the defense lost(or rather, great contributed to the loss) the game by allowing 14 points in back to back possesions going into and coming out of the half. a stop on either end of that would have made a huge difference. then allowing a 10 minute drive to start the 4th quarter, ending in another TD sealed our fate. Offense cant be absolved, they didnt score in the second half...at the same time, the defense was equally bad, and cant be absolved of the first 35 minutes, allowing 20, and blowing a first half lead.
defense cant cry about field possesion... almost every score they allowed was on a drive where pitt started with poor field position. pitts first FG = started on own 20 pitts second FG = started on own 25 pitts first TD = started on own 20 pitts second TD = started on own 40 Steelers third TD = started on own 25 they jets D also squandered field postion allowing pit to go 53 yards on a drive where pitt started backed up on their own 4. the steelers average starting field position for the game was their own 27 yardline. the jets defense did not have 1 turnover. and for 3 quarters TOP was even, until the jets D allowed a 10 mintue drive. so lets chill with this crap that the defense was put in tough spots
Lol, you are so out of touch with reality. Your dumb little percentages don't translate well to the game of football. You want to play with percentages? Let's play with percentages. According to you, if the Jets D only gave up scoring drives on 2 out of the 4 drives (50%), they would've done better. Ok, so let's trade 2 FGs for a TD and a punt. Ok, now Pitt is at 14 instead of 13, which is 7% higher. Get it? Here, let's go over another scenario. Team A scores on 100% of their drives (5FGs for 15 pts)...according to you, they did amazing. Team B scores on 60% of their drives (3 TDs, 2 punts for 21 pts)...according to you, they only did OK. Guess what? Team B's score is 40% higher than Team A, meaning Team B are the winners. But team A is amazing right? See how this works? If you still don't comprehend, try having someone hold your hand and explain it to you
no, your strawman is what is fucking idiotic. clearly you don't even know what a strawman is, so go find someone to hold your hand and explain it to you. my percentages were not hypotheticals, they were based on empirical facts of the game. your entire strawman bullshit is just that, bullshit. one, my argument about rate of scoring didn't differentiate whether it was a TD or FG, just that they gave up a score. but the argument is about the defenses inability to stop them at all, and whether it was the offense's play that caused it. the fact that 2 of the first scores were TD and 2 were FG's only made the effect on the game worse, but doesn't change the argument. so your fictional scenario is irrelevant to the argument, nevertheless does nothing to dispute it. secondly, according to YOU Team A did great but Team B only okay. that is your opinion, not mine. basically, you created a weak fictional argument that had nothing to do with what I said that was easily disputed and disputed it. congratulations, you just failed logic 101. well done. I never once intimated that scoring on more possession was better than scoring more points, so again all you did was reveal that you could create a dumb fuck argument.
Lmao, this keeps getting better and better. You - " my percentages were not hypotheticals, they were based on empirical facts of the game. your entire strawman bullshit is just that, bullshit." - All I did was swap 2 FGs for a TD and a punt to prove that your percentages didn't mean anything. Success. You -"one, my argument about rate of scoring didn't differentiate whether it was a TD or FG, just that they gave up a score. " - Ding Ding! That is my whole point. Your percentages mean absolutely nothing because they don't take TD or FG into account. Glad I could help you work through that. You - "but the argument is about the defenses inability to stop them at all, and whether it was the offense's play that caused it. the fact that 2 of the first scores were TD and 2 were FG's only made the effect on the game worse, but doesn't change the argument." Really? You're the one that brought up those retarded percentages; no one else. Why bring them into it if it had nothing to do with the argument? You - "secondly, according to YOU Team A did great but Team B only okay. that is your opinion, not mine. Lol, did you read my post? According to YOUR logic, Team A did great and Team B only did Ok. Straight from your previous post - "50%. that is a fantastic rate."........"75% of the possession. that is absolutely fucking horrific" Short term memory problem? The percentages work the same on both ends of the ball You - basically, you created a weak fictional argument that had nothing to do with what I said that was easily disputed and disputed it. congratulations, you just failed logic 101. well done. The only reason I created the fictional argument was to help you work through it and understand. Apparently you're a lost cause In the end, you tried using "facts" to back up your argument. These said 'facts' had no relevance to the argument and you even agreed yourself. They just made you look dumb. If I was a betting man, I might wager that I was arguing with my 9 year old niece on the other side of the computer.
it was still a strawman hypothetical because it did not have anything to do with my argument. how much the team scores is a separate argument from whether the defense is playing like shit. the defense's job is to stop the team from scoring at all. holding a team to a FG is a moral victory, but still represents a defense's deficiencies if it is occurring at a significant rate. just because a TD is worse than a FG does not mean holding a team to a FG represents the team is playing well. holy shit, that has to be explained to you. by your own dumb fuck argument, if a defense gives up 5 FG's in a half on 5 possessions, that defense is playing like shit. just because it could have been worse had they given up TD's doesn't mean they aren't playing poorly by giving up FG's every single possession. glad I could help you through that. I didn't say the scoring percentages were irrelevant, I said the specific score was irelevant -- the TD or FG. try to keep up. if you were smart enough to be embarrassed, you would be so by now. luckily for you you aren't, so you won't recognize that it will actually get worse for you from here forward. exactly. I stated scoring at a 50% rate is fantastic. when you created your asinine fictitious scenario you had a team scoring at a 60% rate and claiming I would only think it was OK. why would I think 50% was great, but 60% is okay? no, you made up a fictional argument because the only person dumb enough to lose an argument to you is you, and in your post you were playing both sides. trying to attribute your nonsense to me doesn't change that.
Rebecca, your mother is calling you. Dinner is on the table. If you want dessert tonight, you're going to have to eat all of your carrots.
and that is pretty much what I expected from someone who was so fucking stupid that he made my point for me. as I said, scoring at a rate of 40%(as the Jets did in the first half) and up is a very good rate and is a rate of scoring that leads to a good chance of winning. there are obviously numerous variations of scoring combinations that can occur that could lead to a team scoring at a higher rate losing to a team scoring at a lower rate. but even your own dumb fuck argument required the winning team to be scoring at a rate above 40% (60% in your own example), so that only validated my claim that scoring at a 40% rate and above is playing a a level that could lead to a victory. I never claimed that the team scoring at a higher rate automatically would win and was thus better, which was what your completely dipshit argument was and was irrelevant to my point. if you were smart, the way to counter my position would be to show an example of a team scoring at above a 40% rate losing to a team below 40%, and thus showing a weakness to my 40% argument (but more likely just an exception to the rule, which again is another basic of logic, but would at least have been better than your dumbass scenario), though I never attempted to claim it was absolute. but when two teams, A and B, are both scoring at above 40% (using your example of 100% and 60%), that means both offenses are playing great and both defenses are playing like shit. so, back to your own completely asinine and irrelevant argument, just because the defense that gave up scores on 100% of their possessions actually gave up less points than the team that gave up scores on only 60% of their possessions, that doesn't mean that the team giving up more points on less scoring possessions played better in comparison to the other defense that gave up FG's on 100% of their possessions. that was the argument you tried to attribute to me, which had nothing to do with anything I said. so, you can take your dumb fuck quips that are obviously a weak attempt to deflect attention from the fact that everything you posted was pure bullshit, back to whatever forum of this board you obviously contribute very little to, because I can't imagine your posts being any better than what you have shown in this thread.
This just in! Empirical data shows that teams that score more points than their opponents at the end of 4 quarters of football will win %100 of these games. I double checked and it appears to be true. Weird huh?
The defense is just not anywhere near as good as the hype surrounding it. We can't stop the run and really aren't very good against the pass either except on one side of the field and now that is gone too. A rookie was completing passes at will when Revis went down. Now that he has we will see just how good Ryan is.
Our defense has not looked good the last two games. The run defense is terrible, and the pass defense is not much better.
The defense had more points than the offense for a decent chunk of the game yesterday. The offense needs to be better. Much better.
