I thought the safety salvaged the bad series at the goal line, got us the ball back and allowed us to get in position to win the game, not tie, with another score. That's football, they make a play and you have to make a play. The safety meant even if the Steelers had gotten a FG we'd still be in a one posession game. Bottom line is either way we would have had to get the ball back.
The safety worked out better than kicking a FG on 4th down since we got the ball back. A TD was far preferable since we would've needed only one stop and one possession to score.
The answer is no. The reason is because it took 8 fucking minutes to get the safety, and then another 2-3 minutes to score the TD we should have scored. It took too fucking long
Yes I thought it was possible but risky against the steelers and schotty calling plays. The way we were playing might as well go for the OT
The way we played it after the ensuing TD, no, the safety was nto a blessing in disguise. However, losing by 5 with 3 minutes left, we needed to onside kick. To me there was no other reasonable call. If it works we have the ball, 3 minutes, and 3 timeouts to win it. If it doesn't work we still need to keep them from getting 2 first downs. Yes they might kick a long field goal, but even then we are down by 8 with the ball and a minute left. Whether we kick it away or onside kick (with Pitt getting the ball) we are in a similar situation if we DO get the ball back. If we kick it away and stop them, they punt. Our punt returns have been less than spectacular, so we likely end up with a long field. If they kick the FG, they kick another scared kickoff, giving us good field position, or kick it for real and give our guys a chance for the huge run back. Our defense was playing well, so I can see the reasoning behind kicking it away. However, either way they only needed 1-2 first downs to beat us, so if you trust your defense to hold, you may as well kick the onsides kick and go for the win, on the road.
They made the right call kicking away, 3+ mins w/ 3 TOs is more than enough time. There was even enough time to allow one 1st down and stop them and still get it back w/ enough time to score. Our D just couldn't get a stop. if they do get a 3 and out we get the ball back w/ about 2 1/2 mins left and the 2 min warning. They made the right call kicking it away BUt it was a terrible kick and poor coverage to give Pitt good FP.
I don't understand this line of thinking at all. A TD and you only need one TD to tie it. With the safety you have to get the ball back twice.
Agreed. The safety was a blessing given the disaster of failing to score a TD but getting the TD was the much more favorable outcome. Time was not on the Jets side.
With the safety you automatically get the ball back once (from the free kick). The logic in this thread is sound, that the wasted time hurt us more than the additional two points we gained, but your point doesn't make sense.
the only good thing about the safety was that it happened on the first play. The best outcome once the Jets failed to score would have been to hold them without a first down and make them punt out of their endzone. That would have given the Jets the shortest possible field and slightly less time. But no matter what, they were going to need two scores.
No way. Absolutely not. It was a 14 pt game with like 7 minutes to go. We NEEDED that TD. With 7 minutes to go, we had plenty of time to stop the Steelers next drive. And knowing there was plenty of time left, Steelers would have tried to pass, something they couldn't do all day long. Its a different story passing when the D is expecting a run/draw play as it was on the final play. With 7 mins to go, Jets could have given up 2-3 first downs, keep em out of the FG range, and still have 3-4 minutes to score a TD. What that safety did was, it took off 4:30 minutes off the clock with the Jets coming and scoring on the Cotch catch. Even after that TD, we still needed a TD to win the game, so the 2pts were only going to be helpful in winning the game, rather than OT. We needed the 4:30 minutes. Even if Steelers came out and scored a FG after a Jets TD, it would have been a 10 pt game with probably around 4 minutes to go. Jets would have had enough time to drive back, score a TD, and go for an onside kick.
We got a pretty short field off the free kick and converted it to a TD, plus wasted less time because they fumbled on first down. Of course a TD there would have been better but to me we got the TD off of that sequence anyway, plus another 2 points. Either way, down 7 or down 5, we had to get the ball back, that's where it went wrong. The way it happened there was still time, 3:00 and 3 timeouts, we just didn't get the stop we needed. Again, the safety allowed the D to even give up a FG and keep it a one posession game but it never came to that.
Of course my point makes sense. It was better to get two points, then have to drive the field yet again, and then get the ball back and drive the field a third time? Rather than getting the TD, stopping the Steelers once, then driving the field one time to tie the game. Why am I not surprised you think the OP's logic is sound...
No. But being at 19-24, Jets score a TD, Rex would have opted for 2, making it 27-24. I mean its a no brainer, but u can't risk SB appearance on one play. Even Rex wouldn't do that.
Sucks that we could not have driven the ball faster, gotten a stop, or even used our timeouts better. We could've baited them into trying to run the clock down if we didn't call our TOs so early.
No, you're not bothering to read my post properly. I disagree with the OP, I agree with the logic that several people have already stated that the additional time required to score the TD hurt us more than the additional two points gained. What I'm saying is that you said we needed to get the ball back twice after the safety, which isn't true; we still only needed the defence to come back to the field once.
