Mark's second half was better than either of Eli's, but the Jets were also far behind. Mark's first half was significantly worse than either of Eli's halves. Not only did he not advance the ball, he gave Pittsburgh a fumble recovery touchdown. So I would say, overall, that Sanchez (vs Pit) did not outplay Eli (vs SF). I would argue against "tougher setting" as well. That was a charged atmosphere for a NFC Championship that hasn't been seen at Candlestick in quite a while. The Steelers allowed 14.5 ppg in 2010. The 49ers allowed 14.3 in 2011. Pittsburgh gave up 30 less yards per game.
Pitt controlled the clock all 1st half so he didn't have many chances and I'm still not convinced that fumble was a fumble. The difference int he 2 games is they ruled that a fumble and blew the whistle dead on the Bradshaw- both easily could have gone the other way and we make it last year while the giants lose yesterday. SF also didn't have much big game experience unlike Pitt.
I'll reference a previous argument of mine about the Pitt game: Pitt controlled the clock because our offense couldn't stay on the field long enough to give the defense half a breath. Dropped picks aren't picks. Eli took 6 sacks and didn't cough the ball up. Sanchez did.
Our O couldn't get into a rhythm, Pitt took the opening KO and controlled the clock for NINE minutes before we ever saw the ball. SFs longest drive was 5 mins and they didn't score on that drive. We then held it for 4 mins advancing into Pitt territory, a key penalty set up a 2nd and 3rd and long. The INT was a throwaway on 4th down, that was more like stopping them on downs, we got the ball back and lost 4 yds on an end around hen had another penalty- you think 2nd and 19 is a good spot for a QB? 2 drives in after 9 mins off to start the game he had 3rd and 14 and 3rd and 12. The 3rd drive was a abd one w/ no penalties and Weatherford had an awful punt. The next possession was the disputed pass/fumble that gave Pitt the TD. after that he marched us down for a huge FG before the end of the half and started the 2nd half w/ a long TD to get us back in the game at 24-10.
Did you forget Pitt got blown out in the Super Bowl to the Packers. The Packers then won 15 of 16 before losing to the Giants.
I don't understand why Mantana Soss tries to downplay Mark's performance against the Steelers in 2010.... The DEFENSE let the team down, NOT THE OFFENSE. When you allow a team to hold on to the ball for as long as they did in the 1st half, you're not giving your offense a chance to do anything. And as far as the fumble-thing goes, I have a different opinion : Had Mark seen the guy coming at him, he probably would've covered up the ball and simply took the sack with no 6 points given up. Mark was on a roll in the 4th quarter and the Jets had Ben Rapistberger in not one but TWO 3rd and Long's.....And the Jets Defense FAILED to stop him on either one!! I truly believe that had they done so, Mark would've marched the team down for a go-ahead TD late to win the game.
The defense allowed 17 points. That's all. It simply didn't play to the elite standard that's normally required to carry the offense. The offense netted 12 points. It's the defense's fault that Pittsburgh was able to march down the field in the first half... and it's the defense's fault the offense couldn't do anything either. The first 4 1st half possessions yielded 23 total yards and -7 points, and that's the defense's fault? It's 16 yards if you count the lost yardage where the sack fumble occurred. Negative yards if you count the return. Do you think it might possibly be that the offense couldn't provide ANY relief for the defense, that after a poor start it couldn't catch its breath and spent over twenty-one first half minutes on the field? Yes, the third and long stops late would have been nice. But Pittsburgh didn't score a second half point, and only had the ball 13 minutes in the second half despite having their #1 priority be killing clock.
No point in arguing with Braylon or junc. According to them, its always the defenses fault and Sanchez is never to blame for ANYTHING. They expect the defense to play like the 85 bears and if they dont, they aren't good at all. With their standards, no long TD drives can ever be given up (even if its 1 a game like the Dolphins or Broncos) or a long pass play for a TD (ie Giants game). They fail to realize that even the best defenses aren't perfect. As far as Sanchez, he could take the snap and run back to the end zone and fall down for a safety and those two would find someone else to blame for that.
I'm not even one of these "Sanchez sucks/has to go" kinda guys. I recognize his youth and work ethic, but I also recognize that he has not played well enough yet, playoff games or not. We need balance. For every game the offense bails the defense out for a win, the defense does the opposite 10 times. Even a great D needs an offense that can put the D on it's back at least once in a while. The Steelers, Pats, Giants all had it. The rest won with offense. Ask the Ravens how well that system works. They have a perennially great defense and managed to grab one SB, 11 years ago. And their defense was past elite, it was historic. In 4 postseason games, it allowed a grand total of 23 points. It scored 14
The Pittsburgh game is pretty easy to summarize in my opinion. We played badly on both sides of the ball in the first half. The offense didn't help the defense and the defense couldn't help themselves. In the second half, different story, we played well on both sides of the ball, terrible goal line series hurt but didn't stick the dagger in our chances, then the defense couldn't get that stop it needed at the end.
The D also got us down 17-0 in the first half and when we had a chance to get the ball back to take the lead they couldn't stop Pitt from getting 2 first downs. The D set the tone allowing a 9 minute TD drive to start the game, that was the D's fault. any relief? Let me guessed they were gassed from starting the game?
That's really my MAIN POINT in contention. Despite everything, the Jets had a shot at winning it if the Damn Defense would've stopped Ben on one of the two 3rd-and-long's they had him in. No, Soss, it wouldn't have been "nice"...It would've been TERRIFIC to at least get the shot to win with the roll Mark was on. As it turns out, The Defense DID let Mark and the Offense down.
How long did the Steelers have the ball in the 1st half, though? 'Cause I distinctly remember how on one drive, they had it for NINE FUCKING MINUTES!! Is that not the Defense's fault? Most of the damage was done in the 1st Half anyway. The 2nd Half was when things turned around..... edit : whatever.
My fellow Jets fans are so stupid. We only got into the playoffs during the 2009 season because the Colts laid down for us, yet some Jets fans think we're something special for losing the AFCCG. Until we get rid of this faction of fans who think "getting there" is good enough, we will never win anything.
to be fair it was only one 3rd down, the first 1st down they gave up was on 2nd down. 2nd and 9 he barely got a psss into Heath Miller, that would have set up 3rd and 9 and saved us a TO but they got it, the final dagger was a 3rd and 6 but the Miller play was worse b/c we would have had TOs left, better FP and more time.
We beat who we had to beat, we had to beat Houston backups in the final week of 1993(actually week 18 that year since we had 2 byes) and we got blown out, in 2004 Buf had to beat Pitt backups at home to get in and they failed. You still have to win the game and we did that.
That's true, we had to and we did, but that doesn't change that the circumstances were EXTREMELY generous, basically being offered 2 free wins, merely having to go out and take them.
I can't help but laugh while one group of Jets fans argues with another about who is at fault. Bottom line is the Jets suck. And, until they win a Superbowl, they will always suck. And, they are nowhere near winning the Superbowl.
