Rex Ryan opens up on Mark Sanchez & Geno Smith, discusses Jets current QBs (hold on to your butts JN, here comes a 100-pager)

[SAR I]

Tony Sporano

Chaz Schillens

Clyde Gates

Stephen Hill

Tim Tebow

Rex Ryan ruined Mark Sanchez.  To hear him even open his mouth to discuss the kid makes me physically ill.

SAR I

[ZachEY]

20 minutes ago, SAR I said:

Tony Sporano

Chaz Schillens

Clyde Gates

Stephen Hill

Tim Tebow

Rex Ryan ruined Mark Sanchez.  To hear him even open his mouth to discuss the kid makes me physically ill.

SAR I

How soft do you have to be to be "ruined" in part by having a back-up QB with a big name be brought in?  Never got the Tebow angle.

[nyjunc]

22 hours ago, gEYno said:

No, everyone knows Favre didn't really want to be a Jet.  Only you care.  You claimed he sabotaged the season.  That's something you made up.  But no one expects anything different, it's literally exactly what you do, make something up, claim it's correct, ignore facts to the contrary, pat yourself on the back for being right, and repeat.

nah, Favre was great! he gave the fans so many thrills! all real Jet fans that cared about winning so we celebrate a guy that never wanted to be here and was actually here for a few months and bash the guy that helped us get closer to a SB than at any point since the 1968 season. 

22 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

You are really grasping for any reason possible why you could try to paint every game as the worst there ever was, yet have an endless list of excuses of why it wasn't Sanchez's fault even when he was at his absolute worst.

If you used the same exact type of analysis as this in review of Sanchez's career, it would sound like he was a blind quadriplegic.

The 2008 Jets went 8-8 with the 9th ranked scoring offense, and 18th scoring defense.  2009 Jets went 9-7 (with a gift from the Colts) with the 17th ranked scoring offense, and 1st scoring defense.  But you keep telling yourself that QB was the difference-maker in those seasons.

this is where you anti Jet fans fail at reading comprehension, just b/c I back mark against the know nothings doesn't mean I think he was great or didn't have his faults.  Of course he did, he was a decent starter that we could win w/.  all I care about is winning, I don't care about meaningless #s that don't help us win but some people like that b/c they think fantasy football is real football.

I love bashing one of our most successful teams.  By the way we were also 9-7 in 2008 except it was against a MUCH weaker schedule and we didn't have Tom Brady around. I love fans that just post rankings w/o context, did you see the breakdown of the season? Favre had about 3-4 good games and a  couple that skewed those #s but let's look at the real scoring #s.

actual points scored by offenses:

2008: 363, 22.7 PPG

2009: 320, 20 PPG

Not a huge difference and let's look at garbage time points:

2008:

15 at SD after trailing 38-14 in 4th, 7 vs. Ari, 7 vs. SL, 7 at Ten

total: 36

2009: 7 at Oak, 7 vs. Cin,

total: 14

363-36=327/16=20.4 PPG

320-14=306/16=19.1 PPG

very close and against a tougher sched in 2009.

let's see who cost us games O led by favre or O led by Mark:

2008:

vs. NE: Favre

at SD: favre

at Oak: Favre

Den: Favre

SF: Favre

Sea: Favre

Mia: Favre

2009:

at NO: Sanchez

at Mia: D

vs. Mia: D/STs

vs. Jax: D

at NE: Sanchez

vs. Atl: Both

 

you can look at out of context numbers all you want, I look at reality and nowhere have I said Mark was THE difference maker.  He was a big part of those 2 runs but we won being led by our D and when our D faltered in both title games we lost.

the bottom line is this, w/ similar talent against tougher scheds in 2009/2010 vs. 2008 we made 2 title games w/ Mark and couldn't even make the playoffs w/ Favre but please keep praising Favre and bashing Mark. 

 

[nyjunc]

1 hour ago, gEYno said:

How soft do you have to be to be "ruined" in part by having a back-up QB with a big name be brought in?  Never got the Tebow angle.

it's not a question of being soft but outside of Brady name me a single QB who could win w/ Clyde Gates, Chaz Schilens, Stephen Hill, Konrad Reuland, etc...? but it was all mark's fault for not making those players into decent NFL players as all of them were great w/ other QBs except Mark, right?

[Bleedin Green]

12 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

you can look at out of context numbers all you want, I look at reality and nowhere have I said Mark was THE difference maker.  He was a big part of those 2 runs but we won being led by our D and when our D faltered in both title games we lost.

the bottom line is this, w/ similar talent against tougher scheds in 2009/2010 vs. 2008 we made 2 title games w/ Mark and couldn't even make the playoffs w/ Favre but please keep praising Favre and bashing Mark.

The bold is why your argument will never have a shred of merit to it.  Sanchez was awful in both title games, and all you've ever done is make an endless stream of excuses for him.  We've had the argument about this many times before and there's no point in having it again, because you are literally wrong as a point of fact.  When the games feature a second half shut out and more points than the margin of defeat being handed by him to the other team, your attempt at his exoneration is laughable nonsense.

I have no interest in praising Favre at all, but you're the one who is desperate to paint him as some sort of great villain, because there's a topic that dare speak an unkindly word about the almighty King Buttfumble.

[ZachEY]

27 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

it's not a question of being soft but outside of Brady name me a single QB who could win w/ Clyde Gates, Chaz Schilens, Stephen Hill, Konrad Reuland, etc...? but it was all mark's fault for not making those players into decent NFL players as all of them were great w/ other QBs except Mark, right?

Can you read?  Like, at all?  My post was about Tebow's presence.  Not about Clyde Gates or Chaz Schilens or Stephen Hill or Konrad Reuland.

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, Bleedin Green said:

The bold is why your argument will never have a shred of merit to it.  Sanchez was awful in both title games, and all you've ever done is make an endless stream of excuses for him.  We've had the argument about this many times before and there's no point in having it again, because you are literally wrong as a point of fact.  When the games feature a second half shut out and more points than the margin of defeat being handed by him to the other team, your attempt at his exoneration is laughable nonsense.

I have no interest in praising Favre at all, but you're the one who is desperate to paint him as some sort of great villain, because there's a topic that dare speak an unkindly word about the almighty King Buttfumble.

first off he wasn't bad in either title game, that doesn't mean he doesn't get any blame but to say he was awful just isn't true.

I defend him from irrational attacks, that may look like excuses to you but it's reality.

Let's not forget we had a double digit lead against Indy late in the 1st half.  Let's also not forget we had one good RB that postseason and on the first drive of the 2nd half he got hurt and missed the rest of the game.  This may sound like an excuse to you but it's reality: for the 2nd half of that game we had a rookie QB w/ average weapons to throw to that had no threat of a run game against 2 premiere pass rushers in a loud dome.  It's shocking we didn't score in the 2nd half, right? but our O would have had to score more than 30 in that game to win, you think that's fair to expect?  how many teams have had to score 30 to win title games in the last decade? let's look at 2007-2016, last 10 seasons:

2007:NYG allowed 20 in OT, NE allowed 12

2008: Pitt allowed 14, Ari 25

2009: NO allowed 28, Indy 17

2010: GB allowed 14, Pitt 19

2011: NYG allowed 17, NE 20

2012: Bal 13, SF 24

2013: Sea 17, Den 16

2014:  NE 7, Sea 22

2015: Den 18, Car 15

2016: NE 17 , Atl 21

but we expected mark Sanchez to lead us to 30+ and that doesn't count Indy milking the clock in the 4th b/c they could have put 40+ on us that day.

 

In Pitt Mark and the O didn't play their best in the first half but the D allowed a 10 min TD drive to open the game and we had numerous penalties set us back and put the pass O in 3rd and long situations. The O was really good in the 2nd half and brought us w/in a score w/ plenty of time left.  what did the D do? allowed Pitt to run out the clock.

The D was the main reason we advanced as far as we do but the QB was vital to both runs.

[nyjunc]

3 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Can you read?  Like, at all?  My post was about Tebow's presence.  Not about Clyde Gates or Chaz Schilens or Stephen Hill or Konrad Reuland.

someone w/ your lack of reading comprehension will ask a question like that?  Tebow's presence wasn't why he sucked, the talent around him was why he sucked and the OC he had.  Tebow was never a challenge to Mark, more of an annoyance w/ all the Tebow questions but we would have sucked w/ or w/o Tebow.  When your main weapons on O are the guys we mentioned it's pretty hard to win. 

[ZachEY]

7 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

someone w/ your lack of reading comprehension will ask a question like that?  Tebow's presence wasn't why he sucked, the talent around him was why he sucked and the OC he had.  Tebow was never a challenge to Mark, more of an annoyance w/ all the Tebow questions but we would have sucked w/ or w/o Tebow.  When your main weapons on O are the guys we mentioned it's pretty hard to win. 

In the list above, Tebow was included.  Tebow has been used as an excuse for Mark for years.  I read just fine, you decided to answer a question that wasn't asked.

[nyjunc]

2 minutes ago, gEYno said:

In the list above, Tebow was included.  Tebow has been used as an excuse for Mark for years.  I read just fine, you decided to answer a question that wasn't asked.

no QB was winning w/ the talent we had on that team, Mark was AWFUL and some of it his fault but he had no chance to succeed w/ that group once Holmes went down.  Remember, our O looked a lot better the first 3 games before Holmes went down and I think keller was banged up at the time too but after Holmes went down the O completely collapsed w/ no talent on it.  To blame Mark is silly.

I completely understand people questioning Mark, he didn't have the career a top 10 pick should have but we still got 4 PO wins out of him(franchise record) and many top 10 picks turn out to do a lot less.  I just hate when I see people praising guys like Favre and bashing guys like Chad and Mark. Some day we may get our Brady type and have a real great QB but until then we have had limited success w/ QBs and shouldn't bash the few that have had some success even if the overall may have been disappointing.

[ZachEY]

Just now, nyjunc said:

no QB was winning w/ the talent we had on that team, Mark was AWFUL and some of it his fault but he had no chance to succeed w/ that group once Holmes went down.  Remember, our O looked a lot better the first 3 games before Holmes went down and I think keller was banged up at the time too but after Holmes went down the O completely collapsed w/ no talent on it.  To blame Mark is silly.

I completely understand people questioning Mark, he didn't have the career a top 10 pick should have but we still got 4 PO wins out of him(franchise record) and many top 10 picks turn out to do a lot less.  I just hate when I see people praising guys like Favre and bashing guys like Chad and Mark. Some day we may get our Brady type and have a real great QB but until then we have had limited success w/ QBs and shouldn't bash the few that have had some success even if the overall may have been disappointing.

Yeah, as this isn't about Tebow, you definitely can't read.

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, gEYno said:

Yeah, as this isn't about Tebow, you definitely can't read.

tell me again how I call Mark Sanchez great then talk to me about reading.  How old are you? it's like dealing w/ a child.

[ZachEY]

Just now, nyjunc said:

tell me again how I call Mark Sanchez great then talk to me about reading.  How old are you? it's like dealing w/ a child.

What are you even talking about?  Besides, you know, not Tim Tebow.

[Bleedin Green]

2 hours ago, nyjunc said:

first off he wasn't bad in either title game, that doesn't mean he doesn't get any blame but to say he was awful just isn't true.

I defend him from irrational attacks, that may look like excuses to you but it's reality.

Let's not forget we had a double digit lead against Indy late in the 1st half.  Let's also not forget we had one good RB that postseason and on the first drive of the 2nd half he got hurt and missed the rest of the game.  This may sound like an excuse to you but it's reality: for the 2nd half of that game we had a rookie QB w/ average weapons to throw to that had no threat of a run game against 2 premiere pass rushers in a loud dome.  It's shocking we didn't score in the 2nd half, right? but our O would have had to score more than 30 in that game to win, you think that's fair to expect?  how many teams have had to score 30 to win title games in the last decade? let's look at 2007-2016, last 10 seasons:

2007:NYG allowed 20 in OT, NE allowed 12

2008: Pitt allowed 14, Ari 25

2009: NO allowed 28, Indy 17

2010: GB allowed 14, Pitt 19

2011: NYG allowed 17, NE 20

2012: Bal 13, SF 24

2013: Sea 17, Den 16

2014:  NE 7, Sea 22

2015: Den 18, Car 15

2016: NE 17 , Atl 21

but we expected mark Sanchez to lead us to 30+ and that doesn't count Indy milking the clock in the 4th b/c they could have put 40+ on us that day.

 

In Pitt Mark and the O didn't play their best in the first half but the D allowed a 10 min TD drive to open the game and we had numerous penalties set us back and put the pass O in 3rd and long situations. The O was really good in the 2nd half and brought us w/in a score w/ plenty of time left.  what did the D do? allowed Pitt to run out the clock.

The D was the main reason we advanced as far as we do but the QB was vital to both runs.

You are wrong, as a point of fact.  At no point have I said the defense is in any way blameless, but if you believe what you are saying, then you quite literally have no understanding of football.

2009, the Jets offense was shut out in the second half by the friggin' Colts.  They were useless, and that most certainly includes Sanchez.  The defense was crap, but the grand total of two drives in which they forced punts is still infinitely more than the offense did in that half, which was literally nothing.

2010, Sanchez scored more first half points for the Steelers than for the Jets.  This is not even an exaggeration, it's the truth.  He is actually solely responsible for the margin of loss.  He awarded them 7 points in a 5 point loss.  The facts of the game:  Jets defense: allowed 17 points, scored 2.  Jets offense:  scored 17 points for themselves, 7 for Steelers.  The Jets D pitched a second half shutout, got 2 turnovers and points, meanwhile you slobber the offense's knob for 14 points.  The offense took up half of the 4th quarter with a drive that resulted in NO POINTS.  This goes beyond a point of even opinions.  What are saying is simply factually incorrect.

[Philc1]

Jets fans debating and b-tching at each other over which former qb was less mediocre

 

pathetic

[Matt39]

Would have been nice if the team didnt implode in Denver in 98. Save us from this Sanchez bullsh*t.

[nyjunc]

On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 4:39 PM, Bleedin Green said:

You are wrong, as a point of fact.  At no point have I said the defense is in any way blameless, but if you believe what you are saying, then you quite literally have no understanding of football.

2009, the Jets offense was shut out in the second half by the friggin' Colts.  They were useless, and that most certainly includes Sanchez.  The defense was crap, but the grand total of two drives in which they forced punts is still infinitely more than the offense did in that half, which was literally nothing.

2010, Sanchez scored more first half points for the Steelers than for the Jets.  This is not even an exaggeration, it's the truth.  He is actually solely responsible for the margin of loss.  He awarded them 7 points in a 5 point loss.  The facts of the game:  Jets defense: allowed 17 points, scored 2.  Jets offense:  scored 17 points for themselves, 7 for Steelers.  The Jets D pitched a second half shutout, got 2 turnovers and points, meanwhile you slobber the offense's knob for 14 points.  The offense took up half of the 4th quarter with a drive that resulted in NO POINTS.  This goes beyond a point of even opinions.  What are saying is simply factually incorrect.

we had a double digit lead in that 2009 title game, the D blew it and Indy could easily have scored 40+ on us if they wanted to.  Unfortunately our only threat of a run game got hurt on the first possession of the 2nd half and we became one dimensional(not to mention we missed a FG).  The Giants got into OYT scoring 17 pts on O in 2011. Our D did not step up in either title game like a real big time D does.

In 2010 the D allowed a 10 min TD drive to open the game, the tone was set.  It's not Mark's fault he was blindsided by Polamalu, we never should have been throwing there BUT that play didn't kill us anyway.  if Pitt doesn't score TD there we punt and they have great FP.  they likely score at least a FG and make it 20-0 heading into the half.  After Mark led us down for a quick FG to end the half we trailed by 21- essentially same difference.  The O scored w/ plenty of time remaining to make it a one score game, the D then allowed Pitt to run out the clock. The Jets D scored 2 points b/c Pitt had a bo0tched snap after the O got stopped at the 1.  The Steelers toyed w/ our D all game long and when they needed to make plays they made plays.

actually that long drive resulted in 2 points and we got the ball back and scored a TD so really it resulted in 9 pts. if we score TD there it's 24-17 and the D has real pressure on them again, you think they would have stopped Pitt?  they couldn't at 24-19 w/ plenty of time, why would they have at 24-17?

[Bleedin Green]

3 hours ago, nyjunc said:

we had a double digit lead in that 2009 title game, the D blew it and Indy could easily have scored 40+ on us if they wanted to.  Unfortunately our only threat of a run game got hurt on the first possession of the 2nd half and we became one dimensional(not to mention we missed a FG).  The Giants got into OYT scoring 17 pts on O in 2011. Our D did not step up in either title game like a real big time D does.

In 2010 the D allowed a 10 min TD drive to open the game, the tone was set.  It's not Mark's fault he was blindsided by Polamalu, we never should have been throwing there BUT that play didn't kill us anyway.  if Pitt doesn't score TD there we punt and they have great FP.  they likely score at least a FG and make it 20-0 heading into the half.  After Mark led us down for a quick FG to end the half we trailed by 21- essentially same difference.  The O scored w/ plenty of time remaining to make it a one score game, the D then allowed Pitt to run out the clock. The Jets D scored 2 points b/c Pitt had a bo0tched snap after the O got stopped at the 1.  The Steelers toyed w/ our D all game long and when they needed to make plays they made plays.

actually that long drive resulted in 2 points and we got the ball back and scored a TD so really it resulted in 9 pts. if we score TD there it's 24-17 and the D has real pressure on them again, you think they would have stopped Pitt?  they couldn't at 24-19 w/ plenty of time, why would they have at 24-17?

A list of excuses doesn't make you any less wrong.  Against the Colts, the Jets offense got shut-out in 3 out of 4 quarters.  Your position is that the Jets D is solely at fault for not doing that against the Colts.  You saying the offense was 100% reliant on one running back to do anything is not a defense, it's an indictment.  Why aren't you similarly excusing the D for the injuries in the secondary?  The only reason is because it doesn't suit your agenda.  The D obviously did not had a good game, but your assertion that the offense is blameless is wrong.

Attempting to dismiss 7 points given to the Steelers in a 5 point loss has to be a joke.  Fabricating scenarios that didn't happen as an excuse proves how ridiculous it is, especially considering your made-up scenario was dependent on the Jets O being blameless while shut out in the first half.  Then again, I guess 0 points is better than the -4 they actually contributed, right?  The length of one drive being your basis of determining an entire game is flimsy at best.  The Jets had an 8 minute drive late in the game, why wasn't that such a big difference maker?  Probably because they ate up half of the 4th quarter and scored nothing, despite your attempt to credit the offense for the defense then cleaning up their mess.  If you think the offense deserves great praise for 12 minutes of possession in the 4th quarter in which they scored 7, there's not much more that really needs to be said.  If the Steelers actually "toyed" with anyone, it would seem to be the O.  The Jets D shut them out the entire second half, not allowing a single point since the drive before Sanchez gave them 7.  There's no argument to suggest that the Steelers had no issue with a second half shutout, unless they thought so little of the Jets O that they saw no need to score.  Meanwhile, you think the offense deserves praise when the Steelers D allowed a long, slow, time-killing drive that resulted in no points.  Again, let us present the facts:  Jets D allowed 17, scored 2.  Jets O scored 17, gave 7 to Steelers.

You can keep making the claims all you like, but every shred of evidence contradicts you, time and time again.

[nyjunc]

3 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

A list of excuses doesn't make you any less wrong.  Against the Colts, the Jets offense got shut-out in 3 out of 4 quarters.  Your position is that the Jets D is solely at fault for not doing that against the Colts.  You saying the offense was 100% reliant on one running back to do anything is not a defense, it's an indictment.  Why aren't you similarly excusing the D for the injuries in the secondary?  The only reason is because it doesn't suit your agenda.  The D obviously did not had a good game, but your assertion that the offense is blameless is wrong.

Attempting to dismiss 7 points given to the Steelers in a 5 point loss has to be a joke.  Fabricating scenarios that didn't happen as an excuse proves how ridiculous it is, especially considering your made-up scenario was dependent on the Jets O being blameless while shut out in the first half.  Then again, I guess 0 points is better than the -4 they actually contributed, right?  The length of one drive being your basis of determining an entire game is flimsy at best.  The Jets had an 8 minute drive late in the game, why wasn't that such a big difference maker?  Probably because they ate up half of the 4th quarter and scored nothing, despite your attempt to credit the offense for the defense then cleaning up their mess.  If you think the offense deserves great praise for 12 minutes of possession in the 4th quarter in which they scored 7, there's not much more that really needs to be said.  If the Steelers actually "toyed" with anyone, it would seem to be the O.  The Jets D shut them out the entire second half, not allowing a single point since the drive before Sanchez gave them 7.  There's no argument to suggest that the Steelers had no issue with a second half shutout, unless they thought so little of the Jets O that they saw no need to score.  Meanwhile, you think the offense deserves praise when the Steelers D allowed a long, slow, time-killing drive that resulted in no points.  Again, let us present the facts:  Jets D allowed 17, scored 2.  Jets O scored 17, gave 7 to Steelers.

You can keep making the claims all you like, but every shred of evidence contradicts you, time and time again.

ohh now you have to score in certain qtrs., so the 17 the giants scored in regulation in 2011 meant more than 17 in one qtr in 2010?  got it.

Here comes that reading thing again, I have NEVER said mark and the O were blameless, I said the D was most to blame for those title games just as the D deserved most of the credit for the wins.

how is relying on one RB an indictment?  You know we lost Leon Washington for the season earlier that year, right? you know Thomas Jones was hurt late in the year and on fumes, right? so when Greene went down we had NO RBs w/ a rookie QB, average weapons to throw to and 2 premiere pass rushers not having to worry about the run but somehow this was Mark's fault.

First off Mark's arm was going forward, it should have been an incomplete pass but they called it what they called it.  The reality is the play was basically negated by the FG drive after that as again Pitt would have scored at least 3 w/ great FP if the TD doesn't happen.  again: 20-0 or 24-3, is that a big difference?  it boiled down to just under 3 minutes left w/ all 3 TOs and the 2 min warning. our "great" D could have allowed one first down, just not two.  what did they do?  Fast forward to 2012 postseason Ravens at Broncos- remember that game? Baltimore was trailing by a TD w/ slightly more time and one less TO.  Baltimore gave up one 1st down but not 2 and they gave their O a chance and their O tied the game.  Unfortunately our O never got a chance.

again, that long drive did result in points, it resulted in a safety after Pitt botched the snap and we got the ball right back and scored a TD quickly.  You would have preferred 24-17 over 24-19?

I didn't praise the offense, all units could have done more but the one unit we counted on the most came up small in both title games. if our top unit played like a top unit we would have made at least one Super Bowl.

[Bleedin Green]

53 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

ohh now you have to score in certain qtrs., so the 17 the giants scored in regulation in 2011 meant more than 17 in one qtr in 2010?  got it.

Here comes that reading thing again, I have NEVER said mark and the O were blameless, I said the D was most to blame for those title games just as the D deserved most of the credit for the wins.

how is relying on one RB an indictment?  You know we lost Leon Washington for the season earlier that year, right? you know Thomas Jones was hurt late in the year and on fumes, right? so when Greene went down we had NO RBs w/ a rookie QB, average weapons to throw to and 2 premiere pass rushers not having to worry about the run but somehow this was Mark's fault.

First off Mark's arm was going forward, it should have been an incomplete pass but they called it what they called it.  The reality is the play was basically negated by the FG drive after that as again Pitt would have scored at least 3 w/ great FP if the TD doesn't happen.  again: 20-0 or 24-3, is that a big difference?  it boiled down to just under 3 minutes left w/ all 3 TOs and the 2 min warning. our "great" D could have allowed one first down, just not two.  what did they do?  Fast forward to 2012 postseason Ravens at Broncos- remember that game? Baltimore was trailing by a TD w/ slightly more time and one less TO.  Baltimore gave up one 1st down but not 2 and they gave their O a chance and their O tied the game.  Unfortunately our O never got a chance.

again, that long drive did result in points, it resulted in a safety after Pitt botched the snap and we got the ball right back and scored a TD quickly.  You would have preferred 24-17 over 24-19?

I didn't praise the offense, all units could have done more but the one unit we counted on the most came up small in both title games. if our top unit played like a top unit we would have made at least one Super Bowl.

Your entire argument structure is as follows:

Things that happened: excuse the offense

Things that didn't happen, but you fabricated: blame the defense

I mean, you understand your argument is based on things that you are completely making up, and are not based in any degree of reality, don't you?  This isn't even a point of opinion, what you are saying is factually inaccurate.

[Integrity28]

43 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

Your entire argument structure is as follows:

Things that happened: excuse the offense

Things that didn't happen, but you fabricated: blame the defense

I mean, you understand your argument is based on things that you are completely making up, and are not based in any degree of reality, don't you?  This isn't even a point of opinion, what you are saying is factually inaccurate.

BG, if there is one thing you can bank on, it's that myjunk is going to start an argument, lose it quickly, but then bury any evidence of having been made to look foolish under very wordy hypothetical arguments, backpedalling and semantics about who called who childish (or illiterate) first.

Clockwork.

Oh, he'll also usually act like he doesn't know who you are. That's always a favorite, as it's a tell for when he's getting pissy about lacking the creativity to one-up even the dullest of those he bickers with.

[Bleedin Green]

2 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

BG, if there is one thing you can bank on, it's that myjunk is going to start an argument, lose it quickly, but then bury any evidence of having been made to look foolish under very wordy hypothetical arguments, backpedalling and semantics about who called who childish (or illiterate) first.

Clockwork.

Oh, he'll also usually act like he doesn't know who you are. That's always a favorite, as it's a tell for when he's getting pissy about lacking the creativity to one-up even the dullest of those he bickers with.

Yeah, I am aware this is all quite true.  But work is a little slow, so what are you gonna do?

[nyjunc]

now the teddy bear man chimes in?  that's always an indication you have lost an argument if he agrees w/ you.

[nyjunc]

15 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

Your entire argument structure is as follows:

Things that happened: excuse the offense

Things that didn't happen, but you fabricated: blame the defense

I mean, you understand your argument is based on things that you are completely making up, and are not based in any degree of reality, don't you?  This isn't even a point of opinion, what you are saying is factually inaccurate.

except that's not the case, I understand that you, like many on here, struggle w/ reading comprehension but I have never absolved the O from blame.  I just blame the D more as I also give the D more credit.  we were a D first team, we won w/ really good defense.  when the D faltered it was hard to win and the D faltered in the 2 biggest games of those 2 seasons. You can continue to ignore reality and bash me or you can pay attention and actually learn something.  The choice is yours. being on the side of teddy bear man is not the right side to be on.

[southparkcpa]

15 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

BG, if there is one thing you can bank on, it's that myjunk is going to start an argument, lose it quickly, but then bury any evidence of having been made to look foolish under very wordy hypothetical arguments, backpedalling and semantics about who called who childish (or illiterate) first.

Clockwork.

Oh, he'll also usually act like he doesn't know who you are. That's always a favorite, as it's a tell for when he's getting pissy about lacking the creativity to one-up even the dullest of those he bickers with.

Hey... just surrender. he is smarter than all of us.  Just ask him and don't let facts sway you.

Look at Buffalo without REX.  Rex is a well below 500 coach but he will defend him as if he were Vince Lombardi.

 

 

 

[loluchka80]

On 10/25/2017 at 3:09 PM, Adoni Beast said:

"With Sanchez, I knew he wasn't going to be a franchise quarterback, "

This moron says this...yet TRADED UP in the first round for him. Granted we didn't bet the house for that pick but still. Who draft's a QB that high if they don't think they're a franchise qb? He said that viewed Mark as "OK" They could have signed an OK QB and used their first round pick elsewhere. But to trade up for ok, doesnt add up.

But for all his nonsense. He was right about Tyrod Taylor. For where he was drafted, Tyord has developed into a pretty good starting quarterback.

i think he means, "after working with him for a few years, and seeing no improvement, i knew  he wasn't going to be a franchise QB".  obviously if they didn't think he was good enough they wouldn't have traded up for him.

[nyjunc]

17 minutes ago, southparkcpa said:

Hey... just surrender. he is smarter than all of us.  Just ask him and don't let facts sway you.

Look at Buffalo without REX.  Rex is a well below 500 coach but he will defend him as if he were Vince Lombardi.

 

 

 

I love when people hop on the backs of others b/c they can't keep up.

It's early in Buffalo, we've seen this movie before and they didn't have a full losing season w/ Rex.  Rex only has 2 full seasons under .500 in 8 years as a HC but yeah he's a loser. The best thing Buf did was clean out the front office but you can't keep expecting to score on D every week to win games so we'll see how long that lasts.

rex did a good job here overall but unfortunately he screwed up Sanchez and his D's melted in title games but at least we had SB chances.  I miss those days.  The only difference btw the '09/'10 Jets and your '07/'11 Giants was your '07/'11 Giants D/STs showed up all throughout the playoffs not just one or 2 games.

[ZachEY]

I am smart because I say I am smart and therefore everything I say is smart and correct.

Dunning-Krueger at its absolute finest.

[Bleedin Green]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

now the teddy bear man chimes in?  that's always an indication you have lost an argument if he agrees w/ you.

You repeatedly saying things that are factually incorrect is not an "argument".

[Bleedin Green]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

except that's not the case, I understand that you, like many on here, struggle w/ reading comprehension but I have never absolved the O from blame.  I just blame the D more as I also give the D more credit.  we were a D first team, we won w/ really good defense.  when the D faltered it was hard to win and the D faltered in the 2 biggest games of those 2 seasons. You can continue to ignore reality and bash me or you can pay attention and actually learn something.  The choice is yours. being on the side of teddy bear man is not the right side to be on.

Your entire purpose of being in this thread was in an attempt to exonerate Sanchez.  Are you now conceding that the (relative) success of those teams was accomplished in spite of Sanchez, rather than your repeated claims otherwise?

If your argument is now that the team was so dependent on the defense, that they are to blame for anything but a perfect game, and the offense was admittedly it's weak point, then it seems you and Rex are in agreement after all that Sanchez wasn't that good.

[Adoni Beast]

2 hours ago, loluchka80 said:

i think he means, "after working with him for a few years, and seeing no improvement, i knew  he wasn't going to be a franchise QB".  obviously if they didn't think he was good enough they wouldn't have traded up for him.

I disagree and heres why. He said he "didnt think he was a franchise quarterback, but we could win with him." Thats in reference to the same moment (the draft)

When he knew it was time to get rid of him he said the boneheaded red zone ints etc were too much and it was time to move on. He wouldn't have finished the "hes not a franchise qb, but we can win with him" in reference to 2013.

[southparkcpa]

3 hours ago, nyjunc said:

I love when people hop on the backs of others b/c they can't keep up.

It's early in Buffalo, we've seen this movie before and they didn't have a full losing season w/ Rex.  Rex only has 2 full seasons under .500 in 8 years as a HC but yeah he's a loser. The best thing Buf did was clean out the front office but you can't keep expecting to score on D every week to win games so we'll see how long that lasts.

rex did a good job here overall but unfortunately he screwed up Sanchez and his D's melted in title games but at least we had SB chances.  I miss those days.  The only difference btw the '09/'10 Jets and your '07/'11 Giants was your '07/'11 Giants D/STs showed up all throughout the playoffs not just one or 2 games.

and the SB trophies... you know , both of them.

 

[nyjunc]

2 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

Your entire purpose of being in this thread was in an attempt to exonerate Sanchez.  Are you now conceding that the (relative) success of those teams was accomplished in spite of Sanchez, rather than your repeated claims otherwise?

If your argument is now that the team was so dependent on the defense, that they are to blame for anything but a perfect game, and the offense was admittedly it's weak point, then it seems you and Rex are in agreement after all that Sanchez wasn't that good.

yes, he's bashed way too much for all the good he did for us so I back him.  That doesn't mean I think he was great and did no wrong.  An adult should be able to figure that out from the posts. m I have always said we won w/ defense first- ALWAYS.  Mark did a good job, mark was vital to those runs but the D led us on both of them. 

The defense didn't have to play a perfect game in either title game, they just had to play like a big time defense and they failed.  No O should have to put up 30 a game to win especially one that had a supposed big time defense.

[nyjunc]

11 minutes ago, southparkcpa said:

and the SB trophies... you know , both of them.

 

they have both of those trophies mainly b/c of the D/STs.  Their O helped and Eli played well just like our O helped and Mark played well but if their D doesn't shut down all time great offenses they have no chance.  Remember, Eli has never won a playoff game where his D allowed more than 20 points- Mark Sanchez has.

[Bleedin Green]

1 minute ago, nyjunc said:

yes, he's bashed way too much for all the good he did for us so I back him.  That doesn't mean I think he was great and did no wrong.  An adult should be able to figure that out from the posts. m I have always said we won w/ defense first- ALWAYS.  Mark did a good job, mark was vital to those runs but the D led us on both of them. 

The defense didn't have to play a perfect game in either title game, they just had to play like a big time defense and they failed.  No O should have to put up 30 a game to win especially one that had a supposed big time defense.

Every other thing you say in this post contradicts the bold, and that's the problem.  He can't be "vital" and yet simultaneously free of blame because the team's success is completely dependent on the D.