if the defense keeping the team within 10 points means the defense is keeping the team in the game, by your logic the defense is also keeping a game close if they give up 47 points as long as the offense scores 37. just because the offense faltered in the second half doesn't absolve the defense for how shitty they played for the first five possessions from the first half and third quarter and certainly doesn't warrant them any credit. the defense digging a hole for the offense doesn't get absolved just because the lead didn't get larger. Allowing them to build the lead is the problem. again, by your logic, if a team races out to a 40-0 lead but the opponent cuts it to 40-30 by the start of the fourth, you would have to applaud the defense because the game was close if that is the primary criteria you are using and scoring 10 points in a quarter isnt too large a task to expect the offense to accomplish. Except the honest interpretation of such an example is the defense sucked and the offense did not. But there are games where the defense is great and the offense sucks, and also games where both the offense and defense are great or both suck. in this game both sucked. The defense gave up 20 points on the first five possessions. that is fucking terrible and there is no way to spin it otherwise. conversely the offense sucked because despite the hole the defense dug they were still in striking difference but couldnt muster anything. your position that as long as the game is close the defense deserves credit for it being close has no logical basis because it can't project to all scenarios of 10 point games and still be viewed the same. a 10 point lead is the result of both the offense and defense.
Obviously if it's a high scoring game the D isn't getting it done. I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying the D played well, they played well below standard, however, given the inability to sustain a drive in the second half that they were down only 10 for the majority of the ball game is astounding to me. They had the ball so much longer the whole game it was fuckin ridic. I'm putting the L more on the offense and their inability to sustain drives. Shit like Kerley's fumble can't be happening either, putting the D right back out there.
Way to take his point completely out of context. You know damn well a 13-10 game (score at half and jets had a chance to go up) is a whole lot different than 43-40. You're just being a jerk. The defense didn't play great by any means,but they played better than the offense. You cannot expect to win a game scoring 10 points.
You have to admit, though. Pittsburgh is the master of that. They did it to us before. They do it to a lot of other teams, that's how they win. Time of possession favored the Steelers, but our offense sure wasn't helping the situation.
I don't think anyone would have said before the game that if the Steelers scored 27 points we would win. the defense had to hold the Steelers to 17 or 20 points for us to have had a real shot at winning, and they gave up 20 points in the first 35 minutes of gameplay when the Jets offense had scored on 2 of 5 possessions -- 40%. when you can score on 40% of your possessions for a whole game, that should be enough to win unless the defense doesn't do their job. comparably, Atlanta put up 27 points by scoring on 41% of their possessions (5 out of 12) against Denver. So the Jets offense was doing their job on their first 5 possessions. conversely, the defense during that same time span gave up 20 points. so, the defense lost the game right from the start. even if the Jets had scored on 40% of their next five possessions after the first five, which would be 2 scores, the best they would have had was 24 points (and the reasonable expectation of a Jets win was probably in the 24-20 realm). so to win the game after the defense gave up 20 points while the Jets offense was actually playing well would have required the defense to not give up another point the rest of the game. that is unrealistic to expect, and it did not occur. both sides of the football sucked, but the defense gave up 27 points and nobody would have expected us to win had they done so. based on the amount of possessions that occurred in the game, the best the Jets could have scored, at an efficient 40% scoring rate, was 24 points. had we lost 27-24 would you blame the offense? of course not. so if the 27 points would be why we lost a 27-24 game, it is also why we lost a 27-10 game -- because the Jets offense would have had to score at a rate nobody would have expected them to score at to begin with to overcome that 27 points.
I didn't take it out of context, you are just simplifying the situation rather than deal with the actual issues. the Jets offense was the reason why it was close at 13-10, not the defense. at that point the Jets had scored on 2 of 4 possessions they had the ball -- 50%. that is a fantastic rate. conversely the defense had given up scores on 3 of 4 possessions -- 75% of the possession. that is absolutely fucking horrific. which side of the ball did their job in the first half and deserves credit for it only being a 13-10 game? the offense. you're being a jerk if you choose to ignore that and argue a point contrary that has no basis in reality. and then what does the defense do on the first possession of the second half? give up another score. 4 scores on 5 possessions -- 80% of the Steelers drives, for 20 points. it is ludicrous to claim the offense blew the game because they couldn't overcome that. how many points did you expect the Jets to score before the game? unless you say 30, you would be admitting that the defense giving up 20 points with 9 minutes still to go in the 3rd quarter was likely enough to win the game.
Are you really still trying to win this weak, imaginary argument?? Nobody is saying the Defense played lights out (which they woulda had to do to win anyway with the O only putting up 10 all day) So no shit they weren't great. It's fuckin wednesday. Give it up.
considering every asinine point you have made has been disputed with facts, the only one with an imaginary argument is you.
The Jet O scored ten points and could not sustain any drives after the first quarter. They also put the D in a position to give up a lot of points because they could not stay on the field, leading to Pitt winning TOP. Special teams also "helped" contribute to the loss with Kerley's fumble. If anything giving up only 27 to a team like Pitt given that TOP and some case of bad field position was an acheivement. Well, maybe "achievement" is a bit much. Heh.
that is a complete lie. the Jets had a 13 play, 5:21 second FG drive in the second quarter. prior to the Steelers TD drive at the end of the first half, the TOP was almost identical at 12 minutes for the Steelers and 11 minutes for the Jets. so the Steelers ensuing TD drive had zero to do with the Jets offense unable to stay on the field. then the next Steelers score came after the defense had a 16 minute break for halftime and the Jets first drive of the second half -- again, that can't be blames on the offense. 3 of the Steelers 4 longest drives came in the 1st half when TOP was identical. try watching the game next time.
Fact of the matter is if you can argue which side of the ball played worse they both played subpar and you need a complete game to beat playoff teams. The verdict is next time we play a contender ALL THREE phases need to be better.
If Cromartie doesn't screw up in the endzone, the defense would look a lot better. Unfortunately, it happened.
subpar is generous. both played like shit. the point is the offense's inability in the second half in no way contributed to the defense's poor play in the first half and the very first Steeler possession of the 2nd half -- which is when they gave up 20 points. sure, in Quantum physics it has been shown that future events can influence past events, but the Jets vs Steelers was played in the natural physical world which we experience with our senses, and in that world sequence of events occur in a forward order. what comes first influences what comes second. but what comes second does to cause what comes first. that is what is being argued -- the how poorly the Jets offense played after the Steelers scored 20 points somehow caused the Steelers to score 20 points before hand. the Jets offense didn't put any strain on the defense prior to the first 20 points. in fact, it is quite the opposite. the Jets offense had 5 possessions to that point, with 3 over 4 minutes which is a good drive length, and one being a throwaway drive at the end of the half. the reason why TOP was in the Steelers favor at that point was because they had given up 10, 11 and 9 play drives in the first half when the offense was actually executing. maybe the offense would have been in a better rhythm had they not had to sit and watch the Steelers for 5 minutes at a time in the first half.
Being a bit douchey today, aren't you? Well, more than a bit without question. I was just thinking of being nice. You are correct teh Jets got their FG at the beginning of the second quarter. Everything else you say is misleading. The score was 13-10 at the half. The Jets did not score after their second possession. That was 8 straight possessions without even a field goal. The game was well within reach at the half. The teams had basically played even. It was the failure of the O to score that was the main reason the Jets lost. You are basically saying the D lost the game in the first half. That is a ridiculous point, totally untrue, and I wonder why you are even trying to sustain such a ridiculous argument.
kerleys fumble didnt help the offense scoring only 10 didnt help the defens playing like trash didnt help. it was a team loss, in the truest sense. but to imply that the defense kept them in the game, is simply false. they allowed pitt to score on 4 of the first 5 possesions. they blew a lead, they allowed pitt to score on their first possesion of the half, and they allowed pitt to put the game away and eat up the entire 4th quarter basically. in no way, shape, or form, did they keep us in the game
Again, at 13 points the Jets were still well within the game. You mischaracterize what happened in the Pitt TD in the third quarter. The strain then was not in TOP but in field position. The Jets punte from their 19, having achieved a net total of minus one yard with all that time of possession. Landry's penalty made their field position even worse, and of course that is not on the D. But by then the Jet O had not done anything since their second possession.
this is false... as i showed a few pages back. the defense was given good field position to work with all game, and going into the 4th quarter it was almost dead even in T.O.P(approx: 23.5 min to 21.5 min). the T.O.P was fine until the jets allowed pitt to start the 4th quarter on a 10 minute touchdown drive. the jets O stunk, but they didnt turn it over and didnt put the defense on a short field. they also were even in TOP for 45 minutes until that first 4th quarter drive.
Kerley's turnover didn't affect anything. The defense got the stop and we got the ball right back. It was bad and it seemed like he was shook by it the rest of the game, however. I was so angry when the Jets laid down with a a minute a 2 timeouts before the half, though. Absolutely stupid. Worst play of the game.
