Jump to content

### NY Jets vs Indianaoplis Colts --- MNF Game Thread ###


Recommended Posts

Works out that way sometimes.  But the Colts were stacking the box all night and the Jets picked them apart.  For all the worries we still wound up with decent numbers.  If not for a pick and missed FG the game could have been a bigger win.  Doesn't make a difference, if teams continue to stack the box, Fitz throws for 250 and we run for 100+ with this D, we're going to be really hard to beat.  

And if not for an unforced fumble and a missed FG it was a tie game.

It should have been a blowout. Style points, margin of victory, or running up the score makes no difference now that the game is over. But we should have made it a non-competitive game and put it away early. The way things unfolded, after so much domination and getting so lucky, it was a 3 point game in the 4th quarter.

Wishful thinking or not, I don't think Bowles didn't realize exactly this point. It was an unnecessarily close game in the 4th quarter. Then right after they scored, Gailey started calling the game like we were screaming for for the previous 2-3 quarters and we got another TD with what seemed like little difficulty.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I had a chance at a decent nights sleep for the first time in like forever tonight. But like the champion game thread starter that I am, I put the thought of sleep aside. I got out of bed. I looked up

Waiting for the next Cialis commercial to feature two dudes. Two older dudes who can't muster up a half-chub between them. lol

Todd Bowles: " We're not where we want to be but we're on our way. The trick is to win while you're getting there."  That is a statement of beauty. 

Posted Images

Want to give a shoutout to Mo, who the majority of us don't want to see get paid (me included). He was a really dominant force tonight with constant pressure.

Two games in a row.

Pryor is another one making plays

Link to post
Share on other sites

regardless of how ineffective the run game was, we stuck to it and didn't abandon it, so the colts or any team for that matter will still have to respect and plan for it, plus the colts sold out, all in to stop our run game and force Fitz to pass to win, which we did in a controlled manner. I like what I see so far out of this team that Mac'n Bowles have assembled. 

If they're all-in, committing to stop the run, and they've got a 2nd-string secondary out there, I fail to see the wisdom in trying to force-feed the running game.

Sounds like a complaint of what the prior coaching regime would have done on offense, and a legitimate complaint it was (is).

There's a LOT to like about what we did, and a LOT to like about this team on paper (Cromartie notwithstanding, though presumably he gets better or replaced). But I hope Bowles doesn't rationalize doing this again because the Colts missed an easy FG and then they got a freebie fumble from Gore before anyone on the Jets had a chance to touch him.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And if not for an unforced fumble and a missed FG it was a tie game.

It should have been a blowout. Style points, margin of victory, or running up the score makes no difference now that the game is over. But we should have made it a non-competitive game and put it away early. The way things unfolded, after so much domination and getting so lucky, it was a 3 point game in the 4th quarter.

Wishful thinking or not, I don't think Bowles didn't realize exactly this point. It was an unnecessarily close game in the 4th quarter. Then right after they scored, Gailey started calling the game like we were screaming for for the previous 2-3 quarters and we got another TD with what seemed like little difficulty.

You can't look at games like that.  The plays happened, you don't get to take them away from the results. You're right, the offense needs to take more advantage of the turnovers and field position.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if not for an unforced fumble and a missed FG it was a tie game.

It should have been a blowout. Style points, margin of victory, or running up the score makes no difference now that the game is over. But we should have made it a non-competitive game and put it away early. The way things unfolded, after so much domination and getting so lucky, it was a 3 point game in the 4th quarter.

Wishful thinking or not, I don't think Bowles didn't realize exactly this point. It was an unnecessarily close game in the 4th quarter. Then right after they scored, Gailey started calling the game like we were screaming for for the previous 2-3 quarters and we got another TD with what seemed like little difficulty.

I think Gailey/Bowles had a gameplan to run the ball.   it wasn't happening tonight but they didn't want to abandon it didn't want to force Fitz into another turnover.   Fitz is Fitz and this team needs to run the ball the be successful long term.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't look at games like that.  The plays happened, you don't get to take them away from the results. You're right, the offense needs to take more advantage of the turnovers and field position.  

Those lucky breaks had nothing to do with the strategy. The Gore fumble was much-needed because it was looking like we screwed up and sat back on a puny 10 point lead and were about to pay the price for it. Then we got that gift. 

I always liked Gore. I like him even better now. :)

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Gailey/Bowles had a gameplan to run the ball.   it wasn't happening tonight but they didn't want to abandon it didn't want to force Fitz into another turnover.   Fitz is Fitz and this team needs to run the ball the be successful long term.   

I hope you're wrong. 

If they had a gameplan that wasn't working and they said, "I don't give a crap that it isn't working, that they're stacking 8-9 men in the box, that Vontae Davis is concussed, and the short-intermediate passing game has been unstoppable. We're running the football and throwing deep because that was the plan before the game started!"

Pray that isn't their mentality.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those lucky breaks had nothing to do with the strategy. The Gore fumble was much-needed because it was looking like we screwed up and sat back on a puny 10 point lead and were about to pay the price for it. Then we got that gift. 

I always liked Gore. I like him even better now. :)

Always liked him too, he looks old though.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're wrong. 

If they had a gameplan that wasn't working and they said, "I don't give a crap that it isn't working, that they're stacking 8-9 men in the box, that Vontae Davis is concussed, and the short-intermediate passing game has been unstoppable. We're running the football and throwing deep because that was the plan before the game started!"

Pray that isn't their mentality.

Their mentality was just that, they threw a lot but they couldn't abandon the run totally.  As Bowles said, they weren't going to let the Colts dictate their game plan and feed into throwing into a zone.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're wrong. 

If they had a gameplan that wasn't working and they said, "I don't give a crap that it isn't working, that they're stacking 8-9 men in the box, that Vontae Davis is concussed, and the short-intermediate passing game has been unstoppable. We're running the football and throwing deep because that was the plan before the game started!"

Pray that isn't their mentality.

not sure what really happened but bowles said in the press conference (paraphrased): "we're a running team, why make it easy on them and just throw the ball"   

the jets are committed to establishing the run and taking as much pressure off the QB as possible - whether fitz or geno.   this is a 16 game plan, not just one MNF game.   Bowles wants to establish a culture of how he wins games and I just don't see throwing 40+ times in their future regardless of QB.    20-7 is a huge win and they definitely left points on the field.    

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Their mentality was just that, they threw a lot but they couldn't abandon the run totally.  As Bowles said, they weren't going to let the Colts dictate their game plan and feed into throwing into a zone.  

not sure what really happened but bowles said in the press conference (paraphrased): "we're a running team, why make it easy on them and just throw the ball"   

the jets are committed to establishing the run and taking as much pressure off the QB as possible - whether fitz or geno.   this is a 16 game plan, not just one MNF game.   Bowles wants to establish a culture of how he wins games and I just don't see throwing 40+ times in their future regardless of QB.    20-7 is a huge win and they definitely left points on the field.    

I think that's not a very smart reaction from him if it's true. If the other team is committing that hard to defending the run - and they're doing so with such success - and make the short/intermediate passing game easy for us, I'd hate to think he's so stubborn he's going to stick with what isn't working because he's too pig-headed to make in-game adjustments. What was making it "easy on them" was running right into the teeth of what they were successfully attempting to stop.

And LR I disagree. This was not a 16 game plan tonight. It absolutely was just one MNF game. You don't win 16 games in 1 night. You win 1 game tonight and next week's game next week, and the week after that the week after that. You don't conduct a 16 game plan in 1 game. You conduct 1 game's plan in 1 game and each one thereafter as an individual game.

You are describing a Rex Ryan attitude towards force-feeding the ground attack even in the face of its failure and the opponent over-committing to the run, and are further rationalizing that it's smart to do so because it's a different person making the same mistake (in this regard). Among the biggest, legitimate Rex complaints was the lack of in-game adjustments (or the lack of effective ones, anyway). Now I'm expected to be happy because his successor is doing the same thing, but it's under a different name of establishing a "culture of how he wins games"?

Again, that had better not be the case. If they make it easy to pass short on them and hard to run on them, then pass it short more and don't run it so much. Then they'll have to stay out of the box and then running it will be easier.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn Revis got punked 

Got punked twice -  punked bad - gave up a couple on soft coverage too.

Concerning.

His 3 grabbed turnovers won the game for us -  but not used to seeing that happen to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that's not a very smart reaction from him if it's true. If the other team is committing that hard to defending the run - and they're doing so with such success - and make the short/intermediate passing game easy for us, I'd hate to think he's so stubborn he's going to stick with what isn't working because he's too pig-headed to make in-game adjustments. What was making it "easy on them" was running right into the teeth of what they were successfully attempting to stop.

And LR I disagree. This was not a 16 game plan tonight. It absolutely was just one MNF game. You don't win 16 games in 1 night. You win 1 game tonight and next week's game next week, and the week after that the week after that. You don't conduct a 16 game plan in 1 game. You conduct 1 game's plan in 1 game and each one thereafter as an individual game.

You are describing a Rex Ryan attitude towards force-feeding the ground attack even in the face of its failure and the opponent over-committing to the run, and are further rationalizing that it's smart to do so because it's a different person making the same mistake (in this regard). Among the biggest, legitimate Rex complaints was the lack of in-game adjustments (or the lack of effective ones, anyway). Now I'm expected to be happy because his successor is doing the same thing, but it's under a different name of establishing a "culture of how he wins games"?

Again, that had better not be the case. If they make it easy to pass short on them and hard to run on them, then pass it short more and don't run it so much. Then they'll have to stay out of the box and then running it will be easier.

two things, it worked we won fairly easily.

two you're advocating letting the opposition dictate your play, you're saying we should abandon our game plan and playing into the hands of what the Colts wanted us to do.  

It was the case and they were right.  

Edited by Jet Nut
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got punked twice -  punked bad - gave up a couple on soft coverage too.

Concerning.

His 3 grabbed turnovers won the game for us -  but not used to seeing that happen to him.

lol, spoiled.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I DO want to see Bowles clean up: Challenge decisions.  I'm sure it will come with time but he's got to be better at recognizing when it's a good call to challange. He's had two bad one's so far. Oh well. I've been waiting a long time for that to be my biggest complaint. F*CK YEAH JETS!!!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that's not a very smart reaction from him if it's true. If the other team is committing that hard to defending the run - and they're doing so with such success - and make the short/intermediate passing game easy for us, I'd hate to think he's so stubborn he's going to stick with what isn't working because he's too pig-headed to make in-game adjustments. What was making it "easy on them" was running right into the teeth of what they were successfully attempting to stop.

And LR I disagree. This was not a 16 game plan tonight. It absolutely was just one MNF game. You don't win 16 games in 1 night. You win 1 game tonight and next week's game next week, and the week after that the week after that. You don't conduct a 16 game plan in 1 game. You conduct 1 game's plan in 1 game and each one thereafter as an individual game.

You are describing a Rex Ryan attitude towards force-feeding the ground attack even in the face of its failure and the opponent over-committing to the run, and are further rationalizing that it's smart to do so because it's a different person making the same mistake (in this regard). Among the biggest, legitimate Rex complaints was the lack of in-game adjustments (or the lack of effective ones, anyway). Now I'm expected to be happy because his successor is doing the same thing, but it's under a different name of establishing a "culture of how he wins games"?

Again, that had better not be the case. If they make it easy to pass short on them and hard to run on them, then pass it short more and don't run it so much. Then they'll have to stay out of the box and then running it will be easier.

There's a difference between banging your head against the wall like rex would and letting the other side dictate your game plan. If we had started running less then the colts defense could have focused more on our passing game. Instead he kept pushing the rush and forcing them to keep guessing.

If there was a problem with the run game--and maybe there was--it was that we just kept trying to run up the middle. The run game was too vanilla for my tastes. I'd like to see some interesting run plays in the mix. We don't need gimmicks, just smart plays so they aren't jamming every run up the middle.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I DO want to see Bowles clean up: Challenge decisions.  I'm sure it will come with time but he's got to be better at recognizing when it's a good call to challange. He's had two bad one's so far. Oh well. I've been waiting a long time for that to be my biggest complaint. F*CK YEAH JETS!!!!


i think the one tonight was really a time out. A challenge gives the defense way more time to regroup than a 30 second TO, which it would have been.

I also think that people are misunderstanding Bowles comments a little. They made tons of adjustments to their game plan during the game, but they had decided that just throwing it 40 times was not the way to go because they knew Indy was prepared for that.  Bowles is very game specific, but he makes adjustments so I do not see stubborness in him yet.

I loved that we never changed how we defended Luck even in the 2 minute drill. No soft zone prevent here.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I DO want to see Bowles clean up: Challenge decisions.  I'm sure it will come with time but he's got to be better at recognizing when it's a good call to challange. He's had two bad one's so far. Oh well. I've been waiting a long time for that to be my biggest complaint. F*CK YEAH JETS!!!!

Disagree on tonight's challenge. Colts were almost assured 7 or at least 3 at that point (I know they wound up fumbling anyway, I just mean as a matter of probability). It's worth risking a timeout there on the chance that its ruled a fumble and the Colts get 0 out of a 10 minute drive to start the half. Especially with any turnovers and scoring plays getting reviewed automatically anyway.

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Gailey/Bowles had a gameplan to run the ball.   it wasn't happening tonight but they didn't want to abandon it didn't want to force Fitz into another turnover.   Fitz is Fitz and this team needs to run the ball the be successful long term.   

stubbornly pressing forward with your gameplan when they are stuffing it and not making adjustments smells just like what rex would do. its stupid. you attack a teams weakness. if they are proving to be strong against the run and they have lpst 4 of their cornerbacks you attack that. they were forced to play zone almost exclusively....any OC worth his paycheck can call plays that put his receivers in the weak areas of any zones. we won but gailey was not good yesterday

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

two things, it worked we won fairly easily.

two you're advocating letting the opposition dictate your play, you're saying we should abandon our game plan and playing into the hands of what the Colts wanted us to do.  

It was the case and they were right.  

Yes, I'm absolutely advocating taking what the defense is giving us and abandoning a designed game plan that isn't working on offense. 

To advocate otherwise is to advocate for our coaches to not make in-game adjustments in favor of sticking with pregame plans that aren't working. 

Our only actual TD drive of the whole game wasn't until in the middle of the 4th quarter despite Indy's one-sided defense and decimated secondary (particularly once V.Davis was concussed). Until that point, the only TD the Jets scored was when our drive started inside Indy's 10 yard line because a ball popped up into the air into Pryor's hands, with plenty of running daylight in front of him.

IMO getting repeated stops and lucky breaks while on defense is not a sound game plan to stick with on offense. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm absolutely advocating taking what the defense is giving us and abandoning a designed game plan that isn't working on offense. 

To advocate otherwise is to advocate for our coaches to not make in-game adjustments in favor of sticking with pregame plans that aren't working. 

Our only actual TD drive of the whole game wasn't until in the middle of the 4th quarter despite Indy's one-sided defense and decimated secondary (particularly once V.Davis was concussed). Until that point, the only TD the Jets scored was when our drive started inside Indy's 10 yard line because a ball popped up into the air into Pryor's hands, with plenty of running daylight in front of him.

IMO getting repeated stops and lucky breaks while on defense is not a sound game plan to stick with on offense. 

Agreed.   While we won..I cant imagine that we will get 3-4 turnovers every game. Our offense produced very little considering our multiple opportunities.

 

Im happy but still not sure about our offense.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic game manager QB kind of win. I think the play calling was predicated on exactly what was happening on the field. They went conservative when they felt the defense had control and stepped it up when needed. This team won't win many shootouts and they need to avoid them. What would we be saying if they had Fitz chuck the ball all over the field and he got pick sixed to let Indy back into the game? Fitz does have a history of being interception prone and we need to keep that in mind...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm absolutely advocating taking what the defense is giving us and abandoning a designed game plan that isn't working on offense. 

To advocate otherwise is to advocate for our coaches to not make in-game adjustments in favor of sticking with pregame plans that aren't working. 

Our only actual TD drive of the whole game wasn't until in the middle of the 4th quarter despite Indy's one-sided defense and decimated secondary (particularly once V.Davis was concussed). Until that point, the only TD the Jets scored was when our drive started inside Indy's 10 yard line because a ball popped up into the air into Pryor's hands, with plenty of running daylight in front of him.

IMO getting repeated stops and lucky breaks while on defense is not a sound game plan to stick with on offense. 

I agree, I was alarmed, watching this game from an offensive perspective. Thrilled we won, very impressed with the defense, but it definitely felt like we were being pig headed. The Colts established a very clear strategy on how to slow down the Jets offense. We left a ton of points on the board considering all the turnovers, against a pretty lousy defense. I love the idea of being able to run, but the O-line was getting destroyed by the number of guys Indy was stacking the line with. The intermediate stuff was wide open, we should have attacked the intermediate stuff until they took it away, AND THEN run it down their throats.

I am very hopeful that once we get Smith back, his speed stops the box stacking. As good as Marshall and Decker are, they don't scare anyone deep, Smith will.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're wrong. 

If they had a gameplan that wasn't working and they said, "I don't give a crap that it isn't working, that they're stacking 8-9 men in the box, that Vontae Davis is concussed, and the short-intermediate passing game has been unstoppable. We're running the football and throwing deep because that was the plan before the game started!"

Pray that isn't their mentality.

Personally I think it was a function of them wanting to shorten the game and keep Luck sitting as long as possible.  Though you can say running the ball wasn't working for gaining yards but it certainly gobbled up the clock.  I think that was the thing they were not giving up on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got punked twice -  punked bad - gave up a couple on soft coverage too.

Concerning.

His 3 grabbed turnovers won the game for us -  but not used to seeing that happen to him.

look revis is great and he was in the right spot for a couple of nice fumbles.  but is it just me or he hasn't been looking all world this year?  Even the first game i thought he played a little soft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic game manager QB kind of win. I think the play calling was predicated on exactly what was happening on the field. They went conservative when they felt the defense had control and stepped it up when needed. This team won't win many shootouts and they need to avoid them. What would we be saying if they had Fitz chuck the ball all over the field and he got pick sixed to let Indy back into the game? Fitz does have a history of being interception prone and we need to keep that in mind...

I thought Fitz was more than a game manager when they let him be. He moved around in the pocket, made some excellent throws, and made plays. I think with the guys we have outside now, and teams stacking the box to stop the run, Fitz should be able to be more than a game manager, they need to let him. If he cannot do it, so be it, but lets give him that chance first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm absolutely advocating taking what the defense is giving us and abandoning a designed game plan that isn't working on offense. 

To advocate otherwise is to advocate for our coaches to not make in-game adjustments in favor of sticking with pregame plans that aren't working. 

Our only actual TD drive of the whole game wasn't until in the middle of the 4th quarter despite Indy's one-sided defense and decimated secondary (particularly once V.Davis was concussed). Until that point, the only TD the Jets scored was when our drive started inside Indy's 10 yard line because a ball popped up into the air into Pryor's hands, with plenty of running daylight in front of him.

IMO getting repeated stops and lucky breaks while on defense is not a sound game plan to stick with on offense. 

Changes aren't necessarily abandoning the run and playing the offense that the opposition wants you to run.  There are changes you make to the types of runs and blocking schemes you came out running.  

All i I know is I watched a MNF game against a team most everyone thought could blow us out of the building a month ago and never, ever felt like I was watching a game we would lose.  Wasn't thinking about luck or Luck, thought the game was ours all night, regardless of the score at the time.  

There's a great quote, the better I play the luckier I get

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm absolutely advocating taking what the defense is giving us and abandoning a designed game plan that isn't working on offense. 

To advocate otherwise is to advocate for our coaches to not make in-game adjustments in favor of sticking with pregame plans that aren't working. 

Our only actual TD drive of the whole game wasn't until in the middle of the 4th quarter despite Indy's one-sided defense and decimated secondary (particularly once V.Davis was concussed). Until that point, the only TD the Jets scored was when our drive started inside Indy's 10 yard line because a ball popped up into the air into Pryor's hands, with plenty of running daylight in front of him.

IMO getting repeated stops and lucky breaks while on defense is not a sound game plan to stick with on offense. 

I don't have a problem with us sticking with the ground game.  Running the ball early and often, even against a pretty stout run D, not only burns clock but also sets you up for those back-breaking run plays later in the game.  Marshall's TD to put us up 17-7 was unreal, but remember, a big reason that got set up was a huge 16-yard run by Ivory 2 players earlier on 2nd & 10, moving us into the red zone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think it was a function of them wanting to shorten the game and keep Luck sitting as long as possible.  Though you can say running the ball wasn't working for gaining yards but it certainly gobbled up the clock.  I think that was the thing they were not giving up on. 

It gobbles up clock per play, but not necessarily time.  It only eats up more time and clock if you're staying on the field. If you're going 3 and out the difference between passing and running is only game clock. But unless late-game conditioning is the concern, the defense isn't on the field defending plays for any less time if we go 3 and out passing vs 3 and out rushing. Only difference is the game clock isn't ticking while we're huddling up. 

Plus anyway, you don't gameplan to run out the clock with a 10 point lead against a potentially dangerous, quick strike offense with 30+ minutes left to play. Save that kind of playcalling for late in the game when the # of remaining possessions becomes a factor.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with us sticking with the ground game.  Running the ball early and often, even against a pretty stout run D, not only burns clock but also sets you up for those back-breaking run plays later in the game.  Marshall's TD to put us up 17-7 was unreal, but remember, a big reason that got set up was a huge 16-yard run by Ivory 2 players earlier on 2nd & 10, moving us into the red zone.

See my response to Crusher. It burns clock but it's not burning it when clock is the factor. Our defense is on the field for the same amount of time.

You don't try to run off the clock when there's still 20-40 minutes left in the game.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

See my response to Crusher. It burns clock but it's not burning it when clock is the factor. Our defense is on the field for the same amount of time.

You don't try to run off the clock when there's still 20-40 minutes left in the game.

I'm saying it served the dual purpose.  Burning clock AND having the cumulative taxing effect on the defense.  And limiting the possession time for Andrew Luck is a purpose that can be served all game long, not just the 4th quarter.  Bowles wants to establish our identity as a running team, and I don't see why he's automatically thrown in the same camp as Rex Ryan. 

Now, when it comes to throwing deep balls most of the game, THAT is the part I am critical of Bowles/Chan for sticking with.  Our receivers were finding plenty of space against their zone defense, especially since Fitz had time to throw.  Had we stuck with the run AND stuck with more of a short-passing attack, that would have been the right balance.  The constant attempts at throwing the deep ball was where adjustments will need to be made going forward. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes aren't necessarily abandoning the run and playing the offense that the opposition wants you to run.  There are changes you make to the types of runs and blocking schemes you came out running.  

All i I know is I watched a MNF game against a team most everyone thought could blow us out of the building a month ago and never, ever felt like I was watching a game we would lose.  Wasn't thinking about luck or Luck, thought the game was ours all night, regardless of the score at the time.  

There's a great quote, the better I play the luckier I get

They didn't change their blocking schemes. 

Your second point is not a good mentality IMO. Whatever one's preconceived notions were a month ago, we played the team before us. And the team before us was begging to be picked apart by high-percentage dinking and dunking. 

If this was the superbowl I don't care about style points. This is game 2 of the season and I'm talking about what might be this team's in-game trends, and stubbornness of sticking with a gameplan on offense in spite of what's working and what's not working, appeared to be one of them.

The reason it worked is they missed a chip-shot FG and Gore fumbled without a defender touching him, while the Colts offense was marching downfield with relative ease. It's not like the Jets defense or special teams units played any part in reversing what was likely going to be 10 points (6 for sure). Throw in the luckiness of a pick popping up into the air, with room to return it a bunch, for Pryor, and that's your whole ballgame. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...