100% correct. You have to take both or hate both. Personally, i have no trouble with that call on 4th and 2. You know, we could go out and kick that field goal, then the Colts can score two quick touchdowns and it's all a moot point. You have to play for 7 points there.
When was I supposed to say it? Before it happened? I didn't see that onside kick as a terrible move. Not a call I would have made, but hey, it was an aggressive move at the right time of the game to try such a thing if you are so inclined.
Why do you have to take both or try both? They are 100% unrelated. Late in the 3rd quarter, you take the points and the lead. As for the onside kick, it's a mutually exclusive thing.
Your totally missing the point...of course you dont have to accept both. Mike F's point was that if you were to be CRITICAL of one...you have to be critical of both...and since the first one turned out right...and cant be argued at this point, you would have to be critical of both. There is the argument. Are you trying to tell me that if that onside kick didnt work...and the Colts went down the field and scored a touchdown...this board wouldnt be filled with twice as many threads that the 4th and goal has brought on? Would you still have come to this thread...and it would be called "which one was worse" you would have posted that you thought the onside kick was a good idea? In a 7-7 game? Sorry...theres the problem...if your answer is yes...you would be praising the coaches for that failed onside kick that led to 7 points for the Colts...well...respectfully...I dont buy it from you..or anyone else thats praising it.
I agree with you on this even though I didn't have a problem with the call. I don't know if you're a baseball fan but you often hear similar crap like this in regards to Reyes' baserunning mistakes. What being fast has to do with making stupid plays is something I've never been able to figure out. You don't have to "take the good with the bad" you keep the good and work on the bad.
Not to butt in on your conversation, but did you think: if the Jets kick the field goal (prior to the final result) rather than go for it on 4th down (and potentially put 7 on the board), that a 3pt. lead with 4:40 seconds to go in the 3rd Qtr was going to be enuf to beat the best passer and most electric offense in football for the past...5 years? Mores specific, since Game 1, a defense that can't stop a run or pass on any team, let alone the best offense in the league. When your offense and defense are BOTH average and you're playing another team at the same level, THEN you can kick the FG. You don't settle for less when the opposing team can score on you in 90 seconds w/ no timeouts. I can see your point as to going for the sure 3pts. but I'm not to comfortable with a 3pt. lead over the Colts with 19:40 seconds left on the clock.
That's why I liked the move. Year after year we've seen bad to mediocre Jets teams act like they were Super Bowl bound and better then their opponents when they clearly weren't. The Jets were underdogs on Sunday and to beat a team like the Colts you've got to get a few breaks or make a few things happen for you. If Mangini does get the Jets to the level of "elite" in the NFL I'd be suprised if he would go for a TD in the same situation again against an "inferior" opponent.
I was just thinking. A lot of names on this board are derived from the lackluster, conservative, predictable, and sometimes boring Offense that we have witnessed the last 5 years (well there were some good parts at times, but you know what I mean). Now, that it obviously is in the process of purging itself, some peoplpe can't handle the shock. I love the change. Will win some as a result; we will lose some as a result. But, it will always be exciting.
I understood the point 100%. You do not have to be critical of both or none. There is no reason you can't be critical of one and not critical of the other. Praising and not being critical are NOT the same thing. I didn't PRAISE the staff for doing the onside kick, even with the knowledge that it worked. I just said I wouldn't have been critical of it if it did not work, As for what this board is filled with.. ... I won't go there. If the onside kick worked or did not work, I can frankly, and honestly, say my opinion of it would be exactly the same. Risky? Sure... but it was EARLY in the game, with plenty of time to recover. Not amove I would have done, but I am not critical of it either. Here is another thing. Colts getting the ball on the 45 or so increases their chances of scoring on that drive, SURE, but it's not a given. A FG in that case is basically a given. Also, the Jets saw something on FILM that showed the onside kick's chances were way above normal
I don't think I am in the category of never being happy.. but there is NO WAY I would have ever yelled great call. BALLSY call, yes, GREAT CALL, no.
Not for nothing, but I don't agree with this. As I've said a thousand times this week, I didn't agree with the call. If it worked, I would be happy with the points and I would move on, but it doesn't change the fact that I still wouldn't agree with the call. I feel the same about the on-side kick. I thought it was a great call, if it didn't work I would still consider it a great, gutsy call, and wouldn't be criticizing Mangini for taking the chance. I don't understand why people don't get this. I've provided all of my reasoning for each call a million times this week, but people refuse to believe it isn't based simply on results. Oh well, I'm moving on to the Jags, time to start studying their stats a bit more. I'm sure next week will bring on yet another controversy to discuss.... :up:
