cmon guy....penny audibled the sneak.....of course we wanted to throw to the sideline dude, but the pats forced everything to the middle.....thats how you play defense in the last minute
Since I'm not so brilliant, please enlighten me as to the meaning of this illiterate and incomprehensible sentence. And once you figure out exactly what you were trying to write, kindly elaborate with some evidence to support your claim.
What's so hard for you to understand? We were down 24-0 after about 3 quarters without the no-huddle. That's an average of 0 points for us, and 8 points for them per quarter. 24+8=32. I don't understand why you can't read sentences either, but apparently you're also too stupid to extrapolate simple results. I also think that post of yours looks a lot like a personal attack, which would be against this forum's rules. But I don't need to get into this with you, it's pretty obvious.
According to this NFL.com Play By Play link, the Jets were using the no huddle for the entire game from the beginning http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20060917_NE@NYJ Is this information wrong? As I said, I did not watch the game since I'm fortunate enough not to be in the Jets viewing area. "I also think that post of yours looks a lot like a personal attack, which would be against this forum's rules. But I don't need to get into this with you, it's pretty obvious." You should know about personal attacks since the two quotes listed below are from you: "Brilliant thinking there chief." "but apparently you're also too stupid to extrapolate simple results" Please provide a quote of my ALLEGED personal attack, so I can respond accordingly.
Bottom line, IMHO, when it was required that the Jet D be able to stop the PAT's O in the 4th quarter and get the Jet's O on the field to at least tie the game, they failed with flying colors. PAT's sustained the drive to run down the clock - and their D made it tough for Chad to get anything going in the short time alloted. The D needs to be improved - Eric and CO must find a way - either thru coaching or getting the right personnel.
The sneak was a blown play, and the sidelines were covered on the last drive, like any team worth a salt will do.
Why are you posting commentary, if you aren't watching the games? You are speaking out of ignorance, if you didn't watch. The Jets have used the no huddle very well throughout both games. By the way...."The Shield" is a terrible TV show. I've never seen it, but the actors are not good enough to do a cop show (like the "NYPD Blue" cast).
But at some point you have to try to beat the coverage to give yourself a chance to win. A 10 yard pass up the middle to the runningback because the sidelines are covered is basically throwing up a white flag, because there's no way you can win doing that. If you're gonna end up throwing a hail mary interception on the last play anyway, why not risk the INT a few plays earlier to have a chance to tie the game by throwing to the outside? Many people are making excuses for the coaching staff by saying that Pennington can't make a tough throw to the outside, so why even bother calling it. First of all I say that's bullshit, Chad's shown that he can throw the ball. But, as I said above, if that's true then he can't be in the game in a situation where we need to move downfield with no timeouts.
Excuse me for my ignorance, but, you know, there are other forms of media available today which allow one to follow a game rather closely without having to watch it. For example, NFL.com Play-by-Play, the Gang Green game thread, radio broadcast, newspaper recaps. Is it also against the forum rules to post commentary if you did not watch the game? The other poster who DID watch the game stated the Jets started using the no-huddle after they were down 24-0. Is this correct? By all accounts, my ignorance tells me they started using the no-huddle in the 1st quarter. Your use of a TV show as an analogy to this argument is what I find IGNORANT and irrelevant.
Ignorant: 1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man. 2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics. 3. uninformed; unaware. 4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement. In the context of my statement, I was using the second or third definition. My only point was that you can't understand how the no huddle affected the game without watching it. You can make commentary all you want, but when you come out with a thread that's entitled "No Huddle = No Offense", it shows your ignorance (again see the definition) of the game. Sorry if I insulted you. And to answer your question, the No Huddle was used effectively throughout the game (as it was in Tennessee). The fact that they were unseccessful had little to do with the no huddle. It was primarily no running game and a well designed defensive scheme by NE. The no huddle is the least of their problems.
