I'm being absolutely serious. No good coach would have let his starting QB back into a blowout after an injury that might or might not be a fracture unless he had a very strong motive. That motive was to straighten out the cheer incident. If Chad does not go back into that game we are all wondering what the reaction will be the next time he takes the field. That is hanging over the franchise. As it is Chad got to go in and directed his most purposeful drive in about a year and the issue is behind us. If Chad wasn't able to walk this obviously doesn't happen, but he was.
This thread is NOT anti Chad or CHad bashing in my view. It is just trying to reconcile the two viewpoints. There is no clear cut right answer here, just as there rarely is in good debate material. Chad is actually my favorite Jet.
I completely agree, most coaches on the sideline during a football game are adding in the factor of the crown sentiment. They would be foolish not to, after all the crowd has great knowledge and influence. My guess is that Mangini, hearing the crowds reaction decided "we've got to get Penny back in there or that will hang over the franchise all week and it will look bad for everybody if we dont". From what I understand Mangini has hired a guy to stand beside him on the sideline and keep watch on the overall mood of the crowd. Before calling a play he checks with this guy and to make sure the play will get crowd approval, the same goes with substitutions. I believe the guys name is Harry Bawls. PS: Browning Nagle could probably have gotten that pass the Moss. Someone go over to Walmart and see if they can sign him.
Good stuff johnnysd. It is time to move on because chad will not be the QB when the team is built up to a point that all he has to do is manage the team to a AFC finals and Superbowl. And we know he can not carry other parts of the team when they are over matched or having a bad day. He can't win games for us. He won't lose them, he'll put the offense in the right spots to succeed, but he can't beat the superior teams who are both smart and talented. We all should be ready to move on.
Sorry, man, gotta disagree. For starters, the game was not out of reach when Chad came back in. After the TD drive it was 28-14 with a couple minutes left in the 3rd quarter, that's two scores, well within reach. After New England took 7 or 8 minutes off the clock and made it a three posession game with about 7:00 left, then it was out of reach. That's when Clemens came in. Also, Mangini himself said he doesn't notice everything the crowd does and he took Pennington's word as to whether or not he could continue. A year? The drives in the game at Miami last year to help us ice a playoff spot were not purposeful? That was three games ago. The TD pass to Cotchery late in that game and the pass Leon Washington broke for a huge gain were not purposeful? Once again, I have to disagree.
Not with Chad at QB. Name the game they've been down 2 scores to a strong team and still won in the Chad era. Vinny down 2 TD's against the Dolphins in 2000? Not dead yet. Down 11 points in the 4th quarter against the Bucs? We can win that. Down 9 points to the Pats with 8 minutes to go in the game? No problem. Chad? Down 9 points in the first quarter and the game is over.
That's your opinion. In reality, two scores down in the 3rd quarter is not a blowout. The TD drive he led was quick, took only a few minutes off the clock. Had we gotten the ball back in any kind of short order there was plenty of time. It's not Chad's fault the defense couldn't get the ball back for 8 minutes, just like in the playoff game at Foxboro.
How often do we go down 2 scores early? it rarely happens, it seemed to happen an awful lot hen vinny was here. 1998: -down 10 in 3rd qtr, lose by 14 to bal -blew 23-10 lead to 3-13 Indy -Sea down 15 in the 3rd -Blew 10-0 lead at den in AFC title Game We blew 2 double digit leads and came back once 2000: -down 12 in 4th qtr, beat NE -down 11 in 4th at TB, beat TB -down 23 to Mami, beat Mia -down 10 in 4th, lose to buf by 3 -down 17 to den, lose by 7 -down 20 at Indy, lose by 8 -down 31-0 at oak, lose 31-7 -up 14 points at Bal, lose by 14. blew 1 double digit lead, go 3-4 in games down double digits 2001: -down 17 at the half to Indy, lose by 21 -down 17 to Miami, beat Mia -down 24-7 early 3rd to SL, lose 34-14 -Up 13 at the half, lose 17-16 to NE -down 14-3 to Cincy, win 15-14 -down 16-3 at oak in playoffs, lost by 14. blew 1 double digit lead, went 2-3 falling behind double digits. 2002: -down 10-0 early, beat Buf in OT -down 27-0 to NE, lose 44-7 -down 13-0 at Miam, lose 30-3 1-2 falling behind double digits 2003: -down 21-3 to Miami, lose 21-10 -down 14-3 to Dal, lose 17-6 -down 1-0 to Hou, win 19-14 1-2 when falling behind double digits 2005: -fell behind 14 at Buf, lost by 10 -fell behind 20 at Atl, lost by 13 -fell behind 14 early vs. SD, lost by 5 0-3 when falling behind double digits early,overall 8-15 when falling behind double digits, blew 4 double digit leads. With Chad: 2002: -blew 21-3 lea to Cle -down 10 in 3rd at Oak, lose by 6 -down 10 at Chi, lose by 7 blew 1 double digit lead, 0-2 when down DD's 2003: -down 14 in 4th, forces OT vs. NYG -down 11 in 3rd, beat Oak by 3 -down 10 at Indy, leads us back to tie in 4th then STs gives up TD. -down 11 at Buf, lose by 11 -down 11 vs. NE, lose by 5 -down 10 at Mia, leads us lead back then D blows it. 1-5 down DDs but led us back to tie or take lead in 3 of those losses. 2004 -down 14 to SF, win by 8 -down 16-0 in 3rd, lose by 16 -down 11 at SL, forces OT 1-2, in 1 of L's he forced OT 2005: -down 17-0 at half, lose by 20 -down to Jax, lead u to OT w/ re-torn rotator cuff 0-2 but led us to OT in 1 of the L's. 2006: -down 24-0 to NE, leads us back w/in 7. -down 28 at half, lose by 41 at Jax -down 14 to Cle, if not for blown call he leads us back to tie. 0-3. Totals 2-14, also only blew 1 double digit lead compared to 4. I Chad had more help he wins a bunch more as well and we don't fall behind big as much w/ Chad.
So in other words we've won two games down 10 or more with Chad, against the Texans who won 5 games that year and against the 49ers who won 2 games that year. With Vinny we won six games down 10 or more at some point and beat three teams with double digit wins (Miami twice and Tampa Bay). That's the point. With Chad you're down against a good team and you're dead. With Vinny you were down but you had a chance to come back even if it didn't happen all that often. With Chad it NEVER happens against a good team.
He doesn't have more help and that's the problem. He needs to be an Elway, Marino or Kelly. This team sucks on both sides of the ball and the QB that will lead us deep into the playoffs in the future isn't on the team yet.
Chad has led us back to tie or take the lad multiple times but his D or Sts has let him down, chad has also only been apart of 1 blown double digit lead and we haven't been down double digits early nearly as much w/ Chad as we were w/ Vinny.
Not really, his point was that the games were over if we wet down double digits early when chad has led us back to win, tie or take the lead in the 4th many times. It's not his fault the D or STs has cost us games and again w haven't been down big early nearly as much w/ Chad as we were w/ Vinny. It's false to think chad can't lead us back, he needs help just like he needs help to get to a SB. if the D doesn't shut Miami down in the 4th we don't come ack, if the D doesn't shut dow NE & Tb in '00 thenwe don't come back. unfortunately our D's couldn't stop NYG, Indy, Chi, Oak, SL, Mia, Buf, NE, etc...
What point? The whole premise is absurd to begin with. You think an NFL coach is giving up on a 3 TD game midway through the 3rd qtr and putting an injured QB back in to cheer him up because his feelings got hurt by the crowd? In New York? Stop and soak that one in for a minute. And the reasoning for this is a litany of old games that the coach wasn't even here for? Like he's thinking about that while deciding his next move during the game? If he thought the QB couldn't come back to win the game he wouldn't be the #1 QB in the first place and wouldn't have been in the game at all. Geez. Where people come up with this stuff is beyond me.
NYJUNC not sure what you are trying to show here since you seem to oppose the idea of Chad not being able to come back, but your stats kind of prove that Br4dw4y5ux is right is his contention.
Could it be possible that the reason both Herm and Mangini love Pennington is that they are almost guaranteed a .500 or better season when he is healthy and plays a majority of the games. Why would they want to make a QB change and risk a 4-12 season. These kind of bad seasons usually end up with the coach getting fired. I think they would rather stay with Chad, sneak into the playoffs and keep collecting their fat paychecks. What do you guys think?
Good arguments on both sides. Chad put this team on his back with a torn rotator cuff in 2004 and won a game we had no business winning in SD, and did everything he possibly could to overcome our putrid kicker in Pitt. Sure, we most likely would have got smoked by NE the following week, but Chad did everything he possibly could to get us to a AFC championship game. I don't need a guy chucking the ball 50 yards down the field 10 times a game. I want a guy getting first downs and holding on to the ball. I expect a defense than can hold teams under 20 points. To be honest, that's the real issue here, not Chad.
Please watch the Pitt game again to refresh your memory on Jimbo's play. Jimbo played awful, it was great special teams and defense that kept us in that game.
Through 2002 Vinny went 25-5 when the Jets held the opponent to less than 20 points. So far Chad has gone 25-4 when the Jets hold the opponent to less than 20 points. BTW, doing the research on this I discovered that it was Vinny and not Chad that brought the Jets back from 11 down against the Texans in 2003. That makes Vinny's record a very respectable (damn near impossible if you ask me) 9-15 when the Jets get down by more than one score in a game. Chad is 1-14 in that situation with his only come from 2 scores behind win being against the 2-14 SF 49ers in 2004.
