Real problems vs. reactionary narratives

[Kevin L]

6 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

Enough of this bs thread derailment by Smith Fans.  They are incapable of staying on topic, but can we not get them called on it?  This phony quote is such an unfair restatement of the discussion here it is trolling.

Huh? Who brought up Geno? Oh right, it's you.

[Big Blocker]

20 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Would have been senseless for them to attempt quick strikes downfield with Alex Smith. No, just keep the offense on the field and our offense off it. Again, it's stupid luck they didn't get another TD on the fumble and the score would have resembled the domination that it was on screen. How the hell could they eat up 25 minutes in the first half on just 2 drives? I mean, can you recall ever having seen that happen before?

Not to mention their 1st half drive in between those two, where they took over on our 35 after Fitz's first pick, and ran 3 conservative plays for >10 yards a pop, right into the EZ. So they scored fast on that one without even trying to score fast.

Ugh.

Yes, and on the "quick score" I guess it is tough to run a ball control single field possession if the opponent plays defense like a matador waving a bull by with his cape.

 

But no, I can't recall a team having that wildly off balance the TOP for that long.

Back on that game as well, though, and it was only the week before last, and while I don't blame all problems on the CS because I think we are seeing some real talent issues with the D, it should have been obvious KC would not go long with Smith despite the big pass plays The Bengals and Bills pulled off.  To the contrary one of two things was at work.  Either the Jets can't stop the kind of offensive attack KC had (and the Seattle game would tend to lend support to that), or the CS was overcompensating for those long balls in games one and two by leaving the underneath open.  The third option of course is a combo of the two.  But it should have been obvious KC was going to do what they did, and the Jets cold not stop them.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

49 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

I have no problem with the discourse. I think your myopic focus brings the conversation to a pedestrian level of football acumen, and I've told you such.

MINUTIAE

[Big Blocker]

13 minutes ago, Kevin L said:

Huh? Who brought up Geno? Oh right, it's you.

More thread derailment.

[Beerfish]

41 minutes ago, peebag said:

interception.

Interinception, an interception with in an interception with in an interception...fitz went to the sixth level, his top is still spinning.

[Kevin L]

Just now, Big Blocker said:

More thread derailment.

Show me where I mentioned Geno. 

Oh right, you can't because I didn't. 

Meanwhile, you mention Geno every other post.

[SAR I]

49 minutes ago, Kevin L said:

Your argument seems to be "If we don't have the 2000 Ravens defense, how can anyone reasonably expect Fitz to not turn the ball over?"

Nice try.  Let's try again.  There were two pockets of Jets fans just 5 short weeks ago:

1.  Thought the Jets would be serious playoff contenders
2.  Thought the Jets would regress

If you were in the "serious contenders" group you thought Ryan Fitzpatrick was either good enough last year or would improve this year and that our defense would be Top 5.  The schedule didn't matter, we were told, teams get good and get bad all the time, don't worry.  I read all the posts all summer, that was the thesis.

If you were in the "regress" group you thought Ryan Fitzpatrick either couldn't improve or wouldn't sustain last year's level and that our defense would be questionable because of reliance on rookies, sophomores, or old guys.  The schedule was a big deal, we said, those first six games were killers, you should be very worried.  I read all the posts all summer, that was the thesis.

I read your posts, I know which side you were on, and as a fellow "regresser" I really don't know what your point is anymore.  You knew Fitzpatrick couldn't sustain a level of decent play, you knew our defense was questionable, you knew the schedule was awful.  So what are you doing now?  Just pimping Geno Smith, that's what.  So stop.  Thanks.

SAR I

[Kevin L]

5 minutes ago, SAR I said:

Nice try.  Let's try again.  There were two pockets of Jets fans just 5 short weeks ago:

1.  Thought the Jets would be serious playoff contenders
2.  Thought the Jets would regress

If you were in the "serious contenders" group you thought Ryan Fitzpatrick was either good enough last year or would improve this year and that our defense would be Top 5.  The schedule didn't matter, we were told, teams get good and get bad all the time, don't worry.  I read all the posts all summer, that was the thesis.

If you were in the "regress" group you thought Ryan Fitzpatrick either couldn't improve or wouldn't sustain last year's level and that our defense would be questionable because of reliance on rookies, sophomores, or old guys.  The schedule was a big deal, we said, those first six games were killers, you should be very worried.  I read all the posts all summer, that was the thesis.

I read your posts, I know which side you were on, and as a fellow "regresser" I really don't know what your point is anymore.  You knew Fitzpatrick couldn't sustain a level of decent play, you knew our defense was questionable, you knew the schedule was awful.  So what are you doing now?  Just pimping Geno Smith, that's what.  So stop.  Thanks.

SAR I

I expected Fitz to regress to his career average. If we have career average Fitz, we're not 1-3. I did not expect Fitz to regress to the point that he has. 

You accuse me of everything from comparing Fitz to Montana to "pimping" Geno. It's laughable and untrue. I mean, which is it? Is Fitz Montana, or do I want Geno to start? Pick one and stick with it.

[SAR I]

2 minutes ago, Kevin L said:

I expected Fitz to regress to his career average. If we have career average Fitz, we're not 1-3. I did not expect Fitz to regress to the point that he has. 

You accuse me of everything from comparing Fitz to Montana to "pimping" Geno. It's laughable and untrue. I mean, which is it? Is Fitz Montana, or do I want Geno to start? Pick one and stick with it.

Yeah, not going to fall for the turnabout argument, I've been in discussion forums since 1994 Kev, it's a rookie tactic.

And you are looking at career average Fitzpatrick and we are 1-3.  His typical 20 of 35 225 YDS 1 TD 1 INT is what you're seeing just with an unsupportive defense and a brutal schedule.  As soon as Halloween hits and he goes on a 6-1 run against the scrubs, you'll see.  It's who he is.  It's how he goes.  No surprises. 

SAR I

[Kevin L]

2 minutes ago, SAR I said:

Yeah, not going to fall for the turnabout argument, I've been in discussion forums since 1994 Kev, it's a rookie tactic.

And you are looking at career average Fitzpatrick and we are 1-3.  His typical 20 of 35 225 YDS 1 TD 1 INT is what you're seeing just with an unsupportive defense and a brutal schedule.  As soon as Halloween hits and he goes on a 6-1 run against the scrubs, you'll see.  It's who he is.  It's how he goes.  No surprises. 

SAR I

At this point you're just rambling. Enjoy your day. Gotta go compare Fitz to Montana while at the same time screaming for Geno to start.

[peebag]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

Interinception, an interception with in an interception with in an interception...fitz went to the sixth level, his top is still spinning.

New verse to Schoolhouse Rock "Interjections"

When Ryan Fitztragic was in the game, he heard boos , uh-huh-huh,
The qb thought he knew just what to do-hoo.
He started the objections
With one horrible interception 
While Jets Fans uttered some interjections..

Hey! That smarts!
Ouch! That hurts!
Yow! That's not fair havin' a JAG out there!

 

 

 

[phill1c]

5 hours ago, Kevin L said:

Show me where I mentioned Geno. 

Oh right, you can't because I didn't. 

Meanwhile, you mention Geno every other post.

Dude, it's not like they are trying to have an intelligent conversation. It's all about obfuscation. And it's really boring and insulting at the same time.

[ASH1962]

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 11:24 AM, Adoni Beast said:

D line underperforming, but they've been pushing the pocket. The secondary just needs to play better. I think they can, I just don't know if they will this year. Somethings off.

Fitz situation is simple. We all know no defense is scared of his deep threat so all db's can play with everything in front of them, care-free. Fitz has been so erratic that he can't hit the intermediates. Ok, how can any team win lik this? They can't.

We all can watch geno or petty throw 3 picks a game, but at least their ability to throw deep can open big plays and maybe put more points on the board. I was all for signing Fitz back to a one year deal. But he's been this bad, he needs to benched next game if he doesn't figure it out.

You could throw 3 picks a game, but if you throw 5 td's as well you will win most games. Brett Favre was famous for throwing a lot of picks but he threw more Td's than picks. What is going on now is ludicrous, you fall behind by 7 and it is lights out. 

[August]

7 hours ago, Big Blocker said:

KC's strategy was to win TOP, which they did.  THey played a possession game.  Smith was 25 for 33.  It's what they wanted to do. 

So if I'm understanding this from both of you. They could've scored more points if they wanted to but didn't because they ran a ball control offense. I guess teams pass up chances to build on 17-3 leads because of ball control. You learn something new everyday.

7 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Again, they "held them" to 17 points because KC was just playing ball control. Two drives that lasted 25 minutes says we couldn't stop them from moving it. KC just isn't a high scoring offense in general

 

[PatsFanTX]

If Ryan Fitzpatrick threw TD's instead of INT's the jets would be 4-0 and in first place

Not with that crappy defense.

[phill1c]

1 hour ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

 

Not with that crappy defense.

 

In two games, Cincy and Seattle, Fitzpatrick threw INTs that ended any hopes of coming back. One was game-clinching, the other was game-turning. in KC, he threw a number of game-clinching INTs. So, yeah, even with the defense not playing all that well, the Jets would likely be 3-1.

The Cincy INT, there really wasn't even a need to throw into double coverage. No pass rush pressure, just a bad read and an unprovoked desperation [read CHOKED]. Same with Seattle, he didn't need to throw the pick. No pressure, just a bad read and a telegraphed throw.

[SAR I]

Just now, phill1c said:

In two games, Cincy and Seattle, Fitzpatrick threw INTs that ended any hopes of coming back. One was game-clinching, the other was game-turning. in KC, he threw a number of game-clinching INTs. So, yeah, even with the defense not playing all that well, the Jets would likely be 3-1.

The Cincy INT, there really wasn't even a need to throw into double coverage. No pass rush pressure, just a bad read and an unprovoked desperation [read CHOKED]. Same with Seattle, he didn't need to throw the pick. No pressure, just a bad read and a telegraphed throw.

Your posts are as idiotic as Geno Smith is untalented.

SAR I

[SAR I]

1 hour ago, August said:

So if I'm understanding this from both of you. They could've scored more points if they wanted to but didn't because they ran a ball control offense. I guess teams pass up chances to build on 17-3 leads because of ball control. You learn something new everyday.

Kansas City had a 14 point home lead which is insurmountable in their building facing a quarterback having a very bad day.

The only way they could lose the game is if they made mistakes of their own.  So they didn't.  They played clock and it's all they needed to do.

SAR I

[August]

1 minute ago, SAR I said:

Kansas City had a 14 point home lead which is insurmountable in their building facing a quarterback having a very bad day.

The only way they could lose the game is if they made mistakes of their own.  So they didn't.  They played clock and it's all they needed to do.

SAR I

Or or or maybe the Jets defense stopped them from scoring more than 10 points? Because I don't care what no one says if I had the choice I'd rather blow a team out the water than be satisfied and complacent with a 17-3 lead. Anything can happen, your team could completely collapse and the next thing you know the score is tied or you're losing. 

[Adoni Beast]

5 hours ago, ASH1962 said:

You could throw 3 picks a game, but if you throw 5 td's as well you will win most games. Brett Favre was famous for throwing a lot of picks but he threw more Td's than picks. What is going on now is ludicrous, you fall behind by 7 and it is lights out. 

Yes exactly! If you are giving the ball away you better be putting points up on the board and carving out defenses like a knife that can "CORE A APPLE, HA-HA"

[Sperm Edwards]

7 hours ago, August said:

So if I'm understanding this from both of you. They could've scored more points if they wanted to but didn't because they ran a ball control offense. I guess teams pass up chances to build on 17-3 leads because of ball control. You learn something new everyday.

Right, because that was what I said.

KC held he ball for 25 minutes therefore they didn't score more points by game's end. Not that they didn't score more because they instead chose to forgo points by staying in the field instead. It's that they ate up a tremendous amount of game clock on two drives. 

That, and turning it over on our 1, where we got the ball even though we didn't recover the fumble. 

They were just playing very conservative the whole 2nd half. There wasn't a single one of those last 5 possessions that began without predictably trying to run it on 1st down (typically unsuccessfully because it's generally tough to run on us). Until we gave them a reason to call higher risk plays, by scoring more than a single FG, it was the right thing for them to do. One doesn't risk turnovers & momentum swings when the opposition can't get on the scoreboard. 

[August]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Right, because that was what I said.

KC held he ball for 25 minutes therefore they didn't score more points by game's end. Not that they didn't score more because they instead chose to forgo points by staying in the field instead. It's that they ate up a tremendous amount of game clock on two drives. 

That, and turning it over on our 1, where we got the ball even though we didn't recover the fumble. 

They were just playing very conservative the whole 2nd half. There wasn't a single one of those last 5 possessions that began without predictably trying to run it on 1st down (typically unsuccessfully because it's generally tough to run on us). Until we gave them a reason to call higher risk plays, by scoring more than a single FG, it was the right thing for them to do. One doesn't risk turnovers & momentum swings when the opposition can't get on the scoreboard. 

Yeah what you said sounds logical. Andy Reid declined to put up more points to increase their lead in favor of "ball control". I don't care what kind of offense you're running no one turns down a chance to increase their lead especially when the game is relatively close. 

[Matt39]

17 minutes ago, August said:

Yeah what you said sounds logical. Andy Reid declined to put up more points to increase their lead in favor of "ball control". I don't care what kind of offense you're running no one turns down a chance to increase their lead especially when the game is relatively close. 

You must not be familiar with Andy Reid's career.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, August said:

Yeah what you said sounds logical. Andy Reid declined to put up more points to increase their lead in favor of "ball control". I don't care what kind of offense you're running no one turns down a chance to increase their lead especially when the game is relatively close. 

Go re-read what you quoted and tell me this is a logical reply.

See, yours is a reply to someone writing, "KC didn't care about scoring points they were just trying to keep our offense on the field." Except I didn't say that. 

What I said was their conservative, ball-control planning ate up so much clock that there ended up being fewer possessions until we were already down by multiple touchdowns (what you call relatively close).

Over the course of the 2nd half we didn't even score a single FG, let alone make a serious enough dent in their lead by actually getting into the end zone, to get them to play riskier ball. It doesn't mean they weren't trying to score; it means they weren't opening up their whole playbook to try to score. 

Had Ware not fumbled forward into the EZ and have it bounce out of bounds after crossing the goal line (without us even touching the ball, mind you), did our defense still do a great job of stopping them cold? Worst case scenario they kick a chip shot FG and it's back to a minimum 3 score game (not that we'd score once in the 2nd half anyway)

And as the final score indicates, and the final score doesn't even reflect the massive gift we got no defense without earning, KC played this just right for the situation. 

If you want to argue they played it too conservatively, you can do that. But they clearly weren't in full-on attack mode in the 2nd half, where we kept stopping it by picking it off, rushing wild passes, or putting Smith on his ass every time he dropped back. I don't know if KC put more than one 3-WR set onto the field in the 2nd half, other than maybe one or two low-percentage 3rd & long situations.

[Sperm Edwards]

11 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

You must not be familiar with Andy Reid's career.

Or is using stats and figures to cloud what the eyes tell us. Like a completed short pass when a WR is open by 20 yards in the secondary. On paper it's a successful pass by the QB. The eyes tell us he's blind or simply unaware of whom will be wide open based on a simple pre-snap read.

Same thing here. KC was playing it conservative until they had a reason not to. And yes, as you allude to, Reid has lost a number of games for his team by doing just that.

Lol the one thing this defense is still generally decent at, even when they're playing poorly, is stop the run. So every drive therefore begins with a run. Hey, it worked for him one time out of 5. Then after that one time it worked out, Reid went right back to dumpoff - stuffed run - dumpoff - stuffed run on 4th.

But sure, they were truly attacking our defense but we were just too good for them. That's surely my memory of this game.

[SAR I]

9 hours ago, August said:

Or or or maybe the Jets defense stopped them from scoring more than 10 points? Because I don't care what no one says if I had the choice I'd rather blow a team out the water than be satisfied and complacent with a 17-3 lead. Anything can happen, your team could completely collapse and the next thing you know the score is tied or you're losing. 

No, the Kansas City offense patiently moved the ball and they let their defense do the rest.  You know, the way it was supposed to work in New York if our defense wasn't comprised of a bunch of fat and happy rich guys with no passion for Championships.

SAR I

[Big Blocker]

16 hours ago, Kevin L said:

Show me where I mentioned Geno. 

Oh right, you can't because I didn't. 

Meanwhile, you mention Geno every other post.

First of all it is a lie that I mention your hero in every post, but the more important point is you continue your thread derailment with posts like this. I will henceforth ignore your ongoing bleating for Geno.

[SAR I]

1 hour ago, August said:

Yeah what you said sounds logical. Andy Reid declined to put up more points to increase their lead in favor of "ball control". I don't care what kind of offense you're running no one turns down a chance to increase their lead especially when the game is relatively close. 

And that's why you're posting nonsense on a fan message board instead of participating in a lucrative coaching career.

SAR I

[Big Blocker]

10 hours ago, August said:

So if I'm understanding this from both of you. They could've scored more points if they wanted to but didn't because they ran a ball control offense. I guess teams pass up chances to build on 17-3 leads because of ball control. You learn something new everyday.

You're not very smart.

[Rangers9]

Look if the Jets can fix the secondary problems and don't have to play from behind (like 14 points) then it's obvious we can run a more conservative offense. And not have as many turnovers. Missing Decker hurts a lot because they are doubling Marshall and the other guys aren't doing their job. 

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Look if the Jets can fix the secondary problems and don't have to play from behind (like 14 points) then it's obvious we can run a more conservative offense. And not have as many turnovers. Missing Decker hurts a lot because they are doubling Marshall and the other guys aren't doing their job. 

[SAR I]

15 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Look if the Jets can fix the secondary problems and don't have to play from behind (like 14 points) then it's obvious we can run a more conservative offense. And not have as many turnovers. Missing Decker hurts a lot because they are doubling Marshall and the other guys aren't doing their job. 

Exactly, good post, however you're missing one important component:  Quality of opponent matters.

If you look at who this team beat last year and who we beat this year and who stomped us in both years it's quite apparent that this work-in-progress rebuilding project is the King Of The Scrubs but nowhere near what's necessary to consistently beat elites.  We are the NFL's best non-playoff team.

There's nothing wrong with that, so long as your expectations are in check.  Most of us had the Jets at 7-9 for this reason, that's why most of us are not upset right now, these types of losses to 12-4 caliber teams were anticipated.

SAR I

[Kevin L]

26 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

First of all it is a lie that I mention your hero in every post, but the more important point is you continue your thread derailment with posts like this. I will henceforth ignore your ongoing bleating for Geno.

Seems like reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Too bad.

[Rangers9]

4 minutes ago, SAR I said:

Exactly, good post, however you're missing one important component:  Quality of opponent matters.

If you look at who this team beat last year and who we beat this year and who stomped us in both years it's quite apparent that this work-in-progress rebuilding project is the King Of The Scrubs but nowhere near what's necessary to consistently beat elites.  We are the NFL's best non-playoff team.

There's nothing wrong with that, so long as your expectations are in check.  Most of us had the Jets at 7-9 for this reason, that's why most of us are not upset right now, these types of losses to 12-4 caliber teams were anticipated.

SAR I

Look, we outplayed Cincinnati and were better than the Bills. And we don't know who is going to end up being the better teams yet. Look at KC they got killed last week and the Bills have won two in a row. Against Seattle we were totally outplayed in all facets of the game. 

[August]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Go re-read what you quoted and tell me this is a logical reply.

See, yours is a reply to someone writing, "KC didn't care about scoring points they were just trying to keep our offense on the field." Except I didn't say that. 

What I said was their conservative, ball-control planning ate up so much clock that there ended up being fewer possessions until we were already down by multiple touchdowns (what you call relatively close).

Over the course of the 2nd half we didn't even score a single FG, let alone make a serious enough dent in their lead by actually getting into the end zone, to get them to play riskier ball. It doesn't mean they weren't trying to score; it means they weren't opening up their whole playbook to try to score. 

Had Ware not fumbled forward into the EZ and have it bounce out of bounds after crossing the goal line (without us even touching the ball, mind you), did our defense still do a great job of stopping them cold? Worst case scenario they kick a chip shot FG and it's back to a minimum 3 score game (not that we'd score once in the 2nd half anyway)

And as the final score indicates, and the final score doesn't even reflect the massive gift we got no defense without earning, KC played this just right for the situation. 

If you want to argue they played it too conservatively, you can do that. But they clearly weren't in full-on attack mode in the 2nd half, where we kept stopping it by picking it off, rushing wild passes, or putting Smith on his ass every time he dropped back. I don't know if KC put more than one 3-WR set onto the field in the 2nd half, other than maybe one or two low-percentage 3rd & long situations.

The Chiefs had a 17-3 lead at halftime their first possession in the 2nd half took up 5 minutes of actual game. The next possession takes up 2 minutes Ware scores a "TD" that gets overturned because  he fumbles out of bounds. The Chiefs next drive takes up 4 minutes they ended up punting. Their next drive the go 3 and out and punt. Their next drive lasts 30 seconds they go 3 and out and punt. Their next drive lasts a minute they go 3 and out and punt. Their 2nd to last possession of the game is 30 seconds, 3 and out and punt. But but but ball control. That sounds like an offense that simply weren't allowed to move the ball or score not "ball control"