So as someone pointed out in another thread, it's great when Cotch makes a play for Clemens but bad when he does it for CP
It was a sloppy track and he led us to the win. You bring up almost situations like his pass to cotch(which really only had a chance to be caught by cotch or be knocked OOB) but when things almost happen for him like the brien missed Fgs then those are ignored. he played very poorly in a bunch of game slast year, he also played very well andaways bounced back after bad games. he also had 2 rooks on the Ol, was coming abck fro a 2nd surgry on his throwing shoulder and had no running game yet once again we were a playoff team mostly thanks to Chad. great point.
I didn't point that out, I also didn't think Chad played great or even very well against NE last year. The play by Cotch while great was not why that was a bad throw by Chad. It was a bad throw because Ellis Hobbes was sitting and waiting to catch the ball for a long time. He simply failed to make any kind of play on the ball. WR make plays all the time one on one in this league but that ball was a hanging sitter for the CB who simply screwed up.
I need to go back to leaving these threads alone, seriously if CP won a SB people would still knock him. It's pointless, KC will be the starter next year and I will be happy when Chad goes to some other team where maybe he will have the things he needs to get to the next level. A guy like that who has come back from what he has deserves a ring much like Patrick Ewing, but I fear CP will meet Ewing's fate as well...
Rings are won they aren't given out to good guys. Ewing and Chad both have had multiple opportunities, Ewing never got it done, Chad, who knows?
Yes he did , it was in 97 season. sorry I didnt put thatin there! But those are the two glaring moments that struck me interms of Glenn Foley New York Jets Quarter back.
Rings are also a team accomplishment, so it's completely out of balance to keep applying that criteria to individuals. I realize people have had an obsession with doing this in recent years, but that doesn't make it any less out of balance.
Maybe if both Chad and Patrick had played better in spots at big moments their teams would have won rings? But why obsess since neither of them really did elevate their games when the competition got stiffer.
I think they both did at times in their careers, Ewing can't help John Starks missed all those 3's, just like CP could not help the kicker missing game winning kicks. The post above yours is money, in the end it is a team game, guess both of them will never have a team to get that ring.
Ewing didn't demand the ball down the stretch and Chad could have lead 1 TD scoring drive in that game and it would have been won. Both were nice players and both were the team leaders and neither of them elevated their games in a big spot to deserve a ring.
This is pure bullshit. Ewing carried the franchise on his back for 15 years. How were they before him and how have they been since? How did the Knicks get to all those big games in the first place? They got there by Ewing hitting huge shots and making key plays throughout his career. Nice cliche. Ewing couldn't elevate Starks' shot over Hakeem at the end of Game 6 any more than Chad could elevate Brien's two FG attempts through the goal posts in Pittsburgh. Team game.
Game 6 was one game and Ewing had as good or better a team than Hakeem had. Hakeem was simply better than Ewing in the big moments and carried his team further. It's a team game but if you don't think great players have to elevate in big moments to win you just don't get it. If Alex Rodriguez bombs again in the playoffs his season and play will be looked at in an entirely different light. They should also give Charles Barkley a ring right?
The point about Ewing, and to some degree Chad, is that they did elevate their game, otherwise we wouldn't have been in those big spots to begin with. They can't account for everything everybody else on the team does in every spot. Other guys have to come through in their own job or the star player's efforts are for naught. See Adam Vinnitieri's role in "Tom Brady's" three rings, or John Paxson's title clinching shot for one of "Michael Jordan's" six rings. The examples of this are endless, hopefully you've got the point.
Pennington is an outright JAG in football compared to what Ewing brought to the table in basketball, it's not even close to a fair comparrison. The Knicks did everything they could including putting a HOF coach on the bench and he just wasn't quite good enough in the big spots. If you look at the Pittsburgh game fairly several Jet players did elevate their game and kept the Jets in it. Pennington was horrible in that game he didn't elevate it at all because he couldn't. Now to be fair he had a bum shoulder but he stunk in that game and you want to blame Brien. The fact is he still has a bad shoulder but instead of an awol Quincy on crack as his back up or a guy we got for a 5th round pick and than cut Ramsey the Jets have a talented 2nd round pick with skills behind him. The guys days are numbered. It's to bad he had some great potentially he just couldn't hold up.
First off, I'm not putting Pennington in Ewing's class as far as carrying a team, someone else made the comparison. Riley was a great coach but he can't make outside shots for you. We never had a great player to compliment Ewing except maybe an aging Derek Harper. Secondly, you're still missing the point. You can isolate individual games all day, the point is that if a team is going to keep advancing and win a championship, different guys have to step up in the spot where they are needed for the whole team to get by. Yeah, in the Pittsburgh game alone Chad was not going to be the hero, but he managed the game and got us in position where we could win even with him playing badly. We wouldn't have beaten San Diego and even been on the field if Chad didn't hit Santana Moss with a bomb, bad shoulder and all, vs the Chargers. Or if Brien didn't make his FG that week. Guys all have to do their job if you're going to win a championship, in any sport. Thus, counting rings--a team accomplishment--for or against the resume of an individual is very flawed. Sometimes you can make a paralell when someone is on teams that win all the time, but that's about it. Luc Longley has three rings, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and John Stockton all combined for none.
It's a team sport and it's all flawed but the key players for your team have to be great to win a SB and Chad is not great by any means and we may have an upgrade on the roster right now at the most important position which will help elevate the team.
We may or we may not. The coaches' livings depend on putting the guy in who gives you the best chance to win and advance, so I'm sure they will go with whichever guy that is in a given week. Like they did last week, this week and every other. I disagree with you about Chad, that's rather obvious. If he's good enough that we can get as far as we've gotten with him, then he's good enough to get us two games further. Once you get that far it comes down to a kick, a call, a tuck, whatever it may be. If Chad were the reason we couldn't get there we wouldn't have been as close as we were three times with him.
No he didn't, O'Donnell was the QB when we beat Oakland in 1997. http://www.jt-sw.com/football/boxes...af4f9c3ff79b249585256ac10066d3d1?OpenDocument
I'm starting to wonder if many of the Pro-Chad contingent were closing their eyes and yelling "Lalalalalalalalala" every time Clemens threw the ball on Sunday.
