Cinderella Team in 2012?

[Wildbill3]

I voted no, because I feel like we still have too many holes filled with below average talent and or players that still need to improve.

 

[Vaark]

wait so you can knock the Jets for playing Manning and co for 2 1/2 qtrs but you don't do so w/ TB who beat NO in week 17 who were treating it like an exhibition game and who removed Brees in a one score game after getting a TO inside the TB 40? Interesting how that works.

TB won 10 games:
5-11 Cle
2-14 Car twice
4-12 Cin
7-9 SL
5-11 Ari
6-10 SF
6-10 Was
7-9 Sea
11-5 NO(when they removed starters)

one win over a winning team all year

Sanchez stepped up in POSTSEASON, on the ROAD. in 6 postseason games:

9 TDs, 3 INTs, 94.3 rating, 4-2 record on the ROAD w/ 2 title game apps.

In the 99.5 minutes that Manning and the starters played, they outscored the jest 45-27. Algebraically, projecting that over 2 full games, they would have outscored the jest 54.3 to 32.5. Again, there is no playoff respect for an at best mediocre team losing 6 out of 7, managing to beat opponents with barely a .300 winning percentage, going 7-7, after losing the one game you need to win at home, largely thanks to your under-performing QB and finally beating a post season team closing the season 3-4, being outscored by 37 points or a team whose kicker lost it while Sanchez again crapped the bed .

Do yourself a favor and rather bragging about that disgrace of a season, just admit you stepped in incredible ****, then point to a good 2010 declaring you hope the 2012 jest resemble them much more so than they do the 2009 or 2011 versions.

 

[nyjunc]

In the 99.5 minutes that Manning and the starters played, they outscored the jest 45-27. Algebraically, projecting that over 2 full games, they would have outscored the jest 54.3 to 32.5. Again, there is no playoff respect for a 7-7 recently losing 6 out of 7, managing to beat opponents with barely a .300 winning percentage, going 7-7, losing the one game you need to win at home, largely thanks to your under-performing QB and finally beating a post season team closing the season 3-4, being outscored by 37 points or a team whose kicker lost it while Sanchez again crapped the bed .

Do yourself a favor and rather bragging about that disgrace of a season, just admit you stepped in incredible ****, then point to a good 2010 declaring you hope the 2012 jest resemble them much more so than they do the 2009 or 2011 versions.

You can skew any way you want but the facts are the Jets trailed by only 5 pts when Manning left and in the title game were down by a FG w/ less than 10 mins left and lost by only 13 both games on the road in a tough building to win w/ a rookie QB. W/ a 2nd year QB in the same building the Jets beat the Colts in the playoffs.

 

[Vaark]

You can skew any way you want but the facts are the Jets trailed by only 5 pts when Manning left and in the title game were down by a FG w/ less than 10 mins left and lost by only 13 both games on the road in a tough building to win w/ a rookie QB. W/ a 2nd year QB in the same building the Jets beat the Colts in the playoffs.

Starters outscoring a team 45-27 in 99.5 minutes is not skewing it.. it's stating reality. As is starters outscoring your team 24-0 in the last 31 minutes of a game that actually counted.

So is the reality that a team which was undefeated going into the 100th minute of the 15th game, had their scrubs outscored 19-0 in 20.5 minutes including their scrub QB throwing up something like a 4QBR going 4-11 and 44 yds (after Peyton threw for 192). If anyone chooses to believe otherwise, IMO they're gazing through a distorted looking glass.

 

[nyjunc]

Starters outscoring a team 45-27 in 99.5 minutes is not skewing it.. it's stating reality. As is starters outscoring your team 24-0 in the last 31 minutes of a game that actually counted.

So is the reality that a team which was undefeated going into the 100th minute of the 15th game, had their scrubs outscored 19-0 in 20.5 minutes including their scrub QB throwing up something like a 4QBR going 4-11 and 44 yds (after Peyton threw for 192). If anyone chooses to believe otherwise, IMO they're gazing through a distorted looking glass.

It is skewing b/c the Jets were lsoing a close game in the reg season(down only 5) and they lost a close game in the title game where a more experienced team pulled away late from an inexperienced team but again if it makes you feel better please continue to offer excuse after excuse.

 

[Vaark]

It is skewing b/c the Jets were lsoing a close game in the reg season(down only 5) and they lost a close game in the title game where a more experienced team pulled away late from an inexperienced team but again if it makes you feel better please continue to offer excuse after excuse.

If in your logic 101 class you were given the logical options of: a)would have likely won game 15 if Colts starters stayed in or b)would have likely lost the game

with the following info to go on:
1 team undefeated through 14 games and winning through 35.5 minutes of the 15th game before starters got pulled

Same team A: outscoring team B 45-27 when starters are playing

Team A going into game undefeated through 14 games
Team B going into game j7-7 beating teams with a cumulative .320 winning percentages and having recently lost 6 of 7

Team B's QB again coming up short with a 60QBR in a losing home game they actually actually needed to win to stay in PO contention vs a dead non-playoff team in previous game.

Unless you flunked Logic 101, or are looking through the world with homeristic biases, the answer to that is so easy that if your term grade was on the line, even you would be forced to make the right call :idk:

 

[nyjunc]

If in your logic 101 class you were given the logical options of: a)would have likely won game 15 if Colts starters stayed in or b)would have likely lost the game

with the following info to go on:
1 team undefeated through 14 games and winning through 35.5 minutes of the 15th game before starters got pulled

Same team A: outscoring team B 45-27 when starters are playing

Team A going into game undefeated through 14 games
Team B going into game j7-7 beating teams with a cumulative .320 winning percentages and having recently lost 6 of 7
Team B's QB again coming up short with a 60QBR in a losing home game they actually actually needed to win to stay in PO contention vs a dead non-playoff team.

Unless you flunked Logic 101, or are looking through the world with homeristic biases, the answer to that is so easy that if your term grade was on the line, even you would be forced to make the right call :idk:

I have never said we would have likely won that game, actually I have said we likely lose but you never know since the game didnt' play out. If we use the same scenario in the div rd at SD- we were trailing by 4 in the 3rd so if SF removes starters at that point you'd say we had no shot, right? the game was played as normal and we won so while I think Indy likely wins we have no idea. The Jets got a break and took advantage.

That undefeated team was winning by just 5 pts, they weren't blowing us out. Let's use a 2nd example, the 2011 GB Packers. They were 13-0 and faced a bad Chiefs team(losers of 5 of 6 heading into that game and just off a 37-10 thrashing at the Jets), they led in a close game in the 3rd qtr. Let's say GB removes their starters at that point, you'd say KC never wuld have beaten them, right? they played it out and KC won so you just never now for sure.

 

[The New Guy]

I have never said we would have likely won that game, actually I have said we likely lose but you never know since the game didnt' play out. If we use the same scenario in the div rd at SD- we were trailing by 4 in the 3rd so if SF removes starters at that point you'd say we had no shot, right? the game was played as normal and we won so while I think Indy likely wins we have no idea. The Jets got a break and took advantage.

That undefeated team was winning by just 5 pts, they weren't blowing us out. Let's use a 2nd example, the 2011 GB Packers. They were 13-0 and faced a bad Chiefs team(losers of 5 of 6 heading into that game and just off a 37-10 thrashing at the Jets), they led in a close game in the 3rd qtr. Let's say GB removes their starters at that point, you'd say KC never wuld have beaten them, right? they played it out and KC won so you just never now for sure.

It is not just the starters being removed. The Colts were not going to be game planning or playing with the same effort they would if they needed the win.

Outside of an "Any given Sunday" moment, the Jets would have lost and missed the playoffs if the Colts wanted to win. It is silly to think.....well, maybe the Jets might have won. Those teams were not on the same level to think that.

 

[nyjunc]

It is not just the starters being removed. The Colts were not going to be game planning or playing with the same effort they would if they needed the win.

Outside of an "Any given Sunday" moment, the Jets would have lost and missed the playoffs if the Colts wanted to win. It is silly to think.....well, maybe the Jets might have won. Those teams were not on the same level to think that.

That was their problem not the Jets problem. if guys didn't want to compete to get a lead to preserve an undefeated season then that is on them. The Jets took care of their business.

again, they likely would have lost but we'll never know. I gave you 2 great examples, if you want to ignore them go ahead.

 

[The New Guy]

That was their problem not the Jets problem. if guys didn't want to compete to get a lead to preserve an undefeated season then that is on them. The Jets took care of their business.

again, they likely would have lost but we'll never know. I gave you 2 great examples, if you want to ignore them go ahead.

If SD took out the starters, they probably win since they would actually make 2 FGs. The KC game was an "Any given Sunday" type game. They did go from having Palko at QB to Orton who performed much better than Palko ever did for them. I'm not saying Orton gave them a realistic shot at beating GB, but that there was a change from the team that lost 6 of 7. What changed for the Jets when they faced Indy after losing to a 6-7 ATl team?

I said that an "Any given Sunday" moment is a possibility for the Jets against the Colts, but those don't happen very often.

 

[nyjunc]

If SD took out the starters, they probably win since they would actually make 2 FGs. The KC game was an "Any given Sunday" type game. They did go from having Palko at QB to Orton who performed much better than Palko ever did for them. I'm not saying Orton gave them a realistic shot at beating GB, but that there was a change from the team that lost 6 of 7. What changed for the Jets when they faced Indy after losing to a 6-7 ATl team?

I said that an "Any given Sunday" moment is a possibility for the Jets against the Colts, but those don't happen very often.

Kyle Orton? really? the man who was beat out by Tim Tebow is your reasoning for their change? They won b/c they held one of the best O's in the leave to 14 pts, not b/c the QB led them to a whopping 19 pts.

W/ Orton a week later they lost to Oak, oak's only win in the last 5 games.

 

[Gsmack_42]

If in your logic 101 class you were given the logical options of: a)would have likely won game 15 if Colts starters stayed in or b)would have likely lost the game

with the following info to go on:
1 team undefeated through 14 games and winning through 35.5 minutes of the 15th game before starters got pulled

Same team A: outscoring team B 45-27 when starters are playing

Team A going into game undefeated through 14 games
Team B going into game j7-7 beating teams with a cumulative .320 winning percentages and having recently lost 6 of 7

Team B's QB again coming up short with a 60QBR in a losing home game they actually actually needed to win to stay in PO contention vs a dead non-playoff team in previous game.

Unless you flunked Logic 101, or are looking through the world with homeristic biases, the answer to that is so easy that if your term grade was on the line, even you would be forced to make the right call :idk:

Common sense 101 says it's easier to walk away from a brick wall than to debate with a brick wall.

 

[The New Guy]

Kyle Orton? really? the man who was beat out by Tim Tebow is your reasoning for their change? They won b/c they held one of the best O's in the leave to 14 pts, not b/c the QB led them to a whopping 19 pts.

W/ Orton a week later they lost to Oak, oak's only win in the last 5 games.

No, just stating that there was change and it wasn't the same exact team going in. Orton did throw for 299 yards that game and only missed on 8 passes out of 31. They also had a new coach that game. There were changes. Not saying any of that is the reason they won becasue I still think it was an "Any given Sunday" thing. I watched the game and you could just tell that GB was off and it was going to be that kind of day for them. I didn't get that sense with the Jets / Colts game.

I agree with you that we will never know for sure, but I think most everyone can have a pretty good idea of what would have happened based on what we did see happen in that game and the game a few weeks later.

 

[psfign]

I voted no. I hope so, but unless tennehill is just blows everything out of the water, it's not likely to happen.

 

[DLINAT]

i don know, to much uncertainty right now, specially with the defense going from 3-4 to a 4-3; will be interesting for sure.