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

[nyjunc]

2 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

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.

there's that reading problem again, show me where I have said he didn't deserve any blame? I'm not like the average Jet fans that gives him ALL the blame.  He deserves some blame but he was really good in both playoff runs and was a rookie/2nd year QB.  we were built to win w/ defense, I had higher standards for the defense. 

[Bleedin Green]

4 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

there's that reading problem again, show me where I have said he didn't deserve any blame? I'm not like the average Jet fans that gives him ALL the blame.  He deserves some blame but he was really good in both playoff runs and was a rookie/2nd year QB.  we were built to win w/ defense, I had higher standards for the defense. 

You've excused being shut out in 3 of 4 quarters.

You've excused a half where the O scored more points for the Steelers than the Jets.

You've excused an 8-minute 4th-quarter drive that resulted in 0 points.

[southparkcpa]

32 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

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.

More opinion.....    you are heavy on opinion, light on facts. 90 percent of people who respond to you say that. Yet it never stops.  Interesting...  you dont see it, we all seem to see it.  I think you know the game, perhaps better than me. Who knows. But OUR opinion should never supersede facts.

[nyjunc]

3 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

You've excused being shut out in 3 of 4 quarters.

You've excused a half where the O scored more points for the Steelers than the Jets.

You've excused an 8-minute 4th-quarter drive that resulted in 0 points.

I didn't realize you had to score in certain quarters in order to win.  I thought giving a supposed big time D a double digit lead late in the 1st half was a good thing.

That half the O barely had the ball as the "big time D" allowed Pitt to run the ball down our throats and hold it most of the half, that same game w/ 3 mins left and 3 TOs the O pulled us w/in a score but the big time D allowed Pitt to run out the clock.

again, it resulted in 2 pts and really 9 points but you want to give the D credit for the safety when Pitt botched an exchange at the 1 where our O left the ball. 

2 hours ago, southparkcpa said:

More opinion.....    you are heavy on opinion, light on facts. 90 percent of people who respond to you say that. Yet it never stops.  Interesting...  you dont see it, we all seem to see it.  I think you know the game, perhaps better than me. Who knows. But OUR opinion should never supersede facts.

I am heavy on educated opinions, you are heavy on  out of context stats.  You never get into an actual football discussion, you always just tell me I'm wrong then try to hop on the backs of others for validation. 

The facts are NYG won 2 SBs mainly b/c of their D and STs. How is that not factual? in both SBs they held 2 all time great offenses led by what knowledgeable football fans consider the greatest QB of all time to 14 and 17 points but somehow Eli gets credit for that?

[ZachEY]

13 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

I didn't realize you had to score in certain quarters in order to win.

I tell you what, if you actually believe this, let's look at some recent history. Here's what I propose.  For every game that a team wins after only scoring in one quarter, I'll give you $100.  For every game that a team loses after only scoring points in one quarter, you give me $50.  Want to go 10 years?

As scoring in only 1Q isn't a significant problem, you should be in great shape.

You in?

[ZachEY]

7 hours 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.

 

 

 

It is my hope that I can one day be even half as smart and knowledgeable as nyjunc tells everyone he is.  But alas, I don't think I can ever achieve such intellectual supremacy.  I'm just not good enough.

[Bleedin Green]

7 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

I didn't realize you had to score in certain quarters in order to win.  I thought giving a supposed big time D a double digit lead late in the 1st half was a good thing.

That half the O barely had the ball as the "big time D" allowed Pitt to run the ball down our throats and hold it most of the half, that same game w/ 3 mins left and 3 TOs the O pulled us w/in a score but the big time D allowed Pitt to run out the clock.

again, it resulted in 2 pts and really 9 points but you want to give the D credit for the safety when Pitt botched an exchange at the 1 where our O left the ball.

Your first two paragraphs contradict each other.  How is the offense blameless for 3 quarters of failures against the Colts, yet you continue to harp on this idea that one drive in the first quarter by the Steelers was game-deciding?  You've proven at least one of your own two arguments has to be wrong in this process, even using your own questionable logic.

The last paragraph involves you trying to credit the offense with points they failed to score and were attained as they were standing on the sidelines, while discrediting the defense for scoring points that occurred when they were on the field.  Do you award points to the defense and take them away from the offense when those points are thanks to field position off of a turnover?

And no, the 8-minute, 0-point drive doesn't get credited with a TD that happened on a later drive that took even more time.  The Jets offense had the ball for 12 minutes in the 4th quarter, scored 7 points in that time, and yet your assertion is that the defense is to blame for the offense somehow not having enough time to score more than that.

In the end, the fact remains that offense handed more points to the Steelers than was the margin of victory, regardless of any magical fairy-tale points you fabricated out of thin air to count against the D.  The offense's performance resulted in 17 points for the Jets, and 7 for the Steelers.  Your assertion is that the D is to blame for either not holding the Steelers to 9 points, or allowing more than 80% time of possession in the 4th quarter.

[nyjunc]

 

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 4:04 PM, gEYno said:

It is my hope that I can one day be even half as smart and knowledgeable as nyjunc tells everyone he is.  But alas, I don't think I can ever achieve such intellectual supremacy.  I'm just not good enough.

if you'd actually pay attention and read you'd learn but instead you choose to just hurl insults.

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 4:08 PM, Bleedin Green said:

Your first two paragraphs contradict each other.  How is the offense blameless for 3 quarters of failures against the Colts, yet you continue to harp on this idea that one drive in the first quarter by the Steelers was game-deciding?  You've proven at least one of your own two arguments has to be wrong in this process, even using your own questionable logic.

The last paragraph involves you trying to credit the offense with points they failed to score and were attained as they were standing on the sidelines, while discrediting the defense for scoring points that occurred when they were on the field.  Do you award points to the defense and take them away from the offense when those points are thanks to field position off of a turnover?

And no, the 8-minute, 0-point drive doesn't get credited with a TD that happened on a later drive that took even more time.  The Jets offense had the ball for 12 minutes in the 4th quarter, scored 7 points in that time, and yet your assertion is that the defense is to blame for the offense somehow not having enough time to score more than that.

In the end, the fact remains that offense handed more points to the Steelers than was the margin of victory, regardless of any magical fairy-tale points you fabricated out of thin air to count against the D.  The offense's performance resulted in 17 points for the Jets, and 7 for the Steelers.  Your assertion is that the D is to blame for either not holding the Steelers to 9 points, or allowing more than 80% time of possession in the 4th quarter.

First off, every game is different.  The 2009 title game has nothing to do w/ the 2010 title game.  2nd, I didn't say that first drive cost us the game, I said it set the tone for the game. Pitt ran all mover us that first half and controlled the ball and the scoreboard.  before our O even got on the field it was almost the 2nd qtr and we were losing, that's a good thing?

and yes the long drive that resulted in 0 pts on O directly led to 9 pts w/ the botched snap the next play giving us 2 pts then getting the ball back and going down and scoring.  Scoring to make it 24-17 would have been preferred but we still made it 24-19 w/ 3 mins to play and 3 TOs- that's an eternity in football and our vaunted defense failed.

In the end, the fact remains that our supposed "great" defense failed in the title game AGAIN.  What big time D can't get a stop w/ 3 mins and 3 TOs? what bog time D allows multiple 1st downs and for the opponent to run out the clock? Yes we can blame the O for not scoring enough pts and the O does deserve SOME blame but we were a team that were led by the defense and, unlike the Giants in their 2 recent runs, we were let down by our D. 

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

if you'd actually pay attention and read you'd learn but instead you choose to just hurl insults.

Insults?  I'm 100% serious.  I want to be half as smart and knowledgeable as you routinely tell the board you are.

[Sperm Edwards]

On 10/31/2017 at 4:08 PM, Bleedin Green said:

Your first two paragraphs contradict each other.  How is the offense blameless for 3 quarters of failures against the Colts, yet you continue to harp on this idea that one drive in the first quarter by the Steelers was game-deciding?  You've proven at least one of your own two arguments has to be wrong in this process, even using your own questionable logic.

The last paragraph involves you trying to credit the offense with points they failed to score and were attained as they were standing on the sidelines, while discrediting the defense for scoring points that occurred when they were on the field.  Do you award points to the defense and take them away from the offense when those points are thanks to field position off of a turnover?

And no, the 8-minute, 0-point drive doesn't get credited with a TD that happened on a later drive that took even more time.  The Jets offense had the ball for 12 minutes in the 4th quarter, scored 7 points in that time, and yet your assertion is that the defense is to blame for the offense somehow not having enough time to score more than that.

In the end, the fact remains that offense handed more points to the Steelers than was the margin of victory, regardless of any magical fairy-tale points you fabricated out of thin air to count against the D.  The offense's performance resulted in 17 points for the Jets, and 7 for the Steelers.  Your assertion is that the D is to blame for either not holding the Steelers to 9 points, or allowing more than 80% time of possession in the 4th quarter.

Holy crap, I’m just checking this thread for the first time since its first day, starting with - and limiting myself to - the last page.

Has this been another trip down memory lane on the absolution of any/all things involving Mark Sanchez’s presence on the football field, while simultaneously - by insinuation, if not directly - crediting him with any part(s) that didn’t go wrong?

[Smashmouth]

I didn't read most of this thread but who gives a flying fcuk what Rex Ryan thinks since the Idiot basically ignored his QB's while coaching here. He also ignored the offense and its the main reason why the Idiot is out of the NFL 

[The Crusher]

7/100

[Bleedin Green]

2 hours ago, nyjunc said:

 

if you'd actually pay attention and read you'd learn but instead you choose to just hurl insults.

First off, every game is different.  The 2009 title game has nothing to do w/ the 2010 title game.  2nd, I didn't say that first drive cost us the game, I said it set the tone for the game. Pitt ran all mover us that first half and controlled the ball and the scoreboard.  before our O even got on the field it was almost the 2nd qtr and we were losing, that's a good thing?

and yes the long drive that resulted in 0 pts on O directly led to 9 pts w/ the botched snap the next play giving us 2 pts then getting the ball back and going down and scoring.  Scoring to make it 24-17 would have been preferred but we still made it 24-19 w/ 3 mins to play and 3 TOs- that's an eternity in football and our vaunted defense failed.

In the end, the fact remains that our supposed "great" defense failed in the title game AGAIN.  What big time D can't get a stop w/ 3 mins and 3 TOs? what bog time D allows multiple 1st downs and for the opponent to run out the clock? Yes we can blame the O for not scoring enough pts and the O does deserve SOME blame but we were a team that were led by the defense and, unlike the Giants in their 2 recent runs, we were let down by our D. 

Your first points continue to contradict each other, so there's no reason to discuss that any further.  You're pretty much arguing with yourself on that one.  A single drive sets the tone and makes a huge difference in a game, except for when it doesn't in 3 quarters.  Gotcha.

If 3 minutes is an eternity in the NFL, why did it take 12 minutes to score 7 points in that quarter?  Your entire point is that the defense is unforgivable for allowing more than 30 seconds time of possession for the D in the 4th quarter.

Facts are still fact, and the offense scored 10 more points for the Jets than they did the Steelers, so your assertion of the D being the primary culprit is because they didn't hold the opposition to 9 points or less.

[Philc1]

Hire Mangini as GM and bring back Rex as head coach, just to piss off Belichick and the media

[Bleedin Green]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Holy crap, I’m just checking this thread for the first time since its first day, starting with - and limiting myself to - the last page.

Has this been another trip down memory lane on the absolution of any/all things involving Mark Sanchez’s presence on the football field, while simultaneously - by insinuation, if not directly - crediting him with any part(s) that didn’t go wrong?

That's a wise move.

The short recap:  7 points scored by the opposition when the D is on the sideline doesn't make a difference, turning the ball over on downs is a matter of brilliance that gets credited for points on 2 other drives (including defensive), and 12 minutes TOP in the 4th quarter just isn't enough time.

[Bleedin Green]

14 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

Hire Mangini as GM and bring back Rex as head coach, just to piss off Belichick and the media

... and the fans.

[jeremy2020]

I don't think this is going to make 100 pages

[ZachEY]

4 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

That's a wise move.

The short recap:  7 points scored by the opposition when the D is on the sideline doesn't make a difference, turning the ball over on downs is a matter of brilliance that gets credited for points on 2 other drives (including defensive), and 12 minutes TOP in the 4th quarter just isn't enough time.

The shorter recap: Facts are irrelevant and nyjunc knows more than you.  Mostly because he says he does.  Because of that, facts are irrelevant and nyjunc is correct.

[Bleedin Green]

2 minutes ago, gEYno said:

The shorter recap: Facts are irrelevant and nyjunc knows more than you.  Mostly because he says he does.  Because of that, facts are irrelevant and nyjunc is correct.

Clearly, you don't pay attention.

[nyjunc]

22 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Holy crap, I’m just checking this thread for the first time since its first day, starting with - and limiting myself to - the last page.

Has this been another trip down memory lane on the absolution of any/all things involving Mark Sanchez’s presence on the football field, while simultaneously - by insinuation, if not directly - crediting him with any part(s) that didn’t go wrong?

come on you are better than that.  Actually read.

21 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

Your first points continue to contradict each other, so there's no reason to discuss that any further.  You're pretty much arguing with yourself on that one.  A single drive sets the tone and makes a huge difference in a game, except for when it doesn't in 3 quarters.  Gotcha.

If 3 minutes is an eternity in the NFL, why did it take 12 minutes to score 7 points in that quarter?  Your entire point is that the defense is unforgivable for allowing more than 30 seconds time of possession for the D in the 4th quarter.

Facts are still fact, and the offense scored 10 more points for the Jets than they did the Steelers, so your assertion of the D being the primary culprit is because they didn't hold the opposition to 9 points or less.

The point is we were led by our defense and in the 2 biggest games our defense came up short.  That's the point, you can pretend Mark Sanchez should be evaluated the same as Tom Brady all you want but I don't live in lala land.  Mark was a rookie(w/ no run game half the game in the '09 title game) and 2nd year QB.  He helped build a double digit lead in one and left the field having brought us back w/in 5 w/ an eternity to play.

so you are comparing an end of game situation w/ an entire qtr to play? you think that end 3 minutes is comparable to our long drive?

facts are facts, the facts are w/ 3 mins left and 3 TOs the D needed to allow one or fewer 1st downs to give us a chance and our big time D failed to do so and the game ended.  Those are the facts.

[Bleedin Green]

5 hours ago, nyjunc said:

come on you are better than that.  Actually read.

The point is we were led by our defense and in the 2 biggest games our defense came up short.  That's the point, you can pretend Mark Sanchez should be evaluated the same as Tom Brady all you want but I don't live in lala land.  Mark was a rookie(w/ no run game half the game in the '09 title game) and 2nd year QB.  He helped build a double digit lead in one and left the field having brought us back w/in 5 w/ an eternity to play.

so you are comparing an end of game situation w/ an entire qtr to play? you think that end 3 minutes is comparable to our long drive?

facts are facts, the facts are w/ 3 mins left and 3 TOs the D needed to allow one or fewer 1st downs to give us a chance and our big time D failed to do so and the game ended.  Those are the facts.

Defense is at fault because they didn't hold the opposition to 9 points or less.  That's the basis of your argument.  The rest of it is pure conjecture.

[#27TheDominator]

15 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

Defense is at fault because they didn't hold the opposition to 9 points or less.  That's the basis of your argument.  The rest of it is pure conjecture.

They still lost to the Packers. 

[nyjunc]

48 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

Defense is at fault because they didn't hold the opposition to 9 points or less.  That's the basis of your argument.  The rest of it is pure conjecture.

yes that's the point b/c our O only scored 10 PPG, right?

you guys have convinced me, the D was great in those 2 title games, if only Mark did his job and led the O to 30+ PPG we would have won.  Damn that QB!

[Bleedin Green]

22 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

yes that's the point b/c our O only scored 10 PPG, right?

you guys have convinced me, the D was great in those 2 title games, if only Mark did his job and led the O to 30+ PPG we would have won.  Damn that QB!

Only 10 more points for the Jets than the Steelers, yes.  This is a fact.

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, Bleedin Green said:

Only 10 more points for the Jets than the Steelers, yes.  This is a fact.

my head hurts from the stupidity. Imagine the Pats in the SB saying Brady scored 4 more pts for Atl than he did for the Pats when they were down 28-3 so they could allow Atl to run out the clock b/c of it.  bad plays happen, again even w/o that play we are likely down 20 instead of 21 at the half.  that play did not determine the game, what did determine the game was the final drive for Pitt where our vaunted D allowed the Steelers to run out the clock.

[Sperm Edwards]

7 hours ago, nyjunc said:

come on you are better than that.  Actually read.

 

I will not because I've already read this before, and I think I can guess without reading it again.

Usually goes something like this: it's the job of the defense to overcome any woes on offense, but not vice versa.

[Sperm Edwards]

God help me, I actually read this page.

In the Pittsburgh game, for an offense like ours, the entirety of planet earth knows the nail in the coffin was the fumble-6 (following 3 punt drives out of 3 before that), that made it a 24-0 game, not Pittsburgh's long opening drive that gave them a 1-score lead in the 1st quarter (painful as it was to watch). After the rocky start - which still only resulted in 17 points, not 21 nor 24 points nor still more - the defense then surrendered 0 and scored 2 of their own. Net = 15 points, on the road in Pittsburgh.

Roethlisberger - who threw only 5 picks in his previous 14 games including the playoffs - finished the game a putrid 10 of 19 with 2 picks, 2 fumbles, 1 rushing TD, and even got sacked for a safety. You'd think the defense surrendered another 17 points in the 2nd half the way you've forever hounded them about this game. The week before, Baltimore scored 21 in the first half on them, but they didn't curl up into fetal position on offense. They won the game, as their D surrendered just a FG the rest of the way.

The 2010 Jets had a good defense, not great, and had a bad but not historic/tragic first half. Far worse defenses have been superbowl champs. We just needed our own offense to not score a TD for the opposition, and that was apparently too tall of an order.

Like the Steelers in the prior game with the Ravens, or the Ravens in their own SB playoffs of 2012, sometimes you have to put real points on the board, and not just whine because their defense isn't again the best there's ever been. These are the playoffs: the very best teams in the conference, and it's weak sauce to have repeated meltdowns here because the D didn't steamroll the eventual SB Champ Steelers like they did against the 4-win Bills.

The Ravens didn't win a SB because their defense was a repeat of 2000. They won because their offense - particularly their QB - really stepped up. They they beat the Broncos despite having to overcome 35 points surrendered by the D and ST. Then they overcame the 49ers' late onslaught after the blackout because they offense got out to a big enough lead early and then still added more to it, instead of suggesting 17-6 should be enough of a lead against the Manning Colts, that the offense can just go to sleep for the rest of the game.

[Bleedin Green]

3 hours ago, nyjunc said:

my head hurts from the stupidity. Imagine the Pats in the SB saying Brady scored 4 more pts for Atl than he did for the Pats when they were down 28-3 so they could allow Atl to run out the clock b/c of it.  bad plays happen, again even w/o that play we are likely down 20 instead of 21 at the half.  that play did not determine the game, what did determine the game was the final drive for Pitt where our vaunted D allowed the Steelers to run out the clock.

I would have to imagine it often hurts when you attempt to think about this topic, because what you write is such drivel.  Bad plays happen, so they don't count?  However, things that didn't happen do count, simply because you made them up?

The most ridiculous part is that your point of comparison is actually proving yourself wrong again.  The Pats D allowed 21 points, the Jets D 17.  The Pats D scored 0 points, the Jets D scored 2.  That means the Jets O was asked to contribute 16+ points to get a win, and Pats O needed 22+.  Both teams got further saddled by the offense having another 7 scored off a turnover, tacking another 7 onto how much each offense needed to score to win, at their own fault.

So what's the actual difference here in this comparison?  The Pats offense scored 34 points, and the Jets offense 17.  That's right, half.  Unbelievably enough, the Pats offense also didn't need 15 minutes TOP in the 4th quarter to do that either, as you assert being a necessity for the offense to be considered at all responsible.  When you attempted to make this silly comparison, was it your belief that if the Pats had scored only 17 points in that game, the offense would be considered blameless in their loss?

Understand we are not even talking about your personal opinions anymore.  You have been proven to be factually incorrect.  Your inability to comprehend that doesn't change it.

[Beerfish]

Rex is making himself stupider than normal in this pre game talk today in his pregame talking.

Whines about the press being hard on him over things like the butt fumble, the press gave this guy more rope than he ever deserved.

He also laughably talking about mcvie that he hired the best assistants possible (wade phillips) and a coach should always get the best assistants and not be afraid of hiring a guy who could take over for them.

The jets under rex had the worst set of assistants in the NFL and that was part of his downfall, and why I knw he would fail in Buffalo when he took most of his staff with him.

[nyjunc]

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:50 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

I will not because I've already read this before, and I think I can guess without reading it again.

Usually goes something like this: it's the job of the defense to overcome any woes on offense, but not vice versa.

you mean w/o actually reading it for the first time?

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 3:02 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

God help me, I actually read this page.

In the Pittsburgh game, for an offense like ours, the entirety of planet earth knows the nail in the coffin was the fumble-6 (following 3 punt drives out of 3 before that), that made it a 24-0 game, not Pittsburgh's long opening drive that gave them a 1-score lead in the 1st quarter (painful as it was to watch). After the rocky start - which still only resulted in 17 points, not 21 nor 24 points nor still more - the defense then surrendered 0 and scored 2 of their own. Net = 15 points, on the road in Pittsburgh.

Roethlisberger - who threw only 5 picks in his previous 14 games including the playoffs - finished the game a putrid 10 of 19 with 2 picks, 2 fumbles, 1 rushing TD, and even got sacked for a safety. You'd think the defense surrendered another 17 points in the 2nd half the way you've forever hounded them about this game. The week before, Baltimore scored 21 in the first half on them, but they didn't curl up into fetal position on offense. They won the game, as their D surrendered just a FG the rest of the way.

The 2010 Jets had a good defense, not great, and had a bad but not historic/tragic first half. Far worse defenses have been superbowl champs. We just needed our own offense to not score a TD for the opposition, and that was apparently too tall of an order.

Like the Steelers in the prior game with the Ravens, or the Ravens in their own SB playoffs of 2012, sometimes you have to put real points on the board, and not just whine because their defense isn't again the best there's ever been. These are the playoffs: the very best teams in the conference, and it's weak sauce to have repeated meltdowns here because the D didn't steamroll the eventual SB Champ Steelers like they did against the 4-win Bills.

The Ravens didn't win a SB because their defense was a repeat of 2000. They won because their offense - particularly their QB - really stepped up. They they beat the Broncos despite having to overcome 35 points surrendered by the D and ST. Then they overcame the 49ers' late onslaught after the blackout because they offense got out to a big enough lead early and then still added more to it, instead of suggesting 17-6 should be enough of a lead against the Manning Colts, that the offense can just go to sleep for the rest of the game.

if we don't fumble and Pitt doesn't score there we punt to Pitt, they have great FP(barring a miracle punt) and the game is 20-0 at the half, we went into the half down 21. virtually no difference and we got a little momentum based on the FG drive, we opened the 2nd half w/ a quick TD and we were right back in the game.

One of Ben's picks was a 4th and 1 where we caught it at the line, it was basically a TO on downs. the other was down the field like a good punt that pinned us deep.  Ben didn't play well but when plays needed to be made he made them. Pitt got conservative w/ the big lead but once they needed to make a play against our D again they did.  All we had to do was stop them from getting 2 first downs, we couldn't do it.

real points like when the Giants O scored 17 and 20 in regulation to reach 2 SBs?  sometimes your D has to step up especially when they are supposedly a top D.  You bring up the 2012 Ravens, their D wasn't great that postseason but when they needed a late stop to give their O a chance at Denver what happened? in the title game at Brady what happened?  Let's compare 2010 NYJ w/ 2012 Bal:

div rd:

NYJ: O scored 28, Ball O scored 28 in regulation

title game:

NYJ D allowed 17, Bal D allowed 13

 

so yeah I wish we were more like the Bal D and again when faced w/ a situation where they couldn't allow 2 1st downs to end a game they got a stop and gave their O a chance unlike the Jets D.

By the way, The Raven D in their 3 playoff games that year allowed 145.3 PPG in the AFC playoffs, NYJ D allowed 18 PPG

when they beat the Broncos STs allowed 2 TDs, the Bronco D only allowed 21 pts and again gave their O a chance to tie the game late.

 

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 5:28 PM, Bleedin Green said:

I would have to imagine it often hurts when you attempt to think about this topic, because what you write is such drivel.  Bad plays happen, so they don't count?  However, things that didn't happen do count, simply because you made them up?

The most ridiculous part is that your point of comparison is actually proving yourself wrong again.  The Pats D allowed 21 points, the Jets D 17.  The Pats D scored 0 points, the Jets D scored 2.  That means the Jets O was asked to contribute 16+ points to get a win, and Pats O needed 22+.  Both teams got further saddled by the offense having another 7 scored off a turnover, tacking another 7 onto how much each offense needed to score to win, at their own fault.

So what's the actual difference here in this comparison?  The Pats offense scored 34 points, and the Jets offense 17.  That's right, half.  Unbelievably enough, the Pats offense also didn't need 15 minutes TOP in the 4th quarter to do that either, as you assert being a necessity for the offense to be considered at all responsible.  When you attempted to make this silly comparison, was it your belief that if the Pats had scored only 17 points in that game, the offense would be considered blameless in their loss?

Understand we are not even talking about your personal opinions anymore.  You have been proven to be factually incorrect.  Your inability to comprehend that doesn't change it.

I don't think you know what the word "proven" means. 

those 2 points "scored" by our D came on a fumbled snap after our O left the ball at the 1.  the D literally did nothing.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, nyjunc said:

you mean w/o actually reading it for the first time?

if we don't fumble and Pitt doesn't score there we punt to Pitt, they have great FP(barring a miracle punt) and the game is 20-0 at the half, we went into the half down 21. virtually no difference and we got a little momentum based on the FG drive, we opened the 2nd half w/ a quick TD and we were right back in the game.

One of Ben's picks was a 4th and 1 where we caught it at the line, it was basically a TO on downs. the other was down the field like a good punt that pinned us deep.  Ben didn't play well but when plays needed to be made he made them. Pitt got conservative w/ the big lead but once they needed to make a play against our D again they did.  All we had to do was stop them from getting 2 first downs, we couldn't do it.

real points like when the Giants O scored 17 and 20 in regulation to reach 2 SBs?  sometimes your D has to step up especially when they are supposedly a top D.  You bring up the 2012 Ravens, their D wasn't great that postseason but when they needed a late stop to give their O a chance at Denver what happened? in the title game at Brady what happened?  Let's compare 2010 NYJ w/ 2012 Bal:

div rd:

NYJ: O scored 28, Ball O scored 28 in regulation

title game:

NYJ D allowed 17, Bal D allowed 13

 

so yeah I wish we were more like the Bal D and again when faced w/ a situation where they couldn't allow 2 1st downs to end a game they got a stop and gave their O a chance unlike the Jets D.

By the way, The Raven D in their 3 playoff games that year allowed 145.3 PPG in the AFC playoffs, NYJ D allowed 18 PPG

when they beat the Broncos STs allowed 2 TDs, the Bronco D only allowed 21 pts and again gave their O a chance to tie the game late.

 

I don't think you know what the word "proven" means. 

those 2 points "scored" by our D came on a fumbled snap after our O left the ball at the 1.  the D literally did nothing.

 

Blah blah blah, if if if

Lost in all this is that we were still losing. Forever you've acted like scoring a long, game-winning TD drive in just a couple of minutes, had the offense gotten the ball back yet again, was a mere formality and a foregone conclusion. Perhaps if the offense scored more than 10 net points on the game it wouldn't have come to that, and we'd be talking about our Superbowl victory or loss.

The offense scored 10 net points. The defense gave 15 net points. The special teams surrendered 0 points.

You can spin out of that all you want but in the end, while neither had its best game, one side did its job more than the other.

[Sperm Edwards]

To the other ridiculous attempts to distract:

The Giants scored enough points to win each game, one of which was played in GB as the 3rd-coldest game in history, with a windchill that reached -32 degrees -- downright balmy compared to our championship game in Pittsburgh, but one you'd undoubtedly be using as yet another excuse why we lost. That is, if you weren't still harping on how the offense did its job to score late, but in the 4th quarter Tynes missed both a 43 yarder and then a 36 yarder to win in regulation. 

Not to mention the elephant in the room: Eli didn't put a full TD on the board for the opposition in either championship game.

How is it relevant how the Broncos scored, so long as it wasn't the Ravens' offense on the field when it happened? Talk about intellectual dishonesty -- 35 points is the amount the Ravens' offense had to score just to reach OT. Had they not overcome it, their fans would have instead tried to seek satisfaction in discussions about how it isn't the offense's fault.

Reverse roles with the Ravens and instead of relishing our SB victory, we'd be reading 5 years of excuses about how it isn't the fault of poor Mark and the offense. That goes without saying, since we're hearing your relative satisfaction with their lousy job of scoring 17 points for the us and 7 points for the other freaking team.

[Smashmouth]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

To the other ridiculous attempts to distract:

The Giants scored enough points to win each game, one of which was played in GB as the 3rd-coldest game in history, with a windchill that reached -32 degrees -- downright balmy compared to our championship game in Pittsburgh, but one you'd undoubtedly be using as yet another excuse why we lost. That is, if you weren't still harping on how the offense did its job to score late, but in the 4th quarter Tynes missed both a 43 yarder and then a 36 yarder to win in regulation. 

Not to mention the elephant in the room: Eli didn't put a full TD on the board for the opposition in either championship game.

How is it relevant how the Broncos scored, so long as it wasn't the Ravens' offense on the field when it happened? Talk about intellectual dishonesty -- 35 points is the amount the Ravens' offense had to score just to reach OT. Had they not overcome it, their fans would have instead tried to seek satisfaction in discussions about how it isn't the offense's fault.

Reverse roles with the Ravens and instead of relishing our SB victory, we'd be reading 5 years of excuses about how it isn't the fault of poor Mark and the offense. That goes without saying, since we're hearing your relative satisfaction with their lousy job of scoring 17 points for the us and 7 points for the other freaking team.

A Jet Fan making excuses for the Giants but not the Jets ? Impossible !!

The Giants won 2 SB's because their defense shut down every QB they played when their pass rush got insanely hot. The Jets who were known for playing tough defense sh*t the bed in both playoff runs (AFCCG's). Once by giving up a large lead to the Colts while our Idiot coach decided to get conservative and once by getting steam rolled early in the Pitt game and could not get the ball back to our offense for most of the first half while getting steam rolled. Then when we needed the ball at the end said defense game up the back breaking first down's to run out the clock.

Brady Manning and Manning all brought their teams back when their QB's finally got hot in the second half Just like Sanchez did. The only difference is the Jets defense could not get their team the ball back in the Pitt game to give their hot QB a chance to win. Funny how Brady and Manning ALWAYS got those shots but Sanchez didn't. Over all Mark was not a very good QB but he played well enough in the playoff's to get us wins and our vaunted defense sh*t the bed.

[Sperm Edwards]

30 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

A Jet Fan making excuses for the Giants but not the Jets ? Impossible !!

The Giants won 2 SB's because their defense shut down every QB they played when their pass rush got insanely hot. The Jets who were known for playing tough defense sh*t the bed in both playoff runs (AFCCG's). Once by giving up a large lead to the Colts while our Idiot coach decided to get conservative and once by getting steam rolled early in the Pitt game and could not get the ball back to our offense for most of the first half while getting steam rolled. Then when we needed the ball at the end said defense game up the back breaking first down's to run out the clock.

Brady Manning and Manning all brought their teams back when their QB's finally got hot in the second half Just like Sanchez did. The only difference is the Jets defense could not get their team the ball back in the Pitt game to give their hot QB a chance to win. Funny how Brady and Manning ALWAYS got those shots but Sanchez didn't. Over all Mark was not a very good QB but he played well enough in the playoff's to get us wins and our vaunted defense sh*t the bed.

Hey, eff the Giants, but they don't need excuses as to why they lost because they won the games. Excuses are the Lombardi Trophies of losers.

The Giants would have lost those close games if the offense scored 17 for the offense while Eli scored 7 points for the other team.

What are you talking about Sanchez didn't have those chances? Trailing by 14 points, an 8 minute, clock-eating drive died on the 1 instead of ending with a TD pass. The awful D gave him the ball back immediately, with a bonus of 2 points on the scoreboard, and the next drive took yet another 4 min off the clock to go 58 yards. We all would prefer they caused a 3 & out, but it's not even like the D gave up any points after the first half ended. They gave up zero and scored 2.

Those famous Brady/Manning drives you love were mostly running a hurry up offense when you'd see them march right down the field in a minute or two without any timeouts. Mark led two 4th quarter drives, eating up 11 minutes while trailing by 2 TDs, and came away with 7 points.

Eff them all, but stop with your own endless excuses for this bust.

[freestater]

I like pot.