I have no patience to read all the other posts -- other than to assume that people are posting that if Ramsey/KC was in the game yesterday, the Jets would have won. Stop. Please stop. The bottom line is that the jets have lost to teams that are 9-1; 9-1 and 7-3. All playoff teams. The loss to Jax at Jax, while embarrassing, was expected. I agree that the Jets should have beaten the Browns. The truth is the Jets are just not yet good enough to win (consistently) close games, against very good teams. They played decently yesterday. But three mistakes -- are three mistakes too many against a team that has only lost once. I dont know how the last six will go -- but I think that 4-2 would be a tremendous job--and doable. 9-7 may not be good enough tp make the playoffs--- but before you say that -- play out KC and Jax's schedules. KC's is brutal and Jax is not much easier.
I haven't seen one post stating that we would have won if Ramsey or Clemens was in the game yesterday. Your assumption is wrong. Thank you also for pointing out that 3 mistakes cost us the game yesterday. I never would have figured that out if not for your brilliant post. The Jets are not good enough to win close games yet? What was your first clue, the 5-5 record? Maybe you should find the patience to read some other posts and lose the assumptions.
Good reality check. I agree with your analysis. The bashing of Pennington was to be expected after yesterdays game, but whatchagonnado? Out of the 5-5 record, I can give Chad credit for winning some games by himself, and I can also give him credit for yesterday's game.
I dont think any body is saying if Ramsey or Clemmens was in there we would have won,But I dont care what team you want to apply this logic to ,If your quarter back is consitently playing poorly then its time for a change. I think thats universal to any football team . Yank him for a quarter bench him for a game but do something. You have to try an onside kick to try and jump start your team.Thers a ton of rookies playing with little or no experience this year and are doing fine.
The point is -- that we cant complain about losing close games to good teams. We're just not that good. Obviously, all the games have been close. The 5-5 record was a clue that they are inconsistent not that they cant win close games. (But you are a lot smarter than I). There have been posts that its time to bench Chad. The assumption is that the Jets would have a better chance to win with another QB. Otherwise, why would you give up on a season where you are clearly in the thick of a playoff race.
Your assumptions are incorrect again. Yes, there have been posts stating we should bench Chad, but the ones I've seen are in refrence to the future, not to winning now. Most people who want Chad benched are convinced (like myself) that he is not the future of this franchise. I have not seen a post indicating that KC or PR give us a better chance to win now...except for maybe by that Glenn Foley guy. This is why reading other posts is a good thing. Stating that you don't have the patience to entertain other peoples thoughts and theories on the hot topics regarding the team is like an open proclimation of ignorance. It's your right to do so, but don't think you won't get called out on wasting bandwidth on a thread thats already covered by so many others, then having the nerve to say you won't read them.
so because we werent expected to win the game we're not allowed to point out obvious deficiencies that are the reason we werent supposed to win the game? and you have no patience for stupid threads?
The problem is that Pennington just hasn't been as accurate as he's been in the past. I could live with him having a sub-par (strengtwise) arm is he's right on target and making good reads. However, when his 10 - 15 yard throws are inaccurate and he's making bad decisions then his value as a QB goes far down. If this type of play was a one time thing then you could just say that he had a bad game vs. the #1 D. However, he hasn't played exceptionally well for quite a while now. None of us know how KC would play. Nobody knows how he would react in a real game. However, if Pennington's play does not improve quickly and the Jets lose another game or two then I see no downfall with bring in Clemens to see what he's got. There are other rookie QB's learning on the job and the OL has played sufficiently well that the arguement about a rookie QB getting killed behind a bad OL doesn't hold much water.
I know we only care about the Jets here, but the same topics we bitch about on this site are exactly the same things that fans of every mediocre team in the league are saying. Turnovers Bad QB Play Not Stopping the run Dumb Penalties Bad Playcalling Giving up big plays Lets face it, no matter what team you are when you fail to make the grade in the list above you lose. Yesterday we failed at all of them and lost.
The difference being that we bitch about these things EVERY season because we're mediocre EVERY season.
The QB play is one of the reasons we lost the game. Replacing the QB with one of the backups wouldnt help, now, would it? And, ask STE, he would tell you that you are not allowed to point out "obvious" deficiencies -- but you should take that up with him.
Here are the post titles: "Calm down on the CP hate!" "To those calling for Chad's head, think about this" "Pennington will NEVER win a big game " Ive gone back and read all of them. My opinion stays the same. At least if you are going to accuse me of proclaiming my ignorance, you can spell proclamation correctly -- or do they not use big words like that in the seventh grade.
You start a thread basically stating that your too good to read the threads started by others, then start making false assumptions, then say you read a few threads and stand by your opinion? I never argued your opinion, I said your assumptions were incorrect. They were, and still are. Being a grammer cop is basically an admission of defeat...unless it's a humerous spelling error, which this was not.
I agree--nitpicking on spelling is low rent, except when the phrase attacked is "proclimation of ignorance." That being said--I said (or meant) that I had no patience to read the posts dealing with replacing Chad. Most of my posts are in previously started threads. I assumed, and I think correctly, that some of the posts were calling for Chad to be replaced. I was responding to those posts.
