I guess the defender didn't have a role in catching the int? Revis had to adjust a little to catch it. Yeah, it wasn't a huge play on Revis' point, just like how Cromartie muffed it and while he was picking up the ball and had not secured it, the defender knocked it lose. The starting point was the muff, something the defender didn't cause. In the int, starting point was the tipped catch attempt, something the defender didn't cause. Defender hit Cromartie on the hand, something that happens on about 80% of the plays. Not gonna give credit to a defender that knocked loose and already loose ball.
I would agree with you if Cro never picked the ball back up, but he did. He clearly regains possession of the ball with both hands. He puts the ball in his right hand, and and tries to dive forward while holding himself up with his left hand. The ball never moves during that time, and that is when the defender knocked the ball out. It was not already loose like you are claiming. The defender was the only reason that the ball came out, unlike the Revis Int that bounced right to him.
Wow. So you know what could have happened? There is NO WAY to know that. You are talking about the odds of it happening. I know I don't have a logical reason to back it up. I was merely pointing out how stupid it is to say what could have happened. ANYTHING could have happened. Its dumb to talk about what could have happened.
I am only pointing out the fact that the Jets got a big play from the D that set them up on the SD 19 with a chance to take the lead. Without that play, SD kicks a FG making it a 7 point game, and the Jets get the ball somewhere near their own 20.
No one knows what will happen in the future, and anything can happen. However, not everything is a 50 / 50 chance just becasue it will either happen or not. There are a lot of factors that change the odds of things happening, and where a team starts a drive is a huge one. You can say the Jets could have recovered 10 onside kicks in a row, and base that on "Anything can happen", but that is not the same as me saying the Jets would have had a harder time scoring from 80 yards away than they would from 19 yards away.
All of this is in response to you saying that it doesn't matter where the Jets started from. You changed the 19 yard drive that I mentioned to the previous 55 yard drive (when they were down 2 scores), and said, it didn't matter where they started from. Here is my quote and your reply:
That is ridiculous. The Jets scored on that 55 yard drive when they were down 21-10. They took the lead on a 19 yard drive. Your argument is that if SD could not stop them from going 19 yards, they were not going to stop them from going 70 or 80? :crazy:
There is no way of knowing anything until it happened. Remember when I showed what could have happened if Revis didn't get the pick and Jets could have had a chance to score 60 points by doing several onside kicks? Yes, it didn't happen and it doesn't matter. Your argument is flawed. If Jets offense only had 55 yards to go and they actually did go the distance, it doesn't matter where they started from, their drive was not stopped. Don't get in to that 'could have' argument. Its too childish.
I was comparing the 19 yard drive to an 80 yard drive, and you changed the 19 yard drive to the 50 yard drive. Even so, there is still a big difference in a 55 yard drive than an 80 yard drive.
I was actually talking about the 55 yard drive, but here's some news for you. It is much harder to get a first down from 19 yards out than it is from 80 yards out. Hopefully you are old enough to figure out why. It is logical to say that if the team drives 55 yards while the opponents don't stop you, you probably will drive 80 yards as well. Again, I told you why they had a shorter field. It had to do with the Jets offense AND defense equally. a 50 yard drive resulting in a punt doesn't mean the offense sucks. They moved the ball and put the ball behind SDs 10 yard line.
What's the point? Do you honestly believe that if teams always started on the opponents 19 instead of their own 20, that they have less of a chance to score becasue you say it is harder to get a first down?
You keep changing the 19 yard drive (when they had a chance to take the lead) that I am talking about to the 50 yard drive (when they were down 2 scores). Regardless, your point is not valid. It is not logical to say that if a team can't stop you from 55 yards, they can't stop you from 80.
25 more yards means you need more first downs or a big play which gives the defense more chances to make a stop. To think that 25 more yards makes no difference is ridiculous.
I didn't use 1 yard example, and neither was I talking about the 19 yard TD drive. I was, however, talking about the 55 yard drive. Good try though.
You said that it did not matter where the drive started from since their drive was not stopped. You said that if they can't stop a 55 yard drive, they can't stop an 80 yard drive. 25 yards means nothing to you, so why not 30 yards, 40, or 50. When does it make a difference to you?
You are stating that Jets offense is not good enough and then go on to prove your point by saying they have been successful at cutting 2 possession leads consistently.
How is that being bias? The fact is the Jets have been able to cut 2 score leads to single score leads, but they have not been able to tie, or take the lead in games without a big play from the D or special teams. That is a fact. I have seen multiple times in games where the offense was not able to tie, or take the lead in games on their own.
Cutting 2 score leads in games and not doing anything after that is not good enough. That is not being biased. That is telling the truth.
No, redzone offense is not the same as playing offense from your own 20. Also, if a team scores on an 80 yard drive, that doesn't mean they'll score on an 80 drive EVERY SINGLE TIME. That is what you are inferring here.
That is not what I am inferring, but if a teams scored on an 80 yard drive, and everything else was the same (like I said in my example)
Had the Jets started in better FP, and everything else was the same, they would have scored instead of having to punt.
they would score every time. My point is, better FP makes it easier to score. That is not debatable. Yes, things get tighter in the redzone, but unless you are going to score on a big play, you have to go through it no matter what. The 60 yards in between is not a gimme. You can say the same about the 50 yards, 40 30, 20 and so on. The more yards the offense has to go, the more chances the D has to stop them.
Six point lead in the 4th quarter with 6 minutes is not close? So when you saw the Jets score and made it a 6 point lead, you were sitting there thinking "Yesss!!! with that TD, the Jets will lose!!"?
Again, you are just looking at a 13 point lead that was cut to a 6 lead and saying it was close. After NE started the game with the 2 score lead, they never had a problem keeping it that way even when the Jets cut it to a 1 score game. Every time the Jets cut it to a 1 score game, NE had no problem scoring to bring it back to 2 scores. The only time that didn't happen in the first half was when Hernandez dropped the TD pass that was intercepted. The Jets offense never showed they could tie, or take the lead even when they had chances to do so.
lol, didn't u bring a point up that the Jets being down by 2 scores at half time on 4 out of 7 times shows you the Jets suck? I showed a team that had been up by 2 scores in 3 or 4 out of 6 games. Does that mean they don't suck, just cuz they had the lead at the halftime?
No, I brought up that point to show you that the Jets are not playing good football. That gets validated becasue of how those games turned out. The halftime score means nothing if you play good football in the 2nd half. It is the final score that matters. The only games the Jets won after being down 2 scores (at, or after the half) was the game against Dal (D and special teams saves the day), and against SD (D saves the day). That is not good football to me, that is getting breaks. Those things are not going to happen every game.
If you really watched the games, you wouldn't be arguing with me when I say that the Jets didn't play good football.
