The Debate is over! Concrete reason why Clemens will be starter!

[nyjunc]

2002 is 3/4 of a healthy season.

2004 was half of a healthy season.

And silly me for not only counting games against teams with a combined 1-15 record at the time Pennington faced them. And even sillier of me to count something as stupid as scoring instead of the much more meaningful passer rating (for half of a season). So because Pennington had a high (though still far off the leaders) QB rating for half a season, from this you summarize his entire season as "near the league leaders in passing"? lol

Tell me something. Given that Pennington has a higher career passer rating than Dan Marino, Favre, Kelly, McNair, Aikman, Moon, Tarkenton, Fouts, Elway, Unitas, and so many others, do you think he's led them in passing in their respective careers? If not, you may want to re-think your measuring stick. Hell, Brian Griese has a higher passer rating than most of these superstars who most consider among the best of the best of all time.

When Martin led the league in rushing, was it because he had the most rushing yards or because he led the league in yards per carry or some other form of "RB rating"?

Answer that and then re-ask yourself if Pennington was "among the league leaders in passing" in that (or any) year.

He didn't start the season in '02 but he was healthy all year, he started 13 games in 2004. When he has played 3/4 of games we have made the playoffs every time. '02 he started 12, '04 he started 13 and '06 he started 16.

Who were these teams that combined for 1-15? I already showed you that was false. If y7ou are going to count records of teams after 2-3 games then whatabout the teams that were playing well later in the season? Outside of the Jets game the Texans won 3 of 4 from late Nov to Late Dec. Doe she get credit for that win since Houston was playing well? No you'll look at the final record and see Houston was 7-9 and discount that win so why do we take an 0-2 or 1-2 record from early in the season and use that rather than teams like SD who finished 12-4 and Buf who finished 9-7? It's one way or the other. Seattle won 3 of 4 w/ their lone loss to the Jets in a 4 game stretch and they finished 9-7. was that a good win? Just keep making excuses.

The passing Champion is determined by passer rating, it can be misleading at times(such as last year) but he was very good in 2004. 8 TDs to 2 INTs is pretty damn good.

You are going to compare RBs to QBs now? Desperation time.

You don't think Chad was one of the best QBs in 2002? you don't think he was playing like a top QB until the Buf injury in 2004? A blind man could have seen that he was a top QB for those stretches.

You know whats funny sperm? Its funny how some people will continue to comment on specifics about Pennington and his 2002/2006 season yet I havent seen anyone touch my 2006 comment fact on Pennington. Usually someone will quote what I stated but I've noticed that nobody touched that comment. Matter of fact, Im going to repost it just because it should have gotten the attention of the pro chad crew. I guess they're not going to touch it because they cant really combat my points....or should I say facts. Chad is Horrible.

Your premise is so silly. You took total points scored and then divided the Tds Chad threw? What does that mean? He doesn't get any credit for passes completed to set up TDs or set up FGs? That's why no one responded.

[Sperm Edwards]

lol

So now almost 8 uninjured games in 2004 is a healthy season. OK.

And 2007 doesn't count as a healthy season without making the playoffs because he got benched. I'm sure if we stuck with Chad after the bye week we'd have made the playoffs.

The passing champion determined by QB rating? Where do you get this stuff from? The only people who want it recognized are agents and those WCO players who benefit from the methodology used in determining rating. He finished outside the top 10 in QB rating for the season anyway.

Answer instead of dodging:

Since you think the true measure of a QB's prowess (a "passing champion") is his QB rating, is Chad Pennington better than those QB's I listed (Marino, Favre, Kelly, McNair, Aikman, Moon, Tarkenton, Fouts, Elway, Unitas)? He has a higher career QB rating than all of them.

Mangini must have been a bloody fool for ever benching a QB who finished the season with an 86 QB rating. Even though 5 of his picks came in the 4th quarter of four close games. QB rating doesn't take game situations, the scores, or even the skill level of the opponents, into consideration. That is what makes it so flawed.

At the time we were sitting pretty at 5-0 with Pennington's oh-so-valuable QB rating around 100, the teams we beat had a combined 2-11 record (thought I remembered it as 1-15 but hadn't looked it up for a while. After our games, they were 2-16). It is not a matter of opinion:

After week 1, the Bengals were 0-1 (though they would start 0-4).

After week 2, the Chargers were 1-1 (beat the mighty Texans and would start 1-2).

Week 3 we had a bye.

After week 4, the Dolphins were 0-4.

After week 5, the Bills were 0-4.

After week 6, the 49ers were 1-5 (having beaten the 1-4 Cardinals).

Even if you remove the Jets games, and award the soon-to-be 0-4 Bengals a pristine 0-0 record, they were 2-11. After each matchup with a decent but hardly great Jets team, they were a combined 2-16.

We didn't play the 8-8 Bengals. We played the 0-0 Bengals that would start out 0-4. We played the Bengals in Carson Palmer's first NFL start, not his 10th or 12th start. We played a 1-0 (soon to be 1-2) Chargers team that needed to have Brees removed for Doug Flutie. That game they resembled the prior season's 4-12 team far more than the one that would finish 12-4. We played an 0-3 Bills team and then a 2-5 Bills team (after having beaten the God-awful Dolphins and Cardinals). We played the 1-4 49ers (which is actually better than their 2-14 final record).

Here's the best part:

The Bengals nearly came back, the Chargers nearly came back, and the offense-less/defense-less 49ers took a 14-0 lead against us. Real championship-caliber stuff right there.

The Texans were a tough team when we faced them? Really?

Nov 7th: lost to Denver.

Nov 14th: lost to Indy.

Nov 21st: lost to GB.

Nov 28th: beat a Tennessee team that was in the middle of a 1-6 slide.

Dec 5th: lost to Jets.

Dec 12th: lost to Indy.

Dec 19th: beat a Bears team that was in the middle of a 1-6 slide.

Oh yeah. The Texans were really en fuego, as they entered the Jets game losing 3 of their prior 4 games (and would lose again the week after our game). How stupid of me.

If anything, Houston was better in the beginning of the season, when we did not face them. They started out 4-3. We didn't play them during that stretch. We played them during their 3-7 finish & 2 of those 3 impressive wins came against teams in 1-6 slumps themselves.

[villain_the_foe]

He didn't start the season in '02 but he was healthy all year, he started 13 games in 2004. When he has played 3/4 of games we have made the playoffs every time. '02 he started 12, '04 he started 13 and '06 he started 16.

Who were these teams that combined for 1-15? I already showed you that was false. If y7ou are going to count records of teams after 2-3 games then whatabout the teams that were playing well later in the season? Outside of the Jets game the Texans won 3 of 4 from late Nov to Late Dec. Doe she get credit for that win since Houston was playing well? No you'll look at the final record and see Houston was 7-9 and discount that win so why do we take an 0-2 or 1-2 record from early in the season and use that rather than teams like SD who finished 12-4 and Buf who finished 9-7? It's one way or the other. Seattle won 3 of 4 w/ their lone loss to the Jets in a 4 game stretch and they finished 9-7. was that a good win? Just keep making excuses.

The passing Champion is determined by passer rating, it can be misleading at times(such as last year) but he was very good in 2004. 8 TDs to 2 INTs is pretty damn good.

You are going to compare RBs to QBs now? Desperation time.

You don't think Chad was one of the best QBs in 2002? you don't think he was playing like a top QB until the Buf injury in 2004? A blind man could have seen that he was a top QB for those stretches.

Your premise is so silly. You took total points scored and then divided the Tds Chad threw? What does that mean? He doesn't get any credit for passes completed to set up TDs or set up FGs? That's why no one responded.

No, it wasnt silly...it made alot of sense. He doesnt score points. I dont want a QB that marches down the field to the 30yd line so we can use the damn kicker. And it couldnt have been the running game because everyone said it wasnt the running game. Answer the questions.

[nyjunc]

lol

So now almost 8 uninjured games in 2004 is a healthy season. OK.

And 2007 doesn't count as a healthy season without making the playoffs because he got benched. I'm sure if we stuck with Chad after the bye week we'd have made the playoffs.

The passing champion determined by QB rating? Where do you get this stuff from? The only people who want it recognized are agents and those WCO players who benefit from the methodology used in determining rating. He finished outside the top 10 in QB rating for the season anyway.

Answer instead of dodging:

Since you think the true measure of a QB's prowess (a "passing champion") is his QB rating, is Chad Pennington better than those QB's I listed (Marino, Favre, Kelly, McNair, Aikman, Moon, Tarkenton, Fouts, Elway, Unitas)? He has a higher career QB rating than all of them.

Mangini must have been a bloody fool for ever benching a QB who finished the season with an 86 QB rating. Even though 5 of his picks came in the 4th quarter of four close games. QB rating doesn't take game situations, the scores, or even the skill level of the opponents, into consideration. That is what makes it so flawed.

At the time we were sitting pretty at 5-0 with Pennington's oh-so-valuable QB rating around 100, the teams we beat had a combined 2-11 record (thought I remembered it as 1-15 but hadn't looked it up for a while. After our games, they were 2-16). It is not a matter of opinion:

After week 1, the Bengals were 0-1 (though they would start 0-4).

After week 2, the Chargers were 1-1 (beat the mighty Texans and would start 1-2).

Week 3 we had a bye.

After week 4, the Dolphins were 0-4.

After week 5, the Bills were 0-4.

After week 6, the 49ers were 1-5 (having beaten the 1-4 Cardinals).

Even if you remove the Jets games, and award the soon-to-be 0-4 Bengals a pristine 0-0 record, they were 2-11. After each matchup with a decent but hardly great Jets team, they were a combined 2-16.

We didn't play the 8-8 Bengals. We played the 0-0 Bengals that would start out 0-4. We played the Bengals in Carson Palmer's first NFL start, not his 10th or 12th start. We played a 1-0 (soon to be 1-2) Chargers team that needed to have Brees removed for Doug Flutie. That game they resembled the prior season's 4-12 team far more than the one that would finish 12-4. We played an 0-3 Bills team and then a 2-5 Bills team (after having beaten the God-awful Dolphins and Cardinals). We played the 1-4 49ers (which is actually better than their 2-14 final record).

Here's the best part:

The Bengals nearly came back, the Chargers nearly came back, and the offense-less/defense-less 49ers took a 14-0 lead against us. Real championship-caliber stuff right there.

The Texans were a tough team when we faced them? Really?

Nov 7th: lost to Denver.

Nov 14th: lost to Indy.

Nov 21st: lost to GB.

Nov 28th: beat a Tennessee team that was in the middle of a 1-6 slide.

Dec 5th: lost to Jets.

Dec 12th: lost to Indy.

Dec 19th: beat a Bears team that was in the middle of a 1-6 slide.

Oh yeah. The Texans were really en fuego, as they entered the Jets game losing 3 of their prior 4 games (and would lose again the week after our game). How stupid of me.

If anything, Houston was better in the beginning of the season, when we did not face them. They started out 4-3. We didn't play them during that stretch. We played them during their 3-7 finish & 2 of those 3 impressive wins came against teams in 1-6 slumps themselves.

Are you being serious? isaid '07 was the only healthy season he has played where the Jets didn't make the playoffs and '04 counts b/c he played in 13 games. He didn't miss 13 like he did in '05 or half the season like he did in '03.

Who is dodging? My name isn't sperm edwards. No rating isn't always the best emasure but that's how the passing champion is crowned and when you are in the top 5 in '04 and your team is 6-1 my guess is your QB is playing pretty well, what do you think? In '02 he led the NFL in passing but Gannon was better. gannon was the ONLY QB better than Chad in 2002.

Again, I never said rating was the stat that determines who is good and who isn't. It can definitely be flawed such as it was last year w/ Chad BUT it wasn't in '02 and '04. He truly was a top QB in those years.

Back to '04:

You arecounting the Loss the Jets handed these teams? You are insane, just admit you don't have a valid argument and move on. Cincy was 0-0, SD was 1-0, Miami 0-2, Buf 0-3 and SF 1-4. SD finished 12-4, Buf finished 9-7 and Cincy finished 7-9.

The benagls nearly made a comeback. That's Chad's fault? The Chargers nearly came back(which isn't true, they made the score look close) that was Chad's fault? The Champions of 2004 lost to a 4 win dolphin team that year, teams sometimes play to the level of their competition. As usual you need style points w/ you instead of being happy w/ a W b/c if we beat SF 31-6 instead of 22-14 they would have given us an extra win, right?

I didn't say Houston was good I said they were playing good. Outside of the Jets loss they won 3 of 4 games but that doesn't count, right? it only counts if you say it does to try to twist your weak argument.

The bottom line is of the 1st 6 wins we beat a 12-4 team, a 9-7 team and a 7-9 team. We beat a bad Miami team twice and a bad SF team but they were 6-1 and likely would have been 7-1 or better had Chad not gotten hurt.

No, it wasnt silly...it made alot of sense. He doesnt score points. I dont want a QB that marches down the field to the 30yd line so we can use the damn kicker. And it couldnt have been the running game because everyone said it wasnt the running game. Answer the questions.

Come back to Earth please. Bring something valid to debate or don't bother responding to me at all.

[Sperm Edwards]

lol

You are doing the ultimate backpedaling.

You said "Chad was right up there with the league leaders in passing before he hurt his shoulder and ruined his career."

Then it was shown he was barely in the top-20 (if even that) in most passing categories, so it was whittled down to "OK he was near the league leaders in the QB rating category."

But of course he wasn't even in the top 10 in that category, and was way WAY off the leaders (Manning had a record year with 121 and Culpepper had a 111. Brees & McNabb had around 105. Chad's 91 rating was nowhere close to the leaders).

So now it's "Chad's QB rating was very good in the 7 games before he got hurt again." Of course it also eliminates the Buffalo game he got injured in itself (when Chad was the QB until Quincy Carter took over with 6 minutes left), but that shouldn't count either.

Finally it's "Chad had a very high QB rating in his healthy games in the first half of the season except for the one game I don't want to count."

Buddy, that is a far cry from "Chad was near the leaders in passing."

What you meant to say was: "For (almost) half of a football season, against teams that were struggling mightily for any wins, Chad Pennington was close to being among the league leaders in the QB rating category."

If you asked anyone list the top-10 all-time passing leaders, how many would include Ben Roethlisberger, Chad Pennington, Carson Palmer, Kurt Warner, Daunte Culpepper, and Marc Bulger?

If you asked to name some that are "near" the all-time leaders in passing, how many would throw out names like Trent Green, Drew Brees, and Jeff Garcia?

Why didn't you just say from the get-go "In the first half of the 2004 season, excluding the game he got injured towards the end of the 4th quarter, Chad Pennington had a very high QB rating."

And then insist that the teams he beat, at the times he beat them, when they were playing like crap, were just as good as they were after they turned their seasons around.

The Bengals in week 1 were just as good as they were when they finished the season 6-3. Just as good. And the Chargers, 1 game removed from having the #1 pick in the NFL due to their crappiness, were just as tough when Brees was removed for Doug Flutie, as they were when they got hot weeks later. And so on. And how the offense plays certainly has an effect on the defense. When the Jets' offense keeps getting off the field as quickly as they get on it, of course that has an effect on letting the other team back in the games. What a silly suggestion otherwise (particularly when, in the Cincy game, the defense scored a 2nd-half TD in a game we won by 7).

Beyond that, I don't know how you make these arguments and purport to be serious about them.

In one breath you note that Pennington was better in the first half of the season than the 2nd half. And you want to include him as a passing leader only when he was playing better.

Then in the next breath you say the teams that he beat then are not afforded the same luxury of being better or worse at certain points in the season. If the Bengals start out 1-4 or whatever it was, and we played them in week 1, you want to count them as just as good as when they finished at 6-3. Same thing with the Chargers. The exact opposite of the slanted way you present Pennington's stats by only including the part of the season he was playing relatively well (albeit against then-lousy/losing teams).

Then suggesting that the Texans were a good football team in early December of that year is still making my head spin. From November 7th to December 19th, they were 2-5. Both of those wins came against teams that were in 1-6 skids. Put aside those 2 wins against teams who couldn't buy one anyway - are you suggesting the Texans have, at any significant length of time in their first handful of NFL seasons, had a good defense that gave QB's fits? But hey - they really shut down the league's 32nd and 29th ranked offenses at the close of the season. Definitive roof that they were a hot team when the Jets played them 2-3 weeks earlier. Talk about reaching.

Then throw in there little tidbits like the way he "led" the team to the playoffs in '06. The Jets scored the 18th-most points in '06 (including defensive and special-teams TD's). The defense was ranked 6th in points-surrendered & scored some touchdowns to help out the offense. They had a pro-bowl kick returner that scored a couple more times. What rational person would conclude that the offense (let alone one mediocre player on offense) "led" the team to the playoffs?

Put all this aside in the end anyway:

What does this have to do with the QB he is today, two shoulder surgeries later?

He was a top QB for (most of) one season in 2002. He has gotten worse since then, and has gotten injured in every single season but one. And with a straight face suggest that we should again just march him out there.

Whatever he once was, or whatever he would have been if he never got injured, is not very relevant to the 2008 season.

There needs to be a competition at QB, which the staff is doing. If Clemens is so bad that he gets beaten out by a player who gave a number of games away the prior season, then so be it.

[villain_the_foe]

Come back to Earth please. Bring something valid to debate or don't bother responding to me at all.

Sun, I dont work for NASA. You seem to be the one out of this world if you're taking the position of arguing Chads stats and quality of work with the Jets. I really dont have to respond to you, because instead of you trying to prove me wrong with actual information you just say that I need to "come back to earth". How about showing me and the rest of the people on this forum how my fact about Chad Scoring less than 1/3 of 316 points in a season is productive....and how that also proves that he had no help from the running game.

This is the third time im asking you this question. HOW ABOUT ANSWERING IT THIS TIME!

If there was no running game and Chad scored less than 1/3 of the 316 points that they scored in 2006 (which is below league average mind you) then who scored those points and how does less than 1/3 of the points scored with a 17TD 16Int 2006 Year stat put him in a category of having a good/great year?

Instead of telling me what planet im not on, Answer the question or dont bother responding to me at all.

P.S. Villain The Foe never minds being wrong, because if he's wrong about this then the Jets are better than he thinks which is a win situation for him anyway, however, you either must prove my point wrong or be ready to consider my statement as the most logical explaination. Thats what explainations do if you happen not to know that.

[jetfuel]

I think it's time to put this "debate" to rest until training camp. No one is going to win the job until then and none of us will be making that decision nor will we have any say in that decision. Just my opinion.

[nyjunc]

Sun, I dont work for NASA. You seem to be the one out of this world if you're taking the position of arguing Chads stats and quality of work with the Jets. I really dont have to respond to you, because instead of you trying to prove me wrong with actual information you just say that I need to "come back to earth". How about showing me and the rest of the people on this forum how my fact about Chad Scoring less than 1/3 of 316 points in a season is productive....and how that also proves that he had no help from the running game.

This is the third time im asking you this question. HOW ABOUT ANSWERING IT THIS TIME!

If there was no running game and Chad scored less than 1/3 of the 316 points that they scored in 2006 (which is below league average mind you) then who scored those points and how does less than 1/3 of the points scored with a 17TD 16Int 2006 Year stat put him in a category of having a good/great year?

Instead of telling me what planet im not on, Answer the question or dont bother responding to me at all.

P.S. Villain The Foe never minds being wrong, because if he's wrong about this then the Jets are better than he thinks which is a win situation for him anyway, however, you either must prove my point wrong or be ready to consider my statement as the most logical explaination. Thats what explainations do if you happen not to know that.

I don't know whny I am responding but I will.

Chad threw 16 TDs while Leon, Barlow and Houston scored 15 TDs. Our running game stunk in '06, the 3 averaged 3.5 YPC yet they scored 15 TDs. How do you think we got into position for those RBs to score so many TDs?

You do realize that philip Rivers % lst year was lower than Chad's in '06. How did Chad lead us to the playoffs and Rivers lead SD to the title game w/ such low scoring % #s?

[nyjunc]

lol

You are doing the ultimate backpedaling.

You said "Chad was right up there with the league leaders in passing before he hurt his shoulder and ruined his career."

Then it was shown he was barely in the top-20 (if even that) in most passing categories, so it was whittled down to "OK he was near the league leaders in the QB rating category."

But of course he wasn't even in the top 10 in that category, and was way WAY off the leaders (Manning had a record year with 121 and Culpepper had a 111. Brees & McNabb had around 105. Chad's 91 rating was nowhere close to the leaders).

So now it's "Chad's QB rating was very good in the 7 games before he got hurt again." Of course it also eliminates the Buffalo game he got injured in itself (when Chad was the QB until Quincy Carter took over with 6 minutes left), but that shouldn't count either.

Finally it's "Chad had a very high QB rating in his healthy games in the first half of the season except for the one game I don't want to count."

Buddy, that is a far cry from "Chad was near the leaders in passing."

What you meant to say was: "For (almost) half of a football season, against teams that were struggling mightily for any wins, Chad Pennington was close to being among the league leaders in the QB rating category."

If you asked anyone list the top-10 all-time passing leaders, how many would include Ben Roethlisberger, Chad Pennington, Carson Palmer, Kurt Warner, Daunte Culpepper, and Marc Bulger?

If you asked to name some that are "near" the all-time leaders in passing, how many would throw out names like Trent Green, Drew Brees, and Jeff Garcia?

Why didn't you just say from the get-go "In the first half of the 2004 season, excluding the game he got injured towards the end of the 4th quarter, Chad Pennington had a very high QB rating."

And then insist that the teams he beat, at the times he beat them, when they were playing like crap, were just as good as they were after they turned their seasons around.

The Bengals in week 1 were just as good as they were when they finished the season 6-3. Just as good. And the Chargers, 1 game removed from having the #1 pick in the NFL due to their crappiness, were just as tough when Brees was removed for Doug Flutie, as they were when they got hot weeks later. And so on. And how the offense plays certainly has an effect on the defense. When the Jets' offense keeps getting off the field as quickly as they get on it, of course that has an effect on letting the other team back in the games. What a silly suggestion otherwise (particularly when, in the Cincy game, the defense scored a 2nd-half TD in a game we won by 7).

Beyond that, I don't know how you make these arguments and purport to be serious about them.

In one breath you note that Pennington was better in the first half of the season than the 2nd half. And you want to include him as a passing leader only when he was playing better.

Then in the next breath you say the teams that he beat then are not afforded the same luxury of being better or worse at certain points in the season. If the Bengals start out 1-4 or whatever it was, and we played them in week 1, you want to count them as just as good as when they finished at 6-3. Same thing with the Chargers. The exact opposite of the slanted way you present Pennington's stats by only including the part of the season he was playing relatively well (albeit against then-lousy/losing teams).

Then suggesting that the Texans were a good football team in early December of that year is still making my head spin. From November 7th to December 19th, they were 2-5. Both of those wins came against teams that were in 1-6 skids. Put aside those 2 wins against teams who couldn't buy one anyway - are you suggesting the Texans have, at any significant length of time in their first handful of NFL seasons, had a good defense that gave QB's fits? But hey - they really shut down the league's 32nd and 29th ranked offenses at the close of the season. Definitive roof that they were a hot team when the Jets played them 2-3 weeks earlier. Talk about reaching.

Then throw in there little tidbits like the way he "led" the team to the playoffs in '06. The Jets scored the 18th-most points in '06 (including defensive and special-teams TD's). The defense was ranked 6th in points-surrendered & scored some touchdowns to help out the offense. They had a pro-bowl kick returner that scored a couple more times. What rational person would conclude that the offense (let alone one mediocre player on offense) "led" the team to the playoffs?

Put all this aside in the end anyway:

What does this have to do with the QB he is today, two shoulder surgeries later?

He was a top QB for (most of) one season in 2002. He has gotten worse since then, and has gotten injured in every single season but one. And with a straight face suggest that we should again just march him out there.

Whatever he once was, or whatever he would have been if he never got injured, is not very relevant to the 2008 season.

There needs to be a competition at QB, which the staff is doing. If Clemens is so bad that he gets beaten out by a player who gave a number of games away the prior season, then so be it.

You cannot be serious? When was it "shown" that Chad wasn't in the top 20 in most passing categories when he got hurt in '04? Please show me that. I brought up rating all along b/c that's how they setermine a passing Champion. If you want me to show he was among the leaders in TDs, yds, td to int ratio etc. I can do that it will just take some time.

HE GOT HURT IN THE BUF GAME! He was playing w/ a TORN ROTATOR CUFF that was just injured, he couldn't throw at all and even if you vount those #s he's STILL among the league leaders. You are harping on meaningless points trying to deflect.

I haven't changed my argument once but you keep changing the criteria and each time Chad comes throuhg looking good then you'll change it up again trying to prove something that you cannot prove.

There you go again saying how it's ok to say the early season teams weren't playing well at the time but later in the year when he beat teams w/ poor records that were playing well that doesn't count. SD was damn gopod ALL YEAR, Buf lost 3 heartbreakers that first month- they weren't a bad team when we beat them.

I NEVER said the Texans were a good team but good job at attempting to deflect again. I said if you are going to show how teams were playing in that first month then why won't you show you Houston was playing when we beat them? Outside of our game they won 3 of 4 so they were obviously playing fairly well but these points hurt your weak points so you dismiss them.

I have said all along he is not the same QB post shoulder surgery that he was pre. I have said all along he deserves a chance to compete for the job. I have NEVER said he should be the starter and annointed the starter. The competition will play itself out in camp.

[Sperm Edwards]

I have said all along he is not the same QB post shoulder surgery that he was pre. I have said all along he deserves a chance to compete for the job. I have NEVER said he should be the starter and annointed the starter. The competition will play itself out in camp.

I'm wondering if we should end this here for now. I could continue forever & am usually a bit of a last-word freak (an affliction you also possess). But I'm starting to think you & I are the only ones who are reading it. I could still itemize everything from your last post, and still disagree with most of it.

But at this point, we are at least in agreement that a QB competition is necessary. And whether we agree on that or not, it's what is going to happen because Mangini keeps dodging my phone calls. In the end, we all want to see the same thing, even if we disagree on the appropriate personnel to get us there.

Good job.

[drago]

'meh, i'm actually reading each post. Penny is done as a QB in the NFL, clemens maybe bad...but at least it's not the white flag that is pennington.

No doubt in my mind Clemens wins the starting job.

[Sperm Edwards]

'meh, i'm actually reading each post. Penny is done as a QB in the NFL, clemens maybe bad...but at least it's not the white flag that is pennington.

No doubt in my mind Clemens wins the starting job.

Pennington sucks. But if Clemens is even worse do you really want him back there? I don't.

In this situation, if we win 8-10 games with Pennington (as though that was even a given; that is merely his upside) or if Clemens flops and we win 4-6 games, the end result will be the same: we will be looking for a new starting QB for 2009 (or promoting Ainge).

But if that's going to happen anyway, I'd be lying if I said I'd rather see the Jets win 5 games instead of 9. And this is from someone who never wants to see #10 as the Jets QB ever again.

[Jet Moses]

But I'm starting to think you & I are the only ones who are reading it.

You would be surprised.

[Gainzo]

I don't know whny I am responding but I will.

Chad threw 16 TDs while Leon, Barlow and Houston scored 15 TDs. Our running game stunk in '06, the 3 averaged 3.5 YPC yet they scored 15 TDs. How do you think we got into position for those RBs to score so many TDs?

You do realize that philip Rivers % lst year was lower than Chad's in '06. How did Chad lead us to the playoffs and Rivers lead SD to the title game w/ such low scoring % #s?

Rivers had 21 TD's and 15 INT's last season. He also lead his team to the AFC Championship game. Something Chad has never come close to accomplishing in his "stellar" career.

[Irish Jet]

Rivers had 21 TD's and 15 INT's last season. He also lead his team to the AFC Championship game. Something Chad has never come close to accomplishing in his "stellar" career.

Er, Gainzo. How was Chad not close to championship game??

Whether he played well or not the fact remains that he was a FG away from one.

[Gainzo]

Er, Gainzo. How was Chad not close to championship game??

Whether he played well or not the fact remains that he was a FG away from one.

Are you talking about the game in Pittsburgh where Chad put up a whopping 3 points?

[Irish Jet]

Are you talking about the game in Pittsburgh where Chad put up a whopping 3 points?

Regardless, he still was a kick away from an AFC title game.

[Gainzo]

Regardless, he still was a kick away from an AFC title game.

That is terrible logic. I watched that game and Chad sucked.

[Irish Jet]

That is terrible logic. I watched that game and Chad sucked.

LOL, I'm not debating that at all. The fact remains that if Doug Brien would have made either of his FG attempts then Chad would have went on to play in the AFC championship game. Which you said he was never close to doing.

[Gainzo]

LOL, I'm not debating that at all. The fact remains that if Doug Brien would have made either of his FG attempts then Chad would have went on to play in the AFC championship game. Which you said he was never close to doing.

If Chad "won" that game he would have had his arse kicked in Foxboro the next week. 3 points doesn't cut it.

The Pats went to Pittsburgh after the Jets lost and kicked the living **** out of the Steelers.

[villain_the_foe]

Regardless, he still was a kick away from an AFC title game.

This is the worst logic I've heard all day. A "QB" was a "Kick" away from a title game. QB's dont kick homie. How about this logic.

"He was a kick away from an AFC Title game, but did it himself and threw a TD, or ran in for a TD".

Thats more like it for a QB.

P.S. I guess that the Kicker was a passing TD away from the AFC Title game.

[villain_the_foe]

LOL, I'm not debating that at all. The fact remains that if Doug Brien would have made either of his FG attempts then Chad would have went on to play in the AFC championship game. Which you said he was never close to doing.

He wasnt, if he had to depend on a kicker and didnt produce points. It just meant that he played poorly in a division game in the playoffs, which is why we need another QB. Its so funny to me how Chad Pennington is so respected and "protected" by many fans but when push comes to shove its never him producing to get us wins. We got to hear things like "well, if the kicker would have made it" or something like that.

Thats the differenct between Pennington and the greats that are currently playing the game of football.

[nyjunc]

I'm wondering if we should end this here for now. I could continue forever & am usually a bit of a last-word freak (an affliction you also possess). But I'm starting to think you & I are the only ones who are reading it. I could still itemize everything from your last post, and still disagree with most of it.

But at this point, we are at least in agreement that a QB competition is necessary. And whether we agree on that or not, it's what is going to happen because Mangini keeps dodging my phone calls. In the end, we all want to see the same thing, even if we disagree on the appropriate personnel to get us there.

Good job.

[Jade Green]

You guys are leaving one major factor out here, HERM WAS PLAYING NOT TO LOSE!!!

Chad did not have the greatest game, but the TEAM played good enough to win against a tough Steeler D.

I believe one of the major factors in why Chad and the Jets did not get it done, was because of the horrible ultra conservative game that was called.

Kneeling on the ball before that kick was a terrible decision, and the straw that broke the back for me on Herm.

P.S. The Steelers got destroyed the next week because they did not belong, the Jets would probably had played a better game.

The out come may have been determined based on how much video ammo beliscum and the cheatriots had.

[nyjunc]

Rivers had 21 TD's and 15 INT's last season. He also lead his team to the AFC Championship game. Something Chad has never come close to accomplishing in his "stellar" career.

In 2002 and 2004 he was close to the AFC Title Game, he didn't hjave the luxury of facing the choking Colts and Mr. Choker Peyton Manning in those div rds or maybe he'd have his AFC Title Game appearance OR if his kicker hits 1 of 2 makeable kicks he has an AFC Title Game appearance.

Are you talking about the game in Pittsburgh where Chad put up a whopping 3 points?

The man was playing w/ a torn rotator cuff against a top defense. The D & STs kept us in that game w/o a doubt but we aren't there w/ Chad's excellent game the week before.

If Chad "won" that game he would have had his arse kicked in Foxboro the next week. 3 points doesn't cut it.

The Pats went to Pittsburgh after the Jets lost and kicked the living **** out of the Steelers.

We probably would have lost at NE BUT I remember 1985 when no one thought the Pats could win in Miami(they hadn't won there since the 70s) yet they did. Strange things can happen so you never know. I remmeber this undefeated team that was guaranteed to win the SB, nothing is guaranteed.

He wasnt, if he had to depend on a kicker and didnt produce points. It just meant that he played poorly in a division game in the playoffs, which is why we need another QB. Its so funny to me how Chad Pennington is so respected and "protected" by many fans but when push comes to shove its never him producing to get us wins. We got to hear things like "well, if the kicker would have made it" or something like that.

Thats the differenct between Pennington and the greats that are currently playing the game of football.

I happen to think Brady is the best QB of this generation and one of the best all-time and he relied on a K to get to the 2001 AFC Title Game and win his first 2 Super Bowl's. If Vinatieri cannot make a miraculous kick in the snow against Oak in '01 and then if Brady gets hurt a year or 2 later he'd have the same career as Chad.

[nyjunc]

You guys are leaving one major factor out here, HERM WAS PLAYING NOT TO LOSE!!!

Chad did not have the greatest game, but the TEAM played good enough to win against a tough Steeler D.

I believe one of the major factors in why Chad and the Jets did not get it done, was because of the horrible ultra conservative game that was called.

Kneeling on the ball before that kick was a terrible decision, and the straw that broke the back for me on Herm.

P.S. The Steelers got destroyed the next week because they did not belong, the Jets would probably had played a better game.

The out come may have been determined based on how much video ammo beliscum and the cheatriots had.

Kneeling was a horrible decision BUT that did not cost us the game, Brien still has to make that kick. he missed a 47 yarder moments earlier by inches, if he kicks the ball the same way for the 43 yarder he makes it and we win.

[Jade Green]

Kneeling was a horrible decision BUT that did not cost us the game, Brien still has to make that kick. he missed a 47 yarder moments earlier by inches, if he kicks the ball the same way for the 43 yarder he makes it and we win.

I am fully aware and understand this, but that game and the entire team was affected by the fact that Herm played not to lose.

The conservative play calling that went one that game was a shame and it had allot to do with the out come.

[#27TheDominator]

Kneeling was a horrible decision BUT that did not cost us the game, Brien still has to make that kick. he missed a 47 yarder moments earlier by inches, if he kicks the ball the same way for the 43 yarder he makes it and we win.

Kneeling was moronic. I don't know who should be killed for it, Chad, Herm, whoever. If you want to kill the clock, don't you spike it? 40+ yard fg on the edge of Brien's range, why lose a yard?

[nyjunc]

I am fully aware and understand this, but that game and the entire team was affected by the fact that Herm played not to lose.

The conservative play calling that went one that game was a shame and it had allot to do with the out come.

I think conservative was the way to go in that situation. Imagine if we threw the ball and it was picked off? Then everyone would complain about that BUT I don't think we should have kneeled on the ball. We should have run it towards the part of the field they wanted Brien to kick from and at worst not lost any yards and hopefully picked up a couple.

Kneeling was moronic. I don't know who should be killed for it, Chad, Herm, whoever. If you want to kill the clock, don't you spike it? 40+ yard fg on the edge of Brien's range, why lose a yard?

It wasn't about the clock it was about the position for the kick. They wanted to center it for brien and that decisions was all on Herm. A bad decision but the kicker still needs to make that kick.

[Sperm Edwards]

I remember that as the reason also. But you do that stuff when you're closer, when distance isn't a factor.

The kicker needs to make that kick, but the offense doesn't need to move the ball closer to give him what (in that stadium) has been a 50/50 chance at best? Brien's strength was not distance-kicking & a coach should know that's more important than centering the ball for him. If it's far, he's still going to push, leading to decreased accuracy.

Hey a first down - or (gasp!) a single touchdown from the offense in 5 quarters - would have been nice.

[Jade Green]

I think conservative was the way to go in that situation. Imagine if we threw the ball and it was picked off? Then everyone would complain about that BUT I don't think we should have kneeled on the ball. We should have run it towards the part of the field they wanted Brien to kick from and at worst not lost any yards and hopefully picked up a couple.

It wasn't about the clock it was about the position for the kick. They wanted to center it for brien and that decisions was all on Herm. A bad decision but the kicker still needs to make that kick.

Of course they should have ran it, they played the whole game too conservative, and that is why they kneeled on the ball instead of running it.

Nobody is suggesting they should have threw the ball, the conservative play calling went on all game not just for that kick, and yes SE an offensive TD would have been nice.

[nyjunc]

Of course they should have ran it, they played the whole game too conservative, and that is why they kneeled on the ball instead of running it.

Nobody is suggesting they should have threw the ball, the conservative play calling went on all game not just for that kick, and yes SE an offensive TD would have been nice.

The offenses under hackett were always too conservative but in that situation I was fine w/ being conservative but I think they went a little overboard. Chad did throw the ball 33 times that night which was alot, I think we probably should have run it more and specifically run Jordan more as he was having some success. Chad's arm was in terrible shape at that time and he couldn't get it done against the quicker defenses like NE and Pitt. He didn't have problems against anyone else post injury in '04.

[shawn306]

And you would have thought Herm would have learned from watching Marty do the SAME EXACT THING the week before.

[Irish Jet]

I think conservative was the way to go in that situation. Imagine if we threw the ball and it was picked off? Then everyone would complain about that BUT I don't think we should have kneeled on the ball. We should have run it towards the part of the field they wanted Brien to kick from and at worst not lost any yards and hopefully picked up a couple.

It wasn't about the clock it was about the position for the kick. They wanted to center it for brien and that decisions was all on Herm. A bad decision but the kicker still needs to make that kick.

They didn't even move it into the centre so I doubt that was the reason.

[nyjunc]

And you would have thought Herm would have learned from watching Marty do the SAME EXACT THING the week before.

Marty didn't take a knee and Kaeding should have made his kick too.

They didn't even move it into the centre so I doubt that was the reason.

They put it wherever Brien was most comfortable, I don't remember the specific location but it wa where brien wanted mto kick from.