1) Onside kick- I understand why they opted for it in this situation but there was 2:30 left and they still had a timeout. Had we kicked it deep the game-winning FG attempt would have been a chip shot instead of a 58 yarder. 2) Brady's touchdown on 3rd and goal from the 19- obviously Brady is gonna go for the endzone....how the hell does our secondary not be prepared for that 3) Brady's touchdown pass 2 minutes into the game- completely blew the coverage 4) Geno's errant throw on the 2 point conversion- you have to at least put the ball in play Geno...how do you throw that out of bounds We doubled them in time of possession, ran for over 200 yards, had zero turnovers, and lost.
The TD on 3rd and 19 was the killer of the game. If we give up a field goal there instead then we are down only 4, and then we are all sitting here thrilled that the Jets won. The pass by Geno on the 2 pt. conversion was thrown a little soon but if Amaro doesn't get held, that's a catchable ball.
It's tough to say exactly what went wrong on the 2 pt conversion. It could have been that Geno was inaccurate, it could have been that Amaro ran the route a little too wide, or a little of each. That play is about timing and angle, so it could be on either one.
Geno admitted during the press conference that he should have given Amaro a better ball but yeah I guess it's possible Amaro was supposed to already be in the back of the endzone by the time the ball got there
The players being asked the question nearly always takes the blame, even if it isn't always his fault, especially when the QB is being asked. It shows your teammates leadership, and that you aren't throwing them under the bus. What's better, Geno lying and saying "my bad" or the tabloids that come out that read "Geno Blames Rookie Tight End For Thursday Night Letdown"
You kick the god damn onside kick there. You have to give yourself as many opportunities to get the ball back first before worrying about field position. Field position is meaningless if you don't stop them. Onside kick gives you two chances to get the ball back -- recover or stop them on the subsequent possession. Kicking it off only gives you one chance to get it back. How the hell is reducing the amount if opportunities you have to get the ball back better than increasing it? Kicking it off eliminates one opportunity to get it back and relies solely on stopping them. How'd that work out in a comparable situation against Detroit when we punted it instead of going for it on 4th? We sure had great field position to watch them run out the clock.
Yeah, nice logic there buddy...by your reasoning teams should onside kick it every single time rather than kick it deep. If that's the case how come NFL teams haven't done away with the deep kickoff altogether?
This. The 20% chance of getting the onsides kick is worth it when all you'd be giving up is field position on a last minute drive. I view the odds of Geno Smith leading a FG drive in the final minute with no time outs as less than 50%. Now, if the Jets had all their time outs, I'd be more willing to kick it deep. But with 1 TO left, play to win.
The game came down to the Jets offense constantly bringing the ball into the Patriot Redzone and coming away with 2 TD's. It's not on any particular player, the offense as a whole didn't convert enough, especially in the first half. We need so much more talent on offense it's ridiculous.
You're a dumbass. When you only have time for one more possession, and you need that possession to win, the value of that possession increases dramatically. Early in a game, the risk of an onside kick vs the value of a possession is not very good. As the value rises in a situation like one tonight, the risk/value ratio changes.
Obviously moron, we were taught probability back in elementary school just like you were...I was just taking issue with his blanket statement.
Another couple of reasons why the Jets are frustrating is they almost always give up points just before the half, and they suck at trying 2 pt conversions, while giving them up almost all of the time, WTF.
1. If we had not wasted time outs we likely would have kicked it to the endzone. 2. How is that obvious? We would have thrown it to the 10 yard line, why shouldn't our secondary expect the same from the Pats (oh wait, b/c they know what they are doing on offense?) 3. Geno needs to let the play develop and the refs need to do their jobs. He shouldn't have thrown it if he had no chance to make the completion.
No that is not anywhere near the logic of my argument because at the end of the game when you need to score but may not get the ball back if you kick it off is a completely different dynamic than kicking it off during the rest of the game when time isn't that dire of a factor. You're a complete dumbfuck if you can't tell the difference between those two scenarios. Nice logic indeed on your part. What an embarrassing post on your part.
It wasn't a blanket statement, moron, and was clearly discussing the onside kick for that specific point of the game. If everyone else understood that but you then you shouldn't be calling anyone a moron but yourself.
every game in the NFL comes down to a handful of plays. bad teams & staffs don't make those plays. This is a bad team
i'm not going to go on the "REF's SKREWED US!" rant, but that phanton 50yrd Pass Interference call on Antonio Allen at the very end of the 2nd Qtr was utter and complete BULLSHIT. It's not that the Ref's did or didn't favor us in the # of flags thrown, it's WHEN the flags are thrown (ie. scenario above and anytime we're in the redzone and get a holding call on a lineman)
pretty much. I didn't like the OS kick BUT if we kick it deep does NE just run 3 plays or do they try and throw and likely complete a pass for a 1st down? 3rd and G from the 19 was just inexcusable, what was Allen thinking?
