick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBallhawk Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 I'm not wasting time doing this for the rest of the seasons. Thanks, I'm done talking sense into you, it's like trying to get a wall to wash your car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Thanks, I'm done talking sense into you, it's like trying to get a wall to wash your car. Do you want to lose an argument about what sense means next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.