Actually it's the facts I always present that help me show I am rarely wrong(it does happen every so often, about as often as Daunte Culpepper wins big games).
You rarely base your arguments on facts, rather you draw on your extensive store of anecdotal evidence and then make wild logical leaps based on 1 or two incidents.
In Chad's defense, he's almost always stepped up for big games. The 2002 run aside, he mauled the Colts, and had his 1 bad playoff start against the Raiders. And yes, it was really bad. He played a really good game at the Chargers, and overcame a Brien miss and a Barton brain fart to move on. He then gave Brien TWO chances to get to the AFC championship game. He was terrible against the Bears last week, but had a nice game against the Texans. Personally, I think his arm is tired from all the rehab, but let's see what he can do for the next couple games.
To be fair Chad wasn't good in the Pitt game, he did help us set up Brien's 1st msis but the 2nd one was set up by David Barrett's INT.
no they're not. yes they are. are not. are too. enough! by now we know each of your stances. 3rd is borderline realist/pessimist and Junc is the ultimate homer. i've given up. there's no getting through (especially to you, Junc.) cheers
Ultimate homer? I am the ultimate realist. I praise the Jets when they do well and criticize when they deserve it. you guys confuse giving Herm/Bradway credit w/ thinking they are the 2 best in the league at their jobs. The men did good jobs for us and I appreciate it and will defend what they did.
I guess it's easy to claim all your arguments are based on facts when you believe yourself to be the arbiter of reason. Answer me this junc, how can you blame a QB for a loss(Culpepper) where his last time on the field is with 7 minutes left and an 11 point lead and then turn around and blame a coach(Mangini) for a loss based on an OSK to start the 2nd half in a game where his team gets shut out. You twist and bend(and in some cases make up outright fabrications) to support your lunatic theories.
Daunte led his team to 17 points against a defense that was giving up 33 a game the previous 7 weeks. Mangini gave Chicago 3 free points in a scoreless game that was going to be low scoring. I don't give all the blame to mangini for the loss but we had a much better chance to win if he doesn't give Chi 3 points just like we had a much better chance to beat Indy if he doesn't take away 3 points from us. I don't make up anything, I use facts to support my arguments you use fantasy #s which is how you think daunte is a great QB and how you think manning is better than Brady.
Who cares? His team was up 11 when he left the field with 7 minutes to play. The defense gave up 2 TDs in that timespan including a 28 yard TD as time expired. You've said several times that this was the "2nd game Mangini has cost us with his nonsense". Culpepper was a very good QB, it looks like he isn't anymore. As for the 2nd statement, see my note about fabrications above. I've never said that Manning was better then Brady and in fact have always argued the opposite. I challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary.
i find it funny how you quickly criticize Mangini for the onsides kick and going for it on 4th (vs. Indy), yet, not once have i heard you criticize Herm for allowing Chad to take a knee in one of the biggest moments in one of the biggest games in Jets history. cheers
Those sure sound like opinions to me junc. It's your opinion that the points were free, that the game would be low scoring, and we would have had a better chance to win without what in your opinion were free points. The facts bear out that the Jets scored 0 points in that game, and even discounting the FG would still have lost based purely on the score. The score which you based the "low scoring" argument on, I assume, without considering any situations, which is the danger of using opinion argument as fact. It is also your opinion that we'd have a better chance to beat Indy with those 3 points. If you're going to argue against the onside kick in the Bears game, you have to argue against it in the Colts game as well, because the same mentality supported it both times: the need to score points in a tight game. Furthermore, again because of situational analysis, there is no proof that when Indy went down the field afterwards and had the 4th and 2 that they don't go for it and get a TD there, rather than a FG, if we had kicked the FG. Or if we convert, and score a TD, that Indy doesn't just lose outright. He took a risk that didn't work, and we would have lost the game anyway without those risks. Once we have more talent, we won't need to take risks like that. Or once Penny becomes more consistent maybe (against the Bears). With the defense we have now, we may have beaten the Colts early on in the season, so maybe Mangini doesn't take those risks. But again, the risks are what kept us in the game in the first place. Those are just as much "facts" as yours are, and quite honestly, I think my facts are actually supported and used better than your random opinions are.
he led his offense to 17 points against a putrid D. it's always someone else's fault w/ daunte(just like w/ Peyton). The next year against 5-10 Wash he led his team to 10 pts in the competitive portion of the game but luckily the NFC was so bad they took TWO 8-8 teams. Maybe I was a bit strong but he cost us 2 chances to win w/ those isiotic Madden-like decisions. Culpeper was never a top QB, he was a top fantasy QB. Didn't we argue manning vs. Brady a month ago? IMy apologies if I am wrong, I get into alot of discussions. Actually I did say many times I didn't like that decision BUT the K still has to make the very makeable kick. He wasn't short on the kick, he pulled it and was wide left. It would have been no good from 41 just as it was from 43. W/ a QB playing w/ a torn rotator cuff against a 15-1 team on the road it was an amazing job just to have us in the game.
The OSK in the Colt and Bear games were completely different. One was in the 2nd qtr of what figured to be a high scoring game and it caught everyone off guard. Another was in a zero-zero tie at the half and the bears were ready for it. Our D was doing a great job against Chi but we gave them the ball near our 40 and 1 good run and they had a FG. criticize Chad, the man most responsible for us having 6 wins right now. you gusy are great.
nyjunc has just spent so much time defending Herm with every ounce of his being that now he gets to be on the other side and criticize Mangini for every mistake he makes or will make. And let's face it, only Herm is/was perfect, right junc? :wink:
B/c I have defended Herm doesn't mean I think he was great, I criticized Herm when he deserved it and praised him when he did. You probably saw much mroe praise b/c there were always the irrational herm bashing threads. Now people think I hate Mangini and criticize him more but that's not true. he has two glaring awful decisions that cost us chances to win games but I have said nmerous times I am willing to put up w/ that as he is growing into his role as HC. I am very happy w/ Eric and wouldn't trade back but I do have to defend Herm from the irrational herm bashing. -Everyone said herm suckls, he leas us to 3 PO appearances(most in team history) and a div title(only our 2nd ever AFC East Title). -Everyone said no other team would hire Herm and not only did KC hire him they gave us a pick for him as well. -Everyone said KC would suck w/ Herm and KC is in great shape to make the postseason for the 1st time in 3 years. The hatred of Herm is irrational and he's gone, I am sick of defending him but I feel I have to so some posters don't get swayed w/ misinformation. i just wish we could move on and just worry about our team.
But why does it matter to you so much what people say about Herm? He's not our HC anymore, so let it go. Take off your red cape and blue tights, Herm doesn't need to be saved from anything. If people want to bash him, so be it. Why defend a man who's gone and means nothing to our team anymore?
You can't argue this both ways junc. You wanna say Culpepper didn't play a good game against Arizona, fine. That's perfectly reasonable. But you can't leave it at that, you have go over the top and say he cost his team the game , despite the fact that the last time Culpepper touched the ball his team was up 11 point with 7 minutes left to play. In the context of the game he played "well enough to win" and the defense pulled a major choke job. You use this argument often enough with other QBs that you can't deny it here. As for the Washington game, let me pull another page out of the junc playbook. Since the Vikings lost their last 2 games and made the playoffs they actually clinched when they went 8-6 so neither of the last 2 games mattered since they were not must win games. Who do you consider to be the top QB's in the league now? What number is your cutoff? Brady vs Manning is one of the few things we agree on.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong, the situations are not different at all. Both times they were done because of the pressure of needing to score points. Against the Colts it was to keep up with their scores, and the belief the Jets could not match them score for score, against the Bears, the feeling was the Bears would eventually score something and the Jets would not, so again, it was a fear the Jets could not score enough. Both times it was done because of the pressure to score points. Just because in one scenario the Jets were scoring points doesn't mean the second scenario is wrong when the Jets could not score at all, if anything, the onside kick against the Colts was a bad decision because at least the Jets could score, and if you fail on the onside kick the Colts get another easy score. So dumb. This is your modus operandi, interpreting things anyway you want to, making up really retarded excuses when it suits your bias and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your ridiculous agenda.
