Broncos getting tired of Sanchez mistakes

[Integrity28]

14 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

We had a roster capable of winning a Super Bowl 2 years in a row.  And 2 guys, Rex and Sanchez, f*cked it up.  So yeah, you'll have to forgive people for being a little bitter.

Dude.

[Integrity28]

56 minutes ago, JiF said:

Jets fan have such hard time letting go.  It's like we're the fan base that gets excited if an ex-girlfriend gets fat after a break up.

20 years from now Rex and Sanchez will be still be a hot topic around.  Sad, really. 

The store where you get your cargo shorts and Green Day t-shirts? 

I'm confused.

[Pac]

8 minutes ago, JiF said:

wow

It's amazing.  He really believes that.

[Flushing Roots]

7 hours ago, AFJF said:

Heard Denver sideline reporter talking Broncos on Sirius yesterday and said he thinks Sanchez will get the starting nod based on experience, but CS is getting tired of watching him look good for a bit before repeating same mistakes over and over again.  Also said he wouldn't be shocked if Sanchez has a short leash if he is named starter.

Stunning.

[Jetsfan80]

13 minutes ago, Pac said:

It's amazing.  He really believes that.

It certainly wasn't the defense, offensive line, or running game.  Who does that leave, exactly?

[Savage69]

2 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

The examples you provide, of a HOF coach, were wrapped around tons of success.  Parcells led multiple franchises to Super Bowls and won when he got there. 

Rex's entire HC career has been a failure.  He has a career losing record.  His teams choked in big games, then he went on to suck for the next 5 years of coaching and still sucks. 

Comparing Rex's failures to successful coach's failures doesn't make Rex less of a total failure, or take away from Parcells being a HOFer.

I get a kick out of all the excuses you make for Rex, always with a different smiley to try to make us think you don't actually still support him.  Keep going. 

You claim Rex haters get "tweaked".  Actually, you get "tweaked" just as much, and feel the need to defend him every single time he's mentioned.  You do realize he coaches a division rival now, right?

2 points one I have said Parcells is my favorite HC of all time and Mac and Bowles the best duo.. You and others can't enjoy the good times that 09-10 were and I understand that..Rex should have gone with Tanny after 2012 but Woody had a soft spot for him as do some of us.. I don't get tweaked by the Rex hate since he's been the Bills HC I just say it would be easier to crap on him if we beat him first.. BTW most Jet HC's in history have been failures as have most of our QB's..

[detectivekimble]

4 hours ago, nyjunc said:

the Pitt O destroyed us all 1st half, they get the ball near midfield they are scoring.  The D sh*t them out but couldn't stop them when we needed it most.

he got blindsided in that Steeler game, it was stupid to try and throw on 3rd and long.  our D cost us BOTH title games

he missed 2 makeable FGs

no he wasn't, Pitt controlled the clock most of that 1st half, he had limited opps and we had some bad penalties.  he was way down the list why we didn't win that day- he gave us a chance w/ no run game.

The offense got the ball, too.  Maybe he should have moved the ball some.  He put a 0 up in the first half.  He did the same thing in the Colts game two weeks before that.  It's hard to win on the road when you do that.  The Jets carried his ass for two years.

Mark Sanchez sucked.  There's no way around it.  

[AFJF]

47 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It certainly wasn't the defense, offensive line, or running game.  Who does that leave, exactly?

Who was the punter? LOL

[j4jets]

3 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

He was terrible his first 2 seasons, just as he has been his whole career.  He was always a top 5 reason why we lost games and almost never a top reason why we won.  # 1 defense and # 1 running game in 2009.  Also elite in both categories his 2nd season.  He was by far the # 1 reason we failed to win the Super Bowl either season. 

Lol did you watch the playoffs? Cuz I seem to remember Manning torturing our #5CB one year and our D forgetting to tackle sh*tsburgh the next year. 

Sanchez was the reason we lost many games. Playoffs weren't one of them and that's why I commented on. Denver has a top 3 D and a good ground game along with some really good targets at TE. I don't see how this is any different than Sanchez' rookie and sophomore years besides having an actual NFL HC n a SB winning squad. 

[BigRy56]

I know how they feel

[Jet Nut]

3 hours ago, nyjunc said:

Really?

mark 2009-2012: 89 TOs

Eli Manning 2010-2013: 95 TOs

 

intelligent football fans don't just look at stats and Mark's #s are not worse than harrington's.  

 

Do you do anything but make things up?

 

 

Eli carried his team to two Super Bowls.  Carried.

In those selective seasons he also threw 86 TDs.  Completed more than 60% of his passes.  Averaged well over 4,000 yards per.  Sanchez averaged under 3000 yards,  never completed more 56 % of his passes and 68 tds

No one, anywhere would even mention Sanchez in the same breath as Eli.  

 

[ZachEY]

6 hours ago, nyjunc said:

each game is different.  I never said the O doesn't get any blame but the main culprit in both losses was the D.  

Lol... What a cop-out.

[RutgersJetFan]

11 hours ago, dbatesman said:

Gary Boobiak is in way over his head, never won anything of consequence in his career so now hes throwing Mark under the bus to save himself SMDH

BEWBIAK

[ZachEY]

80 misquoted the stat.  It's that no QB has as many turnovers per start as Mark Sanchez since he's entered the league.

[Ohio State NY Jets fan]

12 hours ago, LIJetsFan said:

Wow, that sounds just like Geno.  Must be the fluoride in the NY water 

almost like it was the same scouting masterminds who picked both QB's - hmmm

glad Mac sent them packing

[RutgersJetFan]

23 minutes ago, gEYno said:

80 misquoted the stat.  It's that no QB has as many turnovers per start as Mark Sanchez since he's entered the league.

That's on the defense.

[NYs Stepchild]

When they talk about a QB being ruined Sanchez is the poster boy.

He should have become a good QB, and his career arch was headed that way 2 years in. They forced him to become a game manager. If you remember, he was very good in the 2 minute drill, and when down late in games. These are times when you throw caution to the wind. Grip it and rip it.

As a game manager his weaknesses were amplified. Discipline, precision, accuracy, and touch, while his strengths, improvisation, escapability, and throwing on the run were diminished.  

He hit a crossroads and he melted down when he should have rose above. Now his brain is cross wired. Every few series he gets stuck in between a decision and does something head scratchingly stupid, and game changing. Then he really starts thinking and it's game over. 

He's just good enough, at this point, that no one wants to break him down and rebuild him from scratch. Like a bone that's been set wrong, but not bad enough to want to re break it. 

[Tinstar]

Mark Sanchez was never any good and 1 game proved that. It was against Buffalo when the jets had 2 RBs rushed for over 100 yards each and that guy still managed to throw 5 INTs and lost .  When you run for over 300 yards on a defense, you should be able to play action that defense to death . He is what he is, but he's managed to make a living and that a great story .

Smart kid .

That is all .

[nyjunc]

17 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

We had a roster capable of winning a Super Bowl 2 years in a row.  And 2 guys, Rex and Sanchez, f*cked it up.  So yeah, you'll have to forgive people for being a little bitter.

we had a similar roster in weaker AFC w/ no Brady and weaker sched in 2008- how did that work out w/o rex and Sanchez?

17 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

The first part of your argument is purse nonsense, considering that it's based entirely around something you have simply convinced yourself of because it is what you want to believe, with absolutely no evidence to support it.  If you are going to play that game, then the same can be said of the offense's scoring drives.  Using your theory, Pitt's D simply allowed the Jets to have a long, slow drives to "toy with them" and kill the clock.  Interestingly enough, there's actually more evidence to support that than the idea that Pitt's offense was really pulling one over on the Jets with all of their failed drives.  But of course, that doesn't fit your agenda, so you make sure to keep your twisted logic limited solely to fitting your own agenda.

As far as your second point, that could not possibly be more meaningless.  Teams have also won games scoring 3 points, what does that mean?  By your logic, that would somehow prove when a team has lost a game where their offense scored 3 points, the offense did it's part and the defense failed.

Pitt's O DOMINATED our D in the 1st half, their D did not dominate our O in the 1st half.  Our O had limited opportunities.  Pitt's O could do what they want, when they eneded 1st downs late in the game they got them and won the game.  Our D's were the main culprits in both title game losses.  It's not even debatable.

 

16 hours ago, detectivekimble said:

The offense got the ball, too.  Maybe he should have moved the ball some.  He put a 0 up in the first half.  He did the same thing in the Colts game two weeks before that.  It's hard to win on the road when you do that.  The Jets carried his ass for two years.

Mark Sanchez sucked.  There's no way around it.  

actually they put up 3 in the 1st half.  they did move the ball in limited opportunities.  Pitt's O had the ball for almost 10 mins before we even touched the ball.

Mark brought us back against a top D on the road when they knew we had no choice but to pass(I was told this was why Fitz sucked at Buffalo week 17).  if the D gets ONE stop late we have a chance to go to a Super Bowl.

[nyjunc]

15 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Eli carried his team to two Super Bowls.  Carried.

In those selective seasons he also threw 86 TDs.  Completed more than 60% of his passes.  Averaged well over 4,000 yards per.  Sanchez averaged under 3000 yards,  never completed more 56 % of his passes and 68 tds

No one, anywhere would even mention Sanchez in the same breath as Eli.  

 

hahahahahahaahahahahah, Eli was CARRIED to 2 Super Bowls by GREAT D and STs- MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than what we had.

 

I just answered the question in 10 seconds.  I am sure there are more w/ more TOs over 4 years.

 

the biggest difference btw NYG '07/'11 and NYJ '09/'10 was not the QB position, it was the DEFENSE and STs.

[nyjunc]

12 hours ago, gEYno said:

Lol... What a cop-out.

cop out? how so?  the O wasn't great but good enough if they got more help from our overrated Ds.

[Jet Nut]

46 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

hahahahahahaahahahahah, Eli was CARRIED to 2 Super Bowls by GREAT D and STs- MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than what we had.

 

I just answered the question in 10 seconds.  I am sure there are more w/ more TOs over 4 years.

 

the biggest difference btw NYG '07/'11 and NYJ '09/'10 was not the QB position, it was the DEFENSE and STs.

Sure.  It wasn't Eli who got hot in the playoffs.  Out dueled Romo, Favre etc.  To you he was carried.

Mom sure you have 200+ posts in you to try and convince us that Sanches was better than Eli.  And Eli is the product of his teams defense 

 

[Bleedin Green]

37 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Pitt's O DOMINATED our D in the 1st half, their D did not dominate our O in the 1st half.  Our O had limited opportunities.  Pitt's O could do what they want, when they eneded 1st downs late in the game they got them and won the game.  Our D's were the main culprits in both title game losses.  It's not even debatable.

What kind of twisted logic do you have to convince yourself of in order to come to that conclusion?  The argument you just tried to make contradicts itself.  The Jets offense's first half output was punt, 3 and out, 3 and out, fumble for a defensive TD, FG.  Score contribution for the Jets offense in the first half: -4 points.  Yes, NEGATIVE four.  Yet somehow they didn't get dominated?  Yet the total of 17 points the defense gave up in the entire game is proof of domination, while of course ignoring the turnover the D got on the second drive of being "dominated".  But then again, the Jets offense did absolutely nothing with it and handed the ball right back to the Steelers, and in your mind, I guess that's the defense's fault.  You are seriously arguing why an offense scoring more points for the opposition than their own team in the first half was not a negative.

It's amazing how the excuse is they had "limited opportunities" when they had quite literally the same number of drives that the Steelers did.  You're trying to argue that the defense is to blame for the offense being so bad that they couldn't hold onto the ball for more than 2 minutes in 4 out of their 5 drives (the "long" drive being a punt anyway).  You do realize that the Jets actually holding onto the ball could have also helped their time of possession, right?

The only thing you got right was it not being debatable, because facts have clearly proven you wrong.  Your argument is based on fabrication, and you are repeatedly disproving yourself the more you try.  The offense scored a grand total of 10 points more for the Jets than they did the Steelers.  That's right... 10.  Try whatever other excuses you want for it, that is a point of indisputable fact that will forever be the case, and that on it's own is enough to prove your argument has absolutely no merit to it.

[detectivekimble]

54 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

we had a similar roster in weaker AFC w/ no Brady and weaker sched in 2008- how did that work out w/o rex and Sanchez?

Pitt's O DOMINATED our D in the 1st half, their D did not dominate our O in the 1st half.  Our O had limited opportunities.  Pitt's O could do what they want, when they eneded 1st downs late in the game they got them and won the game.  Our D's were the main culprits in both title game losses.  It's not even debatable.

 

actually they put up 3 in the 1st half.  they did move the ball in limited opportunities.  Pitt's O had the ball for almost 10 mins before we even touched the ball.

Mark brought us back against a top D on the road when they knew we had no choice but to pass(I was told this was why Fitz sucked at Buffalo week 17).  if the D gets ONE stop late we have a chance to go to a Super Bowl.

Oh, sorry, 3 points.  How many three and outs did the offense have in that first half?  How about keeping their defense on the field?  Sanchez's job is to put points on the board.  At the end of the day, he led the offense to 19 points and gave the Steelers a defensive TD, netting 12 points.  Mark Sanchez simply did not get the job done.  

He's also lucky the defense bailed his sorry ass out against the Colts two weeks earlier.  He put up a measly 14 points going into that last drive.  The defense was terrific, giving up 17 points to Peyton Manning in that indoor stadium.  18/31, 189 yards, 0 TD/1 INT.  To win a playoff game on the road against a team led by a HOF QB with sh*t QB play like that is nothing short of amazing.

[nyjunc]

4 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Sure.  It wasn't Eli who got hot in the playoffs.  Out dueled Romo, Favre etc.  To you he was carried.

Mom sure you have 200+ posts in you to try and convince us that Sanches was better than Eli.  And Eli is the product of his teams defense 

 

Eli played well(as did Sanchez) but the Giants won b/c of incredible D and STs.  it is very difficult to outduel Favre and Romo in the playoffs

 

 

2007:

TB: D allowed 14 pts, TB averaged 21 PPG in reg season.  -7, also forced 3 TOs

Dal: D allowed 17, Dal averaged 28 PPG. -11, forced 1 TO

GB: D allowed 20 in 5 qtrs, GB averaged 27 PPG. -7, forced 2 TOs(including one that led to FG that won the game)

NE: D allowed 14 pts, NE averaged 37 PPG, -23, forced 1 TO

totals: 16.3 PPG against O's that averaged 28 PPG.  held to minus 12, forced 7 TOs in 4 games

2011:

Atl: D allowed zero points, Atl averaged 25 PPG, -25, 0 TOs

GB: D allowed 20 pts, GB averaged 35 PPG, -15, forced 4 TOs

SF: D allowed 17 pts in 5 qtrs, SF averaged 24 PPG, -7, forced 2 TOs(which led to all NYG pts in 2nd half and OT including GW FG)

NE: D allowed 17 pts, NE averaged 32 PPG, -15, forced 1 TO

totals: 13.5 PPG against O's that averaged 29 PPG. held to minus 15.5, forced 7 TOs in 4 games

 

2009:

Cin: D allowed 14, Cin averaged 19 PPG, -5.forced 2 TOs

SD: D allowed 14, SD averaged 28 PPG, -14, forced 2 TOs

Ind: D allowed 30, Ind averaged 26, +4, forced 1 TO

totals: 19.3 PPG against O's that averaged 24.3 PPG. held to minus 5, forced 5 TOs in 3 games

2010:

Ind: D allowed 16, Ind averaged 27, -11. forced 0 TOs

NE: D allowed 21, NE averaged 32, -11, forced 1 TO

Pitt: D allowed 17, Pitt averaged 23, -6, forced 2 TOs

totals: 18 PPG against Os that averaged 27. held to minus 9, forced 3 TOs in 3 games

 

team totals:

NYG '07/'11: D held opps to 14.9 PPG, opposing O's averaged 28.6.  rounded up it's -14, forced 14 TOs in 8 games(1.8 per game)

NYJ '09/'10: D held opps to 18.7 PPG, opposing O's averaged 25.8. -7, forced 8 TOs in 6 games(1.3 per game)

 

 

but yeah it was all about the QB.

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

cop out? how so?  the O wasn't great but good enough if they got more help from our overrated Ds.

It's a cop-out because you didn't answer the question.  Your entire argument, as usual, is based on your circular logic.

I challenged you to elaborate by operationalizing what "good enough" means, and you couldn't or wouldn't do it.  That's a cop-out.

Here's another chance for you... If I told you before the game that one team would not score for the final 32 minutes and get 7 first downs during that time, knowing nothing else, would you ever bet on that team?  Or, lets look at it another way.  What if this season, the Jets do not score for the final 32 minutes in any game, and only get 7 first downs during that time in each game.  What might you speculate their record would be.

[nyjunc]

11 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

What kind of twisted logic do you have to convince yourself of in order to come to that conclusion?  The argument you just tried to make contradicts itself.  The Jets offense's first half output was punt, 3 and out, 3 and out, fumble for a defensive TD, FG.  Score contribution for the Jets offense in the first half: -4 points.  Yes, NEGATIVE four.  Yet somehow they didn't get dominated?  Yet the total of 17 points the defense gave up in the entire game is proof of domination, while of course ignoring the turnover the D got on the second drive of being "dominated".  But then again, the Jets offense did absolutely nothing with it and handed the ball right back to the Steelers, and in your mind, I guess that's the defense's fault.  You are seriously arguing why an offense scoring more points for the opposition than their own team in the first half was not a negative.

It's amazing how the excuse is they had "limited opportunities" when they had quite literally the same number of drives that the Steelers did.  You're trying to argue that the defense is to blame for the offense being so bad that they couldn't hold onto the ball for more than 2 minutes in 4 out of their 5 drives (the "long" drive being a punt anyway).  You do realize that the Jets actually holding onto the ball could have also helped their time of possession, right?

The only thing you got right was it not being debatable, because facts have clearly proven you wrong.  Your argument is based on fabrication, and you are repeatedly disproving yourself the more you try.  The offense scored a grand total of 10 points more for the Jets than they did the Steelers.  That's right... 10.  Try whatever other excuses you want for it, that is a point of indisputable fact that will forever be the case, and that on it's own is enough to prove your argument has absolutely no merit to it.

Pitt's O controlled the clock. they started the game w/ a near 10 minute TD drive, they held the ball for 21 of the 30 minutes in the 1st half but somehow this was the O's fault?

 

I don't think you remember watching this game, I was there, I saw the pain first hand.

 

[nyjunc]

13 minutes ago, detectivekimble said:

Oh, sorry, 3 points.  How many three and outs did the offense have in that first half?  How about keeping their defense on the field?  Sanchez's job is to put points on the board.  At the end of the day, he led the offense to 19 points and gave the Steelers a defensive TD, netting 12 points.  Mark Sanchez simply did not get the job done.  

He's also lucky the defense bailed his sorry ass out against the Colts two weeks earlier.  He put up a measly 14 points going into that last drive.  The defense was terrific, giving up 17 points to Peyton Manning in that indoor stadium.  18/31, 189 yards, 0 TD/1 INT.  To win a playoff game on the road against a team led by a HOF QB with sh*t QB play like that is nothing short of amazing.

they had three 3 and outs in 1st half:

 

1st one: end around for -4 yards then a penalty so it was 2nd and 19(clearly Mark's fault)

3rd one he was sacked on 1st down and it was 2nd and 17.

 

but let's pretend it was all on the QB and ignore the fact he brought us back w/ no help from ru game in the 2nd half and a D that knew we had to throw.

 

he was not good in the 1st half at Indy in the WC game, he was GREAT in the 2nd half completing a bunch of big 3rd downs and then w/ under a minute left setting up a chip shot FG for the win at the gun or do we forget that?

 

you look at stats, I watch games.

[ZachEY]

8 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Pitt's O controlled the clock. they started the game w/ a near 10 minute TD drive, they held the ball for 21 of the 30 minutes in the 1st half but somehow this was the O's fault?

I'd say 6 first downs (a theme is developing here) in the first half, 2 of which were on penalties and half of which came on one FG drive, puts the offense right up there in blame, yes.

[nyjunc]

5 minutes ago, gEYno said:

It's a cop-out because you didn't answer the question.  Your entire argument, as usual, is based on your circular logic.

I challenged you to elaborate by operationalizing what "good enough" means, and you couldn't or wouldn't do it.  That's a cop-out.

Here's another chance for you... If I told you before the game that one team would not score for the final 32 minutes and get 7 first downs during that time, knowing nothing else, would you ever bet on that team?  Or, lets look at it another way.  What if this season, the Jets do not score for the final 32 minutes in any game, and only get 7 first downs during that time in each game.  What might you speculate their record would be.

you challenged nothing, you gave a one sentence reply.

 

who cares "if you told me", every game is different.  Our D allowed Pitt to set the tone, we were down 17-0 before we could breathe, we were down 7-0 before our O got on the field and our didn't get on the field until almost the 2nd qtr.  The game got stabilized, the O brought us back w/in a score w/ an eternity to play, we didn't even have to kick an OS kick and we had 2 TOs.  all our D needed to do was hold Pitt to ONE 1st down(we knew they couldn't get a 3 and out) and they FAILED.  That moment ended that game and changed the course of our franchise as we have never recovered.

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, gEYno said:

I'd say 6 first downs (a theme is developing here) in the first half, 2 of which were on penalties and half of which came on one FG drive, puts the offense right up there in blame, yes.

pitt had the ball for 21 minutes of the 30,  

[ZachEY]

5 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

you challenged nothing, you gave a one sentence reply.

 

who cares "if you told me", every game is different.  Our D allowed Pitt to set the tone, we were down 17-0 before we could breathe, we were down 7-0 before our O got on the field and our didn't get on the field until almost the 2nd qtr.  The game got stabilized, the O brought us back w/in a score w/ an eternity to play, we didn't even have to kick an OS kick and we had 2 TOs.  all our D needed to do was hold Pitt to ONE 1st down(we knew they couldn't get a 3 and out) and they FAILED.  That moment ended that game and changed the course of our franchise as we have never recovered.

To your first comment... Holy Insecurity.

To your second paragraph... The example was about the Indy game.  You've copped out again.

[whodeawhodat]

21 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

What kind of twisted logic do you have to convince yourself of in order to come to that conclusion?  The argument you just tried to make contradicts itself.  The Jets offense's first half output was punt, 3 and out, 3 and out, fumble for a defensive TD, FG.  Score contribution for the Jets offense in the first half: -4 points.  Yes, NEGATIVE four.  Yet somehow they didn't get dominated?  Yet the total of 17 points the defense gave up in the entire game is proof of domination, while of course ignoring the turnover the D got on the second drive of being "dominated".  But then again, the Jets offense did absolutely nothing with it and handed the ball right back to the Steelers, and in your mind, I guess that's the defense's fault.  You are seriously arguing why an offense scoring more points for the opposition than their own team in the first half was not a negative.

It's amazing how the excuse is they had "limited opportunities" when they had quite literally the same number of drives that the Steelers did.  You're trying to argue that the defense is to blame for the offense being so bad that they couldn't hold onto the ball for more than 2 minutes in 4 out of their 5 drives (the "long" drive being a punt anyway).  You do realize that the Jets actually holding onto the ball could have also helped their time of possession, right?

The only thing you got right was it not being debatable, because facts have clearly proven you wrong.  Your argument is based on fabrication, and you are repeatedly disproving yourself the more you try.  The offense scored a grand total of 10 points more for the Jets than they did the Steelers.  That's right... 10.  Try whatever other excuses you want for it, that is a point of indisputable fact that will forever be the case, and that on it's own is enough to prove your argument has absolutely no merit to it.

its nyjunc, its what he does

[ZachEY]

6 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

pitt had the ball for 21 minutes of the 30,  

So, if the Jets were to have gotten more first downs, and been able to move the ball themselves, would that have changed those numbers or no?  Asking for a friend....

[nyjunc]

18 minutes ago, gEYno said:

To your first comment... Holy Insecurity.

To your second paragraph... The example was about the Indy game.  You've copped out again.

you are good at hurling insults, too bad you aren't good at presenting an argument.

it's nice you can look up stats but our O led by a ROOKIE QB gave the D(the supposed top D in the league) a double digit lead near the end of the 1st half.  The D then got mauled and the game could have been much more lopsided if Indy didn't take their foot off the gas.

 

what you also fail to remember(which i noted on numerous occasions) was that our only threat running the ball left the game on the 1st possession of the 2nd half.  we then had no threat of a run game w/ 2 premiere pass rushers attacking our rookie QB in a loud dome but it's all Mark'a fault

17 minutes ago, gEYno said:

So, if the Jets were to have gotten more first downs, and been able to move the ball themselves, would that have changed those numbers or no?  Asking for a friend....

they got a few on the first possession where eventually a penalty set us back, 2 of the other non scoring possession they had 2nd and 19 and 2nd and 17- what do you expect the QB to do in those situations?  tell your friend to watch football and get another friend that understand the game to explain it to him.