I think he just missed it in 2011. Ah I choose QBs differently. In my head I base it off, if I was starting a team for one season, who would give me the best chance at success that year for year to year judgements. Then if I was starting a franchise, who would I choose regardless of age/injuries/contract to give me the best chance at winning consistently. It's why I have the 4 QBs above in my elite category.
I didn't blame Eli but he's not blameless. He did get an INT in eagle territory and failed to score he did get a fumble at the Philly 8 and threw a TD he did get a fumble in Philly territory that led to their last TD He did have a chance to end the game after Philly cut it to 7 he did have a chance to get the game to OT after Philly tied it Is he the main culprit? No but he gets his share. well that proves and despite all that w/ more talent around him Eli led his team to less postseason apps.
In this title game they gave up 15 net points. The offense scored a net points of 10. I say the defense was put it a tough spot partly because of themselves, partly because the offense wasted a 8 minute drive and 1st goal at the 2 for 0 points, and went 3 and out immediately after the defense picked off Big Ben in the second half. It ties together. If the offense doesn't squander that 1st and goal drive, we need one stop with 7 minutes left in the game with 3 timeouts. That GL drive isn't as important if the offense and defense didn't forget to play the 1st half of that game. Remember, the defense gave up 15 points in both Pitt games that year. Asking them to pitch a perfect second half for the win, that's the fault of the offense AND defense for putting themselves in that position with their poor 1st half play and botched GL drive. It at all ties together and their problems were tied together very clearly. They needed each other in the 1st half, and the offense,defense, and ST leaned on each other and nobody produced.
I don't care about net points, they got us off to a 17 point hole before we could blink. Both units played much better in the 2nd half but once the game was w/in reach the D failed. if the O scores on that 1st and G we don't get the 2 pts and are trailing by 7, Pitt moved it any time they wanted to against us. How do we know they don't allow a FG or TD and extend the lead to 2 scores? The D was awful in Pitt in December, they got lucky in that game. A couple of drops, a DB knocking the ball out of Ben's hand, a big penalty on our O. Pitt's O dominated our D, we won b/c of our O/STs. I know the final score doesn't look like that but we did. The fact that Pitt even had a chance to win on the final play was mind boggling considering they started at their 8 yd line w/ just over 2 mins left and 1 TO then faced a 3rd and 24 and converted.
There are always a lot of reasons you lose a game and there are usually plenty of mistakes but the way the Jets played was keep it close win it in the end. The offense stepped up the second half of that game and needed one more stop from the Defense to have a chance to win. We were a defense oriented team so we got what we wanted except the defense did nto make the stop. Same in NE last season the Offense had the game won defense needed a stop could not get it. It is football it happens look how Baltimore beat the Broncos last season. Mo matter how you think Manning played they were one defense play away from winning it.
Since you're not dismissing plays that happened prior to the final few minutes of the Eagle-Giants game, it's only fair to do the same for the AFC title game. Did Sanchez give up 7 points before the half? Yes. Did he fail to score at the goal line before being bailed out by his defense? Yes.
Where did I say he was blameless? BUT that fumble was really an incomplete pass and he was blindsided, hard to fault him for that one. The O deserves blame for the failure at the GL but they came right back and scored a TD and brought us w/in 5 but never got the ball again. Bal didn't get it back right away last year at Den but they did get it back and gave their O a chance which they came through on. Our O never even got a chance.
Why don't you care about net points? They are very important in judging how much the ST/O/D contributed to the game. Giving up 7 points cancels out scoring 7 points because in totality, you cancelled out the good/bad you did. You would help your team so much more by scoring 7 and not giving up 7 than scoring and giving up 7. Well "once the game was within reach" is very subjective. Personally for me the game within reach down 24-10 in the 3rd quarter after picking off Big Ben. We went 3 and out. We got the ball back, it was within in reach with 7 minutes left in the 3rd with 1st and goal from the 2 and the other defense out there for a long time. We don't know, but again with "they moved it any time they wanted to". So you are telling me, 4th down and 1 yard to go in the 1st half, they didn't want to move the ball? Up 24-10 late in the 3rd, they didn't want to move the ball? Couldn't we employ that flawed logic defensively to Pitt's defense? When they wanted to they stopped us, like on back to back drives in the 2nd half? I would rather give the Jets defense 7 minutes to protect the lead than 3 and I would rather keep the game going in our favor by scoring on Pitt from the 2 yard line. So let me get this straight, you blame the D when they do get a stop late in Pitt to win the game, and you blame the D when they don't get a stop late in Pitt and lose the game? The offense was pathetic in Pitt in the first game. Thankfully Brad Smith took back that opening kickoff and the defense got 2 points. Here's how things tie together in the first Pitt game. We are up 20-17 with 10:11 left in the 4th thanks to the offense. The defense comes back and gives us a stop. The offense gets the ball and starts working Pitt on the ground. 1st and 10 with 3:43 left on the Pitt 37. We run for 5 yards with Greene, 2nd and 5 with 2:59. We then pass and pass for incompletions leaving 2:56 on the clock because we mismanage the clock (something Rex needs to manage better going forward). So after a good punt, the defense makes it a TD for Pitt needed by forcing a safety, not a FG to tie. The Jets then take the safety punt and go 6 yards the wrong way. The offense then does the right thing, run, run and forcing 2 Pitt timeouts. They then throw on 3rd down, stopping the clock yet again for Pitt and punt to them again leaving Pitt a timeout and the 2 minute warning. The defense then lets Pitt go down the field, but because the difference is 5 not 3, Pitt needs a TD and they can't it. It's not shocking Pitt was in this game, because we only scored 10 points offensively. That rarely gets its done. Also, if you see how things tie together, poor coaching led to the offense misamanging the clock, giving Pitt that extra chance against the defense. The defense then couldn't close the door quickly enough. If the offense runs the ball, something they were really good at, the game probably ends way before Pitt is in our RZ searching for a TD. If you think our D was dominated in game where they gave up 17 points, I don't know what you think of defenses that give up 21 or more points. I feel like you hold the defense to the standard that they need to shut out an opponent to get credit/avoid blame. This seems a little unrealistic in my view because well, not team has ever shut out the opponent for 19 or 20 games in a season.
We picked off Ben near our GL on a deep pass, we started at the 14. Pitt did move it on that drive, taking over 4 ins off the clock, Pitt's next drive they held it for about 6 mins. Pitt's O only had 3 real drives the entire 2nd half and they didn't go 3 and out in any. Did we mismanage the clock a bit in the Dec game? Sure but does that mean the D has to nearly allow the GW TD? to start inside their 10 and have a 3rd and 24 converted w/ very little time on the clock? The D was MUCH worse than the play by play sheet/final score/net points look. I hold our D to a higher standard, they didn't play nearly as well as 15 net pts allowed. Allowing Pitt to set the tone in the title game, getting some breaks to keep their scoring down in the reg season game. Our D did not play like a big time D in either game, we got lucky in Dec, our luck ran out in Jan.
Where did you say he was blameless? Sorry, I might have gotten that impression based on the countless times you've said that the title game loses were on the defense. You can blame a qb a little bit for every loss but clearly the lion's share was on the Giants defense in the biggest game of the year Talk about shell shocked, I don't know how anyone expected the Giants to rebound from a loss that devastating and defeat an outstanding Packer team on the road.
There are always plenty of mistakes, but the Jets were never able to take the lead in Pitt. The Jets offense partially did their job in the second half. This is the 2nd half refresher: Jets score to make it 24-10. Jets defense picks Big Ben off. Jets offense goes 3 and out. Jets defense gets stop. Jets offense drives for 8 minutes, including 1st and goal from 2, get 0 points. Jets defense force safety. Jets offense drives for 7 with 3 minutes left. Jets defense fails to stop Pitt. There were problems before the defense failed to stop Pitt. What everyone seems to miss is that the Jets were losing when Pitt got the ball. The Jets D was not given a lead, they were given a deficit, like they were given all 2nd half and told not to screw up. Partially due to their failures in the 1st half, they were required to play perfect in the 2nd half, they didn't do it. On the other hand, the offense also forced itself into a scenario where it needed to play perfect in the 2nd half, they couldn't do it either. The NE game is a better example of the Jets offense playing better, but it's misleading to say the Jets offense had the game won. Remember, NE goes up 10 points with 2:47 left in the 3rd, 23-13. The Jets offense then goes 3 and out and punts. The ST nets 53 yards on the punt! The Jets defense then gets a stop with 12:49 in the 4th. The Jets offense walks down the field for 7, cutting it do 23-20. The Jets defense then forces a 3 and out. The Jets offense gets 3 to tie the game, the Stephen Hill drop is killer here. Wide open pass dropped. Oh well, we get the 3. The ST then forces a TO on the kickoff. The offense, more the coaching, misses the significance of getting the ball with 2:01 left. This is a perfect time to pass, they don't, go nowhere with Tebow. The Jets then run predictable rollout play, kick FG to take a 3 point lead. The defense then fails, but the part of the reason the team was able to take the lead was because the defense got a stop, the ST forced a TO, and the offense protected the ball. It's a team game. Again better example than the champ game, but ignores the team aspect of the game. The Broncos one is an interesting example, because both your examples don't have the defense getting a 7 point lead. There's a difference there, mathematically, and defensively. Granted in the Denver example, the offense didn't do much to help Denver, however to steal Junc's wording, "they gave the defense a chance to win the game". Again though, a 70 yard Hail Mary is different than being down 5 and needing a stop. If you can't see that the examples are too different, don't knw what to tell you. Overall doesn't this just show us why using wins to judge a QB's skill is misleading. If you guys are blaming the defense for everything, then why do you turn around and act like wins are the redeeming quality of Sanchez? Don't these arguments show wins are not directly related to QB skill or what they do? Wouldn't it be better to talk about how Sanchez protected the ball very well in 2010, albeit getting lucky, knowing his spot on the team and making tough throws when needed. In part of 2011 he became much more effective in the RZ and was scoring for the Jets on a much higher rate than he ever did. He was becoming a great part of the Jets offense. In 2012 he was a great part of the Jets offense except in a bad way.
He gets blame, just not as much as the D. Eli gets blame for the philly collapse but not as much as D/STs BUT he did have the game in his hands multiple times and couldn't put it away. mark never had that chance in Pitt. GB was not yet playing like a SB champ. Rodgers was banged up, they had a million injuries, they had lost 2 in a row and would struggle a week later at Chi. This was not the postseason Packers that were humming a few weeks later. Prior to philly the Giants won 3 in a row: beat 8-8 jax at home beat 6-10 wash at home beat 6-10 Minny in a game played at Detroit(the 3rd time since 2005 the Giants played only 7 true road games) it's not like they were playing great football and as bad teams do they collapsed. We've done it many times through the years.
Were they stops or not for the defense? Because you were telling me if Pitt wanted to score they would, how come they didn't score when the Jets D stopped them? They didn't want to end the game in the 3rd quarter? Also the Pitt O took off 4 and 6 minutes like you said with the score never changing. The Jets offense took off 8 minutes with the score never changing. Funny how you mention time of possession on the Pitt drives, but not the wasted TOP on the Jets offensive drive. Did they allow the GW TD or not? They didn't. It wasn't mismanaging the clock a little, it was twice. The offense also played much worse than the score sheet. That's how a team wins though, they make the plays in a close game. That luck you are speaking of, did it run out when the Jets offense scored 0 points on 1st and 2 from the GL, or when the Jets offense gave Pitt 7 points or when the Jets defense let the Pitt offense walk for 7 points to open the game? The Jets as a team just didn't play as well in the 2nd game at Pitt but had no ST TD to help them out. Our luck didn't run out, we just didn't play well. We let Pitt open the game with 7 points. We then didn't score. We then stop Pitt. We then go 3 and out. We then let up a FG to Pitt. WE then go 3 and out. We then let up a TD to Pitt on defense. We then let up a TD to Pitt on offense. We then score 3 points. Sorry that's just bad play. Second half: We score a TD (again using your logic if Pitt wanted to they would have stopped us but they didn't want to :breakdance. We stop Pitt. We go 3 and out. We stop Pitt. We march 77 yards in 8 minutes, score 0 points. We force a safety. We score 7, we can't stop Pitt. That's just a poor game from the offense and defense. You can't expect to win by giving up 7 points, allowing scoring drives on 3 of the first 4 possessions of the other team, scoring 0 points off of 2 turnovers (let alone 2 three and outs), and not scoring from 1st and goal. In fact the luck was probably that Pitt had their backup center and we got a safety. Without that safety you look at getting the ball back with 5:30 down 14 with on your own 35-40. Getting the safety immediately was really lucky because it kept hope alive. It was just a poor game from the whole team. To act like the defense caused the offensive problems is misleading. To act like the D should get the majority of the blame is misleading. Neither unit played good enough. They needed to rely on each other in the first half and nothing happened. They really could have used a ST TD like in the 1st game @ Pitt, but didn't happen. One of the units needed to take that extra step forward, neither did. This is coming off great games by both of them in NE.
An O scores a net total of 10 points and a D holds the opponent to a net total of 15, and the main culprit is the D. :lol: :rofl2: That 17 point hole before we could blink was the all but 2 minutes of the entire first half. That same time the O went 3 and out on 2 out of 3 drives before adding 7 points to the Pitt lead. Oh, that 8 minute drive that ended with 0 points helped the D get a safety, so was it like a GREAT punt? :lol: If we score the TD when we had it 1st and goal on the Pitt 2 we are down 7 points with 8:39 left in the game. I'd much rather be down 7 with 8:39 left and need a stop than to be down 5 with 2:58 left and need a stop. If the "How do we know Pitt doesn't move the ball and score on us" is a valid argument, then the same applies to the O. Pitt's D stopped us anytime they wanted, so how do we know if we get the ball back with around 2:00 left and no timeouts, that Pitt doesn't stop us again? Your last line is classic! "It was mind boggling that Pitt even had a chance to win with 2:08 let and 1 timeout." There was 2:56 left in the AFC Champ game and we didn't even have the ball and you blame the D for the loss. How quickly do you expect the D to get the ball back for the O when there was only 2:58 left in the game? Where do you think we would have started? In the regular season game we punted from our own 40 and Pitt started from their own 8. In the AFC Champ game, Pitt started on their own 41, so even if we held them to 0 yards gained, they would have been punting from a better spot.
I'm not being a dick because I really don't know the answer but when the Jets lost in NE this year, did you say the defense blew it, or did you say the defensive blew it BUT Sanchez had the ball last with a chance to win and failed?
I don't know who you are quoting, but the late game execution is frustrating in hindsight from both units. First Stephen Hill has that drop on 3rd down which is tough. The Jets get the ball back with 2:01 but run into the 2 minutes warning. They go nowhere and take a 3 point lead. Jets defense fails to end the 4th and to start OT, although a 48 yard kick in NE is a tough kick to hold NE to, but the better scenario is clearly forcing a punt. The Jets offense then fumbles in 2nd and 10 around the 50 yard line. If we narrow down the game to last possession only like we are in the AFC champ game in Pitt, we have to blame the O right? If we look at the whole picture, both units missed crucial chances and the Jets D couldn't foil Brady and the Pats offense enough to get a stop in the 4th or OT. In this case I would be more allowing of the D to take more blame than the O even though the O wasn't great. I think the O left too many potential points on the board to win against NE. EDIT: Oh and of course ST letting up 7. Gonna be intersting to see how the ST responds this year without Mike.
He is obviously talking about Junc. The same guy that calls the loss to Tennessee a TEAM loss, but says the D is the main culprit for games like NE, Mia in 2011 and Den in 2011.
The Jets played a certain style in 2010 and Sanchez played his role no doubt. You need a stop you need a stop especially on defense oriented team. Is it unrealistic to expect to stop Tom Brady or Ben R then yeah point well taken. Going to the other extreme and blaming only Sanchez for team failures is just as silly. I never blamed anybody for loses except the Jets and that is coaching, Special teams, offense and defense. Red Zone again is more about scheme type of players and if you run or pass it in. A lot of QB get padded TD stats throwing TDs from the one. Sanchez's problem that is holding him back from being a good QB is his propensity to fumble. The Ints were not even a big factor until after the butt fumble fiasco when Sanchez packed it in mentally. Just watching the offense last year was tough plays coming in late bad o-line play Tebow coming in at weird times. Our receivers dropping balls running bad routes. Green making bad reads and getting stopped on first contact. RB that could not catch a cold. (When GB receivers got hurt he threw to his backs Sanchez had no outlet. He was typical good Sanchez at the start of the season Great game in Buffalo, Knocked senseless in Pittsburgh come from behind clutch throws in Miami. Come from behind performance at NE. A good performance against Houston. Typical Sanchez, then the second NE game with the whole world watching he makes such a bad mental play he gets ridiculed mercilessly until he breaks. Without that breakdown the Jets beat TN maybe San Diego and might sneak into the playoffs. One thing is for sure without that "butt fumble" Sanchez would not be on the hot seat as he is now and his numbers would reflect that of a bad offense with multiple injuries and a bad OC. That is why I am rooting for Sanchez to recover. I think he got a raw deal and would have made the big leap last year with a competent offense and OC. He maybe done and that is why I think we need a vet QB. We do not need idiots on here bringing up rookie stats if Geno has a bad year or makes a bad throw or his o-line disintegrates. Geno needs to learn how to be an NFL QB then become one in year two if Sanchez and if Sanchez sucks the vet plays. Leave Geno on the bench until last quarter of the season then only think about it.
