Actually don't we technically tie it We got a safety after that so we only net 5 more points 24-24 with Pittsburgh going for the win
I agree with that, 100%. That is why I always talk about how each subject is more complicated than people think. Even wins and losses. Sanchez was definitely lost at the end of 2012. Many factors went into it, not all of it on him, but it clearly got to him. This offseason he has had to prove that he can come back. We will find out soon enough if he can or not. The Lions game was a good first step. He needs to keep it going though.
The issue for me is once things breakdown does Mark crumble and put his head down or fight through it and lead us down the field Something like that is soooooo crucial
Now, in fhe light of early morning.... The bottom line is this., ( ive read it several times...and thanked ypu for posting it several times) Weis play book is brilliant because it puts 3 receivers in the line of sight, reducing 3 reads to a decision about distance,angle amd velocity, not ever moving the QBs eyes. The next read is always a dump off (to a fourth guy no less) in a clear out, which leaves a safety, or more likely a LBer, running for his life. What the pats have done since 2004, is change the read progression, turning it to inside out, to embrace what Walsh wrote back around 1980, and what Favre was taught in GB. Less than 12 yards, get the next first down. Thats all that matters. That changed a bit when they went to 2 TEs, because the receivers changed, but the underlying principles remained. But my point remains. They found something that works, INSTITUTIONALIZED it, and moved forward. They did not change SYSTEMS when they changed personalities. And that is the defining construct. Lay off the crack pipe. (ps...if you think I am misstating something, dont go all BitchBeach, making rude comments, just get to the point) P.s. in the last few years, theyve also been incorporating innovative concepts from college football, like the Airraid, and Kellys one word one play design from Oregon,
Technically yes, but the point that the Jets don't lose. At least not the way they did. The real fact is the offense gave the Steelers 7 points, and in essence gave them another 7 by not scoring from the 2 yard line on first and goal. Defense gave up 17 points in the game, offense was inept but it was the defenses loss. Plus I figure since facts don't matter to junc small technicalities aren't a huge deal
As usual I see Hobbes dodging my posts and moving on to the next argument Not banging the "Beast never debates football" drum anymore because that was clearly another false statement that could be proven false easily
OT - could that be the immortal joan jett in ur ava.... nice - my sister (drummer) knows her a bit and they have tried to hook up musically but it hasn't happened yet.
No, beach...it isnt worth debating...you dont debate football. You troll Sanchez supporters. http://forums.theganggreen.com/search.php?searchid=826828 No, Junc falls for your trolling nonsense.
:rofl: He has talked out of both sides of his mouth so many times I have lost count. It still makes me laugh every time! :lol:
He did, it's on a completely meaningless point though so congrats to him. The years of saving my posts finally paid off.:grin:
The Steelers got the ball and held it 9 mins on a TD drive, how is that on the O? A cold O then got the ball and held it for about 4 mins where a penalty hurt the drive. They didn't score but they allowed the D to catch their breath and get ready to get back on the field pinning Pitt at their 13. Pitt then advanced to our 32 and threw a pass on 4th and 1 for some reason when they were running down our throat. Instead of being tackled short Ben threw it up and we picked it at the LOS. Next O drive is derailed by a trick play that lost yds and another penalty- so far none of this is on the QB, right? Pitt gets it back and kicks a FG. we return KO to 40 and go 3 and out, first time failure in this game is on the QB in any way. Pitt then scores a TD and we are down 17-0. Pitt's O dictated the entire 1st half, pushing around our defense and controlling the ball. In the 2nd half the D entered trailing 24-10, they held Pitt scoreless which was great, the touched Ben after the fumble for the safety which was great but with the game on the line they failed. Every unit deserves some blame, the D deserves the bulk of the blame. How on earth was that fumble his fault? many things were his fault that not, a snap at his ankles was not. The O had the ball for 9 mins in the first half and that includes Pitt scoring w/o a possession on the fumble. If the O scores there it is 24-17, how do we win? Please explain. What most likely happens is Pitt holds the ball and ends it w/ a FG. The bottom line is this. The game was a one score game w/ 3 minutes left and all 3 TOs available. The D couldn't stop Pitt from running out the clock. People do realize if we scored a TD we have to kick it back to Pitt, right? they don't start at their 1 yd line. so our D would have had to get a big stop(which they couldn't do as it played out) to give our O a chance to tie it.
Rex would never ever say / acknowledge something like this (not even after the buttfumble, 5 INT buffalo game, TENN game last year) about his golden boy Sancho without qualifying it with some positives (e.g. "Back to back AFC champ. Games"). Seth Walder Rex: "This was a really bad day for Geno." #nyj 1:20PM EDT The fix is in. Even competition my ass. Geno should have started last week. Sancho gets pulled right after 80-yard TD drive so he can end on a high note. But it's all gonna backfire on Rex when Sancho starts and the team is winless heading into the bye week.
so what would have happened if he didn't lead that 80 yd TD drive? would he have kept him in until we scored? This reasoning is very silly.
