Spare me the intercepts Pitt line, that was basically a TO on downs. It was 4th and 1 in long FG range, they threw a 1 yd pass and we picked it. We didn't gain any yardage advantage, we didn't have great FP. The D allowed Pitt to set the tone. 9 minute TD drive to start the game, we had ONE possession in the 1st qtr. Pitt held the ball for 21 of the 30 mins in the 1st half. Sometimes it takes time to get going, you guys are praising Kaepernick. His team went down 17-0 at Atl and 21-3 in the SB. His D allowed them to come back and beat Atl then have a chance to beat Bal. Our O doesn't get a pass but the D set the tone and didn't hold down Pitt while the O got their legs under them. Once the O got it w/in a score w/ plenty of time to play the D allowed Pitt to run out the clock.
I do think Kaepernick was surrounded by better talent... But it wasnt a whole lot better. I would say the 2009/2010 Jets defense were on a very similar level to 2012 49ers defense. The 2009/2010 Jets OL was similar to the 49ers 2012 OL. Gore is better than Jones/LT/Greene, but our running game was pretty damn good too. The 49ers had Vernon Davis and Crabtree, while we had Keller, Braylon and Cotchery/Holmes. Id give the 49ers a slight edge here, but when we had Keller, Holmes and Braylon we had some very good weapons Kaepernick came into a great situation, but so did Sanchez, especially in 2010. As someone who says "dont be an average fan and watch games", its not hard to tell the difference between Kaepernick and Sanchez while watching the tape.
Pitt scored 31 w/ great FP starting 2 possessions deep in bal territory to score TDs. Trailing 21-7 their next 2 possessions began at Bal 25 and 23. Did our O/STs set up Pitt at the NYJ 23/25? The bottom line is this, the O got us w/in a score w/ plenty of time to play. The D had 2 chances to force a punt, they failed and we lost.
This is my favorite non argument. So only the Pitt O relaxed not their D? 1/3 of their team just decided to relax but not the other half? Okay sure. You are basically saying "I know how Mike Tomlin was coaching this game and he had his team play relaxed only on one side of the ball". Then you are saying that if a team wanted to they could have scored of more? If they wanted to, why did IND put up a goose egg in the 1st quarter? Did they not want it enough? Such a silly argument. Up 20-17, IND went 4 plays and punted. Did they not want to score on that drive?
Kaepernick looked good in a gimmick offense, let's see him do it when defenses are prepared for that offense. I will be convinced then, he has the tools and should be able to be a good one but he walked into a MUCH better situation than Mark Sanchez. he had absolutely no pressure on him as a backup. Starting day 1 w/ Smith gone he has a ton of pressure now, let's see how he responds.
Did our D allow 31 points? The D never should have been put in that spot. If the O plays better, the D never would have been in that spot. If you think Pitt could have scored anytime they wanted, then you should think that the D could have stopped the Jets O anytime they wanted. If Pitt isn't up 21 points at the half, whose to say that the Jets don't get shutout in the 2nd half? It goes both ways. A turnover on downs in FG range is a good thing. No matter how you want to try and discredit the pick, that play was an advantage for us. They could have gotten a 1st, they could have attempted the long FG and possibly made it. They could have punted and pinned us deep. Just getting the ball back only down 7 points on our own 35 was a good thing. The O responded with a 3 and out.
Junc they stopped the Pitt O. Fine let's say it was a TO downs, same difference. The Jets offense got the ball on their own 35 yard line. That excuses them to go 3 and out? No it doesn't. Yes Pitt held the ball for 21 of the 30 minutes. Do you really believe that's ONLY the defense's fault? Here's some help. After the D's interception, or TO or downs, the Jets offense held the ball for 1:55 seconds. Let's blame the defense for that? After that the Jets offense got the ball back and held the ball for 48 seconds. After that the Jets offense held the ball for 30 seconds. The Jets offense was terrible in that first half, so was the defense. The combination of not being able to stop Pitt and not being to score led the Jets to a big deficit. That combination meant the Jets needed to play a perfect second half. They weren't able to play perfect with 2 key problems: 1) They wasted a 1st and goal from the Pitt 2 yard line and turned up 0 points. That drive lasted 8 minutes and 6 seconds and with 0 points. Down 10-24 we just killed almost a 1/3 of the 2nd half getting 0 points. 2) They weren't able to stop Pitt with 3:09 left on the clock and 3 timeouts. To blatantly ignore where the offense failed and to only focus on where the defense struggled is purposely misleading and shows a clear bias when trying to examine that game. I mean we scored 0 points off of turnovers that game. Part of that falls on the offense. After both interceptions, the Jets offense went 3 and out.
Most teams play differently w/ a lead but Pitt couldn't stop us late when we needed to score, would they have stopped us if we got it back? we'll never know b/c our D failed. Indy put it in cruise control in the 4th qtr after they took the 30-17 lead. we saw how quick they could score after our O gave our D a DOUBLE DIGIT lead, it took a minute to erase that and make it a one score game. I guess Peyton isn't a big time QB, he didn't even lead his O to a point against us in 2002, Brady must not be big time, he only led his O to 3 pts against us in that 2010 div rd game
1) Pitt stopped us late twice. We cut the score to 24-10 to start the 2nd half. We then went 3 and out with 0 points, got the ball back, and then scored 0 points. In fact the offense had 2 TD drives and 2 drives ending in 0 points. The Pitt defense stopped us 50% of the time that 2nd half. So in fact Pitt could stop us late, they did it twice. 2) How does this address us being down 17-20 and IND being forced to punt? You said if IND wanted to, they would have scored more. Did they not want to score up 20-17? That's just silly. IND's offense was clicking, but to act like the only reason they didn't score 40 points was because they didn't want to is silly as seen from my game example. 3) What about big time QBs? I don't know what point you are trying to make. Please explain more detailed. You said if they wanted to they could have scored more. I'm saying that's a silly argument because teams always want to score and brought up a situation from that IND game where it would have been very beneficial for IND to score and they weren't able to. You then talk about 2002 and 2010 for some unknown reason to me.
Funniest part of Junc's argument, he fails to mention Sanchez fumbling and it being returned for a TD, you know the winning margin of the game.
No, b/c our O didn't turn it over giving Pitt possessions inside the 25. I made a mistake, it was THREE possessions not 2. Stopping them was good but just stating interception makes it sound like our D made a great play and set up the O to score. Not the same, just stating "interception" makes it sound like the D set our O up in great FP to score. Pitt's D is pretty good too you know and they were at home w/ that building rocking. Not only the D's fault bu the 9 minute drive to start the game played a huge role. It was more the Ds fault than the Os. AGAIN, it all boils down to this. Down 24-19 w/ 3 minutes left and all 3 TOs our D allowed Pittsburgh to run out the clock. You guys celebrate kaepernick but if his D doesn't get stops in the 4th at Atl they don't win and don't go to the SB but mark gets bashed b/c his D couldn't get a stop.
Haha...that's classic... "while the O got their legs under them". Sometimes it would take a few games...but they'd score eventually. And if they weren't scoring points, or at least moving the chains, they were giving the ball back to the other team. At the end of the Tennessee game, we had a turnover on the last three possessions. Tough to win that way.
3) did you edit your post? my mistake, I thought I saw you post something about that. it was in incomplete pass but putting that aside he was blindsided, how was that his fault? we were down 17-0 and forced to try to make plays b/c of the D putting us in that hole. he got a FG immediately, if he throws that incomplete pass Pitt gets it back w/ great FP and is up probably 20-0 so there's not much difference btw being down 20 or 21. Once AGAIN, the D had a chance to give the O the ball back w/ plenty of time and they failed. Make all the other excuses you want but that's what the game came down to.
2012 and 2010 are 2 completely different years, '12 doesn't belong anywhere near the '10 title game discussion.
Lamest argument ever, if the offense had held on to the ball as long as Pittsburgh did, or longer, we would be talking Superbowl and not AFCG. But your argument just hung yourself. The Offense fell flat and COULDNT stay on teh field. The second part of your argument is pure conjecture, neither the STeelers nor the Colts were known for taking their foot off the petal in games, become a little more conservative, yes, but taking their foot off the pedal, nope. You've evidently never heard of halftime adjustments, they happen all the time in the NFL, even the average fan knows that. But again, that's getting off point. If Mark was a big time QB the Jets wouldn't have been in a 17 point hole, it might have been 17-10, or 17-13 but not 17 0. But I admit I was wrong about the Sanchez only putting up 17 points, it was really 22....unforunately 6 of those points were for the STeelers.
I will pick this up on Monday. I'm heading out for a nice long weekend, a little mini vacation. happy Memorial Day to all and stay safe.
Again Junc, if sanchez is a big game QB he doesn't fold in the first half and do NOTHING. His immediate FG? you mean the failed TD where he couldn't go the last 2 yards? rofl....... Fumbles happen, not as often for others as they do for Mark (league leader in fumbles over the past 4 years, and yes in fumbles lost too!) So yes, when a QB fumbles as often as Mark does you have to say yes, it is partially his fault for lack of pocket awareness, it happens to him FAR too often.
How does stating interception make it sound like we have good field position? In what world does interception imply that? Interception implies the defense intercepted the ball from the other team. Yeah you know Pitt's O is pretty good too and they were at home w/ that building rocking. Okay, so you start off with a terrible statement saying the reason we had to throw on 3rd and long down 17 was becuase the D put us there. Now you say the offense is to blame but the D more so? Still the offenses fault for going 3 and out twice when the deficit was 7 and 10 points. Then giving up 7 points you know is a pretty big deal. Funny enough, the Jets defense in both Pitt games gave up 17 points and got safety. THat means both times they gave up a net of 15 points. The Jets won the first game by scoring 20 points (7 from ST) and giving Pitt 0 points. The Jets lost the second game by scoring 17 points and giving Pitt 7 points. It actually boils down to 2 scenarios. The one you leave out is scoring 0 points on the Pitt 2 yard line with 4 downs. IF we score a TD like there like a normal offense, we now have a one possession game with 7 and half minutes left. Instead, it only becomes a one possession game with 3 minutes left. Big difference. The offense failed there and then D couldn't stop them with a stop at 3:09. Both units failed at something they should be able to do. I don't think you grasp how important it was to score from the Pitt 2 yard line especually after using 8 minutes of the clock. By not scoring we effectively did what Pitt's goal was, to kill the clock and not let the Jets score. We did their job for them with that drive
Nice! Defending Sanchez can take a lot out of you. Get recharged and come back first thing on Tuesday. I'm sure there will be a lot of post that Sanchez will need you to step in and defend him :rofl2: Seriously, have a good one! Hopefully Hobbes can keep us entertained in your absence.
